And how would that be different than the current situation? If you do not understand what I mean Google "Dr. Gosnell". Dr Gosnell was an abortionist who was an above board, theoretically regulated medical doctor who performed abortions. Every horror story about "back alley" abortions that I have ever heard was going on at his abortion clinic. He was even reported to the authorities several times. The only reason he was forced to stop was because in addition to performing abortions, he was selling prescriptions and the DEA raided his office. I'm sorry, but your argument that if abortion was illegal these terrible things would be going on doesn't work. Abortion is legal and they are going on anyway. Based on the information about how the organizations that are supposed to ensure that standards are maintained treated Dr. Gosnell, there is no reason to believe that he is an isolated incident.
Our "constitutional court" is the U.S. Supreme Court and that is a self assumed duty (the U.S. Constitution does not spell out who determines disputes about what is and is not constitutional--which is probably part of the reason your does). I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled these laws constitutional, although it is possible they have just refused to take any cases on these laws. If the latter is the case, that means that all lesser courts that have ruled on these laws have ruled them constitutional.
I would agree that actions are the province of law, not beliefs. However, if you never take any actions based on your beliefs, I will never know what they are. Therefore even people who want to outlaw certain beliefs, are actually only outlawing the action of expressing those beliefs.
Well, the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution were dead long before this law was passed, so we will not be able to get their opinions on it. So, any other suggestions as to who gets to decide if a new law is constitutional or not?
So, you wish people would stop believing that they should attack others who have different beliefs? That is a fine thing to believe, but not very useful in establishing the high ground against people who do not share that belief. What exactly are you going to do about the people who believe that those who believe differently than themselves should be attacked? Attack them? Use the law to outlaw their belief? How is that different than their attempts to use the law to outlaw your beliefs?
Most spinning disks, give signs that they are about to give up the ghost. My understanding is that SSDs work perfectly fine one moment and the next they are completely unresponsive.
The problem is that the question is, who gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional?
On the other point, how can someone say that they believe something is the good and right thing to do, if they do not do it?
You have basically said, "You can believe anything you like, but you can only act as if you believe the things I believe." That is not really any more tolerant than anybody else.
There are reasons for laws that you cannot, generally, enforce. For example, if abortion were illegal, abortion providers would not be able to advertise that they offer such services. Whether or not you believe that abortion is wrong, you can clearly see how such an ability would be seen as a social positive by those who believe that abortion is wrong.
The courts have ruled these laws constitutional (or at least failed to rule them unconstitutional). So, if you were to sue officials for enforcing this law, the courts would throw the case out.
If everyone just believed what he wanted to, and let everyone else do the same, all would be fine.
You really have not thought that through. If someone believed that they were morally required to kill one person a day, do you really think society would work fine if nobody interfered with that person's belief?
Global warming is not happening. At least not for the last ten or so years. The problem with Global Warming theory is that solid, reliable, comparable data on the subject is really only available for something on the order of the last 100 years. That is not a long enough baseline to reach useful conclusions on the behavior of a system as complex as the earth's climate.
You appear to believe in objective truth. What is the philosophical basis for that belief? Christians, also, believe in objective truth. The basis for Christians belief in objective truth is their understanding of the nature of God. The reason for the rise of post-modernism is because, to the best of my knowledge, no one has been able to come up with a philosphical basis to believe in objective truth that does not involve God in some form or another.
You do realize that one of the reasons most abortion doctors kill the baby before they remove it from the mother's womb is because quite often the baby could survive the premature removal? Of course, there are many exceptions. That is there are abortion doctors who do not bother to kill the child before removing it from the mother (Google Dr. Gosnell).
Let me try: It may be immoral (if you so choose to believe), and it may be murder (if you so choose to believe), but to determine that it happened requires an unacceptable invasion of privacy (either invasion of a person's body, or violation of trust between two adults, just to determine if a third person is being injured). Therefore, the presumption of innocence and protection of individual liberty prevents a legal, libertarian, natural law based intervention to protect the child. No different from the way that we do not (yet) engage in widespread preventive detention because two people might conspire to do something illegal.
What you are talking about is whether or not we can/should enforce a ban on abortion. It has nothing to do with whether or not abortion should be illegal.
Whereas the person who is doing things non-profit is working for motives that you probably do not know and therefore you have no way to truly know where their interests lie, so you do not know how to protect yourself against a conflict between your interest and theirs.
Are you saying that Al Gore (the first person that comes to my mind when I hear "global warming alarmist) is a scientist, or even presents science? Global warming alarmists are people who want the government to spend trillions of dollars to make changes to the amount of CO2 we emit, that according to their own statements will have little to no impact on global warming. One does not move into the alarmist category until one says that we don't have time to study things further, we must change everybody's lifestyle immediately.
Global Warming Alarmists are calling on the countries of Western Civilization to take drastic action immediately. If you want that kind of extraordinary action, you need extraordianry proof. The extraordinary claims of the alarmists are things like sea level rises of 20 feet.
Requiring insurers to cover children until the age of 26 is not a funding law. Disallowing dropped coverage for pre-existing conditions is not a funding law.
Yes, they are both about funding for health care. They are both about how we pay for health care. Neither one is about actual health care.
We do have a guarantee of personal property in our constitution. However, such laws have survived for many years and much judicial review. I agree that such laws are bad laws.
The person you replied to referred to "climate change policy", which would make his comment about what to do about climate change rather than about the science of climate change.
So, you think that what we do about global warming is a question of science? What action we choose to take in response to global warming is something to be decided by politics.
So what would you call the law that was passed to change the way Americans pay for health care? Would you prefer "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act"? That seems a bit difficult to keep repeating in slashdot discussions.
Slashdot Mirror
And how would that be different than the current situation? If you do not understand what I mean Google "Dr. Gosnell". Dr Gosnell was an abortionist who was an above board, theoretically regulated medical doctor who performed abortions. Every horror story about "back alley" abortions that I have ever heard was going on at his abortion clinic. He was even reported to the authorities several times. The only reason he was forced to stop was because in addition to performing abortions, he was selling prescriptions and the DEA raided his office. I'm sorry, but your argument that if abortion was illegal these terrible things would be going on doesn't work. Abortion is legal and they are going on anyway. Based on the information about how the organizations that are supposed to ensure that standards are maintained treated Dr. Gosnell, there is no reason to believe that he is an isolated incident.
Our "constitutional court" is the U.S. Supreme Court and that is a self assumed duty (the U.S. Constitution does not spell out who determines disputes about what is and is not constitutional--which is probably part of the reason your does). I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled these laws constitutional, although it is possible they have just refused to take any cases on these laws. If the latter is the case, that means that all lesser courts that have ruled on these laws have ruled them constitutional.
I would agree that actions are the province of law, not beliefs. However, if you never take any actions based on your beliefs, I will never know what they are. Therefore even people who want to outlaw certain beliefs, are actually only outlawing the action of expressing those beliefs.
I have done the same on three dieing spinning disk hard drives in the last two months.
Well, the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution were dead long before this law was passed, so we will not be able to get their opinions on it. So, any other suggestions as to who gets to decide if a new law is constitutional or not?
So, you wish people would stop believing that they should attack others who have different beliefs? That is a fine thing to believe, but not very useful in establishing the high ground against people who do not share that belief. What exactly are you going to do about the people who believe that those who believe differently than themselves should be attacked? Attack them? Use the law to outlaw their belief? How is that different than their attempts to use the law to outlaw your beliefs?
Most spinning disks, give signs that they are about to give up the ghost. My understanding is that SSDs work perfectly fine one moment and the next they are completely unresponsive.
The problem is that the question is, who gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional?
On the other point, how can someone say that they believe something is the good and right thing to do, if they do not do it?
You have basically said, "You can believe anything you like, but you can only act as if you believe the things I believe." That is not really any more tolerant than anybody else.
I agree, except for the fact that too many people have the idea that, "The computer matched them up, so it must be correct."
So, in other words, you believe what you believe because you believe it.
Why do you believe that what you have experienced in the past has any bearing on what you will experience in the future?
I have no idea what your post has to do with the post you replied to.
There are reasons for laws that you cannot, generally, enforce. For example, if abortion were illegal, abortion providers would not be able to advertise that they offer such services. Whether or not you believe that abortion is wrong, you can clearly see how such an ability would be seen as a social positive by those who believe that abortion is wrong.
If everyone just believed what he wanted to, and let everyone else do the same, all would be fine.
You really have not thought that through. If someone believed that they were morally required to kill one person a day, do you really think society would work fine if nobody interfered with that person's belief?
Global warming is not happening. At least not for the last ten or so years. The problem with Global Warming theory is that solid, reliable, comparable data on the subject is really only available for something on the order of the last 100 years. That is not a long enough baseline to reach useful conclusions on the behavior of a system as complex as the earth's climate.
You appear to believe in objective truth. What is the philosophical basis for that belief? Christians, also, believe in objective truth. The basis for Christians belief in objective truth is their understanding of the nature of God. The reason for the rise of post-modernism is because, to the best of my knowledge, no one has been able to come up with a philosphical basis to believe in objective truth that does not involve God in some form or another.
You do realize that one of the reasons most abortion doctors kill the baby before they remove it from the mother's womb is because quite often the baby could survive the premature removal? Of course, there are many exceptions. That is there are abortion doctors who do not bother to kill the child before removing it from the mother (Google Dr. Gosnell).
Let me try: It may be immoral (if you so choose to believe), and it may be murder (if you so choose to believe), but to determine that it happened requires an unacceptable invasion of privacy (either invasion of a person's body, or violation of trust between two adults, just to determine if a third person is being injured). Therefore, the presumption of innocence and protection of individual liberty prevents a legal, libertarian, natural law based intervention to protect the child. No different from the way that we do not (yet) engage in widespread preventive detention because two people might conspire to do something illegal.
What you are talking about is whether or not we can/should enforce a ban on abortion. It has nothing to do with whether or not abortion should be illegal.
Right, at Harvard it isn't the investors who make the money, it is the administration. That is much better and more reputable.
Whereas the person who is doing things non-profit is working for motives that you probably do not know and therefore you have no way to truly know where their interests lie, so you do not know how to protect yourself against a conflict between your interest and theirs.
Are you saying that Al Gore (the first person that comes to my mind when I hear "global warming alarmist) is a scientist, or even presents science? Global warming alarmists are people who want the government to spend trillions of dollars to make changes to the amount of CO2 we emit, that according to their own statements will have little to no impact on global warming. One does not move into the alarmist category until one says that we don't have time to study things further, we must change everybody's lifestyle immediately.
Global Warming Alarmists are calling on the countries of Western Civilization to take drastic action immediately. If you want that kind of extraordinary action, you need extraordianry proof. The extraordinary claims of the alarmists are things like sea level rises of 20 feet.
Requiring insurers to cover children until the age of 26 is not a funding law. Disallowing dropped coverage for pre-existing conditions is not a funding law.
Yes, they are both about funding for health care. They are both about how we pay for health care. Neither one is about actual health care.
We do have a guarantee of personal property in our constitution. However, such laws have survived for many years and much judicial review. I agree that such laws are bad laws.
But it isn't a "health care" law, it is a law about how we pay for health care.
The person you replied to referred to "climate change policy", which would make his comment about what to do about climate change rather than about the science of climate change.
So, you think that what we do about global warming is a question of science? What action we choose to take in response to global warming is something to be decided by politics.
So what would you call the law that was passed to change the way Americans pay for health care? Would you prefer "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act"? That seems a bit difficult to keep repeating in slashdot discussions.