The core problem with psuedo-science is a lot of it is unfalsifiable.
And we definitely need to update our education to include that if something is unfalsifiable, then it should, for practical purposes, be considered false.
Theorem: Everything I perceive is not in fact a figment of my imagination and actually does exist.
Corollary: If I put a stake through my heart I will die.
I have no way of testing either the theory or the corollary, so you're saying I should consider them false??
It is one (unprovable) thing to claim God exists. It is quite another (unprovable) thing to claim that God has a specific list of rules for you to follow, and a specific set of rewards and punishments lined up for them, and specifically wants you to give me a specific amount of money.
And quite another (unprovable) thing to claim that he doesn't. How about we just leave God out of the science classroom unless it is just to point out that 1. it is impossible to prove anything about an omnipotent omniscient god through science and 2. There is no proof that everything that is true is provable or that everything that is untrue is disprovable.
Exactly. Which is why it make sense for a free-market Republican like Rubio to oppose imposing monopolies. Christies supported the monopoly - not surprising for a liberal Republican.
The problem is that the devils are in the details either way. Everyone would love for the government to stop manufacturers from doing things we don't like, but when you start making up regulations you create new details for the devil to hide in.
Name another country that has experience as much terrorism from an identifiable ethnic group and hasn't done all it can to exterminate said ethnic group?
Israel puts up with a horrendous level of violence. A barbarian country would have done a final solution long ago.
All governments throughout history demand that you commit certain behaviours. The IRS makes me work for them as an unpaid accountant to figure out what I owe them. I guess I am a slave to the IRS doing their job for them:( The 18th and 19th century USA that certain elements of 21st century right wing politics worship as a paradise ruined by modern "liberals" was FULL of government making people do things or not do things that in some cases violated the hell out of the Constitution.
And you're fine with that? I would like to see taxes reduced to what's minimally necessary. Then I could respond to your complaints about paying taxes by saying that we're only taxing the minimum necessary to achieve what are undeniably compelling government aims.
Republicans opposed the giving of government handouts to Tesla. Competition is fine, but it's not a free market if some companies are given discount loans by the government while others aren't.
Not quite true about "women". It's true Republicans do poorly with unmarried women. Once they get married, and especially once they have kids and have a stake in the future, they swing pretty heavily towards conservative politics.
It's not so much that Republicans have a "woman" problem. Democrats have a problem attracting men and married women.
There is no irony because the Republican party has a strong free market belief. Just as Tesla shouldn't benefit from government handouts, the car dealerships shouldn't benefit from government protection. Both should compete on their own merits in the free market. Anyone who can't see how Republicans oppose Tesla's handouts while supporting Tesla's right to compete is either just isn't trying or is brainwashed by the whole "conservatives are evil big business whores' nonsense pushed by so many news organizations and movies.
Of course you have religious beliefs, everyone does. You can't say the draft is wrong unless you do. Otherwise it is just survival of the fittest.
To be honest, I'm not sure what the purpose of that is. As far as I'm concerned, if your actions don't harm another, then go ahead and do them regardless of what religion you're part of.
If that were the approach the government took, we wouldn't have a problem. But when the government starts demand certain behaviors (not just demanding that you refrain from certain behaviors, but demanding that you commit certain behaviors).
There is more to the first amendment than freedom of religion.
So you only want to get rid of part of the first amendment. At least you're honest about it.
The draft is immoral to begin with, as it's an example of the government claiming ownership over individuals.
By your religion, sure.
Again, religious people should not have special privileges. If they can do it, others should be able to do it as well.
If we take that approach, then what significance does the 1st amendment have? It doesn't say "free worship", it says "free exercise".
Taken literally, the 1st amendment could be read to say that if a new law violates anyone's religion, then it is unconstitutional. Want to make a law saying you can't wear a hat during your driver's license piture? Unconstitutional! Want to make a law requiring business owners to pay for contraceptives? Unconstitutional! That seems crazy. But if you don't allow the government to make reasonable accommodations, then you force a choice between the two extremes of that literal interpretation and no 1st amendment at all.
This was much less of a problem back when most of the people were of the similar religion and the government didn't try to control every aspect of your life. Those who want to fix the by restraining government are in the minority. There are many people who want to fix the problem by making everyone the same religion again by in effect making everyone no religion, or at least none that matters since you can't actually exercise it.
We need another way. Reasonable accommodation is it. And it has long precedent.
I would assume that in boardrooms, making money makes you popular. Also the quick adoption of gay marriage benefits by so many major corporations would suggest that boardrooms aren't as religiously zealous as you seem to imagine.
It would be great if the government hardly ever had to worry about whether its actions were interfering in some religious beliefs. But there are only two ways to make that happen - limit the government's scope of control so that it no longer tries to run so many aspects of our lives, or scrap the 1st amendment. Personally I would like to do the former, but given America's change from a freedom loving people to a hand-out loving people I don't think a return to limited government will occur in my lifetime. I cannot accept the latter - we need to keep the 1st amendment. All that remains is to figure out how to accommodate an continually more controlling government with religious freedoms.
Obviously ignoring religious freedom altogether as Scalia appears to suggest in the ruling on Peyote is abhorrent. But letting anyone pretend to have a religious belief just so they can break any inconvenient rule or law is unworkable as well. So we need to make reasonable accommodations with "reasonable" depending on things like how serious the belief can be shown to be and how disruptive the accommodation is.
For example, if someone wants to avoid the draft due to a religious pacifism, it makes sense to do so. But too many people would claim such an exemption simply to avoid the dangers of war. So we would need to scrutinize carefully whether the person can demonstrate that they have really been practicing pacifism or did they suddenly discover it when the war started? A high bar would need to be reached.
On the other hand, if someone wants to cover their hair for a driver's license or in school it should be sufficient to say "I'm Jewish" or (for a man) "I'm Sikh" or (for a woman) "I'm Muslim".
As the government takes over more and more of our lives it is inevitable that there will be increasing clashes between government and freedom of conscience. We need to figure this out. And no,the answer isn't to have the government simply ignore the 1st amendment. Republicans prefer to quote the exact text, "religion...free practice thereof" while Democrats prefer to quote "Separation of Church and State". Neither says "Subjugation of Church to State".
The response in most boardrooms would be very strongly in favor of paying for the contraceptives. Those against would be a very small minority of religious people (and who, after all, is the constitution supposed to protect if not minorities).
The threat of gender and racial discrimination lawsuits strike fear into the deepest parts of American business leaders. The effects are ruinous even if the business "wins" because of the high legal fees they'll have to pay. To guard against this, they go to extraordinary measures - even actively discriminating against white males - to get their numbers up (I've seen it happen and heard it discussed openly - even bragged about).
Most women want to use contraceptives at some point in their life and would like to have the illusion that it is free. If the company pays for it they have a better chance of recruiting more women and avoiding lawsuits.
Also, women tend to take a lot of time off when they get pregnant, often not coming back at all. From a business perspective it hurts a lot to have a
productive employee who is familiar with ongoing operations have to leave for months at a time. The replacement won't be able to do as well - in fact by the time the replacement gets trained up (it can take many months in technical field) the person who get pregnant suddenly returns and has to be given her job back. Contraception appears to make excellent business sense.
You're right about how health decisions should be made. You're wrong about how they should be paid for.
And why would corporations want to deny contraceptives to female employees. If they are, as you say, soulless, why would they want to take away something that would keep their female employees at the office? Why would they want their valuable employees taking extended leaves of abscense while their cubes/offices go unused and their roles have to be filled by temps who don't know the business as well?
And it's not "denying" contraceptives anyway. Contraceptives are readily available if you pay for them yourself.
And what is the medical purpose of contraceptives anyway? Except on rare occasions, the _medical_ purpose it is to allow a person to enjoy sex without incurring the medical challenges that come with pregnancy. Ski bindings likewise allow a person to enjoy skiing without incurring the medical challenges that come with a broken leg. Why should the employer be forced to pay for one but not the other? Should the employer be forced to pay for my motion sickness pills if I decide to take a boat fishing in the ocean?
What does President Carter have to hide? Must be some sort of terrorist if he wants to communicate privately. We should get a government security detail to monitor this dissident ASAP.
Well, he does think terrorist aren't as much of a problem as civilized countries are. From Wikipedia:
In his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, published in November 2006, Carter states:
Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.[132]
"Nations do not have friends, they have interests." ---a lot of politicians throughout history.
I think countries should have friends too. Before Obama started destroying America's relationships American and the United Kingdom could be said to be friends. I hope our next president is able to restore that relationship.
It is the duty of the America government to protect the rights of Americans. It is not their duty to protect the rights of foreigners. Foreigners have their own countries that are responsible for protecting their rights. If they don't want Americans spying on them, and we can presume Americans don't want those foreign government spying on Americans, then the government of both countries need to put in defensive measure for their citizens or, even better, work out agreements not to spy on each other's citizens.
MY religion is HIGHLY opposed to paying property tax, paying income tax, paying for food, paying the elctrical bill, and watching TV. I will NOT be forced to pay for any of this nor pay my employees with any kind of currency that would allow them to do so. Also MY religion requires you to blow me.
What religion is this? If you can actually prove that your religion forbids all these things, then I can see the government making an accommodation on the taxes (like they have done on the draft at times - for people who can really prove it). As for the food, electric bill, and TV, you'll have to either figure out how to do without or figure out how get those without violating anyone else's rights. I suppose you could become a simple farmer like the Amish who seem to be able to avoid paying for any of those things. I'm not sure how they handle taxes. It might be worth looking into. It seems doubtful their income would cover their property taxes if the property is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's.
You pay for your health care, you get to decide what kind you have. If someone else pays for your healthcare, they get to decide.
Perhaps your complaint should be with a government that insists on making it difficult for people to buy their own healthcare and tries to make them get it through their employers. Or you could choose a new employer or even start your own job. Sure it would be inconvenient, but nothing like the inconvenience of forcing people to choose between their livelihoods and their freedom of conscience.
What does President Carter have to hide? Must be some sort of terrorist if he wants to communicate privately. We should get a government security detail to monitor this dissident ASAP.
He's a liberal, of course he thinks people should have civil rights. Why, he's practically a socialist!
What we need now, more than ever, is fanatical nationalism!
wait wut?
If Carter thinks people should have civil rights, why does he support people like Chavez, Ortega and Castro?
BTW, being a liberal, in the American vernacular, has nothing to do with supporting civil rights. In fact one of the main reasons I'm not a liberal is I strongly believe the government should treat people equally regardless of race and ought to allow people a great deal more freedom than it currently does.
The sad thing is, he doesn't hide what he ought to be ashamed of. While supporting some bad guys while you're president might be necessary so they can help you fight off more dangerous bad guys (see American support for Stalin, Chiang, et al.), Carter since leaving office has supported bad guys around the world, often in opposition to American policy.
He supported Castro, Chavez, Ortega, and even tried to help NK leader Kim undermine Obama's containment policies.
If Carter thinks Snowden did a good thing, that seems to be pretty good evidence that Snowden did something awful.
Slashdot Mirror
The core problem with psuedo-science is a lot of it is unfalsifiable.
And we definitely need to update our education to include that if something is unfalsifiable, then it should, for practical purposes, be considered false.
Theorem: Everything I perceive is not in fact a figment of my imagination and actually does exist.
Corollary: If I put a stake through my heart I will die.
I have no way of testing either the theory or the corollary, so you're saying I should consider them false??
It is one (unprovable) thing to claim God exists. It is quite another (unprovable) thing to claim that God has a specific list of rules for you to follow, and a specific set of rewards and punishments lined up for them, and specifically wants you to give me a specific amount of money.
And quite another (unprovable) thing to claim that he doesn't. How about we just leave God out of the science classroom unless it is just to point out that 1. it is impossible to prove anything about an omnipotent omniscient god through science and 2. There is no proof that everything that is true is provable or that everything that is untrue is disprovable.
I should have mentioned Australia and Canada too.
Exactly. Which is why it make sense for a free-market Republican like Rubio to oppose imposing monopolies. Christies supported the monopoly - not surprising for a liberal Republican.
The problem is that the devils are in the details either way. Everyone would love for the government to stop manufacturers from doing things we don't like, but when you start making up regulations you create new details for the devil to hide in.
Name another country that has experience as much terrorism from an identifiable ethnic group and hasn't done all it can to exterminate said ethnic group?
Israel puts up with a horrendous level of violence. A barbarian country would have done a final solution long ago.
All governments throughout history demand that you commit certain behaviours. The IRS makes me work for them as an unpaid accountant to figure out what I owe them. I guess I am a slave to the IRS doing their job for them :( The 18th and 19th century USA that certain elements of 21st century right wing politics worship as a paradise ruined by modern "liberals" was FULL of government making people do things or not do things that in some cases violated the hell out of the Constitution.
And you're fine with that? I would like to see taxes reduced to what's minimally necessary. Then I could respond to your complaints about paying taxes by saying that we're only taxing the minimum necessary to achieve what are undeniably compelling government aims.
Republicans opposed the giving of government handouts to Tesla. Competition is fine, but it's not a free market if some companies are given discount loans by the government while others aren't.
Not quite true about "women". It's true Republicans do poorly with unmarried women. Once they get married, and especially once they have kids and have a stake in the future, they swing pretty heavily towards conservative politics.
It's not so much that Republicans have a "woman" problem. Democrats have a problem attracting men and married women.
There is no irony because the Republican party has a strong free market belief. Just as Tesla shouldn't benefit from government handouts, the car dealerships shouldn't benefit from government protection. Both should compete on their own merits in the free market. Anyone who can't see how Republicans oppose Tesla's handouts while supporting Tesla's right to compete is either just isn't trying or is brainwashed by the whole "conservatives are evil big business whores' nonsense pushed by so many news organizations and movies.
To be honest, I'm not sure what the purpose of that is. As far as I'm concerned, if your actions don't harm another, then go ahead and do them regardless of what religion you're part of.
If that were the approach the government took, we wouldn't have a problem. But when the government starts demand certain behaviors (not just demanding that you refrain from certain behaviors, but demanding that you commit certain behaviors).
There is more to the first amendment than freedom of religion.
So you only want to get rid of part of the first amendment. At least you're honest about it.
The draft is immoral to begin with, as it's an example of the government claiming ownership over individuals.
By your religion, sure.
Again, religious people should not have special privileges. If they can do it, others should be able to do it as well.
If we take that approach, then what significance does the 1st amendment have? It doesn't say "free worship", it says "free exercise".
Taken literally, the 1st amendment could be read to say that if a new law violates anyone's religion, then it is unconstitutional. Want to make a law saying you can't wear a hat during your driver's license piture? Unconstitutional! Want to make a law requiring business owners to pay for contraceptives? Unconstitutional! That seems crazy. But if you don't allow the government to make reasonable accommodations, then you force a choice between the two extremes of that literal interpretation and no 1st amendment at all.
This was much less of a problem back when most of the people were of the similar religion and the government didn't try to control every aspect of your life. Those who want to fix the by restraining government are in the minority. There are many people who want to fix the problem by making everyone the same religion again by in effect making everyone no religion, or at least none that matters since you can't actually exercise it.
We need another way. Reasonable accommodation is it. And it has long precedent.
I would assume that in boardrooms, making money makes you popular. Also the quick adoption of gay marriage benefits by so many major corporations would suggest that boardrooms aren't as religiously zealous as you seem to imagine.
I don't have time to do a lot of research, but I'll give you an opportunity to read this: http://townhall.com/columnists...
It would be great if the government hardly ever had to worry about whether its actions were interfering in some religious beliefs. But there are only two ways to make that happen - limit the government's scope of control so that it no longer tries to run so many aspects of our lives, or scrap the 1st amendment. Personally I would like to do the former, but given America's change from a freedom loving people to a hand-out loving people I don't think a return to limited government will occur in my lifetime. I cannot accept the latter - we need to keep the 1st amendment. All that remains is to figure out how to accommodate an continually more controlling government with religious freedoms.
Obviously ignoring religious freedom altogether as Scalia appears to suggest in the ruling on Peyote is abhorrent. But letting anyone pretend to have a religious belief just so they can break any inconvenient rule or law is unworkable as well. So we need to make reasonable accommodations with "reasonable" depending on things like how serious the belief can be shown to be and how disruptive the accommodation is.
For example, if someone wants to avoid the draft due to a religious pacifism, it makes sense to do so. But too many people would claim such an exemption simply to avoid the dangers of war. So we would need to scrutinize carefully whether the person can demonstrate that they have really been practicing pacifism or did they suddenly discover it when the war started? A high bar would need to be reached.
On the other hand, if someone wants to cover their hair for a driver's license or in school it should be sufficient to say "I'm Jewish" or (for a man) "I'm Sikh" or (for a woman) "I'm Muslim".
As the government takes over more and more of our lives it is inevitable that there will be increasing clashes between government and freedom of conscience. We need to figure this out. And no,the answer isn't to have the government simply ignore the 1st amendment. Republicans prefer to quote the exact text, "religion...free practice thereof" while Democrats prefer to quote "Separation of Church and State". Neither says "Subjugation of Church to State".
The response in most boardrooms would be very strongly in favor of paying for the contraceptives. Those against would be a very small minority of religious people (and who, after all, is the constitution supposed to protect if not minorities).
The threat of gender and racial discrimination lawsuits strike fear into the deepest parts of American business leaders. The effects are ruinous even if the business "wins" because of the high legal fees they'll have to pay. To guard against this, they go to extraordinary measures - even actively discriminating against white males - to get their numbers up (I've seen it happen and heard it discussed openly - even bragged about).
Most women want to use contraceptives at some point in their life and would like to have the illusion that it is free. If the company pays for it they have a better chance of recruiting more women and avoiding lawsuits.
Also, women tend to take a lot of time off when they get pregnant, often not coming back at all. From a business perspective it hurts a lot to have a productive employee who is familiar with ongoing operations have to leave for months at a time. The replacement won't be able to do as well - in fact by the time the replacement gets trained up (it can take many months in technical field) the person who get pregnant suddenly returns and has to be given her job back. Contraception appears to make excellent business sense.
You're right about how health decisions should be made. You're wrong about how they should be paid for.
And why would corporations want to deny contraceptives to female employees. If they are, as you say, soulless, why would they want to take away something that would keep their female employees at the office? Why would they want their valuable employees taking extended leaves of abscense while their cubes/offices go unused and their roles have to be filled by temps who don't know the business as well?
And it's not "denying" contraceptives anyway. Contraceptives are readily available if you pay for them yourself.
And what is the medical purpose of contraceptives anyway? Except on rare occasions, the _medical_ purpose it is to allow a person to enjoy sex without incurring the medical challenges that come with pregnancy. Ski bindings likewise allow a person to enjoy skiing without incurring the medical challenges that come with a broken leg. Why should the employer be forced to pay for one but not the other? Should the employer be forced to pay for my motion sickness pills if I decide to take a boat fishing in the ocean?
What does President Carter have to hide? Must be some sort of terrorist if he wants to communicate privately. We should get a government security detail to monitor this dissident ASAP.
Well, he does think terrorist aren't as much of a problem as civilized countries are. From Wikipedia:
In his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, published in November 2006, Carter states:
Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.[132]
"Nations do not have friends, they have interests." ---a lot of politicians throughout history.
I think countries should have friends too. Before Obama started destroying America's relationships American and the United Kingdom could be said to be friends. I hope our next president is able to restore that relationship.
It is the duty of the America government to protect the rights of Americans. It is not their duty to protect the rights of foreigners. Foreigners have their own countries that are responsible for protecting their rights. If they don't want Americans spying on them, and we can presume Americans don't want those foreign government spying on Americans, then the government of both countries need to put in defensive measure for their citizens or, even better, work out agreements not to spy on each other's citizens.
MY religion is HIGHLY opposed to paying property tax, paying income tax, paying for food, paying the elctrical bill, and watching TV. I will NOT be forced to pay for any of this nor pay my employees with any kind of currency that would allow them to do so. Also MY religion requires you to blow me.
What religion is this? If you can actually prove that your religion forbids all these things, then I can see the government making an accommodation on the taxes (like they have done on the draft at times - for people who can really prove it). As for the food, electric bill, and TV, you'll have to either figure out how to do without or figure out how get those without violating anyone else's rights. I suppose you could become a simple farmer like the Amish who seem to be able to avoid paying for any of those things. I'm not sure how they handle taxes. It might be worth looking into. It seems doubtful their income would cover their property taxes if the property is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's.
You pay for your health care, you get to decide what kind you have. If someone else pays for your healthcare, they get to decide.
Perhaps your complaint should be with a government that insists on making it difficult for people to buy their own healthcare and tries to make them get it through their employers. Or you could choose a new employer or even start your own job. Sure it would be inconvenient, but nothing like the inconvenience of forcing people to choose between their livelihoods and their freedom of conscience.
What does President Carter have to hide? Must be some sort of terrorist if he wants to communicate privately. We should get a government security detail to monitor this dissident ASAP.
He's a liberal, of course he thinks people should have civil rights. Why, he's practically a socialist!
What we need now, more than ever, is fanatical nationalism!
wait wut?
If Carter thinks people should have civil rights, why does he support people like Chavez, Ortega and Castro?
BTW, being a liberal, in the American vernacular, has nothing to do with supporting civil rights. In fact one of the main reasons I'm not a liberal is I strongly believe the government should treat people equally regardless of race and ought to allow people a great deal more freedom than it currently does.
What does President Carter have to hide? .
The sad thing is, he doesn't hide what he ought to be ashamed of. While supporting some bad guys while you're president might be necessary so they can help you fight off more dangerous bad guys (see American support for Stalin, Chiang, et al.), Carter since leaving office has supported bad guys around the world, often in opposition to American policy.
He supported Castro, Chavez, Ortega, and even tried to help NK leader Kim undermine Obama's containment policies.
If Carter thinks Snowden did a good thing, that seems to be pretty good evidence that Snowden did something awful.
WHO: Air Pollution 'Killed 7 Million People' In 2012
How many of those were in China?
(and since it is the WHO which is part of the UN and thus kowtows to China, we'll have to subtract the numbers from Taiwan ourselves)