Limbaugh's Rant and Obama's Intervention

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**biccat**

Monster Rain wrote:Well, not to Sarah.

So it's OK to call some women offensive names, but not others.

Any specific test you'd like to apply?

dogma wrote:There you go again with that word, "should".

Yes, well I'm asking for an opinion.

If you think Maher should apologize (operative word here being "think") then you're being consistent. If not, then you're not upset with the words used, you're upset with the target.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
Yes, well I'm asking for an opinion.

If you think Maher should apologize (operative word here being "think") then you're being consistent. If not, then you're not upset with the words used, you're upset with the target.

Well, first off, I should probably report you for that little attempt (come on man, subtlety) at a dig. I won't though, because I would rather keep you around so I can annoy you.

I think that both Maher and Limbaugh should do what they are materially compelled to do. Neither one has ever offended me personally.

You're conflating my explanation of the opposition to Limbaugh's comments with and endorsement of that opposition.

biccat wrote:
So it's OK to call some women offensive names, but not others.

Didn't you once besmirch Rachel Maddow's femininity?

And, further, explicitly state that it was based on your dislike for her, as a person?

**Zakiriel**

Didn't you once besmirch Rachel Maddow's femininity?

To quote the Lorax, "That's a woman?!?"

**Mannahnin**

As much a woman as you're a man.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:No, that's not what a public figure is. A public figure is someone who is commonly and routinely in the public eye as part of their life and work. Not a private citizen who makes an isolated public statement.

No, that's a general public figure. A specific public figure is someone who has entered the public debate in a limited area.

David Kappos is not a general public figure. He certainly is a public figure in the patent law community.

Which is an irrelevancy, and dodging the point.

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Bill Maher has not been exempted in this thread.

Of course he has.

Do you think that Bill Maher should apologize to Mrs. Palin, and possibly be boycotted or lose advertisers?

Maher has been called out repeatedly on his comments. And Sarah Palin is a public figure and was long before anyone started saying anything nasty about her.

**Monster Rain**

biccat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Well, not to Sarah.

So it's OK to call some women offensive names, but not others.

Any specific test you'd like to apply?

I thought we were talking about what is and is not a public figure.

A governor is a public figure. Their kids are generally considered to be less so. There's also the fact that Bill Maher is making jokes, and Rush, by all appearances, was not.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:If you think Maher should apologize (operative word here being "think") then you're being consistent. If not, then you're not upset with the words used, you're upset with the target.

I don't think either of them should have to apologize in order to not be fired.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Maher has been called out repeatedly on his comments.

He's gotten into quite a bit of trouble in the past, as I recall.

**mattyrm**

Zakiriel wrote:
Didn't you once besmirch Rachel Maddow's femininity?

To quote the Lorax, "That's a woman?!?"

I think she would be attractive if she tried to look like a woman, I mean its not like shes a dog, she just wears little make up and has a blokes hair cut.

The number one turn off for me is fat people. If a chick looks like she works out then I can forgive a less than exceptional grid. My missus hasnt got classically good looks, but she weighs 105lbs and looks like she can run all day, thats enough for me.

I bet she would be pretty tidy if she wore a nice dress, sported some fake eyelashes and got some hair extensions!

**Monster Rain**

mattyrm wrote: I bet she would be pretty tidy if she wore a nice dress, sported some fake eyelashes and got some hair extensions!

She'd be a proper minx!

**mattyrm**

Monster Rain wrote:
mattyrm wrote: I bet she would be pretty tidy if she wore a nice dress, sported some fake eyelashes and got some hair extensions!

She'd be a proper minx!

I never hear Americans use the term "proper", and as a result I read that in a cockney voice.

Like Fagin from "Oliver!"

"Shat ap and drink yer Gin!"

**dogma**

Zakiriel wrote:
Didn't you once besmirch Rachel Maddow's femininity?

To quote the Lorax, "That's a woman?!?"

She reportedly has female genitalia, so yes.

Ronald Reagan reportedly had male genitalia as well.

**biccat**

dogma wrote:Well, first off, I should probably report you for that little attempt (come on man, subtlety) at a dig. I won't though, because I would rather keep you around so I can annoy you.

I'm not sure what you think was a "dig."

I don't think either Maher or Limbaugh should be forced to apologize, I'm curious as to your opinion. If you don't wish to express one in Maher's case (despite clearly expressing one in Rush's), then others can draw the conclusion they wish.

But you (and others) are not applying the same standard to Limbaugh as to Maher, which suggests that the offense was not at the words used but rather the political argument.

dogma wrote:Didn't you once besmirch Rachel Maddow's femininity?

And, further, explicitly state that it was based on your dislike for her, as a person?

I've been known to make fun of people I disagree with. But I didn't besmirch her femininity, I besmirched her looks.

Mannahnin wrote:Which is an irrelevancy, and dodging the point.

It's not irrelevant. The woman inserted herself into the public debate about whether churches should be required to forgo their religious beliefs to finance a woman's sexual indiscretions.

Mannahnin wrote:Maher has been called out repeatedly on his comments. And Sarah Palin is a public figure and was long before anyone started saying anything nasty about her.

Which actually is an irrelevancy and dodging the point.

I think Rush was right to apologize. Do you think Maher should apologize?

Monster Rain wrote:A governor is a public figure. Their kids are generally considered to be less so. There's also the fact that Bill Maher is making jokes, and Rush, by all appearances, was not.

Someone speaking publicly about an issue is a public figure.

Also, Rush was making a joke.

Monster Rain wrote:I don't think either of them should have to apologize in order to not be fired.

Neither do I.

Do you think Maher should apologize?

Why isn't anyone willing to condemn calling Sarah Palin nasty names?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:She reportedly has female genitalia, so yes.

In today's modern world genitalia is not dispositive of the issue.

**Monster Rain**

biccat wrote:Do you think Maher should apologize?

I think his grandma would want him to.

biccat wrote:Why isn't anyone willing to condemn calling Sarah Palin nasty names?

I'm pretty sure I have.

**Mannahnin**

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:No, that's not what a public figure is. A public figure is someone who is commonly and routinely in the public eye as part of their life and work. Not a private citizen who makes an isolated public statement.

No, that's a general public figure. A specific public figure is someone who has entered the public debate in a limited area.

David Kappos is not a general public figure. He certainly is a public figure in the patent law community.

Which is an irrelevancy, and dodging the point.

It's not irrelevant. The woman inserted herself into the public debate about whether churches should be required to forgo their religious beliefs to finance a woman's sexual indiscretions.

You've packed quite I disagree with in there, so it'll take a bit to unpack it.

1. That doesn't make her a public figure; someone who is considered to have forgone the same expectations of privacy that most of us have, like a celebrity or politician does. She doesn't even constitute a limited purpose public figure, because she did not thrust herself to the forefront of a controversy. Rush did that against her will.
2. I disagree with your categorization of the nature of the debate. You're making the same nasty mistake or deliberate distortion here as Rush, equating use of birth control with sexual indiscretion, which is ignorant, offensive, and possibly misogynistic. I don't think you can even claim ignorance here, as the point has been made here repeatedly, so the most likely conclusion seems to be that you are deliberately being dishonest.
3. I disagree that a church would have to forego its religious belief to finance birth control. Their members who don't want to use it are not being forced to use it. And many (most?) Catholics in America do use birth control. If they don't use the medication they usually use other means.
4. She testified after the legislation had been shifted to the insurance company financing it. Birth control medicine is much cheaper than paying for prenatal care, births, and postnatal care, so it's not even as if the insurance company's costs will be higher and necessitate higher premiums.

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Maher has been called out repeatedly on his comments. And Sarah Palin is a public figure and was long before anyone started saying anything nasty about her.

Which actually is an irrelevancy and dodging the point.

No, it's not. You made the (false) claim that liberals don't get called out for making nasty remarks, unlike conservatives. Which was patently untrue.

biccat wrote:I think Rush was right to apologize. Do you think Maher should apologize?

For what, specifically? He says a lot of rude stuff. Please cite a specific comment and I'll be happy to give my opinion on whether he should apologize for it.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure what you think was a "dig."

I'll remind you:

biccat wrote:
If you think Maher should apologize (operative word here being "think") then you're being consistent.

You first used "think" as a stand in for "believe" (the words "think", and "should" don't get along without belief), and then seemed to impugn my ability to think by placing it in quotation. I may have read it wrong, if so, I apologize.

I'm not sure why you brought up consistency, though. I never said anything about who should or shouldn't apologize.

biccat wrote:
I don't think either Maher or Limbaugh should be forced to apologize, I'm curious as to your opinion. If you don't wish to express one in Maher's case (despite clearly expressing one in Rush's), then others can draw the conclusion they wish.

No opinion was expressed. I've explained why people object to his comments, and further why others who have criticized Rush might not have criticized Maher.

Anything else is just your confirmation bias acting up again.

biccat wrote:
But you (and others) are not applying the same standard to Limbaugh as to Maher, which suggests that the offense was not at the words used but rather the political argument.

Where have I expressed that Limbaugh offended me? Or even criticized him on moral grounds? He said something that was made stupid by his position, that's basically it. I don't know the man, so I won't claim he meant anything by his statements.

In fact, I recall explicitly that neither Maher or Limbaugh has ever offended me.

If you want an opinion, I think Rush is a moron (and not just because I disagree with his politics, Beck is far more savvy), and that Maher is a douche who is occasionally funny but otherwise irrelevant.

biccat wrote:
But I didn't besmirch her femininity, I besmirched her looks.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume you weren't judging her according to masculine, transgender, or even furry standards.

You besmirched her looks as a member of the female gender, at least most likely. The other options are...interesting, but unlikely.

biccat wrote:
In today's modern world genitalia is not dispositive of the issue.

Gender is mutable, sex isn't. Maddow is female, no doubt. She's also homosexual, no doubt. I think, as female homosexuals go, she's pretty good looking.

**biccat**

Mannahnin wrote:1. That doesn't make her a public figure; someone who is considered to have forgone the same expectations of privacy that most of us have, like a celebrity or politician does. She doesn't even constitute a limited purpose public figure, because she did not thrust herself to the forefront of a controversy. Rush did that against her will.

Under Wamstad the test is a three-part analysis:
1) public discussion and likely to affect individuals outside of the controversy;
2) more than trivial or tangential role in the controversy;
3) defmation is germane to the plaintiff's participation.

Explain how any of these three points aren't met by the current controversy.

Mannahnin wrote:2. I disagree with your categorization of the nature of the debate. I think it's dishonest and offensive, to be honest. You're making the same nasty mistake or deliberate distortion here as Rush, equating use of birth control with sexual indiscretion, which is ignorant, offensive, and possibly misogynistic.

I would greatly appreciate it if you wouldn't call me offensive names. I'd report your post, but we both know nothing would come of it, mainly due to the bracketed letters under your username.

However, the question here is not birth control for medical reasons (those are already covered), but birth control for a contraceptive purpose.

Mannahnin wrote:3. I disagree that a church would have to forego its religious belief to finance birth control.

Cool. The churches disagree, and have done so for a long time. Excuse me if I defer to their position on what their religious beliefs are.

Mannahnin wrote:so it's not even as if the insurance company's costs will be higher and necessitate higher premiums.

Actually, they will. Providing a service is more expensive than not providing a service.

Mannahnin wrote:No, it's not. You made the (false) claim that liberals don't get called out for making nasty remarks, unlike conservatives. Which was patently untrue.

Given the repeated dodges of liberals here to dodge Maher's comments, I think it's a fair criticism. Given the lack of populist outrage when those comments were made, I think it further reinforces the criticism.

Mannahnin wrote:For what, specifically? He says a lot of rude stuff. Please cite a specific comment and I'll be happy to give my opinion on whether he should apologize for it.

"speaking of dumb t--ts..."
"stupid c---, there's just no other word for her."

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
Actually, they will. Providing a service is more expensive than not providing a service.

It depends.

Birth control coverage may well be cheaper than the incident costs of pregnancy in the absence of birth control coverage.

**biccat**

dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
If you think Maher should apologize (operative word here being "think") then you're being consistent.

You first used "think" as a stand in for "believe" (the words "think", and "should" don't get along without belief), and then seemed to impugn my ability to think by placing it in quotation. I may have read it wrong, if so, I apologize.

I'm not sure why you brought up consistency, though. I never said anything about who should or shouldn't apologize.

That's only a dig if you see consistency as a positive. I'm pretty sure you don't, and have expressed that before.

My criticism is for those who attack Limbaugh and defend (or ignore) attacks on conservative women. If they really cared about the words used, they would be universally outraged. But they're not, so they don't care about the words used, they tend to use the issue politically.

No problem with that, but at least be honest.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
That's only a dig if you see consistency as a positive. I'm pretty sure you don't, and have expressed that before.

No, consistency is a positive. I'm just very flexible when it comes to how that consistency is expressed.

biccat wrote:
My criticism is for those who attack Limbaugh and defend (or ignore) attacks on conservative women. If they really cared about the words used, they would be universally outraged. But they're not, so they don't care about the words used, they tend to use the issue politically.

No problem with that, but at least be honest.

I already made the argument about viewership, so just go back a few pages.

**Mannahnin**

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:1. That doesn't make her a public figure; someone who is considered to have forgone the same expectations of privacy that most of us have, like a celebrity or politician does. She doesn't even constitute a limited purpose public figure, because she did not thrust herself to the forefront of a controversy. Rush did that against her will.

Under Wamstad the test is a three-part analysis:
1) public discussion and likely to affect individuals outside of the controversy;
2) more than trivial or tangential role in the controversy;
3) defmation is germane to the plaintiff's participation.

Explain how any of these three points aren't met by the current controversy.

2. She has a trivial role in the controversy. "Wamstad attained public figure status through years of press coverage, the Texas court said." None of us would even know her name if it wasn't for Rush.

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:2. I disagree with your categorization of the nature of the debate. I think it's dishonest and offensive, to be honest. You're making the same nasty mistake or deliberate distortion here as Rush, equating use of birth control with sexual indiscretion, which is ignorant, offensive, and possibly misogynistic.

I would greatly appreciate it if you wouldn't call me offensive names. I'd report your post, but we both know nothing would come of it, mainly due to the bracketed letters under your username.

I didn't call you any names. I called your action ignorant, offensive, and possibly misogynistic. Feel free to report me. Something might come of it. If it doesn't, it's more likely because your act was how I characterized it. Feel free to poll the membership if you think they'll disagree with the moderators on that.

biccat wrote:However, the question here is not birth control for medical reasons (those are already covered), but birth control for a contraceptive purpose.

She talked about both.

Sandra Fluke wrote:“A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.

“Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.

“When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

“In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms.

“For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy
for her.

“After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.

“I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room. She’d been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me, ‘It was so painful I’d woke up thinking I’ve been shot.’

“Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.

“On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor’s office, trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe. “Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32-years-old.

“As she put it, ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school, wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’

“Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age – increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis – she may never be able to conceive a child.

“Some may say that my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. I wish it were

“One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication – the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis.

“Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and she’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.

“Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medications since last August.

“I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

“Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman’s reproductive health care isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority.

“One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered on the insurance and she assumed that that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handle all of women’s reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that – something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:3. I disagree that a church would have to forego its religious belief to finance birth control.

Cool. The churches disagree, and have done so for a long time. Excuse me if I defer to their position on what their religious beliefs are.

Really? We've had the same kind of law in NH for twelve years. I don't recall a stink being raised when it was enacted. How about in California or any of the other states with similar laws? I also dispute that "the churches" are one monolithic entity. Do we need to make allowance for a small minority of churches which aren't representative of their denomination or membership?

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:so it's not even as if the insurance company's costs will be higher and necessitate higher premiums.

Actually, they will. Providing a service is more expensive than not providing a service.

Paying for birth control is a lot cheaper than paying for prental and postnatal care, and for a birth. Their overall costs will be lower.

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:No, it's not. You made the (false) claim that liberals don't get called out for making nasty remarks, unlike conservatives. Which was patently untrue.

Given the repeated dodges of liberals here to dodge Maher's comments, I think it's a fair criticism. Given the lack of populist outrage when those comments were made, I think it further reinforces the criticism.

I think you're moving the goalposts. Links were posted earlier in the thread to criticisms of Maher.

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:For what, specifically? He says a lot of rude stuff. Please cite a specific comment and I'll be happy to give my opinion on whether he should apologize for it.

"speaking of dumb t--ts..."
"stupid c---, there's just no other word for her."

Give me some context. A link, maybe? Who was he saying it about, and when? Was it in resonse to anything?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:My criticism is for those who attack Limbaugh and defend (or ignore) attacks on conservative women. If they really cared about the words used, they would be universally outraged. But they're not, so they don't care about the words used, they tend to use the issue politically.

It's not about the words (at least not for me). It's about the nature of the attack, and the position and actions of the person it's directed toward. If Maher attacked a private person, say a conservative law student, with those terms, for testifying before Congress about a law in contradiction to Maher's beliefs, I absolutely would condemn him for it.

**biccat**

Mannahnin wrote:2. She has a trivial role in the controversy. "Wamstad attained public figure status through years of press coverage, the Texas court said." None of us would even know her name if it wasn't for Rush.

Testifying before congress, or at least giving the appearance of testifying before congress, is not a trivial level of participation.

FWIW, I heard about her before Rush made his comments.

Mannahnin wrote:I didn't call you any names. I called your action ignorant, offensive, and possibly misogynistic.

You've already made it clear in another thread that attacking someone's comment as sexist is a violation of forum rules. I'm unclear what the distinction is here.

Well, aside from you being a moderator.

Mannahnin wrote:Really? We've had the same kind of law in NH for twelve years. I don't recall a stink being raised when it was enacted. How about in California or any of the other states with similar laws?

The California law was challenged at the time it was enacted. I think New Hampshire is working on passing an exception for religious groups.

Mannahnin wrote:I also dispute that "the churches" are one monolithic entity. Do we need to make allowance for a small minority of churches which aren't representative of their denomination or membership?

If freedom of religion means anything, then yes. No person's religious beliefs should be subject to majority approval.

Mannahnin wrote:It's not about the words (at least not for me). It's about the nature of the attack, and the position and actions of the person it's directed toward.

That's quite clear, and your position on the issue has been noted. You don't disagree with "misogyny", you disagree with conservative positions.

I hope that people reading this thread will view your comments in the appropriate context.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
If freedom of religion means anything, then yes. No person's religious beliefs should be subject to majority approval.

Their beliefs are not, the actions that might follow from those beliefs are not.

If they aren't, then we have to release Nidal Malik Hasan.

biccat wrote:
You don't disagree with "misogyny", you disagree with conservative positions.

No, that's nonsense analysis, bordering on being intentionally duplicitous. Mannahnin claimed that the nature of the attack, and the target, determined his opinion of the attack. This might include political leanings, but it doesn't have to.

Your confirmation bias is, again, acting up.

biccat wrote:
I hope that people reading this thread will view your comments in the appropriate context.

I agree, I hope the people reading this thread will view your actions in the appropriate context.

**Mannahnin**

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:2. She has a trivial role in the controversy. "Wamstad attained public figure status through years of press coverage, the Texas court said." None of us would even know her name if it wasn't for Rush.

Testifying before congress, or at least giving the appearance of testifying before congress, is not a trivial level of participation.

It is trivial within the greater controversy. Her role is tiny. She is not a public figure. Wamstad was someone who become one through "years of press coverage".

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I didn't call you any names. I called your action ignorant, offensive, and possibly misogynistic.

You've already made it clear in another thread that attacking someone's comment as sexist is a violation of forum rules. I'm unclear what the distinction is here.

No, that's not what happened. You can characterize an action or a statement as offensive without attacking the person. This is what Rush failed to do, and what Landsberg apparently was attempting (but failing) to do. I didn't say in another thread that calling a comment sexist is a violation of forum rules.

biccat wrote:Well, aside from you being a moderator.

I'm sorry that's available for you to use an excuse.

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Really? We've had the same kind of law in NH for twelve years. I don't recall a stink being raised when it was enacted. How about in California or any of the other states with similar laws?

The California law was challenged at the time it was enacted. I think New Hampshire is working on passing an exception for religious groups.

Both laws were passed. Some of the ignoramuses elected in NH since then have recently jumped on the Santorum bandwagon.

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I also dispute that "the churches" are one monolithic entity. Do we need to make allowance for a small minority of churches which aren't representative of their denomination or membership?

If freedom of religion means anything, then yes. No person's religious beliefs should be subject to majority approval.

This comes back to what kinds of laws churches can be exempted from. They're not allowed to claim (for an extreme example) religious protections for murder. A Fatwa being declared doesn't suddenly exempt Muslims from that law. Covering birth control medication for employees who choose to use it is not the same as compelling any religious person to use it themselves in violation of their beliefs.

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:It's not about the words (at least not for me). It's about the nature of the attack, and the position and actions of the person it's directed toward.

That's quite clear, and your position on the issue has been noted. You don't disagree with "misogyny", you disagree with conservative positions.

Entirely incorrect. The question I'm not entirely clear on is whether it's an honest mistake or a deliberate mischaracterization.

**SlaveToDorkness**

mattyrm wrote:
Zakiriel wrote:
Didn't you once besmirch Rachel Maddow's femininity?

To quote the Lorax, "That's a woman?!?"

I think she would be attractive if she tried to look like a woman, I mean its not like shes a dog, she just wears little make up and has a blokes hair cut.

The number one turn off for me is fat people. If a chick looks like she works out then I can forgive a less than exceptional grid. My missus hasnt got classically good looks, but she weighs 105lbs and looks like she can run all day, thats enough for me.

I bet she would be pretty tidy if she wore a nice dress, sported some fake eyelashes and got some hair extensions!

or if she went back to this:

???

**sebster**

Monster Rain wrote:Surely you realize that the number that would be spent solely on the uninsured would be less than that.

You were off by a factor of 20. Sure, we can hypothesize some discount for people on the lower end of the market, but by a factor of 20? Come on.

I don't know why we're talking about pre-existing conditions all of a sudden.

Because of the reasons I just explained. You can't have a come one, come all system that'll take people even if they've got pre-existing conditions, without realising that people will wait until they're sick before signing up. At which point you either have a taxpayer funded system, or you have a requirement for an individual health insurance mandate, or you have a system where insurers can reject people with pre-existing conditions.

It's really that simple.

If it costs money it can be paid for, right? Isn't that what insurance does?

And you keep pretending that everyone can simply have insurance, if they so will it. That isn't true. People go without treatment. This is just how it fething is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:Point 1) Why should anyone else have to pay for contraception. People don't have a right to have sex and no one died from lack of sex.

Because people are going to have sex. And when they do, they're going to make babies and they're going to spread STIs. And that is going to cost the rest of society a fortune.

If we accept they're going to have sex, and that it is better for everyone that that sex is protected so that they avoid STIs and only produce babies when they actually want a baby, then it becomes very fething obvious that it is best to get contraception out there as cheaply as possible.

Point 2) Despite all out increasing technological and social advances, pill, morning after pill, condoms, abortion, sex education - people are *still* getting pregnant. Kinda ironic really.

Unplanned pregnancies, especially unplanned pregnancies among teenagers, are way, way down on where they were in the early 90s.

People pretend this isn't true because they'd rather have an easy philosophy wrapped around easy ideas that actually engage with how the world really works.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Damn, too bad Adam Smith isn't around to see this.

Oh for feth's sake, you haven't even read Wealth of Nations have you?

"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate [...] Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy till the moment of execution; and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people". In contrast, when workers combine, "the masters [...] never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, labourers, and journeymen"

Just let me repeat something that needs to made absolutely clear - you know absolutely nothing of economics. Not one fething thing. So stop pretending otherwise, realise that right wing nutters dropping the names of famous economists in their political screeds is not an education in economics, and that you really, really need to go away and start reading.

**Monster Rain**

sebster wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Surely you realize that the number that would be spent solely on the uninsured would be less than that.

You were off by a factor of 20. Sure, we can hypothesize some discount for people on the lower end of the market, but by a factor of 20? Come on.

Since I'm feeling magnanimous, I looked up uninsured medical expenses in the US. It's 125 Billion USD.

So, make it 60$ a month for those people I mentioned before. Boom. Problem solved.

sebster wrote:
I don't know why we're talking about pre-existing conditions all of a sudden.

Because of the reasons I just explained. You can't have a come one, come all system that'll take people even if they've got pre-existing conditions, without realising that people will wait until they're sick before signing up. At which point you either have a taxpayer funded system, or you have a requirement for an individual health insurance mandate, or you have a system where insurers can reject people with pre-existing conditions.

It's really that simple.

What is that simple? Still not sure how this has anything to do with what I said.

sebster wrote:
If it costs money it can be paid for, right? Isn't that what insurance does?

And you keep pretending that everyone can simply have insurance, if they so will it.

No I don't. You said that medical costs can't be paid for. I refuted that fact. Again, this all seems a bit overblown.

T

sebster wrote:That isn't true. People go without treatment. This is just how it fething is.

/backs away slowly

**sebster**

Monster Rain wrote:Since I'm feeling magnanimous, I looked up uninsured medical expenses in the US. It's 125 Billion USD.

Citation needed.

What is that simple? Still not sure how this has anything to do with what I said.

I don't believe that's even slightly possible. My point really, really wasn't that complex.

No I don't. You said that medical costs can't be paid for.

No, that's not what I said. Please just read what I'm saying.

I am saying that if you have a system where individuals have to pay for their own treatment, or pay for their own insurance, then there will be people who cannot afford such. This is just a fething thing that's true. I mean look at this dude;

It is not a contentious argument to say he couldn't afford insurance, or to pay for kidney dialysis. At which point you have to consider other systems to pay for his healthcare, or you say 'I don't care if he doesn't get treatment'.

**Monster Rain**

sebster wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Since I'm feeling magnanimous, I looked up uninsured medical expenses in the US. It's 125 Billion USD.

Citation needed..

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm

The 125 Billion was from a site that didn't have what I would consider sufficient citation. This one, from a somewhat more reputable source, actually fits nicely in my original number.

sebster wrote:
What is that simple? Still not sure how this has anything to do with what I said.

I don't believe that's even slightly possible. My point really, really wasn't that complex..

We're talking about paying for uninsured medical expenses. Pre-existing medical conditions is utterly irrelevant. I'm not going to sit here and hash out an entire public option healthcare system with you. Which leads me to our next point.

sebster wrote:*snip*

At which point you have to consider other systems to pay for his healthcare, or you say 'I don't care if he doesn't get treatment'.

This whole conversation is about other systems to pay for health care. I even suggested one.

Still not doing much for me.

**sebster**

Monster Rain wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm

The 125 Billion was from a site that didn't have what I would consider sufficient citation. This one, from a somewhat more reputable source, actually fits nicely in my original number.

First up, that number reconciles back to the $125 billion, more or less. 42.7 / 0.37 = $115 billion. I mean, read the article, 37% of the cost of treatment of uninsured goes unpaid, so logically the total cost of treatment for those uninsured people is grossed up to $115 billion.

Second up, that's health care undertaken by people paying out of their own pocket, when they had so little money they couldn't get insurance. So you get people who are sick, and ignore it because they cannot afford to pay for treatment. The idea that if they had insurance they'd keep going to the doctor exactly as often as before is madness. Instead, you'd find they'd start getting treatment about as often as everyone else with coverage.

sebster wrote:We're talking about paying for uninsured medical expenses. Pre-existing medical conditions is utterly irrelevant. I'm not going to sit here and hash out an entire public option healthcare system with you. Which leads me to our next point.

We were talking about that, until you decided to announce your own system of getting uninsured people to pay into a healthcare system. At which point I tried to explain the problems with that, and you tried to confuse the conversation as much as possible.

This whole conversation is about other systems to pay for health care. I even suggested one.

And I explained what was wrong with that system. And you did not want to follow that point.

**Mannahnin**

Sebster, I believe MR is trying to engage in good faith. Please try to keep it friendly and constructive. Work with him; he's a good dude.

**sebster**

Mannahnin wrote:Sebster, I believe MR is trying to engage in good faith. Please try to keep it friendly and constructive. Work with him; he's a good dude.

Fair point. I know Monster Rain is a pretty decent guy, and he does engage in good faith. I don't know, maybe we're just seeing the terms of this debate from fundamentally different points of view, because I just cannot where he's coming from.

**dogma**

Monster Rain wrote:
Still not doing much for me.

I don't think anyone is saying she's head turning (to a heterosexual male), but she's not a dog either.

I've known plenty of less attractive straight women.

But, at the end of the day, this is the internet: the only place worse than gossip columns when it comes to judging physical appearance (male or female, but mostly female).