California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2015, 09:47 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2015 09:50 AM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 09:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(08-10-2015 08:00 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Alla, the problem with EKs argument is that his analogy fails(which is not surprising from him). To make it work you have a pass a law that requires all retailers of a certain segment to carry and dispense AK47s and ammunition. Then force the owners of those retail outlets under penalty of law to dispense them anytime someone asks to purchase them. If the retailer objects on moral grounds....fuck em.....EK has his 2nd amendment rights and we can't let some retailers morality interfere with his free exercise thereof.


No, you've completely missed the point you ignorant fuck. You failing to understand my analogy sound like a you problem, especially if Alla manged to keep up.

The point was in illustrating how conservative fucknuts like to insert and remove their culpability at whim. So whenever a bigoted baker refuses to provide their services to a gay couple, the baker inserts themselves into the gay couple's choices and then stomps their feet and refuses service because they're now somehow culpable for the gay couple's choices. Likewise a gun shop owner who sells a high capacity magazine, armor piercing ammo, and a semi-auto rifle to somebody will do everything he can to distance himself from that person and their choices if they then later go on to shoot up an elementary school. There is no consistency here, it's blatant fucking hypocrisy.

So pick one side jackass. Either the baker, pharmacists, and gun shop owners are not culpable for their customer's choices, or they all are. You cannot have it both ways you cherry picking fuktard.

OK, even I'm not following this line of thinking now. If the gun store owner knew the plan of the shooter, he wouldn't sell the shit to him. Why? Because he wouldn't be in support of the end result. Same with the baker. The baker doesn't support the end result, the gay marriage.

A christian baker who sold a cake to a gay couple but didn't know it, could later explain to "god" that they had no idea. If they did know but still did it, they would be violating their religious beliefs, just as a gun store owner would be violating rules if they knowingly sold to someone planning to kill.

By no means am I suggesting gay marriage is the equivalent of mass murder. Just using your scenarios.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 11:22 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2015 11:27 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 07:48 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  That's all you got? Because a fetus gets nutrients through an umbilical cord that makes it a blood sucking parasite that can be terminated like a tapeworm?

No, I put out more, but you have deliberately avoided answering my point. Here, I'll put it out there one more time in the hopes that you can actually think about this and come up with a cogent answer.

Quote:You clearly missed the point, which is that if you're going to argue that the fetus is a person, then you have to balance one person's right to body autonomy against another's right to life.

(09-10-2015 07:48 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Get the fuck out of here with that shit. You'll have to do better than that. Nobody is that heartless. Right? Right?

Quit dodging, and answer my question: how can you assert that the fetus has primacy? What makes the woman's rights so insignificant that she can have her body hijacked and be forced to carry to term?

Of course, it's not so easy to write "get the fuck out of here" to those sorts of questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 11:32 AM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 11:22 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 07:48 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  That's all you got? Because a fetus gets nutrients through an umbilical cord that makes it a blood sucking parasite that can be terminated like a tapeworm?

No, I put out more, but you have deliberately avoided answering my question. Here, I'll put it out there one more time in the hopes that you can actually think about this and come up with a cogent answer.

Quote:You clearly missed the point, which is that if you're going to argue that the fetus is a person, then you have to balance one person's right to body autonomy against another's right to life.

(09-10-2015 07:48 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Get the fuck out of here with that shit. You'll have to do better than that. Nobody is that heartless. Right? Right?

Quit dodging, and answer my question which I reposted above.

Yes, balance. I believe I covered that a few pages back. I'm not calling for outright abortion bans.

My solution was follow the science and ban abortions after certain milestones are reached in fetal development, like serious brain activity and feeling pain.

If a woman carries a fetus to the point that it is viable outside the womb, then decides she wants to terminate, I would be against that. She's had nearly 6 months to make a decision. A viable "fetus" that can feel pain, should have some protection to right to life at some point. I would disagree that point is natural birth.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lord Dark Helmet's post
09-10-2015, 11:33 AM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 09:47 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 09:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, you've completely missed the point you ignorant fuck. You failing to understand my analogy sound like a you problem, especially if Alla manged to keep up.

The point was in illustrating how conservative fucknuts like to insert and remove their culpability at whim. So whenever a bigoted baker refuses to provide their services to a gay couple, the baker inserts themselves into the gay couple's choices and then stomps their feet and refuses service because they're now somehow culpable for the gay couple's choices. Likewise a gun shop owner who sells a high capacity magazine, armor piercing ammo, and a semi-auto rifle to somebody will do everything he can to distance himself from that person and their choices if they then later go on to shoot up an elementary school. There is no consistency here, it's blatant fucking hypocrisy.

So pick one side jackass. Either the baker, pharmacists, and gun shop owners are not culpable for their customer's choices, or they all are. You cannot have it both ways you cherry picking fuktard.
OK, even I'm not following this line of thinking now. If the gun store owner knew the plan of the shooter, he wouldn't sell the shit to him. Why? Because he wouldn't be in support of the end result. Same with the baker. The baker doesn't support the end result, the gay marriage.


And as pointed out earlier, that doesn't fucking matter. If the person is culpable, then they should care. If they're not culpable, then they should not care. So if we're going to allow pharmacists to deny medication to customers because of what the customer might use them for, then the same should apply for the gun owner. But unless you plan on instituting a probing questionnaire on their motives that cannot be falsified under threat of perjury, then good luck enforcing it; and even here Blowjob's supposed Libertarianism should be outraged at that level of intrusiveness into your personal business to engage with the market.


(09-10-2015 09:47 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  A christian baker who sold a cake to a gay couple but didn't know it, could later explain to "god" that they had no idea. If they did know but still did it, they would be violating their religious beliefs, just as a gun store owner would be violating rules if they knowingly sold to someone planning to kill.


Secular laws should never give a fuck what your imaginary friends do or do not approve of. Dodgy


Also the gun shop owner would only be legally culpable as an accessory if he failed to inform the authorities after being made aware of the intentions of the customer, because murder is illegal. Gay marriage in the state of Oregon is not illegal, and you are not held culpable as an accessory if you know of one happening and fail to alert anyone to that fact. Drinking Beverage


Does a cop assigned to security during a lawful KKK rally in any way at all voice his opinion, agreement, or consent, by doing his job and enforcing security during the protest? No.

Does that same cop assigned to security during a pro-LGBT rally likewise express his opinion, agreement, or consent by providing security during their rally? No.

Do we want, need, or even expect the opinions of the people who we hire or interact with in the service industry, to have any bearing whatsoever on the services provided? No. Why in the fucking hell should bakers get a pass? What makes them the exception?

A baker's opinion on their marriage is not warranted, needed, or asked for. All that is expected is that they provide the same level of services to all of their customers, to not discriminate against any of them. Don't want to cater a gay wedding? Don't cater any weddings. Don't want to sell cakes to gay couples? Don't sell cakes. Refuse to interact with gay people under any circumstances? Don't operate your own small business.


(09-10-2015 09:47 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  By no means am I suggesting gay marriage is the equivalent of mass murder. Just using your scenarios.


Mass murders are at least a quantifiable part of reality, the various opinions of different gods filtered through incalculably different people are not.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
09-10-2015, 11:58 AM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 11:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 09:47 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  OK, even I'm not following this line of thinking now. If the gun store owner knew the plan of the shooter, he wouldn't sell the shit to him. Why? Because he wouldn't be in support of the end result. Same with the baker. The baker doesn't support the end result, the gay marriage.


And as pointed out earlier, that doesn't fucking matter. If the person is culpable, then they should care. If they're not culpable, then they should not care. So if we're going to allow pharmacists to deny medication to customers because of what the customer might use them for, then the same should apply for the gun owner. But unless you plan on instituting a probing questionnaire on their motives that cannot be falsified under threat of perjury, then good luck enforcing it; and even here Blowjob's supposed Libertarianism should be outraged at that level of intrusiveness into your personal business to engage with the market.


(09-10-2015 09:47 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  A christian baker who sold a cake to a gay couple but didn't know it, could later explain to "god" that they had no idea. If they did know but still did it, they would be violating their religious beliefs, just as a gun store owner would be violating rules if they knowingly sold to someone planning to kill.


Secular laws should never give a fuck what your imaginary friends do or do not approve of. Dodgy


Also the gun shop owner would only be legally culpable as an accessory if he failed to inform the authorities after being made aware of the intentions of the customer, because murder is illegal. Gay marriage in the state of Oregon is not illegal, and you are not held culpable as an accessory if you know of one happening and fail to alert anyone to that fact. Drinking Beverage


Does a cop assigned to security during a lawful KKK rally in any way at all voice his opinion, agreement, or consent, by doing his job and enforcing security during the protest? No.

Does that same cop assigned to security during a pro-LGBT rally likewise express his opinion, agreement, or consent by providing security during their rally? No.

Do we want, need, or even expect the opinions of the people who we hire or interact with in the service industry, to have any bearing whatsoever on the services provided? No. Why in the fucking hell should bakers get a pass? What makes them the exception?

A baker's opinion on their marriage is not warranted, needed, or asked for. All that is expected is that they provide the same level of services to all of their customers, to not discriminate against any of them. Don't want to cater a gay wedding? Don't cater any weddings. Don't want to sell cakes to gay couples? Don't sell cakes. Refuse to interact with gay people under any circumstances? Don't operate your own small business.


(09-10-2015 09:47 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  By no means am I suggesting gay marriage is the equivalent of mass murder. Just using your scenarios.


Mass murders are at least a quantifiable part of reality, the various opinions of different gods filtered through incalculably different people are not.

You make great points, and in a perfect world, we'd all believe the same way, act the same way, and react the same way.

But we don't. Some people believe in the imaginary friend in the sky. They just do. They have a religious text that lays down the rules that they follow. A man shouldn't lay with another man and whatnot. To us, its no big deal. To them, its vile. To support it, is vile.

These laws are FORCING them to go against their religious beliefs. FORCE, by threat of fine, loss of business license, perhaps jail if they dont pay. Just as the constitution prevents the government from establishing a religion, it also prevents the government from prohibiting free exercise of religion. One cannot freely exercise their religion if the government is controlling which aspects of that religion one can adhere to. It's not like they're asking for the right to commit ritual sacrifice. They're saying hey, we don't believe in homosexuality. We don't want to support that in any way.

I see both sides but I think the side of liberty wins for me. A religious exception is reasonable to me, in this case. It may not work in every example, like your police officer scenario. A police officer, like Kim Davis, is a public employee, representing the government, and must remain neutral.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 12:09 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 11:58 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  These laws are FORCING them to go against their religious beliefs. FORCE, by threat of fine, loss of business license, perhaps jail if they dont pay.

Nonsense. Nobody is forcing any religious sect to partake in any acts which are prohibited by their religion. They are trying to force others to adhere to the religious rules that apply to that particular sect.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dom's post
09-10-2015, 12:18 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 12:09 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 11:58 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  These laws are FORCING them to go against their religious beliefs. FORCE, by threat of fine, loss of business license, perhaps jail if they dont pay.

Nonsense. Nobody is forcing any religious sect to partake in any acts which are prohibited by their religion. They are trying to force others to adhere to the religious rules that apply to that particular sect.

If you force them to provide their service, you are FORCING them to partake. It's like a baker that refuses to sell a cake to a KKK meeting. No, the baker doesn't have to physically attend the meeting, but why should they be forced to support it in any way? It's their flour. It's their eggs. It's their electric bill that heats the oven. They should be able to do what they want.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 12:20 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 12:18 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 12:09 PM)Dom Wrote:  Nonsense. Nobody is forcing any religious sect to partake in any acts which are prohibited by their religion. They are trying to force others to adhere to the religious rules that apply to that particular sect.

If you force them to provide their service, you are FORCING them to partake. It's like a baker that refuses to sell a cake to a KKK meeting. No, the baker doesn't have to physically attend the meeting, but why should they be forced to support it in any way? It's their flour. It's their eggs. It's their electric bill that heats the oven. They should be able to do what they want.

The baker is self employed. Government officials are not. They answer to the government. The baker answers to himself.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 12:26 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 12:20 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 12:18 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  If you force them to provide their service, you are FORCING them to partake. It's like a baker that refuses to sell a cake to a KKK meeting. No, the baker doesn't have to physically attend the meeting, but why should they be forced to support it in any way? It's their flour. It's their eggs. It's their electric bill that heats the oven. They should be able to do what they want.

The baker is self employed. Government officials are not. They answer to the government. The baker answers to himself.

[Image: spaceballswhat.gif]

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 12:30 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 12:26 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 12:20 PM)Dom Wrote:  The baker is self employed. Government officials are not. They answer to the government. The baker answers to himself.

[Image: spaceballswhat.gif]

Lol. If the baker wants to make a KKK cake, and an employee refuses, he can be fired for insubordination. A job is a job. The boss is the boss. Simples.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: