|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On the Threshold of Bigotry | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: In the sense of robotically asking the question? No. That's because the answer is quite simple: "Domestic partnership" can never "do everything legal for that a civil union does for married heterosexuals." The law is quite clear on this matter: There is no such thing as "separate but equal." By making a second contract that is called something different from the current contract, you necessarily create a distinction between the two. If they were the same thing, you would use the same name. Because you are not using the same name, you are necessarily indicating that the two are not the same. And if they are not the same, you necessarily indicate that they can be treated differently. We see this in practice: In every state that has tried to "keep the name" of marriage but provide for same-sex couples, the contract that has been drawn up has always been different from the contract for mixed-sex couples. Even in Vermont where the courts there told the legislature that they had to come up with a solution that provided identical rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples that are provided for mixed-sex couples, the legislature came up with a "civil union" contract that was not identical to marriage. In California, where the legislature was trying to do the same thing, the "domestic partnership" arrangement they came up with did not provide identical rights and responsibilities that "marriage" provided. Since it is impossible to treat different things the same, the only solution that guarantees equality at all levels at all times is to have only one. That's the robotic answer to the robotic question. But, people aren't robots. The reason you keep getting tagged as a bigot is not because you ask the question. It's because despite knowing the answer to the question, you still persist in claiming that there is something different all the while insisting that you're not trying to denigrate anybody despite your specific descriptions of groups of people in disparaging terms. That is, you are asking the question not because you actually want to know the answer but because you want to find some sort of justification for denying to others that which you demand for yourself. And that's what bigotry is.
quote: Ah, yes...the silly claim that refusal to accept bigotry is bigotry. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Because the pharmacist is denying to others that which he would demand for himself, that makes him a bigot. If the Pharmacist was preventing the patron from getting the drug anywhere then you would have a point, but no free person should be forced to act against their own will. If a mechanic suggested someone get new tires but the tire salesmen wouldn't sell tires for 14 inch rims would he be a bigot? (Would he be in business?) Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
And even if you think abortion is right, nobody is going to make you have one. So what? If you think abortion is wrong, nobody is going to make you have one. This whole diddy of yours, Rhain, is that gays would suffer somehow if they couldn't call their domestic partnership or their legal civil unions "marrriages." You're all atwitter over a single word that means a civil union between a man and a woman. I'll give you everything you want except the word, simply because a tricycle isn't a bicycle (please see Message 132). So go ahead and call me a bigot for that if you need to. ”HM If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
lyx2no responds to me:
quote:quote: And if the pharmacist were being forced to be a pharmacist, then you would have a point. But he is not being forced to act against his own will, so he must comply with the oath he took as a pharmacist when he got licensed. If he cannot handle the requirements of being a pharmacist (which is to assist the doctor and patient who are the ones who decide what the treatment is going to be), then he should find another line of work.
quote: Out of a deliberate act, yes. The salesman, we presume, would expect that the decision he and his mechanic made regarding his need for new tires would not be foiled by a third party who has no standing. Denying to others that which you demand for yourself is bigotry. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote:quote: That's the point. The act of bigotry is denying to others that which you demand for yourself. Whether or not you think abortion is right or wrong is immaterial. If you don't want the pharmacist contravening the decision you and your doctor made regarding your medical treatment, then you can't be that contravening agent with regard to someone else.
quote: Since every single attempt to create a "civil union" has resulted in a contract that is not identical to marriage, you're going to have to justify your claim that no harm is being done.
quote: (*chuckle*) Nice try, but that's my argument to you. I don't care what the contract is called. Whether the sole legal contract is called "Red" or "Blue" is immaterial. The only thing that is important is that there is only one contract. Now, given that there are literally thousands of laws written that refer to a contract that is called "marriage," it would be a nightmare trying to change them all. And this raises the question of what to do with all of those people who have "marriage" licenses. Do they need to turn it in to get a "Red" license? Contrary to your claim, it is not I who is "all atwitter over a single word." If you're so insistent on keeping it separate (see...you think there's a difference, which means they're not the same, which is in direct contradiction to your claim that they are), then you are the one who needs to come up with a new word for your contract. If you want to call your relationship a "special friendship," you go right ahead. It's your relationship.
quote: And so who's the one going into apoplexy over the word? And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Iname Junior Member (Idle past 3914 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
quote: Strange, you understand it yet you keep asking the same already answered questions over and over again.
quote: I'd say it's more like gay marriage advocates are being given a tricycle and are being told it's a bicycle, if they're given anything at all. Also, should I take it that, since you didn't reply to my critique, you accept that the definition of bigotry you've been trying to pawn off on this thread is completely useless and tantamount to saying "bigotry is having thoughts"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Were the G.I.s bigoted for slaughering the Japs on Okinawa? No, they were fighting a war against the Japanese on that island, one where Japan had decided to make a stand, and war seems to necessarily involve killing people (I've not heard of a war fought that doesn't). They were bigoted when they categorically called them "Nips" or "Slants" in a derogatory way, and they were bigoted when they mistreated other Japanese that were NOT fighting the war. The US interred japanese americans during the war as a precaution against subversive wartime spying. They also used popular bigotry to confiscate all their property in the process, whether they were guilty of espionage or not, and they also exercised bigoty when they kept them impounded without any trial or investigation to see if they were in fact involved in espionage, rather than just act on the assumption that because they were japanese that they would.
Bigotry is entirely relative to the circumstances, and it can only be decided subjectively. The threshold of bigotry is a floating craps game. So I'm back to my proposed rule #1 from Message 44: You can measure bigotry in the noise made by those who accuse others of it. No, it's about fairness in treatment of groups of people. Why should a member of group A be treated differently from a member of group B solely on the basis of group membership? Rrhain has a good point: when you treat someone else in a manner you do not want to be treated yourself, this is unfair and when you do it solely because they are a member of group A, it is bigotry. Thus the "golden rule" applied to groups can be used as your "threshold" definition. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : englissssssssss by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
Because of my interest in the subject, I recently read my insurance policy on domestic partnership for same sex couples. Take my word for it, it is far from being equal to the status of marriage. Why can't gays be happy with a DP (domestic partnership) status if it does everything legal for them that a civil union does for married heterosexuals? I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
. a third party who has no standing. The pharmacist has standing as a person being required to act.
And if the pharmacist were being forced to be a pharmacist, then you would have a point. But he is not being forced to act against his own will, so he must comply with the oath he took as a pharmacist when he got licensed. If he cannot handle the requirements of being a pharmacist (which is to assist the doctor and patient who are the ones who decide what the treatment is going to be), then he should find another line of work. This is as lame as the "they can move to another state" crap. One has the right, if capable, to work in ones chosen occupation. What is the consideration give by the State in return for requiring the pharmacist for acting against his interests? Allowing him to ply his trade? Coercion does not a valid contract make. The Oath is show, and has no standing in law. It's not even made to the State. Are there other tradesmen you think that the State should be able to relegate to servitude? Free fridays for electricians if they want a contractors license? The reasonable interest for government regulation is assurance of competence. Not enforcement of compliance to the social will.
Denying to others that which you demand for yourself is bigotry. Aside from your definition for for bigotry being totally bogus, you are now playing, in reverse, the semantics game that Hoot Mon has been playing when he says Gays have every right he has. The patron has the right to get the pill, but not from a specific pharmacist via governmental coercion. (Assuming the Pharmacist to be a free agent. If he is an employee he has an obligation to act in his employer's best interests.) Bigotry requires no action. It is the belief that only ones own ways and opinions are valid. I abhor the ways of life of the Inuit ” all that freezing and blubber chewing ” but they clearly are not invalid ways. My hair cut is right and yours is wrong is bigotry. Even if I only express it as an opinion. However, I hate 14 inch rims. If you want 14 inch rime you're welcome to them, but you'll not get them from me. (This in no way excuses the nonsense of those thinking that the rejection of oppression is bigotry against the oppressor. I find it hard to believe those arguing that position aren't just trying to get a rise out of us.) Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Iname Junior Member (Idle past 3914 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
quote: Well it appears as though these pharmacists are not capable of performing their job since they aren't doing it. Their job is to give people the medicine they need, they aren't, therefore they aren't doing their job. See here's the problem, if I see machines as evil and patently refuse to touch them, becoming a car mechanic is probably a bad idea. In fact I probably should have thought about that before becoming a car mechanic. If I was a Jehova's Witness could I become a surgeon, but refuse to allow blood transfusions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
lyx2no responds to me:
quote:quote: But not as a medical practitioner. The course of treatment was decided by the doctor in concert with the patient. For the pharmacist to step in is to have him practice medicine without a license. When he became a licensed pharmacist, he took an oath to behave in a certain way. If he cannot live up to that requirement, then he needs to find another line of work. People's lives are at stake.
quote: Indeed. And if the pharmacist wants to play doctor, then he can become a licensed physician. But he's not a doctor...he's a pharmacist. For him to insert himself between the doctor and the patient is for him to practice medicine without a license. And even if he does decide to become a doctor, he still has no business interfering with the decisions made by the patient in consultation with his doctor. He may be "a" doctor, but he is not "the" doctor that the patient consulted with. That is what being a pharmacist requires.
quote: "Coercion"? What coercion? If you wish to be a pharmacist, you have to become licensed. You're dealing with potentially lethal chemicals. One of the requirements is that you will behave in an ethical manner. Which means that as a pharmacist, you will not insert yourself between the doctor and the patient. That's not your role. You are not there to practice medicine upon the patient. Not only is the pharmacist not a doctor, but he is also not the patient's doctor.
quote: Plenty. Doctors, nurses, emergency personnel, lawyers, etc. When you work for the public trust, you are being charged with assisting those who are in need of help. If a person does not wish to help the public, then jobs involving the public trust are not the ones to enter.
quote: Huh? There is more involved with medical treatment than mere assurance of competence. You're dealing with people's lives. When a doctor and patient have decided upon a course of action, it is not for the pharmacist to second guess them. Now, a competent pharmacist will keep track of the medications being taken so that if there is a contraindication, the pharmacist can consult with the doctor to verify treatment. The pharmacist will also be charged with ensuring that the drugs that are prescribed are not being used for illegal purposes. The job of a pharmacist is not just filling bottles. But a pharmacist is not a doctor. He is not the patient's doctor. It is not his place to insert himself between the doctor and patient.
quote: Who's he going to get it from if not from the pharmacist? Why are you assuming that there's another one to go to? You have to justify where the pharmacist gets off inserting himself between the doctor and the patient. Since they have decided upon a course of treatment, who is the pharmacist to delay or deny it? That's practicing medicine without a license. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
And even if you think abortion is right, nobody is going to make you have one. So what? This whole diddy of yours, Rhain, is that gays would suffer somehow if they couldn't call their domestic partnership or their legal civil unions "marrriages." You're all atwitter over a single word that means a civil union between a man and a woman. I'll give you everything you want except the word, simply because a tricycle isn't a bicycle (please see Message 132). So go ahead and call me a bigot for that if you need to. Owned Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
For the pharmacist to step in is to have him practice medicine without a license. He's not stepping in, he's stepping out. Were he stepping in I would agree with you. Your whole line, "when you work for the public trust" is nonsense. Ones need is not a lien on another man's life.
Why are you assuming that there's another one to go to? Firstly, it's irrelevant. Secondly, I didn't assume, I counted them. I didn't count them all, of course. Once I got as high as two . Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Owned While we're defining word . This idiomatic use of the word "owned" is meant to imply "You have been presented a devastating circumstance to which you are unable to respond." You seem to think it means "I'm to dim to see my way around this supposed obstacle so you must be too." Problem is, when Rrhain does step around it as if it wasn't there, you'll not notice. So he'll have to do it over and over and over. You are the obstacle reason cannot surmount. Edited by lyx2no, : Misspelling. Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Taz writes:
But I don't care what an insurance policy says about gay DPs. That's a private affair between you and your insurance company. What I do care about are public laws that affect me personally, as all public laws are likely to do. And I am against any language is a public law that amounts to a blatant oxymoron, such as "gay marriage." HM writes: Because of my interest in the subject, I recently read my insurance policy on domestic partnership for same sex couples. Take my word for it, it is far from being equal to the status of marriage. Why can't gays be happy with a DP (domestic partnership) status if it does everything legal for them that a civil union does for married heterosexuals? ”HM If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024