Silicon Investor - Sharks in the Septic Tank

[epicure] lol

epicure — 8/22/2021 10:34:21 PM

[cosmicforce] Redacted

cosmicforce — 8/22/2021 7:43:04 PM

[Lane3] Equal opportunity laws applied to private hiring. I guess we're stuck on the "p...

Lane3 — 3/24/2013 2:24:56 PM

Equal opportunity laws applied to private hiring.

I guess we're stuck on the "private" thing. I don't see anything private about hiring unless you're a mom hiring a nanny or a hot dog cart hiring your nephew. As long as you insist that every business action performed by someone who isn't a government employee is private, we're at an impasse.

[TimF] Can you offer a couple of examples of mandating private actions? Equal oppo...

TimF — 3/24/2013 2:12:04 PM

Can you offer a couple of examples of mandating private actions?

Equal opportunity laws applied to private hiring.

[Lane3] it mandates private actions provide for equal treatment. You can argue that i...

Lane3 — 3/23/2013 8:38:23 PM

it mandates private actions provide for equal treatment. You can argue that its good that it does this, but good or not this isn't about equal protection under the law.

I won't argue that it is good. I question whether it is so. Can you offer a couple of examples of mandating private actions?

[TimF] Only in your binary view... No, in reality. For one thing activities that ...

TimF — 3/23/2013 7:10:53 PM

Only in your binary view...

No, in reality. For one thing activities that you do by yourself are (at least assuming you aren't talking about them) even more private than any social activity. Sure business activities are not by yourself (you can produce by yourself, but at some point someone else is going to have to pay for it, even if at a far remove, or you won't have much of a business), but can be as private as any other form of interaction with others.

And the law controls a lot of what goes on in business.

And the aspects that the law controls should be treated equally under the law. The law shouldn't impose different requirements based on say race.

But the law goes far beyond such equal protection, and race neutral enforcement, it mandates private actions provide for equal treatment. You can argue that its good that it does this, but good or not this isn't about equal protection under the law.

[Lane3] Social is irrelevant to private. Only in your binary view... Equal treatm...

Lane3 — 3/23/2013 7:03:01 PM

Social is irrelevant to private.

Only in your binary view... <g>

Equal treatment under the law is equal treatment by the law, and by what the law controls.

And the law controls a lot of what goes on in business. That's where the equal treatment comes in. There's no need for equal treatment by business where there is no controlling law.

I think the political culture in our country has made entirely too much of it.

I get that you don't like it. But what should be, and particularly what you think should be, is not necessarily what is. We have to play the cards we're dealt.

This conversation reminds me of the Big Gulp controversy. You have people trying to legislate the size of soda cups all the while the government is supporting sugar and corn syrup. It's fussing about one symptom of a rampant problem that is not being resolved.

[Lane3] Social is irrelevant to private. Only in your binary view... Equal treatm...

Lane3 — 3/23/2013 7:03:01 PM

[TimF] I don't see what politics has to do with it. The political process determ...

TimF — 3/23/2013 6:20:45 PM

I don't see what politics has to do with it.

The political process determines how we will treat different types of relationships and interactions.

It is obvious that when you are engaging in business transactions you are not in a social situation let alone in a private one.

Social is irrelevant to private.

Commerce may be private enterprise

Exactly.

but it's riddled with law.

Bringing us back to "As for the distinction between private business and private non-business, I think the political culture in our country has made entirely too much of it."

I don't get that, either. It's equal treatment under law, not by the government.

Equal treatment under the law is equal treatment by the law, and by what the law controls. Its not even "equal treatment under the law" its "equal protection of the law", at least if your talking about what's in the constitution.

[Lane3] I think the political culture in our country has made entirely too much of it. ...

Lane3 — 3/23/2013 6:07:38 PM

I think the political culture in our country has made entirely too much of it.

I don't get that. I don't see what politics has to do with it. It is obvious that when you are engaging in business transactions you are not in a social situation let alone in a private one. Commerce may be private enterprise but it's riddled with law.

Equal treatment by the law, not properly equal treatment outside of law and government.

I don't get that, either. It's equal treatment under law, not by the government. You could reasonably argue that there is too much law created by the government and intruding on the practice of business but it's law nonetheless.

[TimF] Equal treatment by the law, not properly equal treatment outside of law and gove...

TimF — 3/23/2013 4:40:40 PM

Equal treatment by the law, not properly equal treatment outside of law and government.

As for the distinction between private business and private non-business, I think the political culture in our country has made entirely too much of it.

[Lane3] They don't have a right (except perhaps a purely legal one) to make an enforceab...

Lane3 — 3/21/2013 10:33:58 AM

They don't have a right (except perhaps a purely legal one) to make an enforceable demand for equal treatment.

They have an enforceable right to equal treatment under law. Surely you noticed that. <g>

Its private business, still private, not government.

Sure, private vs government. But not private as in the privacy of one's own home or one's own thoughts. When we venture out into society we have to follow the basic rules of society. We drive on the right side of the street. We don't have the liberty to drive on the left side, at least not without the risk of consequences. Liberty is not absolute. Government makes laws that constrain it. I agree with you that liberty should be maximized and that there are lot of constraints on liberty that are unnecessary and burdensome. But when it comes to the laws that enable peaceful and cooperative interaction amongst citizens, as opposed to what we do in our own homes or in strictly social situations, equal treatment applies, sometimes at the expense of liberty.

The trick is to weight all the various interests and rights to maximize the rights of everyone. It is not reasonable to think that one's own rights should always trump those of everyone else or that one's personal favorite right should universally trump all other rights. The free exercise of religion, when exercised in public, has and must have constraints. Individuals may differ on the particular balance of rights in any given scenario but I don't see how one could reasonably believe that the free exercise of religion is the granddaddy of all rights.

[TimF] What I question is the extent to which one can reasonably press a claim of rel...

TimF — 3/20/2013 8:53:32 PM

What I question is the extent to which one can reasonably press a claim of religious or any other liberty in a diverse society where other people have liberty and rights, too.

They don't have a right (except perhaps a purely legal one) to make an enforceable demand for equal treatment.

When private individuals go into business, however, the situation is no longer private.

Its private business, still private, not government.

[Lane3] Liberty, properly includes the liberty to treat others unequally. I don't quest...

Lane3 — 3/20/2013 7:14:58 PM

Liberty, properly includes the liberty to treat others unequally.

I don't question that. What I question is the extent to which one can reasonably press a claim of religious or any other liberty in a diverse society where other people have liberty and rights, too.

And personally I would be against giving equal treatment (by private individuals, I'm not talking about the government here), primacy over liberty.

I agree as regards private individuals in private situations. When private individuals go into business, however, the situation is no longer private. There are lots and lots of other considerations that must be balanced. In a business environment, reasonable accommodation is made for the religious liberty of employees. For example, an employee may have religious symbols in his cubicle, where others may encounter them, but cannot put them in the conference room, which is not his personal space but is shared by other noses. Does the latter constraint limit his religious expression? Sure, but that's where the balance lies and it cannot reasonably be otherwise.

[TimF] Liberty, properly includes the liberty to treat others unequally. Even when som...

TimF — 3/20/2013 6:07:15 PM

Liberty, properly includes the liberty to treat others unequally.

Even when some other consideration (weather equal treatment itself directly, or some consequence) is considered more important than liberty in this situation, and so a conclusion is teacher that liberty will be limited in the name of equal treatment, or peace between different groups, or whatever, your still limiting liberty. Its still an important moral principle, even if in a particular situation some other principle is given primacy.

And personally I would be against giving equal treatment (by private individuals, I'm not talking about the government here), primacy over liberty.

And the health care insurance case doesn't even involve unequal treatment to any significant extent.

[Lane3] Not giving something to someone, isn't punching someone in the nose, not even ...

Lane3 — 3/20/2013 6:52:42 AM

Not giving something to someone, isn't punching someone in the nose, not even metaphorically.

I agree. But the giving or not giving of something was not what I was addressing in my nose comment. That situation is a function of the federal regulation regarding health care, which is a related issue. And the government's involvement in the marriage sacrament, another related issue. I was addressing the underlying notion that discriminating against gays, for example and in general, is a legitimate expression of religious freedom, one that cannot appropriately be curtailed.

they are waging a multi-pronged battle against LGBT rights, not on substantive moral grounds but on the premise that equality for gays restricts the religious liberty of Christians to discriminate against them.

Assuming the facts as stated, that is substantive moral grounds. Religious liberty is a political and moral issue.

I do not accept that, in the abstract, one can reasonably complain about being deprived of religious liberty (fist) when the expression of it is unequal treatment (nose) of fellow citizens. Without the government's questionable involvement in certain aspects of life there might not be any conditions that provoke said unequal treatment. One might reasonably argue against said involvement and the difficult position in which some Christians might not otherwise find themselves. I understand the gripes. Still, the notion that unequal treatment is protected as religious liberty is too much and will not resonate beyond the hard core. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[TimF] I agree about the fist nose expression, but it doesn't apply here. Not that thi...

TimF — 3/19/2013 8:35:51 PM

I agree about the fist nose expression, but it doesn't apply here. Not that this is some special exception, the basic logic of it doesn't apply. Not giving something to someone, isn't punching someone in the nose, not even metaphorically.

I agree about the optics. (For some of the areas and situations, perhaps not for others. The author did jump around different issues and angles on them a bit.)

[Lane3] The right to exercise any liberty ends where the other guy's nose begins. That...

Lane3 — 3/19/2013 8:07:13 PM

The right to exercise any liberty ends where the other guy's nose begins. That the exercise of said liberty may have been otherwise and independently compromised causing exercisers to feel put upon doesn't justify fist/nose contact.

Even if it did, the optics on such a strategy are not sympathetic.

[TimF] they are waging a multi-pronged battle against LGBT rights, not on substantiv...

TimF — 3/19/2013 6:33:26 PM

they are waging a multi-pronged battle against LGBT rights, not on substantive moral grounds but on the premise that equality for gays restricts the religious liberty of Christians to discriminate against them.

Assuming the facts as stated, that is substantive moral grounds. Religious liberty is a political and moral issue.

Its not just religious liberty either. Even assuming for the sake of argument that opposition to, lack of recognition of, or refusal to support or participate in, homosexual marriage/weddings is bigotry; even assuming the great nonsense that refusal to do the same for contraception or abortion is bigotry; bigots have rights too. (And now I'll now toss out those temporary assumptions of bigotry.)

The truth, as the Supreme Court held, is that health insurance is now a kind of tax.

The individual mandate. (Also a big stretch by the court.)

Besides, this is a slippery slope. Suppose a business is owned by Christian Scientists, who object to many forms of modern medicine. Should that business’s employees be deprived of health insurance entirely?

Not providing it for them, isn't depriving them of it, any more than not providing enormous salaries to them can reasonable be seen as "depriving" them of millionaire status.

But answering the question despite the biased distorted wording - Yes, any employer (including totally secular employers) should be able to choose not to provide insurance as part of its compensation, or to provide insurance without certain types of coverage.

Some on the far right may sincerely believe their liberties are being threatened, but they believed that about desegregation too.

It's true now, and it was true of parts of the desegregation effort as well. The current situation provides much less justification for the encroachment on liberty.

[Lane3] In reading this article I had a flashback to the masseur discussion on this thre...

Lane3 — 3/18/2013 11:41:54 AM

In reading this article I had a flashback to the masseur discussion on this thread ten years ago. Figured I'd post it simply out of nostalgia... <g>
The ‘Religious Liberty’ Bullies and Their Fight Against LGBT Equality by Jay Michaelson Mar 18, 2013 4:45 AM EDTThirty-five years ago, having lost the moral battle for segregation, a small group of evangelicals met to rethink their attitude toward politics. Unlike Catholics and mainline Protestants, evangelicals had tended to stay out of secular politics, believing it to be irredeemable. But with the IRS’s decision to withdraw tax-exempt status from the evangelical Bob Jones University, which discriminated against African-Americans, the Christian right was born. Their mission, they said, was to defend “religious liberty.”

Participants hold up up signs during a rally to protest an upcoming federal mandate that most institutions and businesses provide insurance plans that cover artificial birth control on June 8, 2012 in Augusta, Maine. (Robert F. Bukaty/AP, file)
Today is a different age—but the players, and the rhetoric, are the same. Today a far-right coalition of conservative Catholics and evangelicals perceive that they have lost the moral battle against LGBT equality, particularly same-sex marriage. And so, as described in a lengthy report released Monday by the think tank Political Research Associates and chiefly authored by this writer, they are waging a multi-pronged battle against LGBT rights, not on substantive moral grounds but on the premise that equality for gays restricts the religious liberty of Christians to discriminate against them.

Of course, this is rhetoric, not reality. Forty years ago, the newly minted Christian right “played the victim” by claiming that a racist school, rather than the students being discriminated against, was the true victim. And today religious-liberty activists claim that bullies are the real victims because they cannot “express their views about homosexuality.” They claim that businesses who say “No Gays Allowed” are being oppressed because they are forced to “facilitate” gay marriages. And they claim that the real targets of discrimination are not gay people, who in 24 states can be fired from their jobs simply for being gay, but employers who can’t fire them.

Yet unlike recent anti-gay sloganeering, the religious-liberty campaign makes use not of theological arguments but of civil libertarian ones, and as such is much harder to recognize than the usual Bible-quoting bigotry. Indeed, Catholic-funded organizations such as The Becket Fund—named, not coincidentally, for the archbishop who chose martyrdom rather than obedience to the secular law—and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have co-opted the work of respected law professors such as Douglas Laycock of Virginia. They have even convinced Stanford University to establish a Becket-funded “Center for Religious Liberty.”

The notion that anti-discrimination law offends religious liberty has even found its way to the very top of our political life. At the vice presidential debate last fall, Rep. Paul Ryan accused the Obama administration of “assaulting the religious liberties of Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals.” But all churches and most hospitals are already exempt from anti-discrimination law and need not provide reproductive health services either, despite receiving enormous government subsidies.

Religious liberty is a code word, like family values. Though Laycock and other academics may be sincere, the Family Research Council, Christian Legal Society, Ethics and Public Policy Institute, and the legion of other Christian right organizations are chasing the same bugaboos as ever—gay rights, abortion, prayer-free schools—and simply repurposing an old, racist rhetoric to fight the same social battles as always.

Some on the far right may sincerely believe their liberties are being threatened, but they believed that about desegregation too.

Not all religious-liberty activists are Christians. A handful of Orthodox Jews have joined the campaign, providing a Jewish fig leaf for an otherwise hard-right theocratic Christian movement. Indeed, one of the Jews in question, Nathan Diament of the Orthodox Union, recently remarked at a conference that “we know we’re going to lose on same-sex marriage. So we’re going to carve out religious exemptions big enough to drive a truck through.”

This strategy has worked. Several states include religious exemptions to nondiscrimination law and same-sex marriage laws. “Conscience clauses” have limited women’s access to reproductive health for decades. And, in the highest-profile religious-liberty campaign of recent years, right-wing activists won significant new exemptions to Obamacare’s requirement that employers provide health insurance to their employees. Now not only churches but any church-affiliated organization—those aforementioned Catholic hospitals, for example—need not provide coverage for contraception.

But that’s not enough, not by a long shot. The Becket Fund has recently filed 37 lawsuits, all around the country, seeking to extend the exemption to any employer who feels religiously aggrieved by providing health insurance coverage that some employee might someday use to obtain contraception. From the hysterical op-eds written by one of Becket’s clients, you would think that the CEO is personally performing an abortion. The truth, as the Supreme Court held, is that health insurance is now a kind of tax. And just as a pacifist can’t opt out of paying taxes used for war, so too a religious employer can’t opt out of these taxes because an employee might use them for a form of health care with which the employer disagrees.

Besides, this is a slippery slope. Suppose a business is owned by Christian Scientists, who object to many forms of modern medicine. Should that business’s employees be deprived of health insurance entirely?

Or suppose a Christian business owner dislikes Jews as much as she dislikes gays. Not just dislikes—suppose she holds all Jews responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. Should such a business owner be able to post “No Jews Allowed,” like the wedding photographer who refused to photograph a gay couple?

Of course not. Religious-liberty rhetoric notwithstanding, civil rights is always about balancing competing interests. If the wedding photographer refuses to take a picture of a gay couple, the gay couple suffers injustice. If the wedding photographer must obey the same anti-discrimination laws as everyone else, then he or she has to put up with it, because this is America, and America doesn’t believe in discrimination.

Fortunately, this is a religious value as well. Christianity believes in rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and God what is God’s. Corporations do not have consciences; they are commercial entities well within Caesar’s domain. You want to be in the marketplace, you play by the same rules as everyone else.

Unfortunately, such points are lost in the din of right-wing talk radio. Just last fall in Minnesota, for example, the religious-liberty crowd was warning that if same-sex marriage passed, ministers would be compelled to perform gay weddings. This was an out-and-out lie, and they knew it. No rabbi can be forced to perform an intermarriage. No Catholic priest can be forced to marry two divorcees. And no, Virginia, no minister could ever be forced to solemnize a gay wedding, a straight wedding, or any other kind of wedding she or he found objectionable. But try telling that to honest Christians who are being robocalled on the eve of an election.

Religious liberty is being used to mask a conservative Christian agenda—the same agenda that’s been pushed for half a century now. Some on the far right may sincerely believe their liberties are being threatened, but they believed that about desegregation too. A belief does not make something so. The question is how many new believers they’ll recruit before this crusade is defeated.

[Solon] Well, I consider Islam to be a few centuries behind Christianity so encouraging ...

Solon — 2/1/2013 6:34:12 PM

Well, I consider Islam to be a few centuries behind Christianity so encouraging either of them is not something I am keen on! Certainly, making overtures to Islam seems unnecessary. I think any sentiment beyond toleration is unnecessary. Just as we try to change how countries treat human rights by expressing our dissatisfaction with violations--Islam requires no encouragement for the way it treats human beings. Just my opinion...

[Kid Rock] washingtontimes.com Thuoghts? President Obama says Islam has always been part...

Kid Rock — 2/1/2013 5:39:58 PM

washingtontimes.com

Thuoghts?

President Obama says Islam has always been part of America, which raises the question, does the president know something about American history that we don’t?

It has become customary for presidents to offer greetings to various religious communities on the occasion of their most holy days. Presidents Ford and Carter both issued Ramadan messages, as did Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. The Ramadan greeting became intensely political during Mr. Bush’s tenure because he was seeking to dispel the charge that the war on terrorism was a crusade against Islam. But Mr. Obama has used the occasion of Ramadan to rewrite U.S. history and give Islam a prominence in American annals that it has not earned.

In this year’s greeting, Mr. Obama said the rituals of Ramadan “remind us of the principles that we hold in common and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country.”

That Islam has had a major role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings may come as a surprise to Muslim women. Young Afghan girls who are having acid thrown in their faces on the way to school might want to offer their perspectives. That Islam is “known” for diversity and racial equality is also a bit of a reach. This certainly does not refer to religious diversity, which is nonexistent in many Muslim-majority states. This is a plaudit better reserved for a speech at the opening of a synagogue in Mecca.

Most puzzling is the president’s claim that “Islam has always been part of America.” Islam had no influence on the origins and development of the United States. It contributed nothing to early American political culture, art, literature, music or any other aspect of the early nation.

Throughout most of American history, the Muslim world was perceived as remote, alien and belligerent. Perhaps the president was thinking about the Barbary Pirates and their role in the founding of the U.S. Navy, or Andrew Jackson’s dispatch of frigates against Muslim pirates in Sumatra in the 1830s. Maybe he was recalling Rutherford B. Hayes’ 1880 statement regarding Morocco on “the necessity, in accordance with the humane and enlightened spirit of the age, of putting an end to the persecutions, which have been so prevalent in that country, of persons of a faith other than the Moslem, and especially of the Hebrew residents of Morocco.” Or Grover Cleveland’s 1896 comment on the continuing massacre of Armenian Christians: “We have been afflicted by continued and not infrequent reports of the wanton destruction of homes and the bloody butchery of men, women and children, made martyrs to their profession of Christian faith. … It so mars the humane and enlightened civilization that belongs to the close of the nineteenth century that it seems hardly possible that the earnest demand of good people throughout the Christian world for its corrective treatment will remain unanswered.”

It also is customary in the United States to search for obscure contributions made by in-vogue minority groups as a feel-good way of promoting inclusion. One of the earliest Muslims to come to the United States was a 17th-century Egyptian named Norsereddin, who settled in the Catskills and was described by one chronicler as “haughty, morose, unprincipled, cruel and dissipated.” Spurned by the princess of an Indian tribe that had befriended him, he managed through a subterfuge to poison her. He was later run down by the betrayed Indians, who burned him alive. It is not the kind of tale that makes it into politically correct history books.

Read more: washingtontimes.com
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[average joe] Rex Murphy: Curtains for Lance and Oprah [graphic] Rex Murphy | Jan 18, 2013 8...

average joe — 1/20/2013 3:08:17 PM

Rex Murphy: Curtains for Lance and Oprah

Rex Murphy | Jan 18, 2013 8:00 PM ET

I see great symmetry in this Lance Armstrong/Oprah Winfrey affair: The worthless admission and the worthless venue in which it was made; between confessor and confessee.

Armstrong is the infamous multi-year cheat, liar and fraud now known and despised the world over as the ultimate con-artist, a slick, brassy narcissist who has hogged fame and fortune neither of which were honestly acquired. His reputation has been ground to dust and blown off the planet.

I recall the late Christopher Hitchens’ scathing title for his book about Bill Clinton: No One Left To Lie To. But Clinton was an amateur in this lying business. Armstrong has blown past Clinton with ease. (At least Clinton wasn’t collecting medals for his exertions.) In Armstrong’s case it’s not that he’s run out of anybody to lie to. He’s run out of anyone who can stomach his worthless, latter-day and redundant “confession.”

This presents the fraudster with a real problem. When the world knows you’re a rodent, is jaundiced by the very thought of you, where do you go? To whom do you turn? If you want, under the guise of “confessing,” one last crack at gulling the public, one last circus in which to splutter a final volley of mendacity and conceit, who’s gonna have you?

Why, of course you go to the scented-candle ghost of cable TV, the once puissant main channel empress of body fat and mind shrinkage, Oprah Winfrey. In her grim prime she was the great merchantess of tosh therapies, host variously to the jackrabbit Tom Cruise and every other hollow A-lister.

Where is she now? Off in the wild bleak unwatched barrens of the back channels. She who once summoned presidents to her couch is now in the grey twilight of empire, vying with tire commercials and one-tooth hillbillies chasing alligators all day for a living. She who once fanned the incense sticks for warblers Beyonce and Barbara Streisand, who first-named America’s celebrity artistocrats, now strikes a deal with the most despised “athlete” in a generation.

She was also — and this stands separate, her one truly unforgivable trespass — the midwife of Dr. Phil; it was she who gave this hairless blustering bully “therapist” his perch on the airwaves.

As long ago as 1961, the great prophet Newton Minnow proclaimed television a “vast wasteland.” (Ah Newton, thou should’st be watching at this hour.) He was right, even though he was speaking in TV’s novitiate days of innocence and virtue. What he didn’t know and could not have predicted was the rise, decades and decadence later, of the afternoon talk shows, from the hyper-vulgarian Jerry Springer to the various exhibitionists and ignoramuses that have owned it since. It is a vast tedious wasteland. And then came Oprah who sowed it with salt and ashes.

Fame, celebrity, harbours two compulsions. The first is to get it, the second to hang on to it regardless of what happens. These compulsions brought Lance and Oprah together. Both thought they had a use for each other, but overlooked the key consideration, that so few have any use for them.

Fitting, somehow, that two comets, both in sharp and fatal decline, on the point of full dispersion, should intersect at this moment. When you need Lance Armstrong as a guest, or you need Oprah as a confessor, well, for both of you, the (other) wide lady has stopped singing, the orchestra has packed up, the curtain is down, the audience has gone home.

fullcomment.nationalpost.com

[orthorodentialistica] Who said human folly can't be fun? Subject 58689

orthorodentialistica — 4/26/2012 12:26:43 AM

[TimF] I'm not.

TimF — 4/20/2012 6:08:12 PM

[one_less] Aren't we getting bogged down here in the Pile of Sand Paradox dilemma?

one_less — 4/20/2012 5:56:49 PM

[TimF] "Person" is not as useful of term because of its vagueness. My opinion is tha...

TimF — 4/14/2012 12:49:00 PM

"Person" is not as useful of term because of its vagueness.

My opinion is that the embryo is a human, and thus has human rights. I'm not making any claims or requests about "personhood", except perhaps in the sense of legal personhood, as one possible method to legally recognize the human rights in question.

[Solon] "Personhood is vaguely defined and can apply to such things as corporations." ...

Solon — 4/6/2012 8:13:19 PM

"Personhood is vaguely defined and can apply to such things as corporations."

Yes it can apply in other legal ways but it is NEVER defined as an embryo! And it IS VERY PRECISELY defined--as it must be in order for the law to operate! Defining the embryo as a human person is simply inventing your own personal definition. Good luck with that!

There are very valid reasons why embryos are not considered as human persons nor defined as such.

If you only want to state your opinion that the embryo is a person and has rights to the womb, then you have done so and thank you for your time. I was hoping you had some arguments as to why society should change the definition of personhood and grant Rights to embryos--but no matter.

[TimF] The discussion of abortion is about the personhood of various forms of human li...

TimF — 4/6/2012 7:52:31 PM

The discussion of abortion is about the personhood of various forms of human life.

Sorry, you don't get to set the terms of the discussion, you only get to set your own opinion. Personhood is vaguely defined and can apply to such things as corporations.

The fetus is a human being, just at a very early stage of development. For a broad definition of child (and human not yet mature, or under 18 or whatever) it is a human child. For a broad definition of baby (up to some particular age when the human is no longer considered a baby) it is a human baby. For narrow definitions of each, considering each just to be a well defined point of development with beginning points and and end point, it isn't either, its an earlier stage, just as infancy is an earlier stage than adolescence.

Human life but without Rights.

Without generally legally recognized rights, but with rights.

[Solon] That is not an argument. The discussion of abortion is about the personhood of v...

Solon — 4/6/2012 7:38:17 PM

That is not an argument. The discussion of abortion is about the personhood of various forms of human life. We could stumble about discussing an embryo as a human being but because that has connotations which confuse it with human person, I will not indulge that. Because what is 100% sure is that the embryo is human life. But it is not a human citizen, it is not a human deep sea diver, it is not a human pilot, it is not a human senior, it is not a human child, it is not a human baby, and it is NOT a human person.

It is a human embryo. In the same fashion an acorn is NOT an oak tree even though it has oak tree DNA. I won't indulge you calling an acorn an oak tree because it sounds stupid and it is stupid.

There are valid and I would say insurmountable reasons why the moral, legal, and philosophical status of embryos remains as human life--but human life without personhood: Human life but without Rights.

You can tell us we need to obey your opinion and call it a different name (would Zog do) and you can tell us we need to grant it the status of personhood. But I can assure you, the laws will not change to reflect any temper tantrums you choose to throw. If you want to change the well-considered opinion of law makers you need to provide an argument. So far you have provided NOTHING. You have merely agreed with me that the embryo is human life. You have not explained to me why all human life should have equal rights such as citizenship, personhood, etc.

The embryo is not a human person. If it were, abortion doctors would be tried for murder instead of being supported in clinics. So don't waste my time telling me they are human persons because they are not. If you have any arguments as to why we should grant them rights of personhood or citizenship or anything at all I would be more than pleased to hear them.

The embryo is in the womb by permission--not by RIGHT.

[TimF] Yes it is.

TimF — 4/6/2012 7:02:38 PM

[Solon] "A human embryo is a human being" No, it isn't.

Solon — 4/6/2012 7:02:11 PM

[TimF] A human embryo is human. A human arm is human. A human embryo is a human bei...

TimF — 4/6/2012 6:59:30 PM

A human embryo is human.

A human arm is human. A human embryo is a human being. An arm isn't.

[Solon] "Which doesn't make it non-existent or even irrelevant." Never said it did. "A...

Solon — 4/6/2012 5:50:37 PM

"Which doesn't make it non-existent or even irrelevant."

Never said it did.

"And that post replied to another post."

and ad infinitum and the dinosaurs died. Irrelevant to my point

"I would even guess that you agree with the point in this case"

I won't know that till I understand your point. A human embryo is not a coyote embryo. It is not a monkey embryo. It is not a dinosaur embryo. You must know what human means? A human embryo is human. I have said that for years and years so I don't know what your point is. Please tell me. Liking nouns more than adjectives is not an answer for me.

[TimF] That conversation was a long time ago. Which doesn't make it non-existent o...

TimF — 4/6/2012 4:08:27 PM

That conversation was a long time ago.

Which doesn't make it non-existent or even irrelevant.

You responded to ONE post.

And that post replied to another post.

So your point is you would like me to say "a human" embryo rather than "human" embryo? Fine. Done.

That's using human as an adjective again. Ny point applies to human as a noun. "A" shows its a noun, but other contexts could do the same thing without "a". Also my point isn't about what you say. I wouldn't expect you to change your terminology to reflect my viewpoint, just as I would be unlikely to change my terminology to reflect your viewpoint. If a word or term was problematic for you, I might use another one, but it would be another one that made the same point. I care about the point more than the specific words used.

I would even guess that you agree with the point in this case (but I'm not sure), its just that you don't consider it fairly insignificant, perhaps even give it no weight or concern at all.

[Solon] "The reply is in the context of the whole conversation" The reply was a non se...

Solon — 4/6/2012 4:02:22 PM

"The reply is in the context of the whole conversation"

The reply was a non sequitur. There was no "whole conversation". That conversation was a long time ago. You responded to ONE post. You picked it. I assumed your response would address the content of THAT post. It did not. I expressed that point to you. You really think I am going to remember a whole conversation of probably hundreds of posts from another year? Get real!

"The former can be an adjective. The later is a noun."

So is supper.

So your point is you would like me to say "a human" embryo rather than "human" embryo? Fine. Done.

Any other points to make?

[TimF] I picked up a conversation that we had been having years ago (I held off on it w...

TimF — 4/6/2012 3:47:24 PM

I picked up a conversation that we had been having years ago (I held off on it while trying to catch up in other message areas on SI, but then I realized I'd never catch up). The reply is in the context of the whole conversation. The essential point doesn't automatically become what you consider the essential point.

Define what you mean by "human".

Human, or a human. I was talking about the later.

The former can be an adjective. The later is a noun. A human being. A member of the species homo-sapiens (and possibly other species of homo that are sufficiently close to homo-sapiens, but they don't exist anymore so the point is moot for them)

[Solon] "It followed the same point I've been making all along. That's no veering off." ...

Solon — 4/6/2012 3:38:41 PM

"It followed the same point I've been making all along. That's no veering off."

Yes it was. It was not any part of your "all along" that happened years ago for several months. YOU picked a post I made years ago and you did not respond to the content of that post but you simply used it to talk about DNA. My post was about what it is to be a person as I explained after you veered off:

My post was about being a "person". That is a legal and philosophical question. Your response is irrelevant to that. Notice again that I have put it in quotes as I did in the post you responded to. Being a person is a complex issue in law and philosophy.

"Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law, and is closely tied to legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. Personhood continues to be a topic of international debate. Historically, personhood was questioned during the abolition of slavery, the fight for women's rights and animal rights, debates about abortion, fetal rights and reproductive rights as well as debates about corporate personhood.

Various specific debates have focused and continue to focus on questions about the personhood of different classes of entities. Historically, the personhood of animals, women, and slaves has been a catalyst of social upheaval. Today, most living adult humans are usually considered persons, but depending on the context, theory or definition, the category of "person" may be taken to include such non-human entities as animals, corporations, sovereign states, estates in probate, artificial intelligences, or extraterrestrial life; and may exclude some human entities in prenatal development or those with extreme mental impairments or injuries. A deceased person may be considered a person or property, depending on jurisdiction."

en.wikipedia.org

"The fetus is not only human, its a human"

Define what you mean by "human".

[TimF] ANyone can see I post generally accepted definitions No you post inaccurate...

TimF — 4/6/2012 3:19:51 PM

ANyone can see I post generally accepted definitions

No you post inaccurate definitions, I clearly and simply but definitively show why they are inaccurate, and you ignore that fact and instead rant about proclamations. The definition you provided simply doesn't cover all life forms. In fact it doesn't cover a significant minority of humans. It doesn't cover prepubescent children, it doesn't cover anyone who is sterile and unable to reproduce. No generally accepted definition would consider a five year old kid, or an infertile adult to part of their parents rather than being a separate life form.

[TimF] It followed the same point I've been making all along. That's no veering off. ...

TimF — 4/6/2012 3:13:02 PM

It followed the same point I've been making all along. That's no veering off.

"The overall point is that the fetus is a human."

Good, you've made a point that I have never seen disputed. The fertilized egg (zygote) before twinning is also human life. So do you have a point other than stating the obvious that the zygote and the fetus have human DNA?

The fetus is not only human, its a human. It doesn't just "have human DNA", its a human being.

[Solon] "That isn't a non-seqitur, even in the way your misinterpreting it it would be a...

Solon — 4/6/2012 3:07:13 PM

"That isn't a non-seqitur, even in the way your misinterpreting it it would be a tautology not a non-sequitur"

I did not misinterpret anything. Your post did not follow. It veered off. Hence the designation of being a non sequitur. It may not have been a non sequitur to the entire conversation that occurred years ago for several months if memory serves. But it was to the ONE post you responded to which was (obviously and naturally)the only one I was considering.

"The overall point is that the fetus is a human."

Good, you've made a point that I have never seen disputed. The fertilized egg (zygote) before twinning is also human life. So do you have a point other than stating the obvious that the zygote and the fetus have human DNA?

[TimF] That isn't a non-seqitur, even in the way your misinterpreting it it would be a ...

TimF — 4/6/2012 2:05:02 PM

That isn't a non-seqitur, even in the way your misinterpreting it it would be a tautology not a non-sequitur. But its not a tautology either. The "it" is the fetus. Having human DNA is evidence that the fetus is a human (rather than a dog, a horse, etc.). If the "it" was the DNA, then it would be a tautology. I could have made that clearer but it still should be obvious in context.

The overall point is that the fetus is a human.

[Solon] Your non sequitor said: "Having human DNA is evidence that its a human" My res...

Solon — 4/6/2012 2:00:11 PM

Your non sequitor said: "Having human DNA is evidence that its a human"

My response agreed:

Nobody objects to the idea that human DNA is human DNA.

If you have a point, please make it. I am busy.

[TimF] Your post was a non sequitor. Nonsense Nobody objects to the idea that hu...

TimF — 4/6/2012 1:31:44 PM

Your post was a non sequitor.

Nonsense

Nobody objects to the idea that human DNA is human DNA.

My point is not having human DNA but rather being a human, a member of the species home sapiens.

[Solon] My post was about being a "person". <
Solon — 4/6/2012 1:17:32 PM
My post was about being a "person".

<<And my post, which you replied to, was about being a human>>

My response was relevant to your post. Your post was a non sequitor. Mine was not. My post addressed the irrelevancy of your post. I did so as a courtesy. Nor was there anything in your non sequitor that I found relevant to the abortion discussion in general. Nobody objects to the idea that human DNA is human DNA.

I had the choice of not responding to your post, OR of addressing the fact that you had responded with a non sequitor. I did the latter. I did not (and do not) think my courtesy response was "irrelevant"-- but you can think and feel how you like. I could care less if you are not listening or not posting in good faith...

[TimF] My post was about being a "person". And my post, which you replied to, was a...

TimF — 4/6/2012 1:03:52 PM

My post was about being a "person".

And my post, which you replied to, was about being a human. Your response was irrelevant to that.

[Solon] My post was about being a "person". That is a legal and philosophical question. ...

Solon — 4/6/2012 12:54:41 PM

My post was about being a "person". That is a legal and philosophical question. Your response is irrelevant to that. Notice again that I have put it in quotes as I did in the post you responded to. Being a person is a complex issue in law and philosophy.

"Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law, and is closely tied to legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. Personhood continues to be a topic of international debate. Historically, personhood was questioned during the abolition of slavery, the fight for women's rights and animal rights, debates about abortion, fetal rights and reproductive rights as well as debates about corporate personhood.

Various specific debates have focused and continue to focus on questions about the personhood of different classes of entities. Historically, the personhood of animals, women, and slaves has been a catalyst of social upheaval. Today, most living adult humans are usually considered persons, but depending on the context, theory or definition, the category of "person" may be taken to include such non-human entities as animals, corporations, sovereign states, estates in probate, artificial intelligences, or extraterrestrial life; and may exclude some human entities in prenatal development or those with extreme mental impairments or injuries. A deceased person may be considered a person or property, depending on jurisdiction."

en.wikipedia.org

[Solon] So?

Solon — 4/6/2012 12:45:41 PM

[Solon] "Not part of her body." The Supreme Court ruled that it WAS a body part. But ...

Solon — 4/6/2012 12:45:00 PM

"Not part of her body."

The Supreme Court ruled that it WAS a body part.

But even if it was not it has no rights in her body. It derives all nourishment and all privileges and rights from her body and her will. It is not your body part and it is not in your body and you are not allowed in her body so what are you even talking about!! None of your business!

[TimF] Having DNA isn't sufficient to be human. Having separate DNA is evidence that i...

TimF — 4/6/2012 10:57:14 AM

Having DNA isn't sufficient to be human. Having separate DNA is evidence that its a separate human. Having human DNA is evidence that its a human, not a monkey or a dog.