Quote :

"Not taking your child dying of operable cancer to the hospital is definitively the physical mistreatment of them. "

sorry, you would be wrong. physical mistreatment would be you actively harming them.

Quote :

"I call it neglect because it is neglect."

and you would be wrong. Neglect requires them to do nothing. They didn't do nothing. They did something, and that something was intended to help, and what they did was prescribed by their religion, and it's not a crazy thing. Prayer is intrinsic to damned near every religion.

Quote :

"Absent religion we wouldn't even be having this conversation."

No, absent a protected right that was involved, we wouldn't be having this discussion

3/1/2012 5:36:58 PM

Quote :

"welp, you've devolved into absurdity."

I'm offended that you--a defender of first amendment religious freedoms--would call my earnestly held religious beliefs absurd.

3/1/2012 5:37:41 PM

I also have the 1st Amendment protected right of free speech.

3/1/2012 5:39:53 PM

How do you feel about honor killings?

3/1/2012 5:42:13 PM

not a huge fan of them. they seem to go quite a bit beyond "praying", specifically into the "actively causing others harm" realm.

3/1/2012 5:45:59 PM

Is honor killing protected speech?

(assuming all involved have reached the age of majority and are earnest followers of whatever religion)

3/1/2012 5:52:35 PM

if the person being killed consents to an honor killing, then sure. I aint got no beef with consenting adults fucking each other up. Just clean up after yourself and limit the blood spatter as best you can

3/1/2012 5:58:27 PM

Quote :

"and you would be wrong. Neglect requires them to do nothing. They didn't do nothing. They did something, and that something was intended to help, and what they did was prescribed by their religion, and it's not a crazy thing. Prayer is intrinsic to damned near every religion."

You still understand what negligence is from a legal standpoint. Try to wrap your head around it and then come back to this thread and try again. Here's a basic definition.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Negligence

3/1/2012 6:00:42 PM

first sentence:
behaviour established by law.

1st Amendment: Congress [and, by the 14 Amendment, the States] shall make no LAW

bam. thank you

3/1/2012 6:05:09 PM

Quote :

"if the person being killed consents to an honor killing, then sure. I aint got no beef with consenting adults fucking each other up. Just clean up after yourself and limit the blood spatter as best you can"

Same question, but this time involving a parent and child from a family of earnest followers of whatever religion.

Is honor killing protected speech?

3/1/2012 6:07:36 PM

Quote :

"Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances."

Yup, intentionally obtuse.

The first amendment does not supercede the right of others to be protected from unreasonable risk of harm. Just as you do not have 100% freedom of speech, you do not have the right to practice your religion if it puts another at an "unreasonable risk of harm." To bring back up the snake handling analogy, laws making it illegal to handle poisonous reptiles without a license or for uses outside of a certain spectrum have been repeatedly upheld as constitutional for this very reason.

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 6:13 PM. Reason : I'm going to try to reason with this brick wall again...]

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 6:16 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/1/2012 6:07:58 PM

^ nothing obtuse about it. Parent, making medical decisions for his child, chooses "treatment" A, and it happens that "treatment" A is a religious-based one, namely prayer. in this case, the parent is exercising their right to freedom of religion and prayer, and the state would be trampling on their religious beliefs by forcing the child to be treated by a doctor, not to mention trampling on the parent's rights to make medical decisions for their children. It's funny that the state prevent the slaughter of the unborn because the woman has a "right to make her own medical decisions," yet a parent can't make medical decisions for their child. To say that a parent making a medical decision for their child is an "unreasonable risk of harm" means that parents have zero rights to make those decisions unless the state agrees with the decision, which is to say that said right does not exist at all and is one hell of a road I don't want to go down. It's nanny-state at its best. What you are saying is that the decision to exercise your right is unreasonable today because of the technology available. I don't think our rights are existent based on the technology of the time. If said fucktards had the right 100-150 years ago to practice their religion and its core tenets, then they have the same right today.

^^ does the child want to be honor killed? You'll have to note that hurling a stone at someone is massively different than praying for them. Abuse is not prayer, and prayer is not abuse

3/1/2012 6:36:16 PM

The child says yes.

3/1/2012 6:46:14 PM

Quote :

"aws making it illegal to handle poisonous reptiles without a license or for uses outside of a certain spectrum have been repeatedly upheld as constitutional for this very reason."

the term is venomous.

3/1/2012 9:37:08 PM

3/2/2012 12:17:58 AM

Religion: the only thing that would drive a person to obstinately defend subjecting an innocent child to a slow and tortuous death.

Quit invoking the 1st Amendment, btw, until you can find a successful defense of a faith-healing death case based on it. It hasn't happened. If putting up a burning cross in your own yard isn't protected by the 1st Amendment why in the hell do you think letting a child die would be? Is religion better protected than expression by the 1st Amendment? The only protection 'spiritual healing' actually has is at the state level, and not every state. Stamp your feet and yell Constitution all you want (while simultaneously crying about income tax in another thread, *cough 16th Amendment*, but I digress); it's not backing you up here.

3/2/2012 12:39:16 AM

You can't find that decision because it doesn't exist. Time and time again courts have found that parental right to free exercise of their religion does not outweigh parental responsibility to provide reasonable care to their children. Here is a more recent case for you to chew on.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/index.ssf/2011/09/another_faith-healing_case_puts_oregon_city_parents_on_trial.html

Again, religion is not a shield to protect you from being a responsible parent. The law has a responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves, even and maybe even especially, from those who have the most power over them.

Here, from 2 weeks ago:

http://www.factnet.org/couple-charged-son-s-faith-healing-death

I'm sure there have been times that prosecutors have chosen not to charge based on existing law, but to my knowledge no one has yet successfully appealed a guilty verdict in a faith healing death case.

[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 8:54 AM. Reason : sfad]

[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 8:56 AM. Reason : added yet another, even more recent case]

[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 9:04 AM. Reason : dfafd]

3/2/2012 8:51:20 AM

LOL aaronburro. On page 3 he did the classic CONTEXT, BUT WHAT IS THE CONTEXT bullshit.

Then, he said, I'm talking about a real religion, not spaghetti monster. What a fucking hypocrite. Why can't FSM be covered under the first amendment? It's no more made up than any of the other religions? It has just as much proof. Why can't the church of FSM deem rubbing dirt in the wound be enough, making a salve from dirt and spittle thence your wounds shall heal, thus sayeth the lord.

3/2/2012 9:53:56 AM

Quote :

"Religion: the only thing that would drive a person to obstinately defend subjecting an innocent child to a slow and tortuous death."

Parental rights plays a significant part too. Wasn't there some case about 3 years ago where the state of Virginia took some parents to court because they (per the claimed decision of their child) were refusing to subject the kid to another round of chemo because it wasn't working and chemo made the kid feel worse than when he wasn't undergoing treatment?

Found this one, but I seem to remember a different one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Cherrix

Obviously there has to be some degree of latitude, or as has been pointed out, if your only choice is to do what the state wants you to do, that's no choice at all. And there's certainly a good argument to be made that people should be allowed to make their own medical decisions, especially given the number of "safe" drugs and treatments which over time have been shown to be dangerous.

That said, I've never understood the religious objection to modern medical treatments. On the assumption that you believe that god has a plan for everything, then certainly the fact that he gifted people of this world with medical aptitude is part of that plan, and you should avail yourself of those resources.

3/2/2012 1:24:55 PM

LOL Rush Limbaugh.

Apparently the more sex you have, the more birth control you need. We'll disregard the baseless attacks towards women and focus on his mastery of logic.

http://youtu.be/_BW31FG4tUI

[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 1:35 PM. Reason : well there's condoms, but you can get those for free.]

3/2/2012 1:34:32 PM

do you guys discriminate gays by forcing them to pay into the birth controls for straight ppl?

3/2/2012 1:35:56 PM

You don't understand what "discrimination" means

3/2/2012 1:48:25 PM

why should a black guy have to pay for a white mans problems?

why should a gay person pay for the problems of a straight person?


it's pretty obvious you are the woefully ignorant one here.

3/2/2012 1:49:37 PM

lol make sure you don't directly answer the questions. it's your only way to save face at this point



lol pwnt

3/2/2012 1:50:18 PM

Quote :

"why should a black guy have to pay for a white mans problems? why should a gay person pay for the problems of a straight person?"

Neither of those are discrimination. You need to learn the definitions of words before you use them.

3/2/2012 2:03:37 PM

Quote :

"why should a black guy have to pay for a white mans problems? why should a gay person pay for the problems of a straight person?"

Because effective family planning and reproductive medicine at the time the gay person's parents had children mattered for the quality of his/her life.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the discussion will be validly complicated once the gays and robots start producing their own test-tube babies. And we're going to have to argue about regulations on giant tentacle-rape plants too. Oh fuss and bother. If only we lived in a time when humans still reproduced with normal uteruses this political discussion would be so much easier.

3/2/2012 2:04:24 PM

^^be sure to make this a topic about lexicon instead of answering the heart of the matter of whether you think gays should be forced to pay for straight peoples problems

lol

[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM. Reason : x]

3/2/2012 2:07:08 PM

let's keep pretending this is an issue at all.


OMG IF WE JUST HAD CONDOMS OUR GDP COLLAPSING RATE WILL GO AWAY AND SO WILL THE 16 TRILLION DEBT


lol topic pwnt

3/2/2012 2:12:27 PM

Sorry if I'm not taking the sentences you cobble together from your mangled vocabulary seriously.

Discrimination is when a group is treated differently because of race, religion, sex, etc. A measure that imposes something on everyone, regardless of those things, is by definition not discriminatory. Discrimination does not mean "Something that might upset a group in any way." as you seem to think it does.

Quote :

"why should a gay person pay for the problems of a straight person?"

We make single people and childless couples pay property taxes even though they don't use the school system directly. Why? Because it benefits the entire society to educate each generation. High unintended pregnancy rates are everybody's problem, straight or gay. They place strain on all other social programs, the education system, and the society as a whole. Gays pay for the problem because they, like the rest of us, benefit from the solution. In other words, you phrased the question wrong by assuming unwanted children are strictly the problem of the people having them.

[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 2:14 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2012 2:13:13 PM

you know. they could probably afford some condoms if you set up some industry tax rates that allowed businesses to open their doors instead of closing shop.

oh maybe you should ban catholicism in the united states too. since that discourages your agenda as well.

pwnt.

3/2/2012 2:15:16 PM

pack_bryan, is everything you say non sequitur?

3/2/2012 2:18:40 PM

greatest problem facing us at the moment: not 1 single person on capital hill has shit for brains financially


all that the media is talking about: evil anti birth control zionists

3/2/2012 2:22:08 PM

Not a single person in this thread claimed it was the single greatest problem facing us. We just happen to be in a thread where this is on-topic discussion.

3/2/2012 2:23:19 PM

Businesses already pay the lowest effective tax rates since before WWII. Giving them more isn't going to suddenly change the cost-minimization strategies that moved production over to China.

3/2/2012 2:26:08 PM

yeh i mean our post ww2 'businesses' haven't really achieved much anyways. why try to copy that or improve it.

great point.

3/2/2012 2:30:59 PM

I, for one, find the idea of gays paying for birth control with their health insurance premiums akin to slavery.

3/2/2012 2:32:33 PM

"Copying" the model under which post WWII businesses flourished would mean significantly raising the top marginal tax rates.

3/2/2012 2:34:36 PM

^u live in a cool bubble bro. you make obama look righter than rush limbaugh


the only form of discrimination that has ever existed in the history of the earth is whites dominating blacks during slavery

lol

[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM. Reason : v]

3/2/2012 2:39:55 PM

Quote :

"the only form of discrimination that has ever existed in the history of the earth is whites dominating blacks during slavery"

That was one group (blacks) being treated differently because of their race, which fits the definition of discrimination. You still don't understand that "discrimination" actually means something specific and isn't just "source of subgroup grievance"

3/2/2012 2:43:52 PM

wow. so you just proved why OWS should shut the fuck up and get a god damned. job

nice!!! making progress here!

3/2/2012 2:47:34 PM

I thought there was a national shortage of jobs because of Obama's terrible economy

3/2/2012 2:50:46 PM

keep going......

3/2/2012 2:51:55 PM

So how are they supposed to get jobs?

3/2/2012 2:54:01 PM

you're getting extremely warm... i'm gonna let you complete this thought logically....


you'll wake up being a swing vote in about 2 minutes. you can't force the transition. it has to be natural. so i'll let you stew on it.

3/2/2012 2:57:03 PM

^Poe's Law ladies and gentlemen

3/2/2012 3:10:02 PM

So by "get a job" you meant "protest the lack of jobs" ?

3/2/2012 3:17:42 PM

Quote :

"Quit invoking the 1st Amendment"

then you never invoke the Constitution again. fuck that damned thing when it's inconvenient. fuck it all to hell!

Quote :

"Time and time again courts have found that parental right to free exercise of their religion does not outweigh parental responsibility to provide reasonable care to their children."

So, I guess separate but equal was right. I guess blacks not being able to be citizens was right. i guess Walmart taking your property because they will pay more taxes is right. Courts can NEVER make the wrong decision.

Quote :

"LOL aaronburro. On page 3 he did the classic CONTEXT, BUT WHAT IS THE CONTEXT bullshit."

It's not bullshit. It's meant to talk about stuff that is actually happening and not devolve into the rabbit hole of making shit up. I wouldn't expect someone who drinks pee to understand that, though



so, let's get this straight. Parents can't make a medical decision for their child, unless you agree with it. They certainly can't choose to follow their religious beliefs, because, well, fuck religion. They have to choose the method that you say is the best, they have no decision over it. But a woman CAN make a decision to slaughter an unborn child, because it's a medical decision and fuck anyone telling her what to do with her medical decisions.

Or, if they don't have to choose the method you think is best, then what is the threshold for that decision? Are parents not allowed to choose experimental procedures? or are they just not allowed to choose religious-based ones? Or is it just a matter of "fuck their religious beliefs, because I KNOW BETTER and my beliefs are better"? it's OK to say that you are bigoted.

And, allow me to ask, AGAIN, if 100 years ago it would have been OK for CS people to choose to pray instead of seeking medical treatment. Why does the passage of time change the right of someone to practice their religious beliefs? NO ONE has answered this simple question.

3/3/2012 2:15:45 PM

so burro would an abortion be ok if it was done for religious reasons?

3/3/2012 2:44:03 PM

It's such a stupid question I didn't think it was real. No, 100 years ago it wouldn't have been an acceptable course of action either.

Face it, you're incorrect from both a legal standpoint (your assertion is not supported by legal precedent or The Constitution) and a moral stanpoint (you cannot justify it as moral behavior even by waving around The Bible). I'm sorry you can't reason through things and understand concepts like the limitations of 1st amendment protection.

3/3/2012 3:06:30 PM

I know that aaronburro has a hard on for "context" (as if any context would make it okay for Abraham to sacrifice Isacc)

but this question was asked

Quote :

"so burro would an abortion be ok if it was done for religious reasons?"

Numbers 5:11-31 (gives you lots of context) basically if you cheat on your husband, priest gives you a liquid and if you're pregnant, fetus is aborted. God sanctioned abortion.

Also, before he says "Old Testament; Doesn't Count" Jesus says it 100% counts Matthew 5:18-19

[Edited on March 3, 2012 at 3:31 PM. Reason : ...]

[Edited on March 3, 2012 at 3:33 PM. Reason : ;]

3/3/2012 3:30:46 PM