Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Continued Conservative SCJ Assault on WomenFollow

#77 Jan 05 2011 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,568 posts
Quote:
Lol. Because I used the word "discriminate" to mean something other than "discriminate in a way I don't like"?



No you are just an idiot. Do you know who Universal Health Care covers? Yep that is right everybody. If everybody is covered how can anyone be discriminated against under it.

I await the ensuing hilarity of your follow up response.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 9:19pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#78 Jan 05 2011 at 8:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If the argument that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment protected "all people" from laws which discriminated in any way

That's not the argument. At least that was never my argument.


And yet when Scalia said that it didn't prohibit discrimination against women, you called him a chucklehead. You clearly think that it does apply in that case, right? Why in that one and not any other?

You are either having a serious brain fart, or are deliberately pretending not to understand what I'm saying because you've realized that you're wrong but don't want to admit it.


Let me go in the other direction:

1. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment does not specifically mention women, or sex.

2. It does mention "all people".

3. In order to assume that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment must mean that the government is prohibited from discriminating based on sex, you must also interpret it to mean that discrimination is prohibited based on all other things which "all people" might be discriminated by.

4. Thus, it must be equally prohibited from discriminating based on any other characteristic we can think of.


It's just amazing to me that you can't see this logic. "All people" includes women and men. But it also includes the rich and the poor, the right and left handed, people of different hair color, blind, deaf, healthy and sick, etc. All people means "all people".


Since there are numerous examples of government allowing or imposing discrimination which applies to "all people", we have to conclude one of the following:

1. Massive parts of our government and laws are in violation of the constitution and we should fight to eliminate it immediately!

2. "equal protection of the law" is not as exactly equivalent to "government may not discriminate" as you think.


I have argued this entire thread that number 2 is correct. Equal protection does not guarantee no discrimination. And guess what? That's exactly what Scalia said. You just got so wrapped up in the specific context of the question he was asked that you didn't see that it's not about women at all. It's about the relationship between "discrimination" and "equal protection".


Please tell me that this is starting to sink in? I'm running out of incredibly obvious examples which should have caused a lightbulb to go off in your head dozens of posts ago.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 6:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Jan 05 2011 at 8:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
No you are just an idiot. Do you know who Universal Health Care covers? Yep that is right everybody. If everybody is covered how can anyone be discriminated against under it.


You honestly don't know the answer to that? I'm not sure I can help you, but since my point has nothing to do with health care, I'll leave it to another day.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Jan 05 2011 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And yet when Scalia said that it didn't prohibit discrimination against women, you called him a chucklehead.

Yeah, you still don't get it. I've run out of ways to explain it so have fun being ignorant.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 8:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Jan 05 2011 at 8:53 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
No you are just an idiot. Do you know who Universal Health Care covers? Yep that is right everybody. If everybody is covered how can anyone be discriminated against under it.


You honestly don't know the answer to that? I'm not sure I can help you, but since my point has nothing to do with health care, I'll leave it to another day.
The problem gbaji, is you said universal healthcare, and as stated earlier, you always use the words you meant to use and in their clearest definition. That being said, universal healthcare covers all equally as well.

We all know you meant that crap you guys passed, but that's not universal healthcare.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#82 Jan 05 2011 at 8:58 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,568 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
No you are just an idiot. Do you know who Universal Health Care covers? Yep that is right everybody. If everybody is covered how can anyone be discriminated against under it.


You honestly don't know the answer to that? I'm not sure I can help you, but since my point has nothing to do with health care, I'll leave it to another day.


Quote:

Because universal health care requires that the government take money from what it's currently doing and choose to put it somewhere else. That requires "discrimination" in that it's choosing where the money should best go. It further requires that the government categorize people based on need, health, ability to pay, etc and distribute the benefits of the care based on those things.


Id say your point is based on the premise of universal health care. Since universal health care covers everyone equally, then I would say your point is redundant.

Or did you mean something else when you said Universal Health Care.....Discrimination.....government categorizes people based on......and distribute the benefits of the care based on those things.

Please tell me you meant something else other than Universal Health Care. (which you obviously do not understand the workings of).
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#83 Jan 05 2011 at 9:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I hate deep dish pizza. Thin crust all the way.

While I'm tatting linen, of course.


Well, sure. All that grease would make the crochet needles slip right out of your hands, and then it's just all tangled string and confusion and heaving bosoms. And grease.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#84 Jan 05 2011 at 9:59 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
I hate deep dish pizza. Thin crust all the way.

While I'm tatting linen, of course.


Well, sure. All that grease would make the crochet needles slip right out of your hands, and then it's just all tangled string and confusion and heaving bosoms. And grease.



Delicious grease though.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#85 Jan 05 2011 at 10:16 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Samira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
I hate deep dish pizza. Thin crust all the way.

While I'm tatting linen, of course.


Well, sure. All that grease would make the crochet needles slip right out of your hands, and then it's just all tangled string and confusion and heaving bosoms. And grease.



You promised you would never speak of that.
#86 Jan 05 2011 at 10:31 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
You're an idiot, gbaji. Either because you're so massively ignorant and you don't know it, or you DO know it and think you're actually going to fool me.

Quote:
That is *not* the same as saying that the law cannot discriminate, and certainly not that the law must eliminate all private instances of discrimination.


Uh, it is saying that the law can't discriminate, not in its programs, services, and essentially, in its treatment. It does NOT refer solely to CRIMINAL law. But I'll give you that it does not say that the law has to prevent all discrimination.

Where is that thing, anyway?

Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So you want to talk about context? What about "shall not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens" and all that? The "equal protection clause" is only one such clause.

This is amendment has been used in many cases to prohibit discrimination under a number of instances. For example, it's the constitutional basis for Title IX, which requires schools to provide EQUAL services, such as athletic programs, to girls. It requires that disabled children are entitled to a free and appropriate education, which is EQUAL to other children.

Your little list of exceptions is cute. Surely you know the term compelling state interest? Strict scrutiny? Ring a bell? The test that measures whether or not a breach of the literal constitutional law is warranted? Yeah.

I think we're done here.
#87 Jan 05 2011 at 11:12 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
(If your argument involves some form of stating that it violates equality or whatever for the insurance corporations, um, corporations are not citizens and should not be treated as such. A lack of a clear distinction between "legal entities" and "people" is part of the current problem with the political and legal system today.)


Nope. Completely wrong.


Let me clarify something for you. From a conservative point of view, the problem with universal health care isn't that it's some kind of violation of the equal protection clause, but that it seizes property without sufficient due cause (which is a different issue touched on in several areas of the constitution). Specifically, the requirement that everyone must purchase health insurance or suffer a fine would seem to be onerous intrusion of the government into someone's private life. It has nothing to do with equality. It has everything to do with the default state of liberty being that the government doesn't get to tell us what to do with our own property.
Yeah, this could have been responded to with "But it doesn't, so this is irrelevant."

Since your response was to instead just state that I'm wrong, would you mind explaining why there shouldn't be a clear distinction between legal entities, such as corporations, and people, because that's the only thing that I could be wrong about in that section? (Irrelevant isn't the same as wrong.)
#88 Jan 06 2011 at 5:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
No you are just an idiot. Do you know who Universal Health Care covers? Yep that is right everybody. If everybody is covered how can anyone be discriminated against under it.


You honestly don't know the answer to that? I'm not sure I can help you, but since my point has nothing to do with health care, I'll leave it to another day.
The problem gbaji, is you said universal healthcare, and as stated earlier, you always use the words you meant to use and in their clearest definition. That being said, universal healthcare covers all equally as well.


Yes. I meant "universal health care". Didn't mean to confuse anyone by abridging it later. I included it in a list of things which represent government discrimination, so it's kinda amusing that several people got their hackles up over just this one. Why not talk about affirmative action, or income assistance, or any of the other things on the list?


But since you asked. The fact that universal health care "covers" everyone does not mean that everyone gets the same thing. In fact, let me take a moment to topically compare another issue which was raised to illustrate how inconsistently we apply this so called principle of non-discrimination:

Title IX requires that funds be allocated equally for sports programs between men and women. It does so regardless of actual demand, based on the assumption that if you fund womens rugby, women will sign up to play rugby. In theory, it's not a terrible idea. But in practice it has some problems. I'm not going to talk about those in detail though, since I don't want to distract from the point.

Examine a school which has a mens rugby team. In order for them to keep that team, the school must fund a womans rubgy team with the same amount of money. What this means is that if men get a rugby team, so do women. If men get a soccer team, so do women. If men get a fencing team, so do women. And so on. The principle at work is that in order to not discriminate against a group on the basis of sex, you *must* provide anything given to one to the other as well, even if it's not wanted. Doing otherwise is considered discriminatory since you are treating women and men differently.

With me so far?


Let's apply this to universal medical care. So if patient X needs a heart bypass, can we not provide it to him unless all other patients also receive a heart bypass? Clearly not. We only grant any specific procedure to those who need it. It would be silly to do otherwise, right? But wait! By the definition we're using under title IX, this is discrimination. Anything provided to one group must be provided to the other. No exceptions.


The point is that the principle of non-discrimination by government is best illustrated by something like title IX, and this is *not* how most government programs work. In fact, most of them are very very discriminatory. I suspect that the problem most of you have is that you equate discrimination with something being unfair to a minority group. But that's not what it means. It means any time you provide something different to two different people based on any difference between them. Period. So if I need a heart bypass, and you need a liver transplant, the government is discriminating with how it provides the service if it gives me the bypass and you the transplant.


It would be absurd for it *not* to discriminate, as I think we can all agree. That's what Scalia was talking about. Government must discriminate to function. The courts job is to ensure that it does not discriminate in ways that single out for harm one group or another. But as he said, it does not "prohibit discrimination". It can't.

I just think most of you are reading into his words based on a flawed assumption about what he meant when he spoke about discrimination. He's using the actual literal meaning (as am I). And when you apply that meaning into place, it makes perfect sense.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Jan 06 2011 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
MDenham wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
(If your argument involves some form of stating that it violates equality or whatever for the insurance corporations, um, corporations are not citizens and should not be treated as such. A lack of a clear distinction between "legal entities" and "people" is part of the current problem with the political and legal system today.)


Nope. Completely wrong.


Let me clarify something for you. From a conservative point of view, the problem with universal health care isn't that it's some kind of violation of the equal protection clause, but that it seizes property without sufficient due cause (which is a different issue touched on in several areas of the constitution). Specifically, the requirement that everyone must purchase health insurance or suffer a fine would seem to be onerous intrusion of the government into someone's private life. It has nothing to do with equality. It has everything to do with the default state of liberty being that the government doesn't get to tell us what to do with our own property.
Yeah, this could have been responded to with "But it doesn't, so this is irrelevant."

Since your response was to instead just state that I'm wrong, would you mind explaining why there shouldn't be a clear distinction between legal entities, such as corporations, and people, because that's the only thing that I could be wrong about in that section? (Irrelevant isn't the same as wrong.)


Huh? I meant "completely wrong" meaning that my argument *didn't* include some form of whatever the hell you were talking about. You did preface your statement with an "if", right? You were completely wrong in your interpretation of what I was talking about. Didn't mean to imply anything at all about the content of the paragraph itself. I fact, I don't think I even read it any farther than to go "Nope. Not what I was saying at all".

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 3:23pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#90 Jan 06 2011 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,568 posts
yep Gbaji doesn't know what universal health care is, but you can't blame him fully, the fact that the US is the only westernized country without universal health care is a big reason why.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2007/07/healthcareworldbig.jpg

(yet he seems cool with paying for iraq and afghanistan citizens to have it)

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 6:24pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#91 Jan 06 2011 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
That is *not* the same as saying that the law cannot discriminate, and certainly not that the law must eliminate all private instances of discrimination.


Uh, it is saying that the law can't discriminate, not in its programs, services, and essentially, in its treatment.


Really? Show me where it says that. It doesn't. Which is what Scalia is talking about.


Stop arguing this based on what you think it means. Look at what it actually says.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#92 Jan 06 2011 at 5:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
yep Gbaji doesn't know what universal health care is...


WTF? As long as government is paying for health benefits and it does not actually pay the exact same amount for every single person to receive the exact same thing, it's discriminatory.

Do you get this? I don't care how the exact mechanism works. As I said, my point isn't about health care. We can debate that elsewhere. My point is that if the government provides people with different services based on their needs, then the government is discriminating. Since I'm going to assume that only people who break their arms will get casts, and only people who get cancer will get chemo, and only people who need a transplant will get a transplant, that we can safely say that universal health care involves the government discriminating among the recipients of the care. It has to. If it doesn't, the result is ridiculous, much like the large space inside your head.

What do you think "discriminate" means? Seriously. You sound like you don't know what the word means, but have just heard it used in sentences having to do with "treating people bad" or something. Go look up the word then get back to me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Jan 06 2011 at 5:40 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,568 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
That is *not* the same as saying that the law cannot discriminate, and certainly not that the law must eliminate all private instances of discrimination.


Uh, it is saying that the law can't discriminate, not in its programs, services, and essentially, in its treatment.


Really? Show me where it says that. It doesn't. Which is what Scalia is talking about.


Stop arguing this based on what you think it means. Look at what it actually says.


I thought we already covered the fact that words are baseless and can be interpreted many different ways. Or do you actually believe word for word the wonderful historical stories written in the bible?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#94 Jan 06 2011 at 5:42 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why not talk about affirmative action, or income assistance, or any of the other things on the list?
Because I can see where you're coming from on those.

gbaji wrote:
So if patient X needs a heart bypass, can we not provide it to him unless all other patients also receive a heart bypass? Clearly not. We only grant any specific procedure to those who need it. It would be silly to do otherwise, right? But wait! By the definition we're using under title IX, this is discrimination. Anything provided to one group must be provided to the other. No exceptions.
Have you tried getting heart bypass surgery? It may be available to you, but you just don't use it, much like many women do not take advantage of the fact that all of that funding is there for sports.


Ok, I got nothing. You want to fall back on a technicality like that, go for it. It's a great place to put your back to a wall.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#95 Jan 06 2011 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So if patient X needs a heart bypass, can we not provide it to him unless all other patients also receive a heart bypass? Clearly not. We only grant any specific procedure to those who need it. It would be silly to do otherwise, right? But wait! By the definition we're using under title IX, this is discrimination. Anything provided to one group must be provided to the other. No exceptions.
Have you tried getting heart bypass surgery? It may be available to you, but you just don't use it, much like many women do not take advantage of the fact that all of that funding is there for sports.


But the funding has to be spent equally, or neither group gets any. That's the point I'm making here. If we applied the same methodology to medical care, it results in something completely ridiculous.

What I'm trying to do is get people to understand that the terms they are using are not as consistent or clear-cut as they seem to think. Saying something like "equal protection of the law means that the government can't discriminate" is a more or less meaningless statement unless you can some up with a meaning for "discriminate" which is 100% consistent across all uses within this context.

But I'm quite sure that no one can. So isn't it kinda silly to keep insisting that equal protection means the government can't discriminate as though there is some magical weight to it? And it's doubly silly to attack someone for pointing out that equal protection does not directly translate to non-discrimination. If you can't even come up with a consistent use for the word, why insist on its use and attack others for supposedly using it incorrectly?


Quote:
Ok, I got nothing. You want to fall back on a technicality like that, go for it. It's a great place to put your back to a wall.


If it's a technicality for me to point out that the word doesn't really mean what many people think it does, isn't it even more of a technicality to assume a single specific meaning when someone else uses it and then attack them for that assumed meaning? At the end of the day, we're all debating the meaning of "discrimination". It's a technicality either way, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 Jan 06 2011 at 6:02 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,568 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So if patient X needs a heart bypass, can we not provide it to him unless all other patients also receive a heart bypass? Clearly not. We only grant any specific procedure to those who need it. It would be silly to do otherwise, right? But wait! By the definition we're using under title IX, this is discrimination. Anything provided to one group must be provided to the other. No exceptions.
Have you tried getting heart bypass surgery? It may be available to you, but you just don't use it, much like many women do not take advantage of the fact that all of that funding is there for sports.


But the funding has to be spent equally, or neither group gets any. That's the point I'm making here. If we applied the same methodology to medical care, it results in something completely ridiculous.

What I'm trying to do is get people to understand that the terms they are using are not as consistent or clear-cut as they seem to think. Saying something like "equal protection of the law means that the government can't discriminate" is a more or less meaningless statement unless you can some up with a meaning for "discriminate" which is 100% consistent across all uses within this context.

But I'm quite sure that no one can. So isn't it kinda silly to keep insisting that equal protection means the government can't discriminate as though there is some magical weight to it? And it's doubly silly to attack someone for pointing out that equal protection does not directly translate to non-discrimination. If you can't even come up with a consistent use for the word, why insist on its use and attack others for supposedly using it incorrectly?


Quote:
Ok, I got nothing. You want to fall back on a technicality like that, go for it. It's a great place to put your back to a wall.


If it's a technicality for me to point out that the word doesn't really mean what many people think it does, isn't it even more of a technicality to assume a single specific meaning when someone else uses it and then attack them for that assumed meaning? At the end of the day, we're all debating the meaning of "discrimination". It's a technicality either way, right?


You obviously do not know how Universal Health Care works. keep trying though I am sure you find an argument sooner or later. I mean all these countries must be doing terribly with their universal health care programs.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2007/07/healthcareworldbig.jpg

oh wait...thats right the majority of them are currently better off than the USA economically my bad.

(also does it make you feel better knowing American funded universa health care is working in iraq and afghanistan go go Bush Govt!)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#97 Jan 06 2011 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
I thought we already covered the fact that words are baseless and can be interpreted many different ways.


And yet, the OPs entire position rests on the assumption that his interpretation of the use of the word "discrimination" spoken by Scalia is the only possible one.

Which has kinda been my point all along. Thanks for playing though!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Jan 06 2011 at 6:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
You obviously do not know how Universal Health Care works.


Is there something wrong with you? Dropped on your head as a child perhaps?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Jan 06 2011 at 6:06 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,568 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
You obviously do not know how Universal Health Care works.


Is there something wrong with you? Dropped on your head as a child perhaps?


yep when you don't know how something works usually the first resort to making yourself appear knowledgeable is to start with personal attacks. Keep trying though dude you will get it one day.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#100 Jan 06 2011 at 6:08 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,568 posts
Oh and in case you missed it.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2007/07/healthcareworldbig.jpg the blue ones must be wrong, and the orange ones were paid for by bush.

Anything else tonight Gbaji?

oh p.s. see that your country is on par with africa in the terms of its medical welfare as an entire nation. (btw africa is an entire continent.)

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 7:10pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#101 Jan 06 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
You obviously do not know how Universal Health Care works.


Is there something wrong with you? Dropped on your head as a child perhaps?


yep when you don't know how something works usually the first resort to making yourself appear knowledgeable is to start with personal attacks. Keep trying though dude you will get it one day.


No. I'm honestly curious as to when you're going to come close to making a point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 294 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (294)