Continued Conservative SCJ Assault on WomenFollow

ITT: gbaji fights desperately to resist the realization that he's done.

If the rules of title IX were applied universally, this would be the case. Um... But they aren't. Which is the whole point. Our government discriminates all the time. It's just amusing that the bulk of social spending which liberals support uses discriminatory methodologies to distribute the funds, yet it's the same liberals who insist that government must not discriminate!

The irony is astounding! I suppose it requires a large population who just never actually stop and realize that the words they're using to justify their actions aren't used even close to consistently. The surprising thing is how angrily those people will react to anyone who points this out to them. No matter how many times I see it, it still shocks me a bit. I suppose for me, it's become a bit like poking an anthill. I know that the liberals will swarm out all pissed off that I've challenged them to actually think about their positions, and they will strap the blinders on that much harder to avoid having to do it, but I just can't help myself! ;)

The idea of universal healthcare in Mexico scares me.

On the off chance that you're not tolling and are really just this confused:



That's a picture, not a point, much less an answer to any kind of question. And it's no more those things now that you've linked to it 6 times.



And? I don't think anyone was arguing that the US did have universal health care, so what's the point. We get it. The US doesn't have universal health care. How does that in any way support your claim that I don't know what universal health care is?




Not knowing what? You keep insisting that I don't know what universal health care is, and as some kind of support for your argument, link to a.... map. And in the midst of this, you've failed to grasp that my reason for even mentioning universal health care had nothing at all to do with who had it, why they had it, whether it was "good" or "bad", or anything of that nature. My *only* point was that within a universal health care system, the government chooses how to allocate health care to the people. That is correct, right?


Now. Go look up the definition of "discriminate", and maybe it'll dawn on you that it's impossible for the government to allocate health care funds without discriminating in some way. I'll give you a hint: To discriminate is to tell the difference between things (and/or to act upon those differences). That's it. That's what the word means. So if the government has to provide health care to those who need it, it must be able to differentiate between different health needs. It must "discriminate" between people based on those needs and act differently towards those people based upon those needs.


Thus, if the 14th amendment really prohibited the government from discriminating, it would make universal health care unconstitutional. Of course, it would make thousands of other government programs unconstitutional as well, which is why it should be abundantly apparent that said amendment does *not* actually prohibit discrimination. Thus, stating that it doesn't prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex should not be shocking or even unusual. It doesn't do so for sex just as it doesn't do so for anything else. It never did.

Yes. You're just not grasping what I'm talking about.



Yes. So the government provides health care based on need. I said this earlier. Only the people who need bypass surgery are provided it. Only those who need chemo are provided it. Only those who need their arm set and put in a cast are provided it.

What you aren't getting is that this is still discrimination. I've told you repeatedly to look up the meaning of the word. What the government is doing is discriminating between people with different health needs. So if I have a broken leg, they provide the care for a broken leg. If you have a cut on your finger, they provide care for that. The point is that everyone gets different specific care based upon their specific health needs.

You're looking at "care" as some monolithic thing. I'm looking at specifics. What does each individual get? Is that the same in every case? Of course not. We're all going to get something different. And in order to provide that the government has to "discriminate" between us. Let me point out again that discrimination is not always a bad thing. I suspect you have a hangup about that too. It simply means to note the differences between things. That's it. Like noting that one person needs a cast on his leg, and another needs heart surgery. Those are differences between the people, and the government will provide different care based on those differences.


The rest of your post is irrelevant. I'm not debating about what universal health care does. My point is about what discrimination is, and whether the government discriminates when it provides social services to us. Obviously, it does. It must, otherwise we'd all get the exact same thing even if we didn't need it. Surely you can see that this would result in a ludicrous situation?

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 6:49pm by gbaji

I think that part of the problem here is that many of you have been taught to automatically associate the word "discriminate" with "bad". To discriminate is bad, so anything or anyone who discriminates is bad. Thus, when I say that universal health care (or any of a number of government programs) discriminate, you automatically get defensive and want to defend said program.

I do not mean the term in any sort of negative or positive connotation. I'm using it in the strict literal meaning (to tell the difference between things). That's it. By extension, I'm not making any sort of value judgment about universal health care here at all. So stop being defensive please!

Let me give you a very specific example:

Under universal health care system, we would provide men over a certain age (40 typically) with prostate examinations, right? Similarly, we would provide women with breast exams, right? Yet, we would not provide prostate exams to women, nor breast exams to men (Unless I suppose they had breasts, but let's ignore that possibility for the moment). This is "discrimination". Specifically, we are discriminating on the basis of sex. Women don't have prostates, and men don't have breasts (at least not normally). So we provide those things for those who need them, and not for those who don't.


That is discrimination though, right? We're providing one thing for men, and something different for women. Again, I'm making no value judgment about this at all, nor saying there's anything wrong with this (there isn't!). I'm simply pointing out that in order to provide health services in any sort of rational manner, those services must employ a discriminatory process to determine who should get what.


That's literally all I'm saying. I just think that so many people have been taught to automatically respond negatively to the word "discriminate", that it's hard to get past that and see what I'm talking about. This is why I repeatedly said earlier in this thread that you were interpreting discrimination to mean "discrimination in a way that I don't like". Because that's how the word is normally used (and condemned for it). But that's not what discrimination is. By itself there no inherent right or wrong to it, and we do it all the time. When you choose a flavor of ice cream, you are discriminating. When you decide what kind of car to buy, you are discriminating. Virtually every single choice or action you ever take in your life rests on some form of discrimination that had to occur prior to the choice. If it didn't, then your actions would just be random. Assuming that they aren't, then you discriminate all the time. You just don't think of it as "discrimination" in the political rhetoric sense.


But people like Scalia *do* think in those broader terms. They understand that discrimination is not inherently negative and is most often completely necessary. We don't allow women to fight in front line combat. That is discrimination. It's even sexual discrimination. Yet it's done for practical reasons, and not just for the sake of hurting one group over another. Thus, it passes the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (just to bring this back on topic). And since we can find clear examples of discrimination (on the basis of sex as well as many other things) that do not violate the 14th amendment, then we must conclude that the 14th amendment does *not* prohibit discrimination. Just as Scalia said.


You're reading too much into the statement because you react to the word differently than it was intended. I've been trying to explain this for 3 pages now. I'm hoping that it's starting to sink in for at least some of those reading this.

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 7:22pm by gbaji

Um men and women can get either of those things checked (men do have breasts they are just not developed into mammary glands and thus do not achieve the size of a woman's breast. Also in case you didn't know women have a prostate it used to be known as the Skene's Gland). There is no discrimination. Like I said you have no idea what you are talking about.


I reacted to your lack of knowledge on Universal Health Care. Not discrimination. I am entitled to receive the same care as every other Canadian, granted I would be laughed at and told to quit wasting time if I went to get a cast on my arm and it didn't need one, as I am sure any doctor in the US would do to you. Your example was stupid because you don't know what you are talking about. Stick to fappin to Rush on the radio.




You are joking right. Or are you actually this stupid. (i hope its the later because I don't have to be back to work till monday and this could make for a funny weekend.)

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 10:29pm by rdmcandie

So the examination would be identical for both men and women? Lol!



Great! Start your own thread. I'm talking about the meaning of discrimination as it applies to government. At the risk of dumbing this down even further, I need know nothing more about anything than whether or not actions are based on different conditions to be able to conclude that some form of discrimination must be involved.

You're still reacting emotionally to the word "discrimination". Stop doing that. All it means is to note the differences between things. Are you seriously trying to argue that you can receive health care without anyone looking at you and determining if your condition is different than anyone else's? You're taking a ludicrous position and it's getting more ludicrous the longer you argue it.



Great! I'm not arguing this. In fact, I'm a huge fan of universal health care. I think we should be incorporating it everywhere. The US is horrible for not having it yet! Bad Bush! Hisssssssss!


But no matter how much I love universal health care and all the wonders it would do for us, and no matter how strongly I desire to live in a cultured country which has provides such care instead of the backwater medical wasteland I live in, I'm intelligent enough to know that for it to work, the government must engage in and utilize discrimination. Furthermore, I understand that an interpretation of the 14th amendment which would prohibit discrimination of any form by the government would prevent my beloved country from obtaining the enlightened condition which universal health care would bring. And thus, I must argue strongly that the 14th amendment does *not* prohibit this. For to do otherwise would require me to abandon that which is necessary to bring our nation out of the dark ages and into the light!

Man, they nust have some high grade coke in California. You are frikken hilarious.

Actually no it would not be identical. Well other than a breast exam. It is much easier to reach the female prostate through the ******. It is easier to reach the male prostate through the **** (its the only real way in, or at least the only realistic way in). That isn't to say that a females prostate can't be examined anally but the location is right up against the Uterus and it is much easier to get to it.

That is not discrimination, it is just the wonders of medical practice.



Then you should have picked a government program that actually discriminates. Universal Health Care is non-discriminatory. Maybe you should have just stuck with arguing #14 (something I know little about because I am not american).



How can you love it when you don't know what it is?

Just so we're clear, you're going to use a standard dictionary to debate Constitutional law and refuse to use a legal dictionary or definition to debate Constitutional law because it's "too political"?

Ok, then. Have fun with that.

gbaji, since, I don't know, maybe you're not very educated?... let me help you out with a little lesson in diversity issues. Discrimination in the strict sense of identifying a difference between two things is rarely the definition that is used in any practical sense. The point you're making is one that has been made in virtually every entry-level diversity course. For example, when we give a drowning person CPR, we are discriminating them from non-drowning people. We are discriminating to accommodate, like we do when we have handicap accessible ramps and parking spaces, which the law requires due to the 14th amendment. We are not discriminating in a way which:



does any of that stuff.

Free lesson. Consider it a bon voyage gift.

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 11:57pm by Kachi