On Monday on FOX News Dino Rossi was caught trying to trick Washington's voters. You may have heard that Rossi and 27 other Republican candidates in our state will not allow the word "Republican" to appear next to their name on the ballot.
Thanks to the new Top Two primary, candidates can choose what party label they want on the ballot in November. As we reported on June 11th, Dino Rossi will have "Prefers G.O.P. party" next to his name, which is clearly a scheme to avoid having the word "Republican" next to his name.
Or as one of their candidates admits in this newscast:
"There's 30 percent of the people in this state that would not vote for a Republican no matter what, and we want to get around that..."
Isn't that precious? The Republicon label's been dragged through so much sewage even life-long, die-hard Republicons are terrified of wearing it for fear the stench will give them away.
Rossi's hoping that saying "Prefers GOP Party" will save his sorry ass from outraged voters. That's great camoflage he's got there - nice shades of hot pink and electric blue. Washington State voters are likely smart enough to realize that GOP stands for "Grand Old Party," the Republicons' fond nickname for themselves. And they'll be getting a mighty good belly laugh over the "Prefers Grand Old Party Party" thing. This man is no more bright than the geniuses who named Table Mesa and Picacho Peak in Arizona.
What a raging dumbass. And what a delight, knowing that Republicons have allowed the neocons and theocons and downright cons contaminate them so badly they're terrified to admit they're Republicon at all.
Just remember, my darlings: a Republicon by any other name is a lying piece of shit.
96 comments:
This is especially interesting in view of one conservative blogger's repeated claims that the media always hide the Democrat label (see my recent dialog with him for more details).
Do you have any non-Demoncrat sources for Rossi & co. disavowing their Republicanism? I'd love to leave that little tidbit on the JLF blog as the final word on the subject. (Or at least see what tack Ham tries in response.)
Seems to me it was only a decade ago that Democratic politicians avoided using their party's name in advertisements. How quickly that pendulum swung, eh? And in contrast to the Republicans having all the major news corporations in their control, and creating their own propaganda organ to lead them, all we had to do to soil the Republican brand was let them run things for a few years.
@Woozle: I don't have any such sources, but I'd say a Fox News clip's pretty good. You've really got to watch it if you haven't - twas much fun!
@Cujo359: The fact that the Republicons have destroyed their credibility all on their own delights me to no end. I think we need to point this out forcefully if anyone snivels that Dems were ashamed to be Dems a while back. At least they had to have their character assassinated by the opposite party first.
Congratulations on your Pharyngulation.
I live in the Seattle area. Rossi is trying to spin it that he has always used the GOP name, not Republican, and that anyone trying to say he is running away from the party doesn't know his history. He showed one ad from the last election that said GOP. I'm not sure if that was what he always used or not, but even if it does not apply to Rossi it certainly applies to others and they admit it outright.
If they can decide what to have on the ballot, themselves, then how long before they start to put down 'Democrat'?
For a non-Democratic party source here's a Post-Intelligencer story on the subject. There was also something in the Seattle Times here.
Isn't that precious? The Republicon label's been dragged through so much sewage even life-long, die-hard Republicons are terrified of wearing it for fear the stench will give them away.
Speaking of sewage...
Isn't "GOP Party" redundant, since the "P" in "GOP" stands for "party"? It's kinda like saying "PIN number", don't you think?
Here in LA we have The La Brea Tar Pits, which is The The Tar Tar Pits.
It's obviously redundant, and it says the same thing twice.
I think that was the "liberal" moniker you were thinking about, Cujo; even down here in Texas, I can't think of a Dem that tried to dodge the designation. I can think of a few that jumped ship over social issues, of course. *shakes fist at Phil Graham* You unreconstructed cur!
Seems to me it was only a decade ago that Democratic politicians avoided using their party's name in advertisements.
Seems to me that, not long ago, 1+2 was 3. And if it seems that way to me , it must be true.
Damn, I totally screwed that up (even my fingers tell the truth). Let's try it again:
Seems to me that, not long ago, 1+1 was 3. And if it seems that way to me , it must be true.
Hilarious!
Sadly, though...one must also remember that the Democrats are almost as bad, as exemplified by the Prim Pastor Wilson and his war to make the world safe for "Democracy", Nuke 'em Harry T, Bay of Pigs Johnny of Camelot, Tonkin Golf Johnson, and my favorite, the Sainted Jimmy of East Timor,Al Qaeda,and the Contras.
A pox on BOTH their houses. Given recent shennanigans of our Democratic Party, they should be hiding their name, too.
Yawn.
First, Dino used "GOP" long before this year. He used it last time, and was twice certified the winner of the gubernatorial election. He didn't put it on the ballot before, because the law was different. Nothing changed.
Second, he did not write "GOP Party." He wrote "GOP." The form says something along the lines of, "Party Preference: __________" It was the arbitrary decision of the (very popular, Republican) Secretary of State to render that as "Prefers ______ Party."
In my district in WA -- which is a Republican-controlled district, the 39th -- a Democrat is running while pretending to have NO party preference. So even if you buy that Rossi is trying to avoid the Republican moniker -- which makes little sense, since it doesn't hurt Sec. State Sam Reed, and since Rossi is already known by everyone in the state to be a Republican -- it's clear that there are Democrats trying to hide their affiliation too ...
There is a supreme court oral argument available on oyez.org regarding this law.
The permissible nature of this relies on the fact that Washington parties wanted to control who could say they were the "Republican" or "Democratic" candidates. This "prefers" was a method by which candidates could identify themselves as having ideology reflected in the group.
The important take away message is: the republican party likely did not want THIS person putting "Republican" on the ballot, and not the other way around.
. . . each candidate on the ballot could affiliate with the party of his choosing regardless of whether the party approved of his candidacy. Political parties claimed that this system violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of free association . . .
The Oyez Project, Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, (No. 06-713),
available at: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_713/
"prefers GOP Party"? Do they get money out of an ATM Machine?
david: the republican party likely did not want THIS person putting "Republican" on the ballot, and not the other way around.
No, Rossi is the most popular Republican, among other Republicans, in the state.
There are two incumbent Republicans on the statewide ballot, A.G. and Sec. State. Both will likely easily win re-election. Rossi himself ended up losing in 2004 by a mere 139 votes out of 3 million, after two recounts (having won the first two counts).
The Republican label simply is not an issue for these top, well-known, candidates.
Rossi's been p-o'ed since he took off for a Governors Conference before he wasn even officially the governor.
This is a grudge match for the repubs. Except that they can't own up to being repubs.
"Do you see the irony?" - Jerry Seinfeld
I see PZed linked this one. Nice.
"The Republican label simply is not an issue for these top, well-known, candidates."
That might be the case in your district, but state-wide, in this election, I think you're wrong. Rossi won't even come close this time around, especially now that he is aligning himself more closely with crazy-ass conservatives and is against laws that prevent pharmacists from imposing their morality on others and also against the "homosexual agenda", whatever that's supposed to be. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=449323
If I'm not mistaken, he also supports teaching ID in schools.
Thanks for the tip on the AG and Sec. State, good to know.
tom:
Rossi is going to win this time. Here's the important thing to recognize: Rossi was down by DOUBLE DIGITS in the polls in October 2004, but the race ended up a virtual tie.
This year, is much closer right now, about seven points, and it's only going to get closer as voters are informed that Gregoire is directly to blame for our $2.5b deficit, and that she wants to raise taxes to cover it. Not to mention all of the corruption issues.
You appear not to know WA very well. Apart from the state not caring that Dino is a Republican, most people are also AGAINST the pharmacy law you speak of. And you have it backward: no pharmacist is imposing their morality on anyone, it's the law that is imposing morality on the *pharmacists.* That's what it means when the law forces someone to do something that is against their view of morality.
Chris Nandor:
Maybe where you live people are leaning toward Rossi, but I don't know a single person who thinks he would do a decent job as governor. He doesn't stand a chance, not against an incumbent who is well liked in Seattle.
And Rossi's planned 8-lane 520 bridge is cheaper than Gregoire's 6-lane bridge . . . with math that doesn't work, I'm supposed to trust this guy with my money? Not a chance. His transportation plan says an 8-lane bridge will cost $3.3B, while her 6-lane plane is between $4.4 and $5.3B. But when questioned on KIRO he denied it.
"Ross: You do not know what the 8-lane bridge would cost?
Rossi: No. We don’t have those numbers."
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/dino_rossi_lies_to_dave_ross_on_the_air
From his trasportation plan:
http://www.dinorossi.com/downloads/Rossi_transportation_plan.pdf
"Replace the current four-lane bridge with a structure capable of eight lanes using large dual pontoons. Additional lanes can be used for highcapacity transit."
"Cost: $3,315 million (2007$)"
Throw in that he's a Republican - and yes, the people of WA do care that he is - and it makes it even worse for him. In 2004 maybe they didn't care, now they do. But you vote for who you like.
As for the pharmacists, again, maybe where YOU live people are against the pharmacy law, but not in the Seattle area. And it is nonsense to say the law imposes any morality on the pharmacists. The pharmacists are licensed by the state and are required to dispense drugs that are properly prescribed. If they are not willing to do so, they really SHOULD lose their licenses. If you let the pharmacists pick and choose based on their own beliefs, where will it end? "Sorry, no HIV drugs for you queer." "Sorry, I only dispense drugs that were not tested on animals." "Sorry, the generic form of that drug is actually this homeopathic water." "I ran your birth chart and it indicates you shouldn't take this antibiotic because your moon is in Gemini, so I'm not going to give it to you." It's all well and good to allow the pharmacist to run things their way in a town where there are tons of pharmacies, but what if their is only one pharmacy? Should you need to go to a real town or online to get your birth control pills? Where does the pharmacist get off imposing his/her morality on an entire town?
Tom: it is not about where I live. It is about the state as a whole. If you do not know one person that thinks Rossi would do a good job, then you must live in the heart of Seattle, because nowhere else in the state is that true.
And no, being a Republican is not a big deal for him. You are resorting to wishful thinking. Again, it doesn't hurt Reed or McKenna. It's funny you mention 2004, because 2004 was WORSE for Republicans in this state, because Bush was at the top of the ticket. McCain -- despite the silly attempts to make them look like clones by the Democrats -- is not Bush, and will do much better in Washington than Bush did in 2004.
And as to pharmacies, again, this is a state issue, not a Seattle issue, and it is not nonsense: it is logical fact. The pharmacists don't want to do something that violates their morals, the government forces them to do it. How is that not forcing morality on them?
Don't be blinded by your own opinions.
"If you let the pharmacists pick and choose based on their own beliefs, where will it end?"
It will end with people going to other pharmacies if they don't like it. Who cares? Doctors do not have to perform abortions, but pharmacists have to provide medicine that can abort? Perhaps you believe doctors SHOULD be forced to perform abortions. Kinda crazy, but maybe you believe it. I should ask YOU where it ends: forcing butchers to provide meat they don't want to, like dog meat? Forcing therapists to provide therapies they disagree with?
Liberty means that sometimes people do things you don't like. Deal with it.
"It's all well and good to allow the pharmacist to run things their way in a town where there are tons of pharmacies, but what if their is only one pharmacy? "
We should not gear our laws for every pharmacist to suit the abnromal case. If this were the only problem, then the law would simply say that if you are the only pharmacist within X miles, then you have to provide the pills in question. But that's not what the law says, does it?
Chris Nandor:
Clearly it is about the whole state, but Seattle is the population center of the state so opinions there carry a lot of weight in elections. It's not like it is one vote per square mile. And no, I don't live in the city, I live in the burbs which are trending very Democratic lately.
And who is resorting to wishful thinking? Being a Republican will be a big deal for Rossi, as it has been in the three special elections held this year (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/05/democrats_win_miss_special_ele.html) unless you think the people of Washington are somehow immune to this effect. Even Senator Smith, GOP, Oregon, is aligning himself with Obama (http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/2008/06/25/gop-sen-smith-makes-grab-for-coattails-obamas/).
"And as to pharmacies, again, this is a state issue, not a Seattle issue, and it is not nonsense: it is logical fact. The pharmacists don't want to do something that violates their morals, the government forces them to do it. How is that not forcing morality on them?"
They are not forced to be pharmacists, so it is not forcing morality on them - they can quit their jobs at any time. They are licensed by the state and required to dispense all legally prescribed drugs, that is totally reasonable. But if someone has no other pharmacy and no internet or means of transportation, then the pharmacist is imposing his/her morals by refusing to provide the drugs. If they are not willing to fulfill the duties of the job, they should find other work.
"Liberty means that sometimes people do things you don't like. Deal with it."
By "Deal with it" do you mean "ignore it" or "try to do something about it"? Of course people will do things I don't like. They pray to imaginary friends, use their cell phones to rant to their friends about the evils of science, drink bad beer, you name it. Why not try to educate people about different ways of doing things and different points of view?
"If this were the only problem, then the law would simply say that if you are the only pharmacist within X miles, then you have to provide the pills in question. But that's not what the law says, does it?"
No, but I would support that change. I'd suggest 0.1 miles to allow people to easily walk.
Tom:
Seattle was also "unanimous" for Gregoire in 2004, but it was a virtual tie. There is not a single thing that is better for Gregoire in 2008 than in 2004, not even the Republican name, because again, McCain will be much better for Rossi than Bush was.
The special elections you talk about are irrelevant. First, none of them were in WA, and second, that was last year: none of them had other Republicans running with them, like McCain. And third, there are specific reasons well BEYOND party affiliation why those candidates lost.
Fourth, if you really want to use that as evidence, how about only the third Republican governor of Louisiana since 1877 elected last November? It's easy to cherry-pick data to show your side is "surging."
"They are not forced to be pharmacists"
And no one is forcing anyone to have sex (except for rape, of course, which is a separate issue), let alone use this specific medication, let alone use only this one pharmacy.
All of us should be free to choose what we want to do, including the pharmacist, so long as we are not causing direct harm to another, and not making a certain product available does not fall into that category.
"But if someone has no other pharmacy and no internet or means of transportation, then the pharmacist is imposing his/her morals by refusing to provide the drugs"
That's simply not true. It is not forcing your morality on someone to not choose to do business with them. It is a fundamental human right, the right of association.
"By "Deal with it" do you mean "ignore it" or "try to do something about it"?"
By "try to do something about it" do you mean "use government to force them?" Because if those are the two choices, then absolutely, "ignore it" is the only rational response in a free society.
"They pray to imaginary friends, use their cell phones to rant to their friends about the evils of science, drink bad beer, you name it. Why not try to educate people about different ways of doing things and different points of view?"
I find it exceptionally odd that you believe that someone who disagrees with you needs to be "educated."
Re: Gregoire vs. Rossi, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the climate is much better for her now than in 2004, you don't. That's fine, only time will tell.
Re: special elections
"First, none of them were in WA, and second, that was last year: none of them had other Republicans running with them, like McCain. And third, there are specific reasons well BEYOND party affiliation why those candidates lost."
Second, the elections were in March and May of this year, not last year. And first, you DO think Washington State is immune to these effects. Interesting. And third, care to name what those specific reasons were or should we just accept it because you say so?
"And no one is forcing anyone to have sex (except for rape, of course, which is a separate issue), let alone use this specific medication, let alone use only this one pharmacy."
It is a legally prescribed medicine, and it might be the only pharmacy available. The pharmacist, who provides a public service, should have no right to withhold medication.
"That's simply not true. It is not forcing your morality on someone to not choose to do business with them. It is a fundamental human right, the right of association."
This is the same argument a racist would use to deny someone a seat in their diner. There are legal limits to these rights, a pharmacy is not a private club. (Note, I am not implying anyone reading this is a racist, merely pointing out the consistencies in the argument.)
"By "try to do something about it" do you mean "use government to force them?" Because if those are the two choices, then absolutely, "ignore it" is the only rational response in a free society."
Again, they are not forced to be pharmacists, but if they are going to do that job then they need to follow the rules.
"I find it exceptionally odd that you believe that someone who disagrees with you needs to be "educated.""
I find it interesting that you would twist what I said to imply that I believe someone who disagrees with me is uneducated. Educating someone about your point of view does not mean they need to be "educated", it is about encouraging open discussion.
Tom:
March, November, it doesn't matter: we're talking THIS November.
As to the "immune to the effects," you must not have noticed that I was questioning whether this effect actually significantly exists. I don't believe it does.
"It is a legally prescribed medicine"
Yes, and I can get my mechanic to legally prescribe a specific gas treatment, but my local car shop might think it is junk and not carry it.
The pharmacist should have an ABSOLUTE right to not provide services the pharmacist disagrees with.
"This is the same argument a racist would use to deny someone a seat in their diner."
Yes, it is a simple fact that such anti-discrimination laws violate the right to association. There's no question about that.
However, we, as a society, have decided -- rightly, I think -- that the institutional, longstanding, and pervasive nature of the wrongs done to racial groups were so great that such a remedy that takes away our rights was warranted.
You are looking at an exception and trying to make it the rule. It's the other way around!
That said, I was probably wrong to bring up association because it is a little bit off the topic: here we are not discussing WHOM one does business with, but WHAT services are being provided. It's a similar concept though: you have the right to provide what services you wish.
"Again, they are not forced to be pharmacists"
And again, no one is forcing anyone to go to this pharmacy, get this prescription, etc.
"... but if they are going to do that job then they need to follow the rules."
That's a given. The question is whether we should have this rule that violates their rights.
"I find it interesting that you would twist what I said to imply that I believe someone who disagrees with me is uneducated. Educating someone about your point of view does not mean they need to be "educated", it is about encouraging open discussion."
I didn't mean to imply that YOU implied that someone is uneducated in general if they disagree with you. But you appeared to imply -- and appeared to imply it again, here -- that if they disagree with you then they are uneducated *about your point of view.* And that is often not the case.
Chris Nandor:
"March, November, it doesn't matter: we're talking THIS November."
I think it does matter, because I don't believe McCain will carry races down-ticket the way Obama will. Again, this is something we will have to wait to see.
"I can get my mechanic to legally prescribe a specific gas treatment, but my local car shop might think it is junk and not carry it."
Completely different circumstances, because in that case the mechanic would likely just sell it to you themselves. If doctors could supply what they were prescribing it would not be an issue, but with the system we have set up you need to go to a second person to get the drugs. The pharmacist can not violate that system and have the system work.
"The pharmacist should have an ABSOLUTE right to not provide services the pharmacist disagrees with."
The pharmacist should have no such right under the current system.
"You are looking at an exception and trying to make it the rule. It's the other way around!"
On the contrary, racial discrimination is not the exception, there are anti-discrimination laws that also cover gender, religion, sexual preference, etc. To me, this falls under the case of religious discrimination as the pharmacists try to impose their personal religious views on others. Not that it is NECESSARILY a religious point of view, but it often is. And as the fundies tell us, there can be no morality without religion.
"And again, no one is forcing anyone to go to this pharmacy, get this prescription, etc."
When a big-box store comes in and drives all of the small local pharmacies out of business, then yes, one WOULD be forced to go to that pharmacy.
"The question is whether we should have this rule that violates their rights."
I just fundamentally disagree that it violates their rights.
"But you appeared to imply -- and appeared to imply it again, here -- that if they disagree with you then they are uneducated *about your point of view.* And that is often not the case."
Maybe it is the case, maybe not. Individuals tend to have their own take on specific issues and people on the same side of an issue may disagree about why they hold that point of view. You can only assume to understand someone's point of view without talking to them about it.
"I think it does matter, because I don't believe McCain will carry races down-ticket the way Obama will."
Obama isn't the reason why those elections were won in March.
"Completely different circumstances, because in that case the mechanic would likely just sell it to you themselves."
No, most mechanics don't carry gas treatments. It's something you put in your car yourself on a regular basis. So no, if it is different, it is not for that reason.
"The pharmacist should have no such right under the current system."
He DOES HAVE that right. You just choose to not recognize or respect it.
"On the contrary, racial discrimination is not the exception"
I said AN exception, not THE exception.
And this is also why I oppose anti-discrimination laws for sexual preferences: there is no longstanding history of widespread instititutionalized discrimination that justifies taking away the individual right to association.
You need to have a strong justification for taking away rights, something more than "I disagree with their exercise of their rights." If you take away my right to discriminate based on sexual preference (hypothetically, of course), just because you think it is wrong for me to so discriminate, then what is to stop me from trying to take away your right to post on this web site, just because I think it is wrong for you to do so?
Discrimination like that sucks, but so does government forcing you to NOT discriminate. We have a First Amendment right to associate with whom we please. That we have made a few exceptions because of serious and significant historical inequities does not justify taking away all of our rights.
"To me, this falls under the case of religious discrimination as the pharmacists try to impose their personal religious views on others."
Nope, that is completely off-base. They are not discriminating against ANYONE, WHATSOEVER, for their religious views. Anyone with any religious view is welcome. It is the service, not the belief, that is discriminated against.
"And as the fundies tell us, there can be no morality without religion."
From the context, I don't think you know what a fundamentalist is. But that's another discussion. (Here's a tip, though: look up the book "The Fundamentals." It was written about 100 years ago, and it is where we get the word "fundamentalist," and you may even be surprised to know that one of its authors was a biologist who wrote in the book that whether evolution is true or not has no bearing on the truth of the Bible.)
"When a big-box store comes in and drives all of the small local pharmacies out of business, then yes, one WOULD be forced to go to that pharmacy."
Nope. There are always other options in a free country: drive further away, do mail order, get them from your doctor (in fact, most doctors DO keep such drugs on hand), or even start your own pharmacy.
There are ALWAYS options.
That said, I already offered a compromise for this rare case, which you glibly refused (0.1 miles is, of course, nonsense).
But let's take this a little further. Should that big box store have the freedom to simply close up shop? If they have the right to not provide any service at all, then it seems insane to me to say they have to provide specific services. This isn't a government business, it's a private one, licenses or not.
Lots of businesses are licensed. Contractors of all kinds. Yet contractors have the right to refuse to build, say, a mosque (since you brought religious discrimination into this). How is this different? What if NO ONE will build a mosque, should the government force a contractor to do it?
"I just fundamentally disagree that it violates their rights."
I cannot see how you cannot see that. It clearly does. You may think that their rights are less important than the service you wish to force them to provide, but of course they have a right here. How could they possibly not?
Frankly, it is almost as though you do not believe in any rights, at all: just government.
By the way, party aside, what has Gregoire done to deserve your vote? She has taken huge surpluses and whittled them away into the largest deficit in state history.
She said when she took office, and then repeated it in subsequent years, that we must NOT spend away the surplus by adding it to the budget, because it won't last, and then we are stuck with a budget we can't pay for. But that is exactly what she's done, and now we will need to either cut the budget, which she seems unwilling to do, or raise taxes, making the economy far worse.
I know a lot of Democrats, and even they are angry at Gregoire over this.
Oh, to end this on a fun note, I even wrote a song about Gregoire. :-)
"Obama isn't the reason why those elections were won in March."
We're not talking about March, we're talking about November, remember? But should I take your word for it on this, or do you have some evidence?
"He DOES HAVE that right. You just choose to not recognize or respect it."
I said SHOULD not have the right, and I stand by it. Any more than a police officer should pick and choose which laws to enforce or a fire fighter should decide who to help or which fire to put out, the pharmacist should dispense ALL legal medications. That's the job.
"And this is also why I oppose anti-discrimination laws for sexual preferences: there is no longstanding history of widespread instititutionalized discrimination that justifies taking away the individual right to association."
Are you joking? It wasn't until 2003 that the supreme court ruled Texas' sodomy laws were unconstitutional. How institutionalized does it have to be?
"what is to stop me from trying to take away your right to post on this web site, just because I think it is wrong for you to do so?"
This is a private site, and I would support Dana's right to ban me, you, or anyone from posting. No problem. In fact if she just politely asked I would stop. Her site, her rules, no worries. Try posting at Conservapædia and see how long you can manage to keep within the rules.
"It is the service, not the belief, that is discriminated against."
Their reasons for denying the service are religious based, thus they are imposing their religion on the customers. Their licenses should be revoked.
"From the context, I don't think you know what a fundamentalist is"
Regardless of what is or is not in some book, I know a few things that self-described fundamentalists claim to believe, and that includes that there is no morality without religion. That's not limited to fundies of course, it is a widely held belief.
"Nope. There are always other options in a free country: drive further away, do mail order, get them from your doctor (in fact, most doctors DO keep such drugs on hand), or even start your own pharmacy."
Then I suppose this is not a free country, because there are plenty of people who do not have other options - not everyone has a car or internet connection, and even then "mail-order" is hardly a good option for a drug that should be taken as soon as possible.
As for your contractor example, that is apples and oranges. There are people who need some drugs immediately, and refusing to dispense them should not be an option. My wife was on medication that required her to be on TWO forms of birth control and submit to monthly pregnancy tests, and she had to sign an agreement that if she were to become pregnant during the course of treatment she would have an abortion due to the severe birth defects associated with the drugs. By your reasoning it would have been ok for the pharmacist to deny her the drugs, and to me that is unacceptable.
"How could they possibly not?"
Because when they get their license they are agreeing to perform a service, regardless of their personal beliefs. If they are unable to do that, they should not get their license. No picking and choosing.
"what has Gregoire done to deserve your vote?"
She is not Rossi, who I disagree with on fundamental issues. He can't get my vote.
Tom:
"We're not talking about March, we're talking about November, remember?"
YOU brought up the other elections as evidence that the Dems would win this year. I brought up the LA governor race. Shrug.
"But should I take your word for it on this, or do you have some evidence?"
That Obama wasn't why those races were won? Other than the fact that he wasn't on the ballot and didn't even have the Democratic nomination at the time?
"I said SHOULD not have the right, and I stand by it. Any more than a police officer should pick and choose which laws to enforce or a fire fighter should decide who to help or which fire to put out, the pharmacist should dispense ALL legal medications. That's the job."
A pharmacist is not a civil servant. You have taken a private job and turned it into a government job.
"Are you joking? It wasn't until 2003 that the supreme court ruled Texas' sodomy laws were unconstitutional. How institutionalized does it have to be?"
Maybe it should be a remedy in Texas. I wouldn't know. I was referring specifically to the new Washington state law that outlaws discrimination against people because of a sexual preference, which -- in Washington state -- makes no more sense than a law outlawing discrimination against bearded Republicans.
"I would support Dana's right to ban me, you, or anyone from posting."
Sorry, I meant to imply to take away your right *via the government.* That said, yes, Dana can ban anyone from posting. So why cannot a restaurant ban anyone from eating there?
"Their reasons for denying the service are religious based, thus they are imposing their religion on the customers."
False. That is simply not logical. That is not now, nor has it ever been, how our laws work. Denying service based on your religious beliefs -- as long as you are not denying service to a person *because of* their religion -- is NOT religious discrimination, and it is NOT imposing ANYTHING on ANY customer, because the customer can always go somewhere else.
"Their licenses should be revoked."
A contractor who won't build a mosque should have his license revoked, then.
"Regardless of what is or is not in some book, I know a few things that self-described fundamentalists claim to believe, and that includes that there is no morality without religion."
Sorry, but you are "uneducated" on the subject. In fact, many self-described fundamentalists do not hold to this.
"Then I suppose this is not a free country, because there are plenty of people who do not have other options"
False. There are ALWAYS other options. Always. You cannot find a single person who does not have other options. They do not exist. Worst case: if you found someone without other options, then they would no longer HAVE no other options, because you would know about them and be able to drive them.
""mail-order" is hardly a good option for a drug that should be taken as soon as possible."
Except for the fact that this is not -- despite claims of it being "emergency contraception" -- *ever* need to be purchased at a pharmacy due to an emergency that cannot be planned for. The only "emergency" that cannot be planned for that this drug might be used in would be rape, in which case the doctor or hospital would be able to provide the medication (or, more likely, a D&C procedure).
So mail order is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable solution. If you think you might need it, order it beforehand.
"By your reasoning it would have been ok for the pharmacist to deny her the drugs, and to me that is unacceptable."
I don't care whether it is acceptable to you. Forcing a private person who has committed no crime to do ANYTHING against his will is immoral.
Government has no right to do it.
"Because when they get their license they are agreeing to perform a service"
But not the service you want us to think: they never, ever, agree, in order to get their license, to provide any drug a doctor prescribes.
"regardless of their personal beliefs."
No, in fact, they never, ever, agreed to do that in order to get their license. You're just making that up.
"She is not Rossi, who I disagree with on fundamental issues. He can't get my vote."
I feel a bit sorry for you, to have a candidate you don't like that you feel you have to vote for.
I am not in that position.
"That Obama wasn't why those races were won? Other than the fact that he wasn't on the ballot and didn't even have the Democratic nomination at the time?"
So you discount all of the new voters that Obama was registering around the country. And if Obama was not a factor, then why did the GOP run ads linking the Democrats to him?
"A pharmacist is not a civil servant. You have taken a private job and turned it into a government job."
I have COMPARED it to a government job, big difference. A pharmacist is in the unique position of fulfilling orders of others. They provide a necessary public service and should not deny that service to anyone based on their own beliefs.
"So why cannot a restaurant ban anyone from eating there?"
They certainly can and do, but they may not discriminate against a group of people. I would support a pharmacists right to ban someone from their store for stealing or being a trouble maker.
"A contractor who won't build a mosque should have his license revoked, then."
As I said, building a mosque is apples to oranges. There is hardly a timeliness issue with that, whereas drugs need to be taken on a schedule and when treatment begins can matter a great deal.
"Sorry, but you are "uneducated" on the subject. In fact, many self-described fundamentalists do not hold to this."
You say many don't, I say many do. These are not mutually exclusive positions. The way I apply the word it describes anyone who believes the Bible is inerrant and actually occurred as laid out. You may apply the word differently.
"Worst case: if you found someone without other options, then they would no longer HAVE no other options, because you would know about them and be able to drive them."
No, worst case: no one finds the person with no other options, and they die because of some "moral" pharmacist.
"Except for the fact that this is not -- despite claims of it being "emergency contraception" -- *ever* need to be purchased at a pharmacy due to an emergency that cannot be planned for."
You assume that emergency contraception is the only drug that needs to be taken as soon as possible, or even just before you can order it online. What about the Yakima pharmacist who refused to dispense syringes to a diabetic because he assumed it was for illicit drug use? What if that person needed insulin except, oops, no needles? If a pharmacist denies or delays HIV medications they are risking that patient's life.
"Forcing a private person who has committed no crime to do ANYTHING against his will is immoral."
Again, no one is forcing the pharmacist to be a pharmacist. When they take that position, they should fill all valid prescriptions.
"No, in fact, they never, ever, agreed to do that in order to get their license. You're just making that up."
Really, do you have any proof of that or just an accusation? From a PI article: "They'd better dispense it anyway, Representative Williams said. Either that, or lose their licenses (which require that patients' needs come first)."
"I feel a bit sorry for you, to have a candidate you don't like that you feel you have to vote for."
I never said I didn't like her, I said I disagree with her opponent at such a fundamental level that she will get my vote. I honestly don't have much of an opinion about her, good or bad.
"So you discount all of the new voters that Obama was registering around the country."
I am only talking about WA. And yes, I do not believe it will have a significant effect here (not sure about anywhere else, either). It's not like other people aren't registering voters, and the people Obama is registering aren't going to turn out to vote any more than any other segments of the population (except for increased black turnout, but again, that's a much smaller factor in WA than in other places).
"And if Obama was not a factor, then why did the GOP run ads linking the Democrats to him?"
It means he wasn't a NEGATIVE factor. That doesn't imply he was a POSITIVE one.
"A pharmacist is in the unique position of fulfilling orders of others."
There is nothing at all unique about that. Happens all the time.
"They provide a necessary public service and should not deny that service to anyone based on their own beliefs."
The government should not force anyone to do something against their belief. My "should" beats yours, because mine is based fundamentally on liberty, and yours is not.
"You say many don't, I say many do."
No. I said NOT ALL do, and you said ALL do. You didn't use the word "all," (nor "many"), but that was the implication of the words you used ("as the fundies tell us," "self-described fundamentalists claim to believe ... that there is no morality without religion"). If that's not what you meant, so be it.
"The way I apply the word it describes anyone who believes the Bible is inerrant and actually occurred as laid out."
That's mostly true, but it does not imply "there is no morality without religion." If you think it does, then you are wrong and you should be "educated." (Sorry, I just can't resist.)
"No, worst case: no one finds the person with no other options, and they die because of some "moral" pharmacist."
DIE?! Where did you get THAT?! What medicine do you think we are talking about here? There is not a single life-or-death medication that is being discussed here, unless you mean the death of the living and unique homo sapiens that has begun to grow inside a woman's body.
"You assume that emergency contraception is the only drug that needs to be taken as soon as possible, or even just before you can order it online."
No, I assert that nothing life-or-death is under actual discussion here.
"What about the Yakima pharmacist who refused to dispense syringes to a diabetic because he assumed it was for illicit drug use?"
That is irrelevant to the discussion because a pharmacist has the right to do that, even under this new regulation. That's a completely different and unrelated scenario.
"If a pharmacist denies or delays HIV medications they are risking that patient's life."
No one has talked about, in this state, that I have ever seen, denying or delaying HIV medication. If it has happened, then that's a different situation to discuss.
"Again, no one is forcing the pharmacist to be a pharmacist."
You keep saying that, but it doesn't get any more valid. You are rejecting liberty. That actually matters.
"When they take that position, they should fill all valid prescriptions."
That is YOUR moral/religious belief.
"Really, do you have any proof of that or just an accusation?"
Yes, of course it's proven! I am not sure why you can't deduce it from the facts. A new regulation was passed forcing pharmacists to fill those prescriptions or lose their licenses. If they had already agreed to fill every prescription regardless of personal belief when they GOT their license, then this new regulation would not have been necessary!
"From a PI article: "They'd better dispense it anyway, Representative Williams said. Either that, or lose their licenses (which require that patients' needs come first).""
Yes, but that is a NEW regulation. Pharmacists did not agree to that when they got their licenses.
"I never said I didn't like her"
You implied it: I asked what you liked, and you said she's not Dino. That implies you don't really like her.
"I honestly don't have much of an opinion about her, good or bad."
If you don't have a good or bad opinion, that means you don't like her. I didn't say you DISlike her, but that you DON'T like her. Two very different things. The latter implies ambivalence, the former negativity.
And that's sad too, that you don't have an opinion. One would think EVERY citizen would be angry at her clear mishandling of the state's finances.
"There is nothing at all unique about that. Happens all the time."
Examples of someone who fills orders and the timeliness of getting the order filled can control the life and death of the person?
"The government should not force anyone to do something against their belief. My "should" beats yours, because mine is based fundamentally on liberty, and yours is not."
By that logic, a doctor should not be forced to treat a dying person of the wrong skin color because it goes against their beliefs. Sure, they CAN refuse to do it, but there are penalties to pay for making that choice (as there should be).
"That's mostly true, but it does not imply "there is no morality without religion.""
I never said it is the defining characteristic of fundamentalism, I said that many self-described fundies believe it.
"No one has talked about, in this state, that I have ever seen, denying or delaying HIV medication. If it has happened, then that's a different situation to discuss."
I never said this was only about contraception, I specifically said early on, "where will it end?" You should read the experiences of some of the people who try to get their HIV prescriptions filled.
"You keep saying that, but it doesn't get any more valid. You are rejecting liberty. That actually matters."
Nonsense, I am not rejecting liberty, I am saying that when you take a job you do the entire job, not just the parts you like. If that is too distasteful, find another line of work.
"If you don't have a good or bad opinion, that means you don't like her. I didn't say you DISlike her, but that you DON'T like her. Two very different things. The latter implies ambivalence, the former negativity."
One could parse it that way. But when I say "I don't like asparagus" I mean "I dislike asparagus". When you say "you don't like her" I parse that to say "you dislike her". It's the difference between "don't like-her" and "don't-like her". But I understand what you meant now.
"And that's sad too, that you don't have an opinion. One would think EVERY citizen would be angry at her clear mishandling of the state's finances."
Got any objective sources for her "clear mishandling" of finances? The only ones I've been able to google are GOP sources pimping Dino.
Tom:
"Examples of someone who fills orders and the timeliness of getting the order filled can control the life and death of the person?"
I was going by what you said ("A pharmacist is in the unique position of fulfilling orders of others"), which apparently is not what you meant.
"By that logic, a doctor should not be forced to treat a dying person of the wrong skin color because it goes against their beliefs."
False, that is not my logic at all, as we already established that discrimination against PEOPLE is different from discrimination against SERVICES.
"I never said it is the defining characteristic of fundamentalism, I said that many self-described fundies believe it."
Again, no, your language directly implied that ALL fundamentalists believe it.
"I never said this was only about contraception"
Shrug. My arguments were about known and specified examples.
"Nonsense, I am not rejecting liberty, I am saying that when you take a job you do the entire job, not just the parts you like. If that is too distasteful, find another line of work."
Fine, tell me what job YOU do, and then I will create a new law that forces you to do that job in a way that violates your ethical standards, and then tell you that your liberty is not being taken away, as you can just get a different job.
Of course you are rejecting liberty. It's a given.
"But when I say "I don't like asparagus" I mean "I dislike asparagus"."
I do not. But yes, I understand many people do that, and the communication mistake was mine.
"Got any objective sources for her "clear mishandling" of finances?"
Not handy, but it is established fact, and well-reported by the local media.
When she took office, we had a $25B budget, and about $27B in revenues. Now we have about $31B in revenues, which is a pretty big increase, about 15 percent ... but our budget is over $33.5B, an increase of 33 percent. So she turned a $2B surplus into a $2.5B deficit, DESPITE huge revenue gains!
And her plan for making up the shortfall -- which she said in successive State of the State addresses that we needed to avoid by NOT increasing the budget a lot, which is unfortunately what we actually did -- is simply to raise more money, NOT to make significant cuts.
Thirty-three percent bigger budget in just four years. A $2.5B deficit. It's utterly insane. And I consider this far more important than any issue I've ever seen anyone raise against Rossi, even if I agreed with them on those issues.
Chris Nandor:
"False, that is not my logic at all, as we already established that discrimination against PEOPLE is different from discrimination against SERVICES."
The doctor in my example is denying the patient the necessary SERVICE of saving his life. The reason why he is denying that service is irrelevant.
"Again, no, your language directly implied that ALL fundamentalists believe it."
I accept that you read it that way.
"Not handy, but it is established fact, and well-reported by the local media."
I'm not disputing the numbers, but I'd like to see objective reporting that says it is actually her fault. It would also be good to know where the money has been spent, so I could decide if I supported that expense. But you have no sources.
"And I consider this far more important than any issue I've ever seen anyone raise against Rossi, even if I agreed with them on those issues."
I consider his support of ID to be an absolute deal-killer. I'm sure I disagree with several of his other positions as well, but his website is short on detail and heavy on fluff.
"The doctor in my example is denying the patient the necessary SERVICE of saving his life. The reason why he is denying that service is irrelevant."
You are simply wrong. The pharmacist is not withholding certain drugs from some people, but giving those same drugs to other people. They are two completely different things, and your attempt to try support your pharmacist position by linking it to racial discrimination is entirely out of bounds.
"I'm not disputing the numbers, but I'd like to see objective reporting that says it is actually her fault."
Her fault? Tom, she signed the budgets that increased our spending, and she is the leader of the party that passed those budgets in the legislature. This is solely and squarely the fault of the Democratic legislature and governor.
"It would also be good to know where the money has been spent, so I could decide if I supported that expense."
I couldn't care less WHAT that spending is for. A thirty-three percent increase is unjustifiable no matter what if you don't have the revenues to back it up.
That's not to say some of the increases weren't warranted, such as health care costs and so on, but if they had simply held budget increases to 15 percent -- still a huge number over four years -- we wouldn't have any deficit at all.
Frankly, I believe Gregoire and the Democrats did this on purpose. They have for years been pushing for an income tax, so now they balloon the budget so that they can then say, "well, unless you want to cut education, we need an income tax." The public is being played. Hopefully, most voters will see through it.
"I consider his support of ID to be an absolute deal-killer."
Please, let's keep this honest. You said previously you didn't know whether he supported ID. Now you assert he does. Unless you've come to new information in the last couple of days, you do not know he supports ID.
I couldn't care less, frankly: I think school curriculum should be left up to the local schools, and as long as teaching of ID does not amount to promotion of religion -- and it doesn't necessarily -- then that's something that should be left up to the local school board, and if it DOES amount to such promotion of religion, then it is unconstitutional and therefore what the governor thinks is moot. I wouldn't teach it to my kids, but since my kids are being homeschooled, it's a non-issue for me anyway.
But more frankly, if this is more important to you than fiscal responsibility, that's pretty damned sad. At the end of the day, the governor has almost no control over whether or not ID will be taught in the schools: the legislature and superintendent have most of the authority there. Thankfully, most voters do not have such tunnel vision.
Chris Nandor:
"They are two completely different things, and your attempt to try support your pharmacist position by linking it to racial discrimination is entirely out of bounds."
I did not link it to racial discrimination, it was simply an example of one reason why someone might refuse service. But you don't like that one, so how about this one - an ER doctor who refuses to give anyone stitches under any circumstances because it is against his deeply held belief that one should not pierce the skin. He will happily perform any other duty except that one. Should this person be an ER doctor? I would say no - what happens when you come in bleeding profusely from a massive head wound and he is the only one available? I guess you die, and by your argument that is acceptable. I think it's stupid, let the guy go work as a pharmacist - no skin piercing required.
"Her fault? Tom, she signed the budgets that increased our spending, and she is the leader of the party that passed those budgets in the legislature. This is solely and squarely the fault of the Democratic legislature and governor."
Ah, so now you are spreading the blame to include the legislature. But only the Democrats, because presumably no Republicans voted for any of it, right?
"I couldn't care less WHAT that spending is for. A thirty-three percent increase is unjustifiable no matter what if you don't have the revenues to back it up."
Did you buy your house with all cash? Sometimes an investment in the future is worth taking a hit early on and spending more than you have on hand at the time. It's called planning ahead. I'm not saying that's what happened, but your blanket condemnation is absurd.
"Frankly, I believe Gregoire and the Democrats did this on purpose."
As opposed to the Republicans who cut taxes and services while spending more? Then they say, oops, government is worthless and can't help you.
"You said previously you didn't know whether he supported ID. Now you assert he does."
What I said exactly was: "If I'm not mistaken, he also supports teaching ID in schools." I heard after the last election that he did, and I have never seen anything to refute it - as I said, his website is short on detail. Until I do, then I will believe that he supports it. And my belief that he supports it means he cannot get my vote. Is that clearer for you?
"I think school curriculum should be left up to the local schools, and as long as teaching of ID does not amount to promotion of religion -- and it doesn't necessarily"
Except that it necessarily DOES amount to promotion of a designer, which is a religious belief, therefore it is necessarily promotion of religion. Such were the findings in the Dover trial, sorry if that doesn't fit your world view. And as for the governor having no say over it, LA governor Jindal just signed legislation permitting teaching of ID, so I wouldn't say what the governor thinks is moot.
"But more frankly, if this is more important to you than fiscal responsibility"
You have yet to convince me that she has done anything fiscally irresponsible. You have asserted it a few times, but offer no proof.
"I did not link it to racial discrimination, it was simply an example of one reason why someone might refuse service."
A completely different and logically unrelated reason.
"an ER doctor who refuses to give anyone stitches under any circumstances because it is against his deeply held belief that one should not pierce the skin. ... Should this person be an ER doctor?"
That is, of course, the wrong question. The question is whether the government should have anything to do with it. And the answer is, of course not, that is up to the hospital. (If it is a taxpayer-funded hospital, then that's a different situation again, just like a pharmacy IN such a hospital would also be different.)
"Ah, so now you are spreading the blame to include the legislature."
No, I've always blamed both. The question here was about the governor, so I only mentioned her to start.
"But only the Democrats, because presumably no Republicans voted for any of it, right?"
Only the Democratic PARTY as a whole, yes, because the spending would have been much lower had the Republicans controlled the legislature, as it was when the Republicans last controlled the Senate, and some senator named Dino Rossi wrote, and got passed, a balanced budget despite the biggest deficit in state history. And now we have a new biggest deficit in state history, and I want Dino to come back to fix it again.
The way Washington's legislature works is that most legislators end up voting for the budget in the end, if it is going to pass anyway. What matters is who shaped the budget up to that point, and whether the governor -- the person who can use the line item veto -- goes along.
"Did you buy your house with all cash? Sometimes an investment in the future is worth taking a hit early on and spending more than you have on hand at the time. It's called planning ahead."
Um. Washington IS NOT ALLOWED to run a deficit (in essence, it is a little more complicated, you can have overruns but they have to be made up right away, etc.). It is REQUIRED that we balance the budget, according to the law.
Washington can borrow money (and often does through bond issues and so on), but that borrowing is counted as revenue. Next year we WILL have a deficit, and we ARE REQUIRED to get rid of that deficit.
So no, it is NOT acceptable to increase spending much higher than the increase in revenues, such that you have a multibillion dollar deficit, in the state government.
"As opposed to the Republicans who cut taxes and services while spending more?"
Not in this state. At the federal level, yes, which is THE biggest reason why the Democrats won in 2006: conservatives stayed home, because even THEY are angry at Republican officeholders. But this is, again, a problem with Republicans primarily at the federal level, and has little to do with Washington state politics.
"Until I do, then I will believe that he supports it."
That's completely foreign to me. If I cannot verify something one way or another, then I do not pick one belief or the other, I wait for actual evidence before I make a determination.
To each his own, I guess.
"Except that it necessarily DOES amount to promotion of a designer, which is a religious belief ..."
Which is perfectly constitutional, so long as you are teaching it as a theory, and not as fact.
"Such were the findings in the Dover trial ..."
Yes, which will go down as history as the day that scientists abandoned science. The reaction to this decision was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. A COURT OF LAW actually took upon ITSELF to determine whether something was, or was not, science. And SCIENTISTS applauded it! I couldn't believe that scientists would be so stupid.
Science is not determined by courts: that is AGAINST the tenets of science, even if you agree with the conclusion. Science is, after all, about methodology ABOVE conclusions, but that is the opposite view that the scientists took who applauded the decision.
"And as for the governor having no say over it, LA governor Jindal just signed legislation permitting teaching of ID, so I wouldn't say what the governor thinks is moot."
That is in a state where such a law could possibly pass. You really think that could ever happen in WA (at least, over the next 8 years)? Of course it couldn't.
"You have yet to convince me that she has done anything fiscally irresponsible. You have asserted it a few times, but offer no proof."
False. She signed into law budgets that she knew, or should have known, were not sustainable, that WOULD plunge us into deficits, that if not resolved through huge budget cuts or huge revenue increases WOULD violate the law.
That is irresponsible, by definition.
"A completely different and logically unrelated reason."
As I've said repeatedly, the reason is irrelevant.
"That is, of course, the wrong question."
In the case of a pharmacist they are often the boss themselves and are not subject to the authority of a hospital. The only authority is the state, so the state has to step in. In the case of the ER doc, yes the hospital would have to make the decision. It's an analogy, work with it.
"So no, it is NOT acceptable to increase spending much higher than the increase in revenues, such that you have a multibillion dollar deficit, in the state government."
Except you just explained how they do it . . . I get that you don't like it.
"That's completely foreign to me. If I cannot verify something one way or another, then I do not pick one belief or the other, I wait for actual evidence before I make a determination."
I heard it from a credible source, it is a reasonable assertion, and I have no evidence refuting it, therefore it goes down as "likely". I fail to see the problem.
This is not proof, but is interesting:
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/pdf/December_2007.pdf
"Holding youth Leadership Conferences to help motivate and direct the next generation to
stand in the gap with a biblical worldview. Our first was held in November and it exceeded our expectations. Dino Rossi and other outstanding leaders spoke to the kids about subjects ranging from forgiving and praying for your enemies to Intelligent Design to how to get into the entertainment industry to help Change Your Culture. More are scheduled around the state in 2008."
"Which is perfectly constitutional, so long as you are teaching it as a theory, and not as fact."
As long as you are teaching it in a theology class alongside other myths, not in a science class.
"Yes, which will go down as history as the day that scientists abandoned science."
What a ridiculous statement. Scientists applauded the ruling, not because it told THEM that ID was not science, they knew that all along. They were happy because it called BS on the ID proponents and made it less likely that any school district could force/allow ID into science classes.
"You really think that could ever happen in WA (at least, over the next 8 years)? Of course it couldn't."
We're talking about a guy who will be making political appointments. Of course it matters.
"that WOULD plunge us into deficits, that if not resolved through huge budget cuts or huge revenue increases WOULD violate the law."
Again, you assert it is irresponsible and offer no objective source. I get it, that is your opinion.
"As I've said repeatedly, the reason is irrelevant."
You can SAY that all you want, but it's not true. It is perfectly legal for anyone to discriminate against a particular service, but NOT legal to discriminate against particular INDIVIDUALS for some particular REASONS.
"In the case of a pharmacist they are often the boss themselves and are not subject to the authority of a hospital."
No, most pharmacists are not self-employed.
"The only authority is the state, so the state has to step in."
Even if that were true, which it is not, it would not follow that the state "has" to do anything. It clearly doesn't. The remedy is the free market.
"In the case of the ER doc, yes the hospital would have to make the decision. It's an analogy, work with it."
Except that you've never come up with a single analogy that comes close to working.
The simple truth of the matter is that if this were about giving out Viagra, no one would care that pharmacists refused. They wouldn't claim the pharmacist has to do anything. But because it is about abortion (and not emergencies, but events that can be planned in advance for), well, now we have to get angry about those damned moralistic pharmacists!
The real fact here is that YOU are imposing YOUR morals on THEM, and not the other way around.
"I heard it from a credible source, it is a reasonable assertion, and I have no evidence refuting it, therefore it goes down as "likely". I fail to see the problem."
I fail to see how you could believe something without actual evidence. To each his own.
"As long as you are teaching it in a theology class alongside other myths, not in a science class."
False. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING implied by the Constitution that says some things can only be taught in certain classes. That simply does not exist. If it can be taught in a public school in one class, it can be taught in another, constitutionally.
It is unconstitutional for any court to say WHICH class a subject can be taught in, unless it is basing that decision on a specific law that gives such guidelines, and the Constitution is entirely mute on that subject.
"Scientists applauded the ruling, not because it told THEM that ID was not science, they knew that all along."
No, you are missing the point. This ruling tried to make it a MATTER OF LAW that ID is not science. That is something law should never, ever, do.
What if a judge comes along and says Global Warming isn't science? Scientists would rightly say that is not a matter for a court to decide, but it's OK in THIS case, just because the scientists agree?
The scientists applauding this decision either don't understand why science should not be defined by a court, as this is a slippery slope that could lead to all sorts of rulings scientists would hate, or they do not understand that this is what actually happened.
"We're talking about a guy who will be making political appointments. Of course it matters."
Not to the three bodies that actually MAKE the rules: the legislature, the superintendent's chair, and the local school boards. So no, it doesn't. What political appointments are you talking about?
"Again, you assert it is irresponsible and offer no objective source. I get it, that is your opinion."
What do you want an objective source for? The fact that there is a budget deficit coming, or the fact that Gregoire signed the budgets, or the fact that it is illegal to carry a budget deficit, or the fact that to avoid it will require huge tax increases or massive budget cuts?
Or do you honestly believe it is "opinion" that all of this amounts to irresponsibility? Because I find that extremely difficult to fathom. I don't know you, but 99 percent of the liberals I know would be SCREAMING about irresponsibility if this were a Republican governor and legislature, and they would be absolutely right (just as they are right to condemn the general fiscal irresponsibility of the Republican President and Congress for the last several years).
"No, most pharmacists are not self-employed."
Often does not mean most.
"The remedy is the free market."
There is no such thing as the "free market" in this country, it is a regulated market. And the whole "free market" thing is BS anyway, it only allows for reaction. Yes, the crappy mechanic will eventually lose his shop, but how many people will be hurt in the meantime? And in a free market when he loses his shop, there is nothing stopping him from moving to another community and setting up another shoddy operation.
"Except that you've never come up with a single analogy that comes close to working."
The ER doc works well enough, you are just too closed minded to see it. As I said before, the pharmacist is in the odd position of fulfilling the orders of others, and the timeliness of that service may be critical to the patient's survival. They simply should not be questioning those orders based on their own sense of morality, the needs of the patient must come first. The pharmacist is only in the position to determine the needs of the patient when it comes to allergies, drug interactions, etc. They serve as a check on the doctor, nothing else.
"But because it is about abortion (and not emergencies, but events that can be planned in advance for), well, now we have to get angry about those damned moralistic pharmacists!"
You're trying to make this about "abortion", which emergency contraception is not. You also conveniently ignore the cases of people with non-emergency-contraception prescriptions being denied service because of the "morals" of the pharmacist.
"The real fact here is that YOU are imposing YOUR morals on THEM, and not the other way around."
Nonsense, they are depriving you of your legal medication only because of their morals, that is imposing their morals on you. I'll give you that forcing them to do their job imposes societies morals on them in the sense that it prevents them from imposing their morals on others. And since it is their CHOSEN profession, they should either respect that or find a new line of work.
"I fail to see how you could believe something without actual evidence. To each his own."
A credible source is plenty of evidence to support a reasonable claim. But I suppose if a woman said she was having a baby you would want to see the fetus moving through the birth canal.
"There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING implied by the Constitution that says some things can only be taught in certain classes."
Relax, I didn't mean to say it was constitutionally protected. My point was that even though it is religion, I would not object to someone teaching ID in a religion/myth class, because that's where it belongs. It has no place in a science class because it is simply not science. Putting it in a science class gives it unwarranted credibility.
"What political appointments are you talking about?"
I'm talking about judges who could permit ID to be taught in schools if a school board decided to do it, and a governor who could sign legislation permitting it as happened in LA. Just because it is unlikely doesn't mean it won't happen. Consider our loss of rights and protection under the Bush administration. Warrantless wiretaps, loss of habeas corpus, posse comitatus, what have I missed? Who would have thought it would be the Republicans who would strip us of these freedoms?
"What do you want an objective source for?"
Why would I trust what the Republican mouthpiece websites say about a Democratic governor? You assign a lot of blame to the governor without showing that any of it was her fault, that is, that she proposed these expenditures and pushed them through. You even give the Republicans a pass by saying that when it's going to pass anyway , then many Republicans vote for it. How convenient. You say it has been widely covered in the local press . . . where? Post a link.
"There is no such thing as the "free market" in this country, it is a regulated market."
Exactly, that's the problem.
"And in a free market when he loses his shop, there is nothing stopping him from moving to another community and setting up another shoddy operation."
You do not understand "the free market." It is not one without laws, including laws about liability and fraud.
"The ER doc works well enough"
No, because it is different on the crucial points.
"the pharmacist is in the odd position of fulfilling the orders of others"
There is nothing remotely odd about that.
"the timeliness of that service may be critical to the patient's survival"
Not in the matter at hand.
"You're trying to make this about "abortion", which emergency contraception is not"
You obviously do not know how emergency contraception works, because it absolutely is about abortion. The pill does two things: it can prevent fertilization, but it can also prevent implantation.
There's a very good chance by the time the pill is taken that fertilization has already taken place, at which point the pill DOES facilitate the death of the new, unique, living organism, species homo sapiens. This is biological fact. Some people may quibble over whether this is actually abortion, since it doesn't actually KILL the organism, but only prevents it from being implanted, but that's truly a distinction without a difference.
"You also conveniently ignore the cases of people with non-emergency-contraception prescriptions being denied service because of the "morals" of the pharmacist."
You did not come up with any real example, when I asked.
"Nonsense, they are depriving you of your legal medication only because of their morals"
That is false. They are doing no such thing. They are only refusing to be the one to give it to you. That is not depriving you of anything, as you have other ways to get it.
"A credible source is plenty of evidence to support a reasonable claim."
A claim about someone else, that you can't even verify for yourself? Not to me.
"Relax, I didn't mean to say it was constitutionally protected."
Shrug. I can only go by what you say.
"My point was that even though it is religion, I would not object to someone teaching ID in a religion/myth class, because that's where it belongs. It has no place in a science class because it is simply not science. Putting it in a science class gives it unwarranted credibility."
Shrug. That has nothing to do with the Constitution. So you actually DISAGREE with the Dover decision, then.
"I'm talking about judges who could permit ID to be taught in schools if a school board decided to do it"
I am quite shocked here. You think the governor appoints judges in Washington? How long have you lived here? We elect our judges in WA.
"Just because it is unlikely doesn't mean it won't happen."
It WILL NOT happen, not in the next 8 years that Rossi is governor. The political climate of this state is not going to shift that quickly.
"Consider our loss of rights and protection under the Bush administration. Warrantless wiretaps, loss of habeas corpus, posse comitatus, what have I missed?"
You're missing the loss of our Tenth Amendment rights, which the Democratic Party is absolutely devoted to ignoring.
"Who would have thought it would be the Republicans who would strip us of these freedoms?"
As to warrantless wiretaps, that was something the Democrats knew about, and -- except for Rockefeller -- no one objected to in any form until it became public. And that decision about those international warrantless wiretaps was built on precedent set by the Clinton administration, and was backed up by the FISA Court of Review.
(I am not defending it; I actually think it probably is unconstitutional. But it is not a "Republican" thing, as much as the Democrats want you to think otherwise.)
Loss of habeas corpus is a red herring. Yes, the DTA/MCA took away statutory habeas protections, but was designed specifically to still provide the "great writ" of habeas corpus to everyone, including alien unlawful enemy combatants. The Court simply ruled that, while it is perfectly acceptable to replace standard habeas protections with a different system for these detainees, that the DTA/MCA did not meet the standards.
In other words, this is no big deal: they tried something that the Court said they were allowed to do in theory, but that they just did it thr wrong way.
"Why would I trust what the Republican mouthpiece websites say about a Democratic governor?"
That doesn't answer the question. I asked what you wanted proof of.
"You assign a lot of blame to the governor without showing that any of it was her fault, that is, that she proposed these expenditures and pushed them through."
Sorry, but that's nonsense. That is not required to show fault. The fact that she signed the budget and did not use the line item veto to whittle it down is absolute proof of responsibility.
"You even give the Republicans a pass by saying that when it's going to pass anyway , then many Republicans vote for it. How convenient."
Nothing convenient about it. It's a simple fact: if this had been a Republican legislature, it would have been much smaller, like it was six years ago when it WAS a Republican budget. And most Democrats voted for that budget too, even while complaining it was too small.
Recent history in this state is pretty clear: Democrats give us huge deficits, and Republicans balance budgets. Rossi was given the biggest deficit in state history, and he balanced it. Gregoire was given a surplus, and she and her party have given us a new biggest deficit in state history.
"You say it has been widely covered in the local press . . . where? Post a link."
Again, which part? It looks like you are talking about the size of the budget deficit here, so here's a recent story about that.
"You do not understand "the free market." It is not one without laws, including laws about liability and fraud."
There is nothing fraudulent about shoddy work.
"There is nothing remotely odd about that."
Except you cannot provide another example of someone in such a position.
"Not in the matter at hand."
That because you continually ignore the cases where it is.
"You obviously do not know how emergency contraception works, because it absolutely is about abortion."
I know exactly how it works, and it is not an abortion, but the refusal is the pharmacist passing judgement on someone they probably don't even know. There may be a chance the egg is fertilized, but there is also a chance it is not. There is also a chance there is no egg, in which case it does nothing.
However, by definition an abortion involves the expulsion of a fetus. A fertilized egg is not a fetus, therefore it is not, by definition, an abortion. I get that you think it is, that's fine.
"You did not come up with any real example, when I asked."
What are you talking about? I gave the examples of people who have a hard time getting their HIV drugs, and the diabetic who was refused syringes. There is also the case of a woman who was denied cervical dialators because the pharmacist incorrectly assumed it was so she could have an abortion.
"That is not depriving you of anything, as you have other ways to get it."
Except when you DON'T have other ways, which we already covered and you are ignoring. At least you'll agree they are depriving you of receiving your medication in a timely manner?
"So you actually DISAGREE with the Dover decision, then."
The Dover decision does not prevent teaching ID as part of a comprehensive religion class.
"I am quite shocked here. You think the governor appoints judges in Washington? How long have you lived here? We elect our judges in WA."
I guess it's my turn to be shocked. You think the governor DOES NOT appoint judges? How long have you lived here?
http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/news-view.asp?pressRelease=708&newsType=1
"December 4, 2007
Governor Gregoire Appoints Court of Appeals Judge Stephens to State Supreme Court
OLYMPIA – Gov. Chris Gregoire today appointed Judge Debra L. Stephens of Spokane to the Washington State Supreme Court. Judge Stephens will fill the seat being vacated by retiring Justice Bobbe Bridge."
"It WILL NOT happen, not in the next 8 years that Rossi is governor. The political climate of this state is not going to shift that quickly."
So you say. I say it's not worth the risk.
"You're missing the loss of our Tenth Amendment rights, which the Democratic Party is absolutely devoted to ignoring."
Absolutely laughable that you say one party does this and not the other. Hysterical!
"In other words, this is no big deal"
No big deal? I'm surprised it doesn't bother you that they are trying to violate our rights, regardless of the court eventually saying they can't. How long do innocent people need to stay in jail while the courts sort it out?
"That doesn't answer the question. I asked what you wanted proof of."
I want the full story - revenue, where it comes from, where it has increased and decreased in the last 20 years, what programs were funded and why, etc. Not just someone screaming "it's irresponsible!"
"if this had been a Republican legislature, it would have been much smaller, like it was six years ago when it WAS a Republican budget"
Again, your assertion. When it is good then it must be because of the Republicans. When it is bad it is "those evil Democrats".
"Again, which part? It looks like you are talking about the size of the budget deficit here, so here's a recent story about that."
Thanks for the link. What I get out of this article is: revenue is falling, there will be a budget shortfall. Some expenses will have to be reduced, and they will be reduced. Taxes will not be raised. The sky is not falling.
"There is nothing fraudulent about shoddy work."
I said "laws about *liability* and fraud."
"Except you cannot provide another example of someone in such a position."
Except that I already did.
"That because you continually ignore the cases where it is."
You did not provide one. You only gave one example, AIDS medication, and I asked for an actual example of this happening, and you didn't supply it; further, I said that in the case of medication to save a life, that this could be a different situation, just like a doctor is required to help save a life, but is not required to perform any particular elective services.
"but the refusal is the pharmacist passing judgement on someone they probably don't even know."
That is the pharmacist's human right.
"There may be a chance the egg is fertilized, but there is also a chance it is not. There is also a chance there is no egg, in which case it does nothing."
Yes, but IF there is a fertilized egg, it IS facilitating the death of the unique and living homo sapiens organism. Whether this is called "abortion" or not is completely beside the point, since the only thing that matters if whether a human life is destroyed, which it is. Most people do not oppose abortion because there is an implantation, they oppose it because it destroys a human life, which is what this drug is doing, by design, if there is an unimplanted fertilized egg present.
"What are you talking about? I gave the examples of people who have a hard time getting their HIV drugs"
No, you didn't. You simply gave it as a hypothetical; you did not provide an example of it actually happening, in this state or anywhere else (though I only care about this state).
"... and the diabetic who was refused syringes."
And that is a dumb example, as I already pointed out, as it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. A pharmacist has an OBLIGATION to raise such questions, if they think drugs and paraphrenalia -- even with a prescription -- are being abused for illegal purposes.
"There is also the case of a woman who was denied cervical dialators because the pharmacist incorrectly assumed it was so she could have an abortion."
As this has nothing to do with life-or-death, it's beside this particular point.
"Except when you DON'T have other ways ..."
Except that never exists. There's always other ways. The WORST case scenario is the most obvious: get your doctor -- you know, the one who gave you the prescription -- to help.
"At least you'll agree they are depriving you of receiving your medication in a timely manner?"
Since it is not an emergency (unless the patient chooses to make it so by not planning ahead), and it is not life-or-death (unless we're talking about the death potentially caused by the medication), I don't see how that matters.
"The Dover decision does not prevent teaching ID as part of a comprehensive religion class."
Yes, I know. It banned it from science classes. But it did so on constitutional grounds, and you agreed, I believe, that the Constitution has nothing to say on WHAT classes something could be taught in. If it can be constitutionally taught in school, as far as the Constitution is concerned, it can be in any class.
Anyway, someday, some judge WILL rule that global warming is not science and cannot be taught in the classroom. Scientists will rue the day they applauded Dover.
"I guess it's my turn to be shocked. You think the governor DOES NOT appoint judges?"
/me rolls eyes
Yes, the governor fills vacancies, which seldom happen. You're going to base your vote just on the off chance a judge will die or retire?
"Absolutely laughable that you say one party does this and not the other. Hysterical!"
It's sad that you said I said something I absolutely did not say. I didn't say Republicans do not do this. The difference is that when they do -- such as when No Child Left Behind was passed, violating our Constitutional rights -- conservatives and many Republicans are against it for that reason, but when Democrats propose an even more sweeping violation of our Constitutional rights, such as universal health care, it is nearly universally praised by liberals and Democrats.
Again, as I said: the Deomcratic Party is DEVOTED to violating the Constitution. The MAJORITY of its platform violates the Tenth Amendment. That is not to say the Republicans do not violate the Constitution at times, but not nearly as much, and they do not devote themselves to it as their main goal.
The Democrats do.
"No big deal? I'm surprised it doesn't bother you that they are trying to violate our rights ..."
You're wrong: no one tried to violate anyone's rights. They tried to do something that even the Court recognized was an obvious attempt to UPHOLD rights. The Court simply ruled it failed to do so.
"How long do innocent people need to stay in jail while the courts sort it out?"
Shrug. Do you have an alternative? It's not like the Democrats were there in 2005 and 2006 saying, "you know, this isn't bad, but we need to make more changes to make sure the Great Writ is honored." Instead they were pushing for full statutory habeas protections, saying that this was required for constitutionality (which the Court has now rejected).
I am not blaming the Democrats on this: clearly, both parties are to blame. It's one of those things where the parties need to work together, and I am hopeful that we'll see a new bill before the year's out.
"I want the full story - revenue, where it comes from, where it has increased and decreased in the last 20 years, what programs were funded and why, etc. Not just someone screaming "it's irresponsible!""
OK, so you do not question anything I said, therefore the proof I provided was sufficient. The only thing you question is not my claims, but my conclusion of irresponsibility.
I don't believe you, of course, because I am quite certain that if we had a Republican governor and legislature, the evidence provided would be sufficient for you to call it irresponsible. The only difference is that I would agree with you.
"Again, your assertion. When it is good then it must be because of the Republicans. When it is bad it is "those evil Democrats"."
Um. The facts on this are entirely clear. Our last big deficits were ALL created by Democrats, and all FIXED so far by Republicans. The year before Dino was the budget chair, the Dems did "fix" the budget deficit, but only by shifting money around, not by actually increasing revenue or reducing expenditures, putting off the real fix until the next year, when Dino actually cut the budget.
And of course, the Democrats are lying, saying Dino left a deficit. It's not true. The Democrats raised the budget back up to where it was and called it a deficit. It's a lie. There was no deficit.
"Thanks for the link. What I get out of this article is: revenue is falling, there will be a budget shortfall. Some expenses will have to be reduced, and they will be reduced. Taxes will not be raised. The sky is not falling."
HAHA. Wow, you beleive that? Gregoire came into office saying the exact same thing: that in order to do what she wanted, she would "look into" doing it without raising taxes. Except, of course, taxes were raised across the board.
The Democrats always say that. Then why is it that they didn't do it in 2002? And when Rossi -- with a SMALLER deficit -- said he would balance the budget in 2003 without raising taxes, they said it couldn't be done. They didn't do it, they said he couldn't do it, but he did it, and now you want ANYONE to believe that they will do it, when he is running against them, and has proven he can?
Keep dreaming.
"Except that I already did."
Where, I must have missed it?
I said: "A pharmacist is in the unique position of fulfilling orders of others."
You said: "There is nothing at all unique about that. Happens all the time."
I said: "Examples of someone who fills orders and the timeliness of getting the order filled can control the life and death of the person?"
You said: "I was going by what you said ("A pharmacist is in the unique position of fulfilling orders of others"), which apparently is not what you meant."
Now you are claiming you gave examples of someone who is in a similar position? Hmmm. My point is that the pharmacists' role in society is unique in that they are in the position of fulfilling the orders of others and the timeliness of getting the order filled can be a matter of life and death. If you have an example of someone in a similar role, please list it.
"and I asked for an actual example of this happening, and you didn't supply it"
I did not see you specifically request an example, so there is this:
First:
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2006/06/07/pharmacy-rights-battleground-washington-state.htm
"Ironically, the state (and it's not alone in this mandate) requires that pharmacies stock drugs -- so even Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception as well as, for example, AZT (for HIV-positive patients). And reportedly the pharmacist license "require[s] that patients' needs come first.""
Then:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/paynter/328829_paynt24.html
In part, the story of a woman with HIV who has trouble getting her meds because some pharmacies won't stock it. From the article: "But there are still pharmacists who won't stock those drugs because they think people with HIV don't deserve the best medical care. Billings serves on two national AIDS boards, and she hears such stories all the time."
"not required to perform any particular elective services."
It is not up to the pharmacist to decide what is and is not elective.
"they oppose it because it destroys a human life, which is what this drug is doing, by design, if there is an unimplanted fertilized egg present."
It is a potential human life, and it potentially destroys it (passively). They don't know, so don't use such absolute terms.
"A pharmacist has an OBLIGATION to raise such questions, if they think drugs and paraphrenalia -- even with a prescription -- are being abused for illegal purposes."
I didn't say the pharmacist questioned it, I said refused it. It would have been appropriate for the pharmacist to call the issuing doctor, his/her name and number would be right there. If they really suspected illegal activity why not call the police? Instead an assumption was made and he could have died. Why aren't they protecting HIS life?
"As this has nothing to do with life-or-death, it's beside this particular point."
How do you know, are you her doctor? She was having surgery to remove uterine fibroids, which may be cancerous. A delay of medication could have meant a delay in her surgery, which could have led to her death. Why wasn't the pharmacist concerned about HER life?
"The WORST case scenario is the most obvious: get your doctor -- you know, the one who gave you the prescription -- to help."
Again, you are ignoring the timeliness issue.
"Since it is not an emergency (unless the patient chooses to make it so by not planning ahead), and it is not life-or-death (unless we're talking about the death potentially caused by the medication), I don't see how that matters."
Since they could refuse ANY medication under your rules, the scientologist pharmacist could refuse to provide anti-depression meds - do I need to spell out a life or death scenario?
"Anyway, someday, some judge WILL rule that global warming is not science and cannot be taught in the classroom."
Unless the defintion of science changes, it can't happen. Global warming is science simply because it is based on observations, provides an explanation, and makes testable predictions. ID fails the "testable predictions" part and so fails the "is it science?" test. You may disagree with the conclusions on either or both sides of the global warming issue and provide alternate, testable explanations, but it is still science. It might be BAD science, but it is still science.
"Yes, the governor fills vacancies, which seldom happen. You're going to base your vote just on the off chance a judge will die or retire?"
Off chance? You have proof it is only an off chance? Absolutely I will vote for someone who believes things similar to what I believe, and DR is pretty far off. For the same reason, McCain cannot get my vote, the potential for more Scalia's on the supreme court is too risky.
"HAHA. Wow, you beleive that?"
Awesome, you supply the source and then blame me for believing the source. From the article: "I have been given no direction to put together a tax package for the governor," [state budget director Victor Moore] said." Do you have proof that he is lying? Who was it who said "I fail to see how you could believe something without actual evidence"? Hmm . . .
Do you have another objective source that better supports your position?
I said: "A pharmacist is in the unique position of fulfilling orders of others."
You said: "There is nothing at all unique about that. Happens all the time."
I said: "Examples of someone who fills orders and the timeliness of getting the order filled can control the life and death of the person?"
You said: "I was going by what you said ("A pharmacist is in the unique position of fulfilling orders of others"), which apparently is not what you meant."
Now you are claiming you gave examples of someone who is in a similar position?
Yes, a similar position to someone who is in the "position of fulfilling the orders of others." As I already said: someone who works at an auto supply shop. Someone who works in a grocery store is another example. Heck, a doctor could even tell someone they need to eat more meat or they will die. What if your only local supermarket then decides to go vegan? Should we force them to supply meat?
Or maybe they go the other way and stop stocking leafy greens.
Should we force them?
"My point is that the pharmacists' role in society is unique in that they are in the position of fulfilling the orders of others and the timeliness of getting the order filled can be a matter of life and death."
Done!
""they oppose it because it destroys a human life, which is what this drug is doing, by design, if there is an unimplanted fertilized egg present.""
"It is a potential human life, and it potentially destroys it (passively). They don't know, so don't use such absolute terms."
No, what I said is, in fact, absolutely true. IF there is an unimplanted fertilized egg, it IS a unique and living homo sapiens organism, and it IS destroyed by this drug, by design.
That's a biological fact. There is no scientific question about it.
That it is passive is irrelevant; if I put my hand over someone's mouth and suffocate them, that is just as passive as this: I am intentionally depriving the life of what it needs to survive, in order to destroy it.
"Anyway, someday, some judge WILL rule that global warming is not science and cannot be taught in the classroom."
"Unless the defintion of science changes, it can't happen."
Um, just one problem: THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF SCIENCE. Not a legal one, certainly, and it is debatable whethere there is any other. Many volumes have been written on the subject of how to define science, and there is no broad consenus on the subject.
"Global warming is science simply because it is based on observations, provides an explanation, and makes testable predictions. ID fails the "testable predictions" part and so fails the "is it science?" test."
If that's true, then the most recent theory by Stephen Hawking, which says that the universe is the sum of all possible universes, is not scientific, as no one can even imagine how it could possibly be tested.
Similarly, many things that are not science ARE testable, for example, many of Freud's theories. Many of our current attempts at "defining science" grew from attempts to discredit Freud as pseudo-science. But like it or not, those things were testable. Not necessarily repeatable, but then again, same thing with much of quantum theory.
Now, I am not saying that ID and global warming or Freud are the same levels of science (or even that ID is science at all, although I leave my mind open to the possibility). But a. there is, in fact, no set and absolute definition of science, and b. I am not the one who will be hearing this case when it comes.
"Off chance? You have proof it is only an off chance?"
Of course. It's by definition. These things do not happen on any schedule, so it is not predictable, and it happens by chance.
"For the same reason, McCain cannot get my vote, the potential for more Scalia's on the supreme court is too risky."
Yeah, how terrible to have someone who follows the law and the Constitution.
Frankly, anyone who is afraid of Scalia's style of jurisprudence tells me, by saying so, that they are against actually following the law.
"Awesome, you supply the source and then blame me for believing the source."
The source for FACTS, yes. That the Democrats will not raise taxes is not a fact, it is a promise they have made and consistently broken over and over.
"Do you have proof that he is lying?"
I do not have proof that they are lying now. I only have proof that they made the same statement before, and raised taxes anyway ... in a much better economy than this, with much better revenue increases.
There is no reason to think they won't do again what they already did before.
"Or maybe they go the other way and stop stocking leafy greens.
Should we force them?"
Again, you ignore the timeliness part of it. Since you seem reasonably intelligent I can only assume you are being intentionally obtuse.
"No, what I said is, in fact, absolutely true. IF there is an unimplanted fertilized egg, it IS a unique and living homo sapiens organism, and it IS destroyed by this drug, by design."
I wasn't objecting to that part, but this: "it destroys a human life", my specific point was that it potentially destroys it, and they have no way of knowing at the time if that is what it is ACTUALLY doing.
"if I put my hand over someone's mouth and suffocate them"
Suffocating someone is hardly passive.
"Many volumes have been written on the subject of how to define science, and there is no broad consenus on the subject."
Science is the application of the scientific method which is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". That is accepted and there is absolutely a consensus on that.
"If that's true, then the most recent theory by Stephen Hawking, which says that the universe is the sum of all possible universes, is not scientific, as no one can even imagine how it could possibly be tested."
Correct, as it is untestable it is not a valid scientific theory. It is surely based in science, but that is different.
"Not necessarily repeatable, but then again, same thing with much of quantum theory."
Perhaps you don't understand quantum mechanics - if it was not repeatable your cell phone and computer would not work.
"These things do not happen on any schedule, so it is not predictable, and it happens by chance."
That is not the same as saying "off chance", which implies it is a remote possibility.
"Frankly, anyone who is afraid of Scalia's style of jurisprudence tells me, by saying so, that they are against actually following the law."
Hysterically inaccurate. How is the recent decision re: the individuals right to own a gun outside the context of a militia following the constitution or law? Because the 2nd amendment specifically says it is for the purpose of forming a militia. Further, it goes against the court's own precedent in US v. Miller 1939. That is following the law and constitution?
"There is no reason to think they won't do again what they already did before."
I see, so you hold others to different standards than you hold yourself.
"Again, you ignore the timeliness part of it."
Again, you are ignoring the fact that I am not ignoring it. I simply disagree with you that there is a real problem with timeliness if someone actually plans ahead, which is always possible to do. Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance, or whatever.
"I wasn't objecting to that part, but this: "it destroys a human life", my specific point was that it potentially destroys it, and they have no way of knowing at the time if that is what it is ACTUALLY doing."
You said, "They don't know, so don't use such absolute terms." But in fact, what I wrote was that "it destroys a human life ... if there is an unimplanted fertilized egg present." (emphasis added) What I said was perfectly true, and absolute.
"Suffocating someone is hardly passive."
Exactly. And neither is intentionally preventing implantation in order to facilitate death. In both cases, you are acting to deprive someone of what they need to survive.
"Science is the application of the scientific method which is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". That is accepted and there is absolutely a consensus on that."
But there is no agreement on whether or not something HAS TO follow that to be science. I am pleased that you say Hawking's theory is not science, to remain consistent, but could it be taught in the classroom? Of course it could. No one would complain. Well, OK, very few people would complain.
The bottom line is that this is not about whether something IS NOT science. It's about whether it IS religion. And the Dover decision should NOT have even ventured to rule on whether it is science. All that mattered is whether it was religion, NOT whether it was science.
"Perhaps you don't understand quantum mechanics - if it was not repeatable your cell phone and computer would not work."
No, I do understand how it works (well enough for a layman), and it depends on what you mean by repeatability. By definition, quantum theory is not, in an individual test, repeatable. It takes many tests to come up with probabilistic results. I mention it because this same notion of "aggregate repeatability" is also implied at by some of the ID literature I've seen. Again, I keep my mind open to the possibility.
"That is not the same as saying "off chance", which implies it is a remote possibility."
No, to me it implies only less than half. And that seems appropriate.
"Hysterically inaccurate. How is the recent decision re: the individuals right to own a gun outside the context of a militia following the constitution or law? Because the 2nd amendment specifically says it is for the purpose of forming a militia."
No, the Second Amendment says the RIGHT exists for (in part) the purpose of allowing the states to form militias. This, however, does not imply AT ALL that the right ONLY EXISTS in the context of a militia.
The indisputable fact is that the obvious historical intent of the language, the well-understood meaning of the language, the actual parsing of the language itself, and the interpretation for the first 100+ years of our country, all agree: (in part) because of the need for independent state militias, the federal government shall not infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms.
That does not mean that the federal government can restrict the right to bear arms to only a militia context, any more than the government could restrict speech as long as it is not about the government, since the obvious primary reason we have free speech is to be able to speak about the government. That means non-government-related speech can be restricted. This is not as silly as it sounds: Meiklejohnian absolutism has had its adherents in the Supreme Court.
Thankfully, that theory is largely rejected today, because it is recognized that the power to significantly restrict is the power to ban. So your rights are not limited to specific contexts anymore. As the First Amendment has come under far more fire than the Second Amendment over the years, one would think you would be more sensitive to the problem here.
"Further, it goes against the court's own precedent in US v. Miller 1939. That is following the law and constitution?"
Yes, it is, absolutely. A member of the court in 1939, Felix Frankfurter, said (in an unrelated case) that the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself, not what the Court has said about it. Precedent is very important, but sometimes it is plainly wrong, as we saw in Brown v. Board of Education. Precedent is less important in determining constitutionality than what the Constitution actually says.
"I simply disagree with you that there is a real problem with timeliness if someone actually plans ahead, which is always possible to do."
It is not always possible, so if you have nothing else your whole argument falls apart. You don't need me to elaborate on things where you can't plan ahead, do you?
"I am pleased that you say Hawking's theory is not science, to remain consistent, but could it be taught in the classroom?"
I did not say it was not science, I said it was not a scientific theory, strictly because it is (currently) untestable. But it is based in science, so it is not wholly inappropriate for science class. As opposed to ID which is based on supernatural beliefs. It is far different to discuss untestable theories to unsolved problems than to propose alternate and unsupported claims as a means of attacking a well supported scientific theory/fact. I assume you are aware that much of the various parts that comprise evolutionary theory are facts.
"No, to me it implies only less than half. And that seems appropriate."
That's fine that is what it means to you. Less than half is still too high for me, and coupled with my other objections . . .
"A member of the court in 1939, Felix Frankfurter, said (in an unrelated case) that the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself, not what the Court has said about it."
Was that the same case (Coleman v. Miller) where he said in effect precedent must be accounted for by originalists?
"It is not always possible"
Not true. I defy you to come up with a SINGLE example of where it was not possible to plan ahead. The only one I know of is rape, but since you can only get this drug with a doctor's prescription, and if you go to a doctor you can get a D&C which would obviate the need for this drug ... but feel free to try to come up with an example. Even a hypothetical one.
"It is far different to discuss untestable theories to unsolved problems than to propose alternate and unsupported claims as a means of attacking a well supported scientific theory/fact."
Um, actually, no, there's no difference at all. The only difference is that one bothers you and the other doesn't, so you choose to characterize them differently.
"Was that the same case (Coleman v. Miller) where he said in effect precedent must be accounted for by originalists? "
No. But yes, of course precedent is important. No one denies or doubts this, let alone ignores it in their decisions. Well, except for maybe Justice Thomas, but as he is the only one, I find it refreshing to have his voice as a counterbalance to people like Justice Breyer, who literally wrote a book about why he ignores the Constitution.
"Not true. I defy you to come up with a SINGLE example of where it was not possible to plan ahead."
Hypothetically someone diagnosed as suffering from post-partum depression could be refused anti-depressants from their scientologist phamacist, then go home and drown their kids in the bathtub a day after they tried to get the prescription from the only pharmacist in town but before they could order and receive the drugs on the internet. Need more hypotheticals?
"The only one I know of is rape, but since you can only get this drug with a doctor's prescription,"
Not true, no prescription is required if the pharmacist has had the proper training. Granted though, that someone who objects on moral grounds is unlikely to have had the training.
"Um, actually, no, there's no difference at all. The only difference is that one bothers you and the other doesn't, so you choose to characterize them differently."
Um, actually, yes, they are completely different. One is based in science and has no established alternative, the other uses superstition and magic to attack scientifically established fact. ID requires the existence of a supernatural being as a founding premise, anything with that premise is not science.
"One is based in science and has no established alternative, the other uses superstition and magic to attack scientifically established fact."
False.
"ID requires the existence of a supernatural being as a founding premise, anything with that premise is not science."
Also false.
You need to back to science school.
Actually, I think this would be fun: tell me why you can't have a supernatural being as a premise. Is it because only established scientific facts, or even scientific theories, can be premises?
Asserting your point does nothing to support its validity.
"You need to back to science school."
You have no idea of my background and are making unfounded assumptions.
It was a joke. Whenever I think of the study of science, it makes me think of Dr. Science, who "has a master's degree ... in science!"
"Actually, I think this would be fun: tell me why you can't have a supernatural being as a premise. Is it because only established scientific facts, or even scientific theories, can be premises?"
Seriously? Science deals with the natural world. That automatically rules out the supernatural (meaning things that cannot be explained via the laws of the natural world). Anything beginning with something supernatural as a premise is, by definition, not science.
"Seriously? Science deals with the natural world. That automatically rules out the supernatural (meaning things that cannot be explained via the laws of the natural world). Anything beginning with something supernatural as a premise is, by definition, not science."
Is philosophy supernatural, or natural? Is philosophy science?
"Is philosophy supernatural, or natural? Is philosophy science?"
I would suppose philosophy could cover the natural, supernatural, or both, depending on who is doing the philosophizing. If it is limited to the natural world and follows the scientific method, I would say it is science but I am hardly the final arbiter of these things.
"If [the philosophy] is limited to the natural world and follows the scientific method, I would say it is science. ..."
But the problem is that the scientific method cannot follow to the scientific method. The scientific method, obviously, is pure philosophy, from beginning to end. And it itself cannot follow itself.
That seems to be a pretty big problem for those who think that science should be limited to the scientific method.
It's a terrible problem for those that think only those things that follow the scientific method are worthwhile. I am not saying you think that, but many people do. This problem is really irreconcilable for them.
For those who believe that science should be limited to the scientific method, there's really only three choices: live in contradiction, amend the belief, or try to come up with some philosophical workaround to solve this bootstrapping problem. But it's not easy.
The bottom line of all this is that I mostly agree with what you've said about what is and isn't science, in regards to what we know so far about ID, global warming, and so on. But these are not decisions suited to courts, because someday a court is going to make a determination along those lines that you and I and many scientists will find to be completely unreasonable.
The definition of science is a purely philosophical question not suited to any courtroom.
"But the problem is that the scientific method cannot follow to the scientific method. The scientific method, obviously, is pure philosophy, from beginning to end. And it itself cannot follow itself."
We might have different definitions of what exactly is the scientific method because to me it is not philosophy. It is merely an investigative technique that begins with an observation, makes a prediction, then tests and either supports or refutes the prediction. I don't see how that is philosophy, so either you mean something different by "philosophy" or you mean something different by "scientific method".
"[The scientific method] is merely an investigative technique that begins with an observation, makes a prediction, then tests and either supports or refutes the prediction. I don't see how that is philosophy, so either you mean something different by "philosophy" or you mean something different by "scientific method"."
Hold up an apple. Let go. Observe what happens. How do you know what you were holding? How do you know you let go of it? How do you know what happened when you did so?
Repeat the experiment 100 times. How do you know that it is more likely than not that it will happen the same way the 101st time? What about repeatability makes something have any predictive value?
The scientific method is nothing more than the practical application of purely philosophical principles.
"The scientific method is nothing more than the practical application of purely philosophical principles."
Ok, stipulated that, for the purposes of this discussion, the scientific method is applied philosophy. This is reasonable considering that science was called natural philosophy before the advent of modern science.
"Ok, stipulated that, for the purposes of this discussion, the scientific method is applied philosophy."
So, as science is based on the non-physical, why cannot a scientific theory be based on the non-physical?
Here's a theory I have.
The Big Bang was the first event. So what started the Big Bang? If it was a non-intentional, non-personal, event, then it could never have happened, as every such event must have some sort of a cause. But a cause like that cannot change state before the first event, in order to cause the first event.
So the theory is, therefore, that the event was intentional, personal. And since it happened as the first event, this cause must also have been, from our perspective, supernatural.
Of course, there's a lot more to the theory than this, but that gives the general idea. The theory itself is based on pure science, but the conclusion posits the likely *necessity* of a supernatural being.
That is, given the Big Bang as the first event, there was necessarily, to the best of our understanding today, a divine creator being. Indeed, Hawking knows this, which is why he tries so hard to come up with mind-numbing alternatives, like circular time. All of them have fallen flat.
This is a perfectly valid scientific theory that includes a supernatural being. Now granted, it is not provable, it is not falsifiable, it is not testable, and it is based on our limited understanding and could actually turn out to be wrong. But it is -- at worst, and for now -- no less scientific, and no more supernatural, than Hawking's theory of quantum universes.
The point is simply that the introduction of the supernatural is not actually a problem for science. Many scientists find it distasteful -- they throw about silly and wrongheaded terms like "lazy" -- but their taste is not scientific either.
Indeed, and you bring up a good point about natural philosophy, many of our most important scientists were staunchly religious, and studied science BECAUSE OF their religious beliefs. Isaac Newton -- who actually wrote more about his religious beliefs than about science -- believed, as most Christians and Jews and Muslims do, that God is a logical and rational being, and that his creation is therefore logical and rational, and that it is therefore empirically discoverable.
This set them apart from some atheists and various pagans who actually believed that the universe was chaotic, that it had no order.
Of course, that was a long time ago. But the point is that there is nothing anti-science, or non-science, let alone "lazy," about believing that some questions are answered with "God." That doesn't mean you stop looking for answers, and -- as with any science -- if a better answer comes along, then you go with it.
Right now, the best answer for the "uncaused cause" is "God." Someday we may have a better answer. But this answer is perfectly acceptable until then.
"That is, given the Big Bang as the first event, there was necessarily, to the best of our understanding today, a divine creator being. Indeed, Hawking knows this, which is why he tries so hard to come up with mind-numbing alternatives, like circular time. All of them have fallen flat."
I am not a cosmologist, but the Big Bang is not necessarily the first event. Here is a nice post on "What happened before the big bang?" at badastronomy.com
Some of the proposed models work well and will be testable within a few years, no creator required.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/
"But this answer is perfectly acceptable until then."
Given alternate explanations that don't invoke the supernatural, it is not an acceptable answer to me.
"I am not a cosmologist, but the Big Bang is not necessarily the first event."
I didn't say it was. Please read again. I said "if" it was. It's only a theory after all.
"Given alternate explanations that don't invoke the supernatural, it is not an acceptable answer to me."
Exactly: but a true scientist would not do that. A true scientist would recognize that this is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable theory like any other.
"I didn't say it was. Please read again. I said "if" it was. It's only a theory after all."
I read it all again, and can't see where you said "if". There is "The Big Bang was the first event" which is a definitive statement. There is also "given the Big Bang as the first event" which I am pointing out is NOT a given.
"Exactly: but a true scientist would not do that. A true scientist would recognize that this is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable theory like any other."
Then I suppose I am not a true scientist in your mind, which is fine with me.
But I disagree with your assessment of what a "true scientist" would do. Scientists do not answer an unknown with "god did it", especially when there are alternate explanations available. Let me rephrase that, SOME scientists might do it, but they are not speaking scientifically when they do so. Your hypothesis is not even scientific, although you clearly would like to believe it is. It is BASED in science, yes, you are taking the observations we have made about the known world and come up with a possible explanation. The fact that it is, by your own admission, not testable, means it falls at best into the same camp as Hawking's theory, which we have agreed is not science. But you really veer off the road with your supernatural solution to a natural question, which means your answer is simply not science by definition.
This does not mean it is a worthless hypothesis, it obviously works for you, it just means that it is not science. There are many pursuits that do not qualify as science, and many things that can be investigated using the scientific method. For example, the scientific method can be applied to any investigation of the supernatural - Given that aliens have visited our planet and exploded cows, what kind of technique do they use for that? You could come up with all kinds of fantastic machines and weapons for exploding cows and determine which cow splatter matches that found from UFO sites until you find the weapon that matches most closely, then publish your findings in a UFO journal. Well written, well tested, good techniques - but not science because it begins by accepting something for which there is no proof.
I think this is the problem with the Discovery Institute - they believe that if you use the scientific method you are doing science. That's not how it works.
God was supposed to be responsible for everything, but we continually come up with natural, scientific reasons for everything we observe around us. As our technology has advanced we have made new observations that we can't explain, and some have tried to say, "See, there is God" until someone discovers a natural explanation for that. The process is ongoing; we continually find new things we are unable to explain scientifically, but eventually we can. And so the area available for this "God of the gaps" is continually shrinking.
Surprising to some, one thing that scientists are very comfortable with that seems to make some people cringe is the simple phrase "I don't know". Usually followed by "let's try to figure it out".
"I read it all again, and can't see where you said "if"."
You need to read more carefully. Yes, that word is not explicitly used, but it is clearly implied.
"There is "The Big Bang was the first event" which is a definitive statement."
That comes right after "Here's a theory I have."
"There is also "given the Big Bang as the first event" which I am pointing out is NOT a given."
"Given" means in the context "contingent upon," or "if." And then I nodded to Hawking, saying he was trying to show the Big Bang was NOT the first event, which is a further implication of "if."
"Scientists do not answer an unknown with "god did it", especially when there are alternate explanations available."
That's complete bullshit. Scientists answer unknown questions with theories, and provide the best theories the can come up with, period, end of story.
You have an unscientific bias: you are biased AGAINST the supernatural. A true scientist is open to all possibilities.
"Let me rephrase that, SOME scientists might do it, but they are not speaking scientifically when they do so."
False. You have it backwards. A scientist who rejects a theory JUST BECAUSE it involves the supernatural is, in fact, rejecting the tenets of science.
"Your hypothesis is not even scientific"
It is as scientific as quantum universes. Granted, you said that isn't scientific either, but most people would say it is.
Testability is not required for something to be scientific. By the same standard, relativity was not scientific when Einstein first came up with it. Please don't try to argue THAT wasn't science.
"But you really veer off the road with your supernatural solution to a natural question, which means your answer is simply not science by definition."
Except that your definition is a classic example of the question-begging fallacy. You do not WANT science to include the so-called "supernatural," so you define science to exclude it. But that is a recent invention in the world of science, and not a reasonable one.
"That's complete bullshit. Scientists answer unknown questions with theories, and provide the best theories the can come up with, period, end of story."
Scientists answer unknown questions with the best natural explanations they can come up with.
"You have an unscientific bias: you are biased AGAINST the supernatural. A true scientist is open to all possibilities."
Sounds quite a bit like "no true Scotsman".
"A scientist who rejects a theory JUST BECAUSE it involves the supernatural is, in fact, rejecting the tenets of science."
Not at all, science deals with the natural world. Sorry you don't like it.
"Testability is not required for something to be scientific. By the same standard, relativity was not scientific when Einstein first came up with it. Please don't try to argue THAT wasn't science."
Testing is ABSOLUTELY required. There is a HUGE difference between "not testable with our currently technology" and "not testable by any conceivable means". Einstein himself proposed the experiments that would prove relativity, we just lacked the technology to do them until later.
I may be stricter than most in saying Hawking's theory is not science because it is not testable in any way I can imagine, but it might be someday. I am not a cosmologist and am not equipped to propose experimeints for a theory I don't fully understand.
"You do not WANT science to include the so-called "supernatural," so you define science to exclude it. But that is a recent invention in the world of science, and not a reasonable one."
You don't like the definition of science, that's fine. It's not like I made it up. It is the broadly accepted definition of science, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Try reading these links:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/unt.not.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
From the IU link:
"Scientific explanations must be potentially disprovable. Therefore, supernatural explanations cannot be used, since they can never be disproved (supernatural forces, by definition, do not predictably follow the laws of nature). Whatever results occur in any test can be attributed to those nebulous forces, effectively ending any further efforts to explain."
But if you want to redefine science for the sake of this conversation to include things that are not testable and include supernatural explanations, then sure, your hypothesis is science.
"Scientists answer unknown questions with the best natural explanations they can come up with."
That's the question-begging fallacy, and it is self-refuting anyway, since the scientific method itself is not natural.
"But if you want to redefine science for the sake of this conversation ..."
I do not. I am saying quite explicitly that the definition of science YOU are using is fallacious.
By the way, I found this choice Gregoire quote from 2006: "Our state budgeting has been a roller coaster. We spend when we have a surplus and we struggle to make painful cuts when the economy slumps. It is time to even out the ride. While the roller coaster is fun at the amusement park, it is no model for state budgeting.
By treating our budget like a Washington family budget – we will ensure stability and avoid tax increases or Draconian cuts tomorrow."
Of course, we did precisely that: spent when we had a surplus, and now we are facing (with a now $2.7B deficit) tax increases or "Draconian" cuts. So which will she choose? Well, this year she re-echoed the same sentiment (ignoring the fact that the Dems massive budget increases are what caused out deficit ... indeed, not explicitly mentioning the deficit), saying: "For too long, state government spent in the good times, and then made painful cuts when the economy slowed. We are getting off that roller coaster, and we're making progress!"
Note that in 2006 she said we should avoid tax increases or budget cuts. In 2008 she said we should avoid budget cuts.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know where this is going.
"That's the question-begging fallacy, and it is self-refuting anyway, since the scientific method itself is not natural."
It is neither question-begging nor self-refuting. By definition science does not allow for supernatural explanations. Maybe in your world it does, but the rest of us don't live there. As for self-refuting, you clearly have a different definition of "natural". There is nothing supernatural about observing, formulating hypotheses, and testing them. Unless of course, you consider humans to be supernatural, but you don't, do you?
"I am saying quite explicitly that the definition of science YOU are using is fallacious."
I understand you are saying that - please understand that you are wrong. The definition I am using is the broadly accepted one. Whether one considers methodological naturalism or critical rationalism to be the proper lens with which to view science, they each have as their foundation either the utter disbelief in the supernatural or the importance of falsifiability. By disregarding both you have moved into a realm that is simply not science. What you have is simply a metaphysical philosophy, but it fails the science test. I'm glad your philosophy works for you though.
"It is neither question-begging nor self-refuting. By definition science does not allow for supernatural explanations."
Using that made-up and fallacious definition, yes. Please understand that it is wrong. Science for thousands of years was not defined that way, and there is no logical reason beyond mere question-begging why it should be defined that way now.
"As for self-refuting, you clearly have a different definition of "natural". There is nothing supernatural about observing, formulating hypotheses, and testing them."
There is nothing natural about it, either. It is metaphysical. You say my views are "simply a metaphysical philosophy." The problem is: so is the scientific method. Like I said, self-refuting.
"Whether one considers methodological naturalism or critical rationalism to be the proper lens with which to view science, they each have as their foundation either the utter disbelief in the supernatural or the importance of falsifiability. By disregarding both you have moved into a realm that is simply not science."
Disbelief in the supernatural has NEVER -- ever, not even to this day -- been a foundation of science, and falsifiability is a canard that was invented just last century to discount Freud, and itself has been discounted by most serious philosophers of science.
Science was done for thousands of years without requiring either disbelief in supernatural explanations, nor falsifiability. History proves you wrong. Unless you believe that Issac Newton didn't do science ... ? But you don't, do you?
"Using that made-up and fallacious definition, yes."
From Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark":
"I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."
Unfortunately you are not The Bellman and your repeated claims are nonsense. I'm sorry you are unable to deal with reality.
"There is nothing natural about it, either. It is metaphysical."
Ok, now you are using metaphysical to mean something other than "reality beyond what is perceptible" or "highly abstract". If you are going to continue to use words to mean something they do not it will be difficult to have any idea what you are talking about.
"Unless you believe that Issac Newton didn't do science ... ?"
Belief in the supernatural doesn't mean one is not capable of science, merely that relying on it is not scientific. When Newton said "Gravity explains the motions of the planets" that was scientific. When he continued "but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done" that was not scientific.
"I'm sorry you are unable to deal with reality."
Yawn. I pointed out the fact that your assertions of what science "is" do not match up with the hundreds and thousands of years that we've been doing science. Your only refutation is a virtual "nuh uh!"
"Ok, now you are using metaphysical to mean something other than "reality beyond what is perceptible" or "highly abstract"."
No, I am not changing the word's meaning at all. Aristotle's book "Metaphysics" was the beginning of understanding the scientific method that we know today, dealing specifically with what tools we can use to understand the world around us. By the classical understanding of metaphysical -- the one I use -- the scientific method is metaphysical philosophy, if anything is.
"Belief in the supernatural doesn't mean one is not capable of science, merely that relying on it is not scientific."
That is not what you said. You said science relies on the UTTER DISBELIEF in the supernatural, which is obviously false, since belief, and disbelief, in the supernatural has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with science.
"I pointed out the fact that your assertions of what science "is" do not match up with the hundreds and thousands of years that we've been doing science."
I am using the more modern definition - as I said, if you'd like to expand the definition to include things it currently does not, fine. But don't try to pretend that is what it currently means. Perhaps you should catch up with the Scientific Revolution, it was only 500 years ago or so. While science may have it's roots in philosophy, it is distinguished because it is empirical and experimental. It is no longer called "natural philosophy", but "science".
"No, I am not changing the word's meaning at all. Aristotle's book "Metaphysics" was the beginning of understanding the scientific method that we know today, dealing specifically with what tools we can use to understand the world around us. By the classical understanding of metaphysical -- the one I use -- the scientific method is metaphysical philosophy, if anything is."
So you argue from authority too. The term "metaphysics" as I use it means "reality beyond what is perceptible". My usage is modern, common, and accurate. By my usage, the scientific method is not metaphysical.
"You said science relies on the UTTER DISBELIEF in the supernatural, which is obviously false, since belief, and disbelief, in the supernatural has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with science."
Try reading at a higher level of comprehension. What I ACTUALLY said was: "Whether one considers methodological naturalism or critical rationalism to be the proper lens with which to view science, they each have as their foundation either the utter disbelief in the supernatural or the importance of falsifiability. By disregarding both you have moved into a realm that is simply not science."
Let me help you parse it - "EACH have as their foundation EITHER the utter disbelief in the supernatural ..." (this is an accurate description of methodological naturalism) "... or the importance of falsifiability" (which is what critical rationalism is all about). Your theory does not fit within either of these philosophies of science.
Further, this applies to SCIENCE, not SCIENTISTS, and your attempts to conflate the two are a poor way of constructing a strawman for you to knock down.
"as I said, if you'd like to expand the definition to include things it currently does not, fine"
As I said, you are making things up. Your definition is not THE definition. There is no THE definition. You are question-begging.
"So you argue from authority too."
No. You either do not understand what I wrote, or do not understand what "arguing from authority" is. We are simply talking definitions here, and the ONLY way to argue definitions IS to "argue from authority," that is, by looking at actual usage.
"The term "metaphysics" as I use it means "reality beyond what is perceptible". My usage is modern, common, and accurate. By my usage, the scientific method is not metaphysical."
Yes, in fact, it is. How do you propose ever possibly perceiving the scientific method? Please do share.
"Try reading at a higher level of comprehension."
Try writing and thinking at one. Science CANNOT rely on what you call methodological naturalism, by your own definition of science. A DISbelief in the supernatural is no more scientifically valid than a belief in the supernatural.
I can tell you are getting emotional here. Perhaps you should take a break.
"As I said, you are making things up. Your definition is not THE definition. There is no THE definition."
Except it IS the definition, and I provided sources. Get over it.
"by looking at actual usage."
You bring up ~2500 year old texts and say this is actual usage? Hardly.
"How do you propose ever possibly perceiving the scientific method?"
The scientific method is a methodology and is easily observable.
"Science CANNOT rely on what you call methodological naturalism, by your own definition of science. A DISbelief in the supernatural is no more scientifically valid than a belief in the supernatural."
Nonsense, science deals only with the natural world. Methodological naturalism holds the view that the supernatural does not exist. This is in no way incompatible with my definition of science.
"Except it IS the definition, and I provided sources. Get over it."
Repeating it doesn't make it true. Maybe you do not know how definitions work. They are not dictated to us, they are determined by common usage, and your definition is ONE common use, but far from the only one.
"You bring up ~2500 year old texts and say this is actual usage? Hardly."
It certainly is common -- indeed, dominant -- in philosophy circles, and we were discussing philosophy.
"The scientific method is a methodology and is easily observable."
Well, um, that's beside the point. The point is: how do you observe that the scientific method is a useful tool? That it is good for achieving your desired goals? That it could possibly tell you what you think it is telling you? Of course you can see it in action, but how do you know what it is telling you?
This is not observable with your natural senses, it necessarily requires philosophy.
"Nonsense, science deals only with the natural world."
But it does not -- cannot logically -- preclude supernatural explanations. Science is just a tool. Take a hammer. Your computer keeps rebooting and it needs to be fixed. Hit your hammer with it. Does that fix it? No.
So, you can say, "well, there must be an explanation for what's wrong with this computer that I can hammer." Right? No, you say, "the correct explanation for what's wrong with this computer could be something that my hammer cannot fix."
I didn't say that "God" is a scientific explanation: I said the answer "God" is not unreasonable even a scientific context. It clearly isn't, as much as you'd like it to be.
"Methodological naturalism holds the view that the supernatural does not exist. This is in no way incompatible with my definition of science."
Yes, it is, clearly, because such a view is not observable. At least with the scientific method, while it is not observable either (in the sense described above), at least you can use your senses to partially verify the claims made by the method (the method says this rock should fall again, and indeed, it does).
But there is no conceivable way to, even in the slightest way, verify the claim that the supernatural does not exist.
"your definition is ONE common use, but far from the only one."
"It certainly is common -- indeed, dominant -- in philosophy circles, and we were discussing philosophy."
Wait, you're going to insist on using the philosophers' definition of metaphysics, but balk at the scientists' definition of science? Your hypocrisy is astounding.
"Well, um, that's beside the point."
I see, so when your point is shown to be wrong you change what the point is.
"how do you observe that the scientific method is a useful tool?"
Because it works, therefore it is useful. It leads to repeatable answers that accurately describe the world, which is all it is required to do.
"Science is just a tool."
Science is not a tool, the scientific method is a tool. Science is an area of study.
"I said the answer "God" is not unreasonable even a scientific context. It clearly isn't"
By your non-scientific definition of science, you're right. By the scientists consensus definition of science, the one that the VAST majority of scientists agree with, you are wrong.
"But there is no conceivable way to, even in the slightest way, verify the claim that the supernatural does not exist."
You miss the point - the existence of the supernatural is an extraordinary claim, and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Sagan). There isn't even "ordinary evidence" of the supernatural, only anecdotal evidence which is worthless. It is not the scientists' who need to prove that the supernatural DOES NOT exist, but rather the burden of proof lies with those who claim it DOES exist.
"Wait, you're going to insist on using the philosophers' definition of metaphysics, but balk at the scientists' definition of science? Your hypocrisy is astounding."
You're ignoring the facts. I never said your definition of science is wrong, except in that it is not the only one, and that it is not based in sound reasoning. I understand it is a definition, just a bad one. I also understand there are multiple definitions of metaphysics.
So, no, you are, once again, incorrect.
"I see, so when your point is shown to be wrong you change what the point is."
No, in fact, I did no such thing. Again, you are incorrect.
"Because it works, therefore it is useful."
How do you know it works?
"It leads to repeatable answers that accurately describe the world"
Why do you say "repeatable" is good? How do you know it is accurate?
Those answers only come through metaphysics. You end up in question-begging to try to come up with non-metaphysical answers.
"the existence of the supernatural is an extraordinary claim"
That is, of course, the logical fallacy of question-begging, and thus is rejected as invalid.
"You're ignoring the facts. I never said your definition of science is wrong, except in that it is not the only one, and that it is not based in sound reasoning. I understand it is a definition, just a bad one."
Wrong again. What you ACTUALLY said was: "THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF SCIENCE". You also said "I am saying quite explicitly that the definition of science YOU are using is fallacious", "Using that made-up and fallacious definition", and "I pointed out the fact that your assertions of what science "is" do not match up with the hundreds and thousands of years that we've been doing science"
From this I can only conclude that you have no idea what you said.
Further, I said: "I see, so when your point is shown to be wrong you change what the point is."
You said: "No, in fact, I did no such thing. Again, you are incorrect."
Really? Let's rewind . . .
You said: "How do you propose ever possibly perceiving the scientific method?"
I said: "The scientific method is a methodology and is easily observable."
You said: "Well, um, that's beside the point."
That is exactly the point you were trying to make. You are failing the Turing Test.
"How do you know it works?"
Besides my personal experience, it is evident in the many technological advances made using the scientific method.
"That is, of course, the logical fallacy of question-begging, and thus is rejected as invalid."
That is perhaps the most absurd thing you have said to date. There is no credible evidence for the existence of the supernatural, therefore it must be assumed to not exist. Claiming that it is begging the question is false.
I say: "the existence of the supernatural is an extraordinary claim"
The basis of my statement is that there is no credible evidence for the existence of the supernatural. By calling this begging the question you seem to indicate there actually IS credible evidence. Do you have any?
"What you ACTUALLY said was: "THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF SCIENCE"."
Right. And? There is no definition of science. There are definitionS of science. How is this not clear to you?
"You also said "I am saying quite explicitly that the definition of science YOU are using is fallacious""
Yes. It is. The definition exists, but it is fallacious. Come on, man. Try to keep up.
"That is exactly the point you were trying to make."
No. Obviously, from the context, the point was that you cannot observe the reasons WHY you follow the scientific method, which IS the POINT of the scientific method.
"Besides my personal experience, it is evident in the many technological advances made using the scientific method."
Nope. As far as you can tell -- without metaphysical philosophical principles -- your experiences are purely random coincidences and are in no way a useful predictor of the future.
"That is perhaps the most absurd thing you have said to date. There is no credible evidence for the existence of the supernatural, therefore it must be assumed to not exist."
Ha. You have it backwards. You are the one stating unscientific, and philosophically invalid, absurdities. You have it completely inverted. If there is no evidence for it you *do not make an assumption either way.* That is how the scientific method actually works. Science DOES NOT EVER assume something is false just because there is no evidence for it.
"Claiming that it is begging the question is false."
Incorrect. That is precisely what it is. You do not want it to be true, so you assume it isn't, despite not actually having evidence either way, and then you claim that it is because some made-up definition requires you to do that.
"The basis of my statement is that there is no credible evidence for the existence of the supernatural. By calling this begging the question you seem to indicate there actually IS credible evidence. Do you have any?"
You apparently have no clue what "begging the question" means, because no, calling it begging the question IN NO WAY implies there actually is credible evidence. It only implies that your argument is acting as the defense of your argument, that you are arguing in circles.
That said, yes, of course there's credible evidence. The problem is that any evidence offered, you will reply, "but you can't have a supernatural explanation for that evidence, because that's not science."
Hence, begging the question. And around and around and around you go.
Do you get dizzy?
"There is no definition of science. There are definitionS of science. How is this not clear to you?"
There is a huge difference between saying "there is no definition" and "there are several definitions". Pretending you don't know that is incredibly dishonest.
"The definition exists, but it is fallacious"
This, after you said "I never said your definition of science is wrong". Again, dishonest. And before you start blathering on, I am well aware of what fallacious means, however it directly implies the definition is "wrong".
"No. Obviously, from the context,"
Not obvious from the context - again, dishonest.
"Nope. As far as you can tell -- without metaphysical philosophical principles -- your experiences are purely random coincidences and are in no way a useful predictor of the future."
Utter and pure BS. What is more likely - that it works because things are random, or it works because it is an accruate predictor? It is simply not reasonable to say it works due to coincidence. And reasoning is not exclusively a metaphysical philosophical principle.
"Science DOES NOT EVER assume something is false just because there is no evidence for it."
There is no evidence for it, but there IS evidence against it. Supernatural claims have been repeatedly invesitgated, and no evidence for the supernatural has ever been found. While it is not PROOF there is no such thing as the supernatural, it is evidence against its existence. Thus it is a reasonable assumption that the supernatural does not exist.
"You apparently have no clue what "begging the question" means, because no, calling it begging the question IN NO WAY implies there actually is credible evidence."
Actually, it would seem that you only know one definition of "begging the question". Because one usage claims that the premises are questionable. My premise is that there is no credilbe evidence for the supernatural. I used the word "seems" because I thought you might be using this usage. Apparently you were not, but then you continually reject any definition you choose.
"That said, yes, of course there's credible evidence. The problem is that any evidence offered, you will reply, "but you can't have a supernatural explanation for that evidence, because that's not science.""
You have no idea what I would say about any evidence you try to produce. Please, produce non-anecdotal evidence of the supernatural. Note I have not asked for scientific evidence, just non-anecdotal evidence.
"This, after you said "I never said your definition of science is wrong". Again, dishonest."
No, ignorance on your part.
Linguistically, it is a valid definition. It is in use by many people. It is not a "wrong definition."
Logically and scientifically, it sucks. It makes no sense. It is a terrible and irrational definition.
Two different, non-mutually exclusive, things.
"Not obvious from the context - again, dishonest."
It was obvious to me, and I presumed it would be for you. Nothing dishonest about it. I know it is easier for you emotionally to pretend I am some bad evil liar, but try to stay calm and, dare I say, scientific.
"Utter and pure BS. What is more likely - that it works because things are random, or it works because it is an accruate predictor?"
Um. That is a metaphysical question. I am not saying that things happen at random. I am saying you cannot OBSERVE that, you need to philosophically REASON it.
"It is simply not reasonable to say it works due to coincidence."
I agree. But science cannot tell you that. Only philosophy can, specifically, classical metaphysics; though, feel free to call it whatever you wish, as long as you recognize it is not observable that it is not reasonable, because you need to -- duh -- REASON it.
"There is no evidence for it, but there IS evidence against it."
Incorrect. You are a smart guy. Surely you've heard the phrase: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I didn't realize this would turn into a Sagan quote-off, but so be it!
"Note I have not asked for scientific evidence, just non-anecdotal evidence."
I already provided it. If the Big Bang was the first event, which many scientists believe, then it is FAR more logically likely -- indeed, by our current understanding, I would say logically *necessary* -- that God exists. That is very strong philosophical evidence, although, of course, it rests on two premises that, while true to the best of our understanding now, might not be true: that the Big Bang was the first event, and that there is no other explanation for what could have started the first event.
That is not anecdotal, it is firmly based in science, and it is evidence.
"It was obvious to me, and I presumed it would be for you. Nothing dishonest about it. I know it is easier for you emotionally to pretend I am some bad evil liar, but try to stay calm and, dare I say, scientific."
What a joke. I can't decide what is funnier, that you think I am getting emotional when I call BS on your dishonesty, or that you think calling me emotional is insulting to me.
"Incorrect. You are a smart guy. Surely you've heard the phrase: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I didn't realize this would turn into a Sagan quote-off, but so be it!"
That is AWESOME! If you are going to quote Sagan, you should at least understand the context. He was describing the view of people who cling to their beliefs despite no evidence they are at all correct. He was criticizing their appeal to ignorance, and in fact believed the opposite. You have been duped by the quote mining of others.
"That is not anecdotal, it is firmly based in science, and it is evidence."
Now who is begging the question? Your two premises are easily refuted. First, new theories propose that the Big Bang was not the first event, as you well know. Even given that it was the first event, the second ("there is no other explanation for what could have started the first event") is wrong.
From Victor J. Stenger's review of "Beyond the Big Bang: Quantum Cosmologies and God, by Willem B. Drees" (my emphasis)
"Willem Drees is a physicist and a theologian, and smart enough not to draw that unjustified conclusion. He understands that the standard Big Bang theory does not take us back all the way to t=0, that perhaps t=0 cannot even be defined as a meaningful concept. He recognizes that science provides no evidence for the existence of God, and probably never will. Nothing in current cosmology demands that the universe was purposefully created. In fact, the most economical hypothesis, consistent with all astronomical observations and the established theoretical structure of modern physics and cosmology is that the origin of the universe was a quantum fluctuation, absent of any design or plan."
So if a quantum fluctuation could have started the universe, that is a valid alternate explanation that refutes your "no other explanation claim".
"What a joke. I can't decide what is funnier, that you think I am getting emotional when I call BS on your dishonesty, or that you think calling me emotional is insulting to me."
Yawn. You have not pointed out a SINGLE instance of me being dishonest. Every time you've tried, I've showed quite clearly how you simply misunderstood.
And yes, being emotional at the expense of being rational, in a debate like this, is a bad thing.
"He was criticizing their appeal to ignorance, and in fact believed the opposite."
No, he did not. For example, he believed extraterrestrial life exists, despite not a shred of evidence. He did not believe for a moment that absence of evidence was evidence of absence.
Unless, of course, he's just a hypocrite.
"Now who is begging the question?"
Not me. You still don't know what that means, do you?
"Your two premises are easily refuted."
False. But I know I am going to enjoy you looking foolish.
"First, new theories propose that the Big Bang was not the first event, as you well know."
That does not refute the idea that it WAS the first event. Please, refute the idea that it was the first event, since you said it is easilt refuted.
"Even given that it was the first event, the second ("there is no other explanation for what could have started the first event") is wrong."
No, it is not.
"So if a quantum fluctuation could have started the universe"
It could not have. It is not possible for it to have fluctuated before the first event, because that fluctation would require time -- which is, of course, the succession of events -- in order to fluctuate. States cannot change unless there is a passage of time, unless there are events and causes. So this, actually, is mere question-begging, asking us what came before this quantum fluctuation.
But hey, at least that was an attempt at refutation, even if it was a failed one, unlike your non-attempt to refute the possibility of the Big Bang.
"For example, he believed extraterrestrial life exists, despite not a shred of evidence. He did not believe for a moment that absence of evidence was evidence of absence."
He believed in the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, which is a matter of probability best exemplified by the Drake equation. But he said this: "But, the stakes are so high on whether it's true or false, that we must demand the more rigorous standards of evidence. Precisely because it's so exciting. That's the circumstance in which our hopes may dominate our skeptical scrutiny of the data. So, we have to be very careful."
"Not me. You still don't know what that means, do you?"
Yes, it means that your premises are as questionable as your conclusion. I get that you don't like that usage, too bad.
"Please, refute the idea that it was the first event, since you said it is easilt refuted."
I have given you my refutation. A refutation does not require proof, merely an alternate proposal. One, I should mention, that fits what is known about the universe better than assuming the Big Bang was the first event.
"It could not have. It is not possible for it to have fluctuated before the first event, because that fluctation would require time -- which is, of course, the succession of events -- in order to fluctuate. States cannot change unless there is a passage of time, unless there are events and causes."
Forgive me for believing what cosmologists say rather than some random person on the internet.
"What triggered the Big Bang? According to a new theory, our universe crashed into another three-dimensional world hidden in higher dimensions. "The model suggests a radically different view of cosmic history in which the key events shaping the structure of the universe occurred before the Big Bang," says cosmologist Paul Steinhardt."
"But hey, at least that was an attempt at refutation, even if it was a failed one, unlike your non-attempt to refute the possibility of the Big Bang."
Again, with the dishonesty. You know full well that I never said the Big Bang was impossible. I said that the premise that it was the first event was refutable. Why do you feel the need to mislead the reader (is anyone else even reading this?) by claiming I said something which I clearly did not?
"He believed in the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, which is a matter of probability best exemplified by the Drake equation."
And I believe in the likelihood of the supernatural, which is a matter of probability as per the Kalam argument. Shrug.
"But, the stakes are so high on whether it's true or false, that we must demand the more rigorous standards of evidence. Precisely because it's so exciting. That's the circumstance in which our hopes may dominate our skeptical scrutiny of the data. So, we have to be very careful."
Sure. I am not saying YOU have to believe in God or ETs. I am just saying I believe in God, not dissimilarly -- except by your dishonest question-begging -- from Sagan's personal belief in ETs.
"I have given you my refutation. A refutation does not require proof, merely an alternate proposal."
No. To refute means to show to be false, not merely to provide an alternative possibility. And besides, I already stated there were alternative possibilities, and your implication to the contrary is a lie.
"Forgive me for believing what cosmologists say rather than some random person on the internet."
Please, please be honest. You are not believing what cosmologists say, you are saying what SOME cosmologists say.
"What triggered the Big Bang? According to a new theory, our universe crashed into another three-dimensional world hidden in higher dimensions."
Yes, according a new theory with no serious foundation in anything beyond the purely theoretical. Yawn.
"I said that the premise that it was the first event was refutable."
And you utterly failed to refute it. You not only did not refute it according to the actual definition of what "refute" means (in every usage but your own, not just my usage), but you failed to even live up to your own standard, since it makes no sense to "refute" me by offering an alternative when I already said there were alternatives.
"Why do you feel the need to mislead the reader"
Why do you keep lying by saying I am lying?
"by claiming I said something which I clearly did not?"
And you're lying again.
You decided to descend into this "you're lying!" stuff, but if that's the game you want to play, so be it. Unfortunately you cannot match my knowledge or intellect so you feel it necessary to resort to such tactics, but I can play by any rules you wish, far better than you, so bring it on.
"Sure. I am not saying YOU have to believe in God or ETs. I am just saying I believe in God, not dissimilarly -- except by your dishonest question-begging -- from Sagan's personal belief in ETs."
Oh, this whole time I thought you were trying to convince me that God must exist. But there is a major difference between your belief and Sagan's. Yours is a belief in the supernatural, for which there is no empirical evidence. Sagan's is a belief in the natural, specifically in the existence of life. Now, if there was evidence that ghosts existed and you claimed ghosts started the Big Bang there would be room for discussion, but since you are positing the existence of a being for which there is no empirical evidence your case is not as strong as Sagan's. So yes, they are dissimilar in that way.
"No. To refute means to show to be false, not merely to provide an alternative possibility. And besides, I already stated there were alternative possibilities, and your implication to the contrary is a lie."
Oh, I forgot, I am only allowed to use the definitions you like and any other usage is forbidden. And all of those dictionaries, with their stupid alternate definitions must be very frustrating for you.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
"To deny the accuracy or truth of"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute
"to deny the truth or accuracy of"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/refute
"To deny the accuracy or truth of"
"Yes, according a new theory with no serious foundation in anything beyond the purely theoretical."
Hello? If that is the case then yours is entirely theoretical as well.
"it makes no sense to "refute" me by offering an alternative when I already said there were alternatives."
You say "The Big Bang was the first event." I am simply pointing out that it is a shaky foundation for your theory. By admitting there are other theories that are not based on that, you are admitting that yourself. The fact that the other theories better fit what we observe doesn't help you either.
I said: "Why do you feel the need to mislead the reader <...> by claiming I said something which I clearly did not?"
You said: "Why do you keep lying by saying I am lying?"
Again, let's rewind. I said: "Your two premises are easily refuted. First, new theories propose that the Big Bang was not the first event, as you well know." (I should point out that you have already said that you know such theories exist, so you obviously knew what I was talking about).
You said: "unlike your non-attempt to refute the possibility of the Big Bang."
I clearly did not say that the Big Bang was NOT possible, I never even said it did not happen, we were discussing if it was or was not the FIRST EVENT. Your statement that I was trying to "refute the possibility of the Big Bang" is completely inaccurate. I assume you know this and are again being intentionally obtuse, but I have no way to know for sure.
"You decided to descend into this "you're lying!" stuff, but if that's the game you want to play, so be it."
I see, so I am just supposed to let your dishonesty pass? You can say whatever you like and mis characterize my position and I should not call you on it?
"you cannot match my knowledge or intellect"
Now you're just being childish, resorting to ad hominem attacks.
"Oh, this whole time I thought you were trying to convince me that God must exist."
You're lying. I never implied that in any way. I was quite specific and clear in stating that I was merely providing a reasonable theory.
"But there is a major difference between your belief and Sagan's. Yours is a belief in the supernatural, for which there is no empirical evidence. Sagan's is a belief in the natural on other planets, for which there is no empirical evidence."
There, I fixed it for you.
Pretending that the key component of Sagan's believe, for which there is no empirical evidence, does not exist or is not the point, is extremely dishonest. You're lying.
"And all of those dictionaries, with their stupid alternate definitions must be very frustrating for you."
You're lying. You said "to refute" can mean showing "merely an alternate proposal." And not a single definition you provided backs you up.
"Hello? If that is the case then yours is entirely theoretical as well."
You're lying. The Big Bang is not entirely theoretical.
"You say "The Big Bang was the first event." I am simply pointing out that it is a shaky foundation for your theory. By admitting there are other theories that are not based on that, you are admitting that yourself."
You're lying. Admitting that (duh) other theories exist does not mean that I am admitting my theory is on a shaky foundation.
"The fact that the other theories better fit what we observe ..."
You're lying. That is not a fact.
"I see, so I am just supposed to let your dishonesty pass?"
You're lying. I was never dishonest.
"You can say whatever you like and mis characterize my position and I should not call you on it?"
You're lying. I never did any such thing.
"Now you're just being childish, resorting to ad hominem attacks."
You're lying. You are the one who first resorted to ad hominem attacks.
"I never implied that in any way. I was quite specific and clear in stating that I was merely providing a reasonable theory."
I disagree that it is a reasonable theory, and by trying to convince me that the theory you use to justify your belief in God is reasonable, you are in effect trying to convince me that God exists.
"Sagan's is a belief in the natural on other planets, for which there is no empirical evidence. There, I fixed it for you."
You miss this point - Sagan is merely extending what we already know - life exists in the universe, on a planet, surely you won't deny that? He believed it is a mathematical probability that life exists on more than one planet. This is much different than believing in a supernatural being, for which there is no empircal evidence. If there was evidence of the supernatural and you then said "the supernatural exists on other planets", then you would be in parrallel with Sagan.
"You said "to refute" can mean showing "merely an alternate proposal." And not a single definition you provided backs you up."
By providing alternate explanations I am denying the accuracy of your premise. All of the definitions back me up.
"You're lying. The Big Bang is not entirely theoretical."
I never said the Big Bang was theoretical, I said if the "universe bumping into ours started the Big Bang" theory is "purely theoretical", then your "Big Bang is the first event started by God" theory is entirely theoretical too.
"I was never dishonest."
That is possible - do you have another explanation for why you continually mis characterize my statements?
"I never did any such thing."
You did exactly that, as I've shown previously and show again above, where you try to claim I said the Big Bang is theoretical.
"You are the one who first resorted to ad hominem attacks."
Pointing out where you are mis characterizing what I say is not an ad hominem.
Well, it's been three days with no response. I'm going to consider this conversation dead, and won't be back to check for more replies. Feel free to sneak back here and declare victory, that seems like a tactic a Republican would employ.
A tactic Republicans employ is called "taking vacations," such as over holiday weekends.
But far be it from you to resort to ad hominem, right?
Post a Comment