Because BIG GOVERNMENT won't let them! Some good news! The Idaho legislature is actually considering changing its stupid law exempting "faith healing" from child neglect and abuse statutes, and while the Lege isn't currently in session, a panel of lawmakers is holding hearings on how the law might be altered in next year's session. Oh, but then there's the bad news: Members of the weirdo Christian sect the "Followers of Christ" told the panel last week they will
I'm determining that people who go to the doctor more than I do for non-hypochondrial reasons are probably better informed about their ailments and prognosis. generally, you don't go to the doctor as often for vaccines as a child suffering from cancer sees their oncology team. I'd rather not legalize euthanasia and then have it abused by allowing every teenager that got broken up with the first time to use it because it "feels" like they're dying. I'd rather not have kids dying from preventable diseases just because their parents are nutbars.
You can’t decide to follow a literal reading of only one thing, and still maintain that you’re arguing from a point of intellectual and spiritual honesty.You don’t get to choose to go all in for one fringe belief that results in kids dying for lack of basic antibiotics and not be treated like a crackpot.
There's a Star Trek novel where Sarek is explaining that not all Vulcans practice cthia (logic) as a way of life, and those that do apply it selectively...just like humans. As a point of comparison, he relates a story about how he was invited to attend a revival meeting as part of a cultural exchange. The people there were all loudly declaring their belief in "one of your people's holy books" and saying that the only way to be saved ("I am still unclear as to what they felt they needed saving from") was to follow every word to the letter.
So Sarek asks them if they go to the prescribed distance outside their encampment and dig a hole in the sand with a wooden paddle when they need to relieve themselves--as the book commands.
"...They were rather annoyed with me. And I said to them that it seemed to me that one had no right to insist that others keep all of a law unless one keeps it all himself. I am afraid," Sarek said, mildly, "that they became more annoyed yet."
"The 'rag' infoservices ate it up," Amanda said, with a mischievous smile. "'Demon Alien Pursued By Lynch Mob'."
Yes, you can. Yes, you do get to. Yes, you get to choose WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.
You're not the Thought Police. People can believe whatever they want. That's why we have a First Amendment. Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way humans are - WE GET TO CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE. Just like you get to choose NOT to believe in religion.
For example, let's say I was a Christian. (I used to be Catholic, but I'm not anymore, but for the sake of argument.) I decide that I like all the parts of the bible that say "love your neighbor", "help poor people whenever you can", "pay your debts and forgive other people's debts because money doesn't matter", "treat people kindly", etc. But I don't like the parts (which are FAR FEWER IN NUMBER) that say "kill the unbeliever", "kill your kid if he talks back", "don't get tattoes because they're icky", "never run around naked because the Romans do that and fuck those guys", and other such things. Now, does wanting to be a good person and not wanting to be an arbitrary asshole make me a hypocrite? Or are you going to say I'm wrong because I like the good parts and repudiate the more negative stuff? Or is this a judgment that only happens when the beliefs espoused are ones you don't like?
And come to think of it, why is it that cherry-picking is okay for you, when you want to condemn religion by pointing ONLY to the things you don't think are right? Why is it you atheists never seem to notice the HUNDREDS of times the bible says that the poor should be helped at every opportunity? Why is it the GOOD stuff is never quoted, only the things you object to? (Which, again, are FAR FEWER than all the good stuff.) Pretty damn convenient that you get to pick out what you don't like but the people who see things differently don't get to do the same.
Now, if you want to argue that people don't get to ACT on a belief that harms others (or that they have no right to force their beliefs on those who do not share them), that's a completely different subject. But we don't have a Thought Police in this country, and I for one am very grateful for that.
Why do people keep saying that if you legalize something, it's going to set off an explosion of disaster? Laws get made, and then the COURTS decide how to interpret them, on a case-by-case basis. The law gets adjusted, as laws always do, by the legal system. If we were to legalize euthanasia, the law would go to the courts almost immediately, and then it would start getting shaped by precedent. So the whole OMG EVERYBODY WILL KILL THEMSELVES panic is a little premature, besides being arrogant and condescending. (And by the way, the epidemic you're so scared of isn't one of euthanasia. What you've described is SUICIDE, rather a different thing, and nobody needs a doctor in order to kill themselves, unless they're in a situation where they literally can't do it.)
I had that this morning when I lost my coffee mug at the firehouse!Found it in the microwave, forgot I had warmed up my cuppa joe.Getting old beats the alternative, but damn!
I'm not freaking out about it. I'm responding to your direct question about "OMG! WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ANOTHER'S PAIN?!?!?!" absent a carte blanche legalization of euthanasia because someone thinks their tummy ache won't go away, a bunch of people are going to have to decide what pain qualifies for such a treatment for euthanasia to be legal--from those writing the laws to the judges themselves. and if we could do it in a way that doesn't have terminally ill people spending their last days in court fighting with their family members, that'd be great, too.
as an aside: I don't know why you're so pissed at me. maybe because you like jean skirts and I made a joke about them? whatever it is, I suggest that we have a GIF battle royale and then hug it out. okay?
My spouse was diagnosed with ovarian cancer 21 years ago. We were approached with all sorts of quackery. I applaud your resolution. Don't waste any of your precious time trying to be polite to quacks. Give it to them rude, crude and straight, just like you have done here. Don't give them any room to continue the sales pitch.
If you punched them I would call it self-defense.
May Crom give you strength; first for the cancer, then for the quacks.
Were they lost by the same people who "lost" the writings of Jesus himself? Oh of course they were certain that those were false, but the others were dead on, what with the awesome 7th century forensics and all. Constantine was not a big fan of the Jesus or the Enoch I guess.
I don't really understand their need to be accepted in the eyes of the law in the first place. If they are really so righteous, what's a few years in the clink compared to eternity in heaven? Seems like the fact that they are making an argument negates their argument before it starts.
I'm determining that people who go to the doctor more than I do for non-hypochondrial reasons are probably better informed about their ailments and prognosis. generally, you don't go to the doctor as often for vaccines as a child suffering from cancer sees their oncology team. I'd rather not legalize euthanasia and then have it abused by allowing every teenager that got broken up with the first time to use it because it "feels" like they're dying. I'd rather not have kids dying from preventable diseases just because their parents are nutbars.
You can’t decide to follow a literal reading of only one thing, and still maintain that you’re arguing from a point of intellectual and spiritual honesty.You don’t get to choose to go all in for one fringe belief that results in kids dying for lack of basic antibiotics and not be treated like a crackpot.
There's a Star Trek novel where Sarek is explaining that not all Vulcans practice cthia (logic) as a way of life, and those that do apply it selectively...just like humans. As a point of comparison, he relates a story about how he was invited to attend a revival meeting as part of a cultural exchange. The people there were all loudly declaring their belief in "one of your people's holy books" and saying that the only way to be saved ("I am still unclear as to what they felt they needed saving from") was to follow every word to the letter.
So Sarek asks them if they go to the prescribed distance outside their encampment and dig a hole in the sand with a wooden paddle when they need to relieve themselves--as the book commands.
"...They were rather annoyed with me. And I said to them that it seemed to me that one had no right to insist that others keep all of a law unless one keeps it all himself. I am afraid," Sarek said, mildly, "that they became more annoyed yet."
"The 'rag' infoservices ate it up," Amanda said, with a mischievous smile. "'Demon Alien Pursued By Lynch Mob'."
Yes, you can. Yes, you do get to. Yes, you get to choose WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.
You're not the Thought Police. People can believe whatever they want. That's why we have a First Amendment. Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way humans are - WE GET TO CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE. Just like you get to choose NOT to believe in religion.
For example, let's say I was a Christian. (I used to be Catholic, but I'm not anymore, but for the sake of argument.) I decide that I like all the parts of the bible that say "love your neighbor", "help poor people whenever you can", "pay your debts and forgive other people's debts because money doesn't matter", "treat people kindly", etc. But I don't like the parts (which are FAR FEWER IN NUMBER) that say "kill the unbeliever", "kill your kid if he talks back", "don't get tattoes because they're icky", "never run around naked because the Romans do that and fuck those guys", and other such things. Now, does wanting to be a good person and not wanting to be an arbitrary asshole make me a hypocrite? Or are you going to say I'm wrong because I like the good parts and repudiate the more negative stuff? Or is this a judgment that only happens when the beliefs espoused are ones you don't like?
And come to think of it, why is it that cherry-picking is okay for you, when you want to condemn religion by pointing ONLY to the things you don't think are right? Why is it you atheists never seem to notice the HUNDREDS of times the bible says that the poor should be helped at every opportunity? Why is it the GOOD stuff is never quoted, only the things you object to? (Which, again, are FAR FEWER than all the good stuff.) Pretty damn convenient that you get to pick out what you don't like but the people who see things differently don't get to do the same.
Now, if you want to argue that people don't get to ACT on a belief that harms others (or that they have no right to force their beliefs on those who do not share them), that's a completely different subject. But we don't have a Thought Police in this country, and I for one am very grateful for that.
Why do people keep saying that if you legalize something, it's going to set off an explosion of disaster? Laws get made, and then the COURTS decide how to interpret them, on a case-by-case basis. The law gets adjusted, as laws always do, by the legal system. If we were to legalize euthanasia, the law would go to the courts almost immediately, and then it would start getting shaped by precedent. So the whole OMG EVERYBODY WILL KILL THEMSELVES panic is a little premature, besides being arrogant and condescending. (And by the way, the epidemic you're so scared of isn't one of euthanasia. What you've described is SUICIDE, rather a different thing, and nobody needs a doctor in order to kill themselves, unless they're in a situation where they literally can't do it.)
Hes an national treasure
I wonder if thats the one that has all the aliens in it
I thought it was that Denzel Washington post-Trump wasteland flick...
I had that this morning when I lost my coffee mug at the firehouse!Found it in the microwave, forgot I had warmed up my cuppa joe.Getting old beats the alternative, but damn!
Is that the origin of Geezer!?! Thou shalt keepth from mine front lawn?
If it is a burning hell, the kids should spit at their feet.
I'm so sorry to hear this. I wish you all the best and take that fierce attitude and use it to kick that cancer in the nads.
I'm not freaking out about it. I'm responding to your direct question about "OMG! WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ANOTHER'S PAIN?!?!?!" absent a carte blanche legalization of euthanasia because someone thinks their tummy ache won't go away, a bunch of people are going to have to decide what pain qualifies for such a treatment for euthanasia to be legal--from those writing the laws to the judges themselves. and if we could do it in a way that doesn't have terminally ill people spending their last days in court fighting with their family members, that'd be great, too.
as an aside: I don't know why you're so pissed at me. maybe because you like jean skirts and I made a joke about them? whatever it is, I suggest that we have a GIF battle royale and then hug it out. okay?
My spouse was diagnosed with ovarian cancer 21 years ago. We were approached with all sorts of quackery. I applaud your resolution. Don't waste any of your precious time trying to be polite to quacks. Give it to them rude, crude and straight, just like you have done here. Don't give them any room to continue the sales pitch.
If you punched them I would call it self-defense.
May Crom give you strength; first for the cancer, then for the quacks.
Were they lost by the same people who "lost" the writings of Jesus himself? Oh of course they were certain that those were false, but the others were dead on, what with the awesome 7th century forensics and all. Constantine was not a big fan of the Jesus or the Enoch I guess.
I don't really understand their need to be accepted in the eyes of the law in the first place. If they are really so righteous, what's a few years in the clink compared to eternity in heaven? Seems like the fact that they are making an argument negates their argument before it starts.