The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Mon May 29, 2017 10:08 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:33 pm 
http://www.slate.com/id/2139843/

Impressive in it's clarity.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:01 pm 
Somebody should just go in and turn the whole middle-east into a barren unlivable wasteland. Oh, wait. Somebody seems to have already done that.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:00 pm 
Pi wrote:
Somebody should just go in and turn the whole middle-east into a barren unlivable wasteland. Oh, wait. Somebody seems to have already done that.


Some people feel exactly that way about where you live, Pi.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:17 am 
Pronto wrote:
Some people feel exactly that way about where you live, Pi.

I'm pretty sure nobody cares that much about Everett. :)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2006 11:04 am 
Pi wrote:
Somebody should just go in and turn the whole middle-east into a barren unlivable wasteland. Oh, wait. Somebody seems to have already done that.

So God gave them all that oil as compensation? :)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2006 1:01 am 
Oil is practically everywhere. God gave US a whole lot of oil too. but he also gave us a whole lot of whiny environmentalists. Which.. the middle east presumeably lacks due to it's general lack of an environment at all...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2006 11:19 am 
Closer to a lack of idealists with free time... :P


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2006 5:44 pm 
zippthorne wrote:
Oil is practically everywhere. God gave US a whole lot of oil too. but he also gave us a whole lot of whiny environmentalists. Which.. the middle east presumeably lacks due to it's general lack of an environment at all...


God seems like a real wise-ass... gives the middle-east a bunch of oil they don't really need and gave the US a bunch of butt-inskies that nobody wants.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:57 pm 
Pronto wrote:
zippthorne wrote:
Oil is practically everywhere. God gave US a whole lot of oil too. but he also gave us a whole lot of whiny environmentalists. Which.. the middle east presumeably lacks due to it's general lack of an environment at all...

God seems like a real wise-ass... gives the middle-east a bunch of oil they don't really need and gave the US a bunch of butt-inskies that nobody wants.

The latest: now that the movement to let religious pharmacists refuse to provide the morning after pill to rape victims has gained all the publicity it can, the next campaign is to give them the option of refusing to sell contraception to any woman they think morally unfit. No corresponding campaign about refusing condoms or viagra to men.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:43 pm 
Pronto wrote:
zippthorne wrote:
Oil is practically everywhere. God gave US a whole lot of oil too. but he also gave us a whole lot of whiny environmentalists. Which.. the middle east presumeably lacks due to it's general lack of an environment at all...


God seems like a real wise-ass... gives the middle-east a bunch of oil they don't really need and gave the US a bunch of butt-inskies that nobody wants.


Well that's why i included the caveat. To be fair, it's also possible that we have an environment because of the environmentalists. I'm just a tad skeptical on that point, especially as I really wonder why it's not ok for American oil companies to drill within 200 miles of the floridan coast but it IS ok for Cuba(n companies? are there companies?) to drill less than 90 miles off the floridan coast.

raif: are you saying suicide bombers are don't have enough free time? 'cause if there's anyone on the planet that should be hopelessly oppressed, I think suicide bombers are them.

Berkin: the morning after pill is a chemical abortion. Do you think people who believe abortion is murder should be forced to enable its commission?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:59 pm 
zippthorne wrote:
raif: are you saying suicide bombers are don't have enough free time? 'cause if there's anyone on the planet that should be hopelessly oppressed, I think suicide bombers are them.

I dunno, being a zealot does cut into one's sitting around time. Oddly, this doesn't seem to stop Greenpeace.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:09 pm 
zippthorne wrote:
the morning after pill is a chemical abortion. Do you think people who believe abortion is murder should be forced to enable its commission?


I think that people need to be willing to take responsibility for their actions, regardless of what they are. I think that if a Walgreens employee decides to go against company policy and refuse service to a customer of Walgreens, then the company has every right to relieve that employee of his job.

I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to serve up murder pills, and if they're the owner of the pharmacy then that's the end of it. They just lost a customer, and are okay with it. If they're an employee, however, they just penalized their employer (one customer, and some revenue), and the employer is fully entitled to fire the employee for it. Afterward, the employee can start their own pharmacy, and serve whomever they want on their own terms.

This is purely a business issue, which requires no unwelcome government meddling. Call it a religious issue if you want, but either way If you're going to take a stand for your beliefs, then you have to accept the consequences of your actions.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:57 pm 
Pi wrote:
zippthorne wrote:
the morning after pill is a chemical abortion. Do you think people who believe abortion is murder should be forced to enable its commission?


I think that people need to be willing to take responsibility for their actions, regardless of what they are. I think that if a Walgreens employee decides to go against company policy and refuse service to a customer of Walgreens, then the company has every right to relieve that employee of his job.

I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to serve up murder pills, and if they're the owner of the pharmacy then that's the end of it. They just lost a customer, and are okay with it. If they're an employee, however, they just penalized their employer (one customer, and some revenue), and the employer is fully entitled to fire the employee for it. Afterward, the employee can start their own pharmacy, and serve whomever they want on their own terms.

This is purely a business issue, which requires no unwelcome government meddling. Call it a religious issue if you want, but either way If you're going to take a stand for your beliefs, then you have to accept the consequences of your actions.

Nurses and doctors who oppose abortion are under no moral or legal obligation to work for hospitals, hospital departments, or clinics that provide those services. Those agencies are under no moral or legal obligation to hire them. Seems fair enough.

Pharmacists are liscened and paid to provide a service for doctors and their patients. Nowhere in that agreement does it say they are allowed to pass moral judgement on that service, any more than the mail carrier is allowed to pass moral judgement on packages he delivers. If a pharmacist cannot work within those ethical boundaries, he is free to find employment in a different or related profession, just like the mail carrier.

Agreeing to provide the traditional and customary services of a pharmacist and then violating its standards to subvert the service and harass people whose morals/politics you disapprove of is grossly unethical.

Please note in the above statement the clear disctinction I've made between ethical and legal responsibilities. The legal argument is just as interesting, but people tend to confuse the two.

As I noted in this forum a year or more ago, this is another "wedge" issue, a contrivance of anti-abortion activists in their long war to impose their views on contraception and abortion on the rest of us. Once they can force companies/pharmacies to declare a position on the issue created by their "martyred" pharmacists, they can publically identify them as an enemy and attack them with legal, political, and economic pressure.

At this point, the anti-abortionists are winning big time. Even though only about one American in four is against abortion under all circumstances---most at least make an exception for the pregnant woman's life or health---this is set to become the legal standard in at least a dozen states.

Once this campaign gains momentum, the next wedge issue will be to advance the cause of outlawing contraception. Contraceptive services for the poor are already being shut down in some states (resulting in increased abortion rates).

The campaigners in this cause, when interviewed, seem to have a deep, deep anger against poor women who have sex. It's very old-fashioned opinion. I can recall historical examples going back to the 18th Century, at least. Still creepilly Freudian after all these generations.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:53 pm 
Whew, I was worried there for a moment. I thought the world was going to end because I was taking the same side as Berken. Fortunately he went off on some socialist tangent advocating gov't interference, so the world can keep spinning.

Interestingly, Berken and Zippthorne have a lot in common in this pharmaceutical discussion. They both want to force their own ideas on people and use the government to coerce people into doing what they want.

He didn't actually say it, but my statement above assumes that Zippthorne is taking the standard right-wing line that a pharmacist working for a national chain should be shielded from any consequences of refusing service, effectively forcing the national chain managers into losing money they don't want to, and conforming to zippthorne's beliefs.

Berken, on the other hand, is saying that all pharmacists should be forced to run their businesses a certain way, conforming to his beliefs.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:04 pm 
Pi wrote:
Whew, I was worried there for a moment. I thought the world was going to end because I was taking the same side as Berken. Fortunately he went off on some socialist tangent advocating gov't interference, so the world can keep spinning.

Interestingly, Berken and Zippthorne have a lot in common in this pharmaceutical discussion. They both want to force their own ideas on people and use the government to coerce people into doing what they want.

He didn't actually say it, but my statement above assumes that Zippthorne is taking the standard right-wing line that a pharmacist working for a national chain should be shielded from any consequences of refusing service, effectively forcing the national chain managers into losing money they don't want to, and conforming to zippthorne's beliefs.

Berken, on the other hand, is saying that all pharmacists should be forced to run their businesses a certain way, conforming to his beliefs.


Not my beliefs, dude, the oaths and contracts pharmacists agree to when then get certified. That is to say, the traditional legal and ethical standards of their profession. If one of them wants to set up a no-contraception pharmacy, he is free to do so. But don't lie to people and claim you're the same as all the other pharmacies, or all the pharmacies of the past, and don't claim you're anything but the latest innovation in the culture wars. I dislike liars and hypocrites intensely. Among other things, it is very un-Christian.

Of course, the standard political strategy of the religious right would be to set up a clear distinction between pro and non contraception pharmacies, and then politically attack the pro-conception pharmacies. When governments and corporations fight back, they are cast as the villains in the religious right's ongoing propaganda war against Godless secularism.

This has always been a good political tactic for them. In Illinois, corporations representing half the pharmacies in the state (Walmart and, I think, Walgreens) immediately caved in to the anti-contraception forces, meaning that any woman going to one these pharmacies could be ambushed and harassed by crusading born-agains. The governor had to step in and enforce the state laws insisting on equality of services among state-liscensed pharmacies. He was immediately attacked as a tyrant, etc., by conservative politicians.

This is the violation of rights I am most concerned about. I don't like being harassed by animal rights activists while I'm having a steak, I don't like being badgered by religious cranks banging on my doorbell, and I don't think people who've been going peacefully to their local pharmacies all their lives should suddenly have to endure being badgered by religious cranks while getting their prescriptions.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:36 am 
So you're saying it should be illegal to annoy you.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:37 am 
Pi wrote:
Whew, I was worried there for a moment. I thought the world was going to end because I was taking the same side as Berken.


Relax, Pi. Your opinion , though valuble, is not world-ending important.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:52 pm 
Pronto wrote:
Pi wrote:
Whew, I was worried there for a moment. I thought the world was going to end because I was taking the same side as Berken.


Relax, Pi. Your opinion , though valuble, is not world-ending important.


Only because my doomsday device is not yet complete.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:59 pm 
Raif wrote:
So you're saying it should be illegal to annoy you.

If you are going to participate in a discussion forum, discuss. :roll:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:25 pm 
Berken wrote:
Raif wrote:
So you're saying it should be illegal to annoy you.

If you are going to participate in a discussion forum, discuss. :roll:

If that's not what you mean when you say:
Berken wrote:
This is the violation of rights I am most concerned about. I don't like being harassed by animal rights activists while I'm having a steak, I don't like being badgered by religious cranks banging on my doorbell, and I don't think people who've been going peacefully to their local pharmacies all their lives should suddenly have to endure being badgered by religious cranks while getting their prescriptions.

Then what DO you mean?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:31 am 
Berken wrote:
This is the violation of rights I am most concerned about. I don't like being harassed by animal rights activists while I'm having a steak, I don't like being badgered by religious cranks banging on my doorbell, and I don't think people who've been going peacefully to their local pharmacies all their lives should suddenly have to endure being badgered by religious cranks while getting their prescriptions.


I agree for the most part, but I'm pretty sure this is all covered by current laws. The right of freedom of speech only applies in the public square. In private areas (homes or places of business), you are instead bound by the rules of the owner or manager.

If some religious person comes to your home to talk to you about god, telling them to get the hell off of your property is not a violation of their freedom of speech. If you are a restaurant, eating steak, and an AR person starts calling you a murderer, the restaurant can have them hauled off by the police.

A pharmacy is a business, so it is up to the business owners or managers to determine what policy to impliment regarding "controversial" medicines. If the store policy is to fill a prescription for a particular drug, then the pharmacists should either fill the prescription or look for a new job. If the policy is to not fill the prescription, then the consumer should look for a different pharmacy.

What really irks me is some of the right wing propaganda against high-dosage levonorgestrel (Plan B). Based on some of the idiotic nonsense, you'd think it was an abortion pill. It is actually identical to birth control pills and works in exactly the same way: preventing the release of an egg. If someone is already pregnant, it won't do anything.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:57 am 
The real reason that the leaders of the Religious Right are opposed to abortion is because they need a steady supply of infants to sacrifice in Satanic rituals, which they then blame on their enemies. Fnord.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:42 pm 
Schol-R-LEA wrote:
The real reason that the leaders of the Religious Right are opposed to abortion is because they need a steady supply of infants to sacrifice in Satanic rituals, which they then blame on their enemies. Fnord.


Stop it. You're making me look normal and reasonable.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:13 pm 
Raif wrote:
Berken wrote:
Raif wrote:
So you're saying it should be illegal to annoy you.

If you are going to participate in a discussion forum, discuss. :roll:

If that's not what you mean when you say:
Berken wrote:
This is the violation of rights I am most concerned about. I don't like being harassed by animal rights activists while I'm having a steak, I don't like being badgered by religious cranks banging on my doorbell, and I don't think people who've been going peacefully to their local pharmacies all their lives should suddenly have to endure being badgered by religious cranks while getting their prescriptions.

Then what DO you mean?

Exactly what I said, no more and no less. Trying reading the main body of the message without the paragraph of personal feelings.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:22 pm 
jokermage wrote:
Berken wrote:
This is the violation of rights I am most concerned about. I don't like being harassed by animal rights activists while I'm having a steak, I don't like being badgered by religious cranks banging on my doorbell, and I don't think people who've been going peacefully to their local pharmacies all their lives should suddenly have to endure being badgered by religious cranks while getting their prescriptions.

I agree for the most part, but I'm pretty sure this is all covered by current laws. The right of freedom of speech only applies in the public square. In private areas (homes or places of business), you are instead bound by the rules of the owner or manager.

True, although the community as a whole, through traditional law and regulation, has the legal and moral right to intervene when its interests are at stake. Pharmacies, like hospitals, clinics, ambulance services, and various other public and private medical facilities, are counted as part of the service network cities, counties, and states consider essential to public health and quality of life. Doctors and hospitals have to have available and competant pharmacy services to function.

Pharmacies are common enough in the US that this usually isn't a big issue.

The only public dispute on it I can recall in recent years was over Walgreens using exclusive contracts with hospitals and doctors as a weapon to drive all competing pharmacies out of business. This effort failed in some ways and succeeded in others. Having only one corporation providing pharmaceuticals in a good sized city is not good for public health. Competition promotes low costs and variety, even in that industry.

The difficulty, as I noted, is that if the city or state allows corporations the public choice of providing or not providing a service, pressure groups are free to campaign against them. In the Midwest, the key players are Walmart and Walgreens. If the religious right can bully these two corporations into not providing contraceptives, they've eliminated or seriously hindered access to them for half or more of the female population of the country. A colossal victory for the anti-contraception forces, the worst defeat for choice in the United States since the 1920s.

jokermage wrote:
A pharmacy is a business, so it is up to the business owners or managers to determine what policy to impliment regarding "controversial" medicines. If the store policy is to fill a prescription for a particular drug, then the pharmacists should either fill the prescription or look for a new job. If the policy is to not fill the prescription, then the consumer should look for a different pharmacy.


Of course, if they can force women to worry about this issue every time they need contraception (or post-rape protection), they will be halfway to their goal, and the victory will be celebrated from a thousand pulpits across the land. For a century and more, since both doctors and pharmacists became "professionalized" to modern standards in the 1800s, the standard has been that doctors prescibe and pharmacists provide. The pharmacist does not have the right to intervene in a medical decision unless some dire mistake has been made--the accidental prescription of a lethal drug, for instance. If you allow pharmacists to violate that traditinal principal of professional conduct, the religious nags have defeated you, and they will continue to press for more privileges for their point of view and more restrictions on everyone else.

Possibly the honest thing to do would be for all pharmacies to have a picture of Reverend Dobson, staring out at the chairs in front of the counter, with the caption "You had sex again, didn't you, you slut!"

jokermage wrote:
What really irks me is some of the right wing propaganda against high-dosage levonorgestrel (Plan B). Based on some of the idiotic nonsense, you'd think it was an abortion pill. It is actually identical to birth control pills and works in exactly the same way: preventing the release of an egg. If someone is already pregnant, it won't do anything.


Now that the religious right have embraced the principle of faith over science and politics over truth and morality, they aren't bound to use the scientific description of the drug. If they think it's evil, they can call it what they want. This is the same principal their activists follow in dealing with evolution and end-of-life issues. If they are against evolution, the libraries stuffed with evidence and argument cease to exist and it becomes controversial again. If the noisemakers decide Terri Schiavo is still a living consciousness, the MRIs and readings showin her brain has liquified are irrelevant.

Ye gawds, I'm depressing myself.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:25 am 
Berken wrote:
Exactly what I said, no more and no less. Trying reading the main body of the message without the paragraph of personal feelings.

If you don't want me to include the personal feelings in my assessment of your argument, then don't include them in the post. I can't really suss out what you mean and what you don't when you say both with equal fervor. Well, that's not true... I could; I just don't want to put in the effort.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:35 am 
Berken wrote:
Of course, if they can force women to worry about this issue every time they need contraception (or post-rape protection), they will be halfway to their goal, and the victory will be celebrated from a thousand pulpits across the land. For a century and more, since both doctors and pharmacists became "professionalized" to modern standards in the 1800s, the standard has been that doctors prescibe and pharmacists provide. The pharmacist does not have the right to intervene in a medical decision unless some dire mistake has been made--the accidental prescription of a lethal drug, for instance. If you allow pharmacists to violate that traditinal principal of professional conduct, the religious nags have defeated you, and they will continue to press for more privileges for their point of view and more restrictions on everyone else.

Possibly the honest thing to do would be for all pharmacies to have a picture of Reverend Dobson, staring out at the chairs in front of the counter, with the caption "You had sex again, didn't you, you slut!"


All a pharmicist would have to do is not carry a particular drug in stock. Emergency contraceptives would be useless if you had to special order them. The pharmicist could meet the moral requirements and there would be nothing that could be done.

And the slipery-slope argument isn't that great. I can take the opposite position and claim that if you force pharmacies to carry and dispurse all medicines, then alternative health proponents could force pharmacies to provide homeopathic "cures" which do more harm than good.

I think pharmacies should voluntarily provide those medicines. Forcing them to, however, sets a much more dangerous precident than not forcing them to.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group