| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/06/2012 10:51:33 AM · #651 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Sarcasm? |
No.
I'm on your side, Young Lady. |
Can never tell on the internet, even with friends I know well there are misunderstandings, so with people I've never met, near impossible. :P
Side note: I had a boss that would call me kido and treat me like a child talking down to me. The male photographer about my age and experience level made more an hour than I did, and took crappy photos (some of them were horrendous because he didn't give a crap unless it was a hot girl). When the time came to let one of us go, the other boss (who was nicer) let me go. My 2 bosses kept the guy on despite lack of business for several months because they had some starry-eyed vision of him as themselves as young budding photogs and wanted to help him out in his career. The guy ended up taking a pay advance just as the season was kicking in again and disappeared with the money (he was also shooting porn in the studio they later found out). They also underpaid the secretary who practically ran the place. She made less than both of us.
I have an equally kick-in the balls dumb story of another photographer I worked for trusting a man he just met over me (who had worked for him for months) and as a result ended up missing important wedding shots, and almost getting his van wrecked because the dude couldn't drive for crap and got lost. He also didn't want to hire me in the first place because "women aren't as strong as men" and never respected me even though I worked my ass off the first day (and each day after) with serious food poisoning (and saved his ass driving 60 miles back to his house to get important equipment he forgot the same day he arbitrarily cut my pay, he sheepishly gave me full pay to make up for the gas money.)
Moral of the story: judge the person not the sex.
Some people are blinded by their own sexism, and I doubt they would think they were sexist if you tried to call them on it.
To bring it back around. Yes, I'd want THOSE guys deciding if my insurance has birth control or not, because they are qualified to make that choice for me. I'm just a dumb kiddo and I need those strong men to take care of me and make decisions about my body. Mmmhmmm. ;)
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 11:25:25. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 01:04:58 PM · #652 |
Regarding the "wall between search and state", See this opinion piece from the New York Times. It puts the debate in perspective without taking sides.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2012 02:33:37 PM · #653 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...It puts the debate in perspective without taking sides...
R. |
Get that stuff out of here, sir! It has no place on Rant! ;) Actually I very much enjoyed it. It feels like a brisk ocean breeze to refresh your perspective after being in the bizarro world of DPC Rant. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 02:37:15 PM · #654 |
Are you typing on a "smart" phone Bear? LOL! And, yes, Rick Santorum is looney toones bat shit crazy no matter what the op-ed says. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 02:47:26 PM · #655 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Are you typing on a "smart" phone Bear? LOL! And, yes, Rick Santorum is looney toones bat shit crazy no matter what the op-ed says. |
Looney toones bat shit crazy...like a fox! |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 03:35:00 PM · #656 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It puts the debate in perspective without taking sides. |
Only in the same manner that Dawkins doesn't take sides. The author is not without controversy for exactly the sort of rhetoric used here. I did enjoy the comments, though. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 04:01:10 PM · #657 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Rick Santorum is looney toones bat shit crazy no matter what the op-ed says. |
Completely. Foxes don't bring home the body of a baby that lived only two hours, introduce it to their kids as a brother and then sleep with the corpse.
Of more immediate concern for the country, Santorum is bent on establishing a Catholic theocracy- "“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right...This whole idea of personal autonomy, well, I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone." A related NY Times opinion. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 04:04:32 PM · #658 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It puts the debate in perspective without taking sides. |
Only in the same manner that Dawkins doesn't take sides. The author is not without controversy for exactly the sort of rhetoric used here. I did enjoy the comments, though. |
Objection, your honor. ad hominem. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 04:14:36 PM · #659 |
Anyhoo, the one thing I did like in the NYT article was how he characterized a number of positions on the issue:
Originally posted by NYT article:
There are legal philosophers who argue that persons of faith who enter the public square should check their doctrinal commitments at the door and not permit themselves even to think religious thoughts when considering questions of policy.
... less severe, but still restrictive; they would allow persons of faith to have religious reasons for supporting a policy, but insist that before those reasons are offered publicly, they must be rephrased in a vocabulary accessible to everyone, that is, in a secular vocabulary.
...more expansive accommodationism: They would allow frankly religious arguments to be made in the public forum even by legislators, but would require that those who make them be able to justify their vote in secular terms if asked to do so.
...most generous end of the spectrum we find the conviction that religious discourse is as good as any other (and better than most) as a resource for deciding matters of state and should be a fully enfranchised partner in the political process. |
Actually this is not the end of the spectrum, we could go further and give religious discourse deference, preference, or even exclusive reign (the REAL definition of a theocracy despite the fearful use of the word on this thread).
Personally I find myself between Fish's 3rd and 4th positions. I agree with the last, but I understand a proposal should have some secular appliation. Blue laws concerning Sunday business are good examples.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2012 04:24:42 PM · #660 |
He's not that crazy because some other politicians and judges has similar views, (as antiquated, back thinking, exclusionary...name your adjective... as they may be)?
Perhaps Santorum seems crafty in his whipping up of fervor among the Right, but can he win the swing votes, the independents? Do his comments show a lack of judgment, and after this whole re-hash of the birth control issue, are any number of women voters, (the 80% or so of women who have used or are currently using birth control) likely to vote for Santorum?
sorry to get involved!
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 17:10:18. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 05:41:03 PM · #661 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Are you typing on a "smart" phone Bear? LOL! And, yes, Rick Santorum is looney toones bat shit crazy no matter what the op-ed says. |
Looney toones bat shit crazy...like a fox! |
...Hmm isn't he the one that called Obama a snob for suggesting that people strive to get a college education...yep, sound, well thought out and articulated position, yes indeed.
Ray
|
|
|
|
03/06/2012 05:56:08 PM · #662 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...It puts the debate in perspective without taking sides...
R. |
Get that stuff out of here, sir! It has no place on Rant! ;) Actually I very much enjoyed it. It feels like a brisk ocean breeze to refresh your perspective after being in the bizarro world of DPC Rant. |
Shall we interpret this as meaning that those views that run counter to yours fall in the "bizarro" category, or is the comment include all participants? :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 06:15:05 PM · #663 |
Clearly the former Ray. I don't mean it as an insult, but some of the views here are way, way different than those you'll get with most other discourse. Of course I only have personal anecdote to support this, but I do talk about stuff like this with lots of people.
You can see it in this discussion by noting that you and Shannon at least have stated alignment with Fish's most extreme position. It's not to say that position can't be found anywhere else, but it IS the end of the spectrum. You can't get further in the idea than "religion has no place in public discouse". And before you note that I am apparently on the other extreme end, note that Fish's spectrum ends with neutrality not the opposite pole. His "most accomodating" is to say religion has just as much a right to yap at the table as anybody else. The opposite pole of "no discourse" is "all the discourse" which would be a theocracy. So I find myself snug in the middle of the spectrum as I usually do. I only appear extremem when held up to the lens of opinions here. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 06:33:20 PM · #664 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly the former Ray. I don't mean it as an insult, but some of the views here are way, way different than those you'll get with most other discourse. Of course I only have personal anecdote to support this, but I do talk about stuff like this with lots of people. |
I will grant you that Doc, but also consider the old adage that says "Birds of a feather flock together".
I spent 30 years working in a police environment and the next 15 years as a security consultant and would hazard a guess that the variety of people I have encountered in my travels so far would probably be a great deal more varied than those you encountered in your environment. You would be probably shocked to hear that in most countries that I have visited to date, religion truly does not stand at the forefront of the decision making process as it seemingly does in the USA.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can see it in this discussion by noting that you and Shannon at least have stated alignment with Fish's most extreme position. It's not to say that position can't be found anywhere else, but it IS the end of the spectrum. You can't get further in the idea than "religion has no place in public discouse". And before you note that I am apparently on the other extreme end, note that Fish's spectrum ends with neutrality not the opposite pole. His "most accomodating" is to say religion has just as much a right to yap at the table as anybody else. The opposite pole of "no discourse" is "all the discourse" which would be a theocracy. So I find myself snug in the middle of the spectrum as I usually do. I only appear extremem when held up to the lens of opinions here. |
I don't have the time to discuss this at the present time, but I doubt that either Shannon or myself are positioned at the extreme of the scale...we simply object to the decision making process being skewed by religious perspectives.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 18:35:43. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 06:42:32 PM · #665 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I doubt that either Shannon or myself are positioned at the extreme of the scale...we simply object to the decision making process being skewed by religious perspectives. |
Ray, that's just not correct. Both you and Shannon roundly deride ANY religiously-based opinions that are expressed, and you both are on record as saying religious opinions have no place in political discourse. That puts you both all the way at one side of the spectrum Doc's referring to.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2012 06:47:41 PM · #666 |
And just to follow up on Robert, I'm not calling the position "crazy" but instead "extreme". It's a rational position, but just on the end of the spectrum.
I've also been to countries (particularly Africa) where religion seems to play more of a role than it does in the US. Things would come out of officials mouths that would cause shock and uproar here because of our little "wall". |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 06:54:27 PM · #667 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And just to follow up on Robert, I'm not calling the position "crazy" but instead "extreme". It's a rational position, but just on the end of the spectrum.
I've also been to countries (particularly Africa) where religion seems to play more of a role than it does in the US. Things would come out of officials mouths that would cause shock and uproar here because of our little "wall". |
It's not extreme if you don't believe in God/s. It's very rational then. I would assume (though I know what that entails) that the majority of atheists feel this way. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 07:02:12 PM · #668 |
What's WRONG with you people? Have you READ the posted article? The term "extreme" is not being used in a negative way here. A spectrum has been defined ranging from position "A" to position "X" and "extreme" only denotes that a position is at one "extreme of that scale" or the other, NOT that it is wrong, or irrational, or any of that other stuff.
It's NOT perjorative to say an opinion lies at one extreme or the other of the scale. It's just at one END of the scale or the other, one LIMIT, one WHATEVER.
We're NOT Talking about "extremism" here.
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 19:02:41.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2012 07:12:22 PM · #669 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
It's not extreme if you don't believe in God/s. It's very rational then. I would assume (though I know what that entails) that the majority of atheists feel this way. |
Some atheists are religious. See Buddhists. Others may feel that their opinion (religion is nonsense) is no more valid than the opposite opinion (religion makes sense) and, thus, would allow both at the table of public discourse to hash out their differences. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 07:48:30 PM · #670 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...you both are on record as saying religious opinions have no place in political discourse. |
Really? Having, or even offering, religious opinions is fine with me, but they should not influence government: "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities." Everyone has a natural right to maintain and express opinions, whatever the source, but when it comes to policy you'd better have something more than, "God said so" as grounds for a course of action.
As noted by photographer Greig Olivier in a newspaper editorial published today: "The worse thing in the world anyone can do is rely on God’s mysterious will to make practical, human decisions. Leaving aside the matter of which god we listen to, there is the problem of interpretation. All gods are omniscient and all (wo)men fallible. So, when God speaks omnisciently we interpret fallibly; we induce errors where none were originally. This is not a little problem; millions of unspeakable cruelties have resulted from humans interpreting gods." |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 08:14:13 PM · #671 |
| Maybe we could mix some sperm-suppressing hormones in with the sildenafil and the women wouldn't have to buy anything at all. Insurance already covers that ... |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 08:15:01 PM · #672 |
I guess that just confirms your view is inline with what Robert said, no? Or is there a nuance we are missing?
Sorry: Paul's post between this one and Shannon's which I was replying to.
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 20:15:39. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 08:25:30 PM · #673 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities." |
Am I missing the significance of your quote? This is from Jefferson's drafting of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, right? not a federal one? Would I be amiss to interpret "civil capacities" as "being able to run for office" (meaning that the statement only says that religion should play no role in qualifying or disqualifying someone's running for office)? Does it seem ironic that the foundational statement, the rational raison d'etre for the Statute is a religious statement (Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free)?
You left that part out...
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 20:25:47. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 08:37:49 PM · #674 |
| Do any of you people have day jobs? |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 08:41:46 PM · #675 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Do any of you people have day jobs? |
If you call 5:15am "day" ... :-( |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/05/2025 04:56:44 AM EDT.
