Comments by
Page 1 of 11 | Next
Posted on November 28 at 9:45 a.m.Suggest removal
Even if you believe this was only because she is Michele Bachmann, it still demonstrates sexism because it is part of a larger whole. The media in general do not treat women candidates with respect. Palin and Bachmann are presented as stupid, Mrs. Clinton is often portrayed at her frumpiest. When was the last time they cared about a man's clothes except for the occasional comment on how formal/casual one is when rolling up a sleeve or foregoing a jacket?
When you create this environment of disrespect towards women in politics, it makes it much more likely that people will treat women without respect. That is why this incident is evidence of sexism.
Posted on November 22 at 3:03 p.m.Suggest removal
"how terrible of an existence the child would live, no matter how much suffering he/she would endure. "
Does the right to live, the right not to be murdered depend on your opinion of their quality of life?
"matter how terrible of an existence the child would live, no matter how much suffering he/she would endure. You are a cruel person for advocating this ideology, and there is no denying that."
What is cruel is killing a human being because you don't think their life has "quality."
"but this is NOT a justification for the perpetuation of these bad situations."
Then cure Down Syndrome. Not killing its victims is not "perpetuating" a bad situation. Is allowing AIDS victims to live perpetuating AIDS?
Posted on November 22 at 8:25 a.m.Suggest removal
"Paul Root Wolpe, director of the Center for Ethics at Emory University, reflects on the matter: “What you end up having is a world without people with Down syndrome. ... And the question becomes, is that a good thing or bad thing?”"
Bad. You aren't eliminating it through curing or preventing, but only by killing victims. Furthermore, it wouldn't even be "eradicated" as it isn't a transmittable condition, but one that could occur tomorrow even if you murdered every victim today.
Replace Down Syndrome with AIDS, or any other disease, and his question is seen as the absurdity it is.
Posted on November 21 at 9:45 a.m.Suggest removal
"This seems like it would be a win for anti-gay groups, but it wouldn’t."
This particular ruling is a win for the people. Regardless of this particular case, what would be the point of referendum etc. if all it takes is a few state officials deciding they don't like it and won't defend it in courts?
I don't really have a strong opinion on gay marriage, but I do have a couple questions about words you used a lot.
Equality/Rights: If it is an issue of equality, and marriage is a right, why are people only fighting for one more arbitrary group to be granted marriage? Why not argue that any group of any type of consenting adults can marry? If you only advocate expanding it to one more group (same-sex), and not others, then it seems like you're treating it more as a privilege. There's nothing inherently better about either argument, but the words don't match the actions in most arguments for same-sex marriage.
"intolerant/tolerant"
Do you want to tolerate people being against homosexual marriage or laws that ban it?
Posted on November 17 at 1:43 p.m.Suggest removal
"The Jeff, did you read the article I posted?"
Sure I did.
"I was talking about the LEGAL personhood of pregnant women."
And I'm talking about "actual" personhood, which the law should reflect. If it's literally a person, it's rights should be protected as such.
"There is no way to grant an embryo, zygote, etc... LEGAL personhood without taking away the legal rights of the pregnant woman."
Perhaps you didn't read my comment before posting, because I pointed out that doing this would not take away any rights from women. It is not a "right" to kill an innocent human, so she's not losing that "right." This law would also not make it legal to murder the mother in a fashion similar to abortion, or in any fashion, so she isn't losing her right to not be murdered. The woman is no less a person than before.
"There is a difference between acknowledging an embryo is a LEGAL person and acknowledging an embryo is human. No one denies the latter. Geez."
I'm glad that you admit that an embryo is a human being, but that you don't believe all human beings have rights. I would love to hear your exact definition for which humans have human rights, which don't, and a valid and logical argument for why the humans that don't have rights don't.
Posted on November 15 at 2:09 p.m.Suggest removal
"TheJeff talking as if banks are not for-profit organizations"
Actually, my point is that they are for-profit companies, and have the right to charge for their services. You and the article seem to suggest they should provide services out of the goodness of their hearts and are the ones talking as if they're not-for-profit.
"No, if you can't make the same profits in an ethical manner, WE shouldn't be penalized by subsidizing the loss"
Explain why charging for a service is "unethical."
The people who subsidized any losses are the politicians from both parties who foolishly bailed out banks with public money. Paying for a service, however, is not subsidizing a loss. That's paying for a service.
I don't like big banks, I don't bank with them. But there is nothing "unethical" about charging a reasonable price for a service.
Posted on November 14 at 9:12 a.m.Suggest removal
"Even if this “inactivity” distinction is recognized, this does not eliminate the individual’s effect on the market. Because this “inactivity” is a decision that will ultimately shift one’s own costs to others in the form of higher costs and premiums, the substantial effects on the health-insurance market are not negated."
If it could be shown that people walking around slow our economy down by their wasted hours, and further that the failure of a government-bailed-out-car-company would substantially affect everyone besides those who walk, would it be okay, then, to impose that everyone must by a new GM at least once every 5 years?
I'm not denying that people without insurance shift their cost to others, but is that really justification for giving the federal government the power to force us to buy a product from a private company?
If that's constitutional, we need a new amendment.
Posted on November 12 at 8:39 a.m.Suggest removal
"The reason people call this movement so radical is because if you give a fertilized egg full Constitutional status as a person, you are taking away the personhood of pregnant women."
That's nonsense. When a woman is pregnant, it is not legal to pump her with digoxin to stop her heart. It is not legal to vacuum her up. It's not legal to murder her in anyway.
A zygote is the complete human organism. It is the earliest stage of human development. What is "radical" about granting human rights to a human being?
Denying that a zygote is a whole homo sapiens organism is a distraction from the real heart of the question. Here are some links, quotations, and notes to demonstrate that a zygote is in fact, alive, according to science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
"the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. In single-celled organisms, the zygote divides to produce offspring, usually through meiosis."
"All mammals go through the zygote stage of life. Mammalian zygotes eventually develop into a blastocyst, after which they are more generally termed an embryo, and then a fetus."
Note: These things don't disappear to be replaced, but are a single, continuous organism.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dic...
"a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell "
Note: Not parts of the developing individual, but the entire creature."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/...
"During the process of conception: One very lucky spermatozoon out of hundreds of millions ejaculated by the man may penetrate the outside layer of the ovum and fertilize it. This happens typically in the upper third of one of the woman's Fallopian tubes. The surface of the ovum changes its electrical characteristics and normally prevents additional sperm from entering. A genetically unique entity is formed shortly thereafter, called a zygote. This is commonly referred to as a "fertilized ovum." However that term is not really valid because the ovum ceases to exist after the completion of conception."
The zygote "...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life:
metabolism,
growth,
reaction to stimuli, and
reproduction."
And what is it that is alive? It is a complete homo sapiens (aka human being) organism. The question is this: Why does a living human being not have the basic right not to be murdered?
Posted on November 11 at 4:36 p.m.Suggest removal
"a presidential scolding"
I really hope no one changes their mind because of a "scolding from the president. . ."
"Perhaps the next time a large bank wants to grub some money, they"
Grub money? How are they grubbing money? Running debit card systems costs money. The merchants benefit from this, because it enables consumers to more easily and often purchase their goods. The merchants are the ones who should pay. Yet they lobbied to not pay.
Do you know of any merchants who have lowered prices recently due to not paying this fee?
Why should the banks provide a service for free? Do you plan on not getting paid when you get out of college?
Blame congress for caving to lobbyists, not banks for not giving things away.
Page 1 of 11 | Next
Posted on December 7 at 10:20 a.m.Suggest removal
"When OU IT became an auxiliary enterprise of the university in fiscal year 2011"
To clarify, is the store auxiliary or the whole IT department? If the latter, where do $300-$400 a semester in technology fees go?
On a general note, maybe the university and students would be better off if we weren't running businesses on the side (IT store, overpriced bookstores, etc.)
On