1. #1401
    The Insane smrund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    15,365
    Quote Originally Posted by ishootblanks View Post
    the difference is this.. birth control is a convenience medication.. people don't die if they can't have sex.. and seriously.. why is the bill which is less effective covered and condoms not? condoms actually provide a barrier and prevent the transmission of HPV and other STD's as well as preventing pregnancy
    I don't know how many times people have had to say that birth-control is not JUST for preventing pregnancy. It's also for preventing possibly fatal cysts and regulating incredibly painful menstrual cycles. I've seen women throw up and pass out from pain during their period, I really don't think it's the right of ANYONE to deny them the helpful medicine they need to counteract that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.
    Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
    Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

  2. #1402
    Quote Originally Posted by Jshadow View Post
    Ron Paul 100%, he has a plan to fix US and he's been telling people things are gonna go down bad for the past 30 years.
    So, being Chicken Little is now a qualification for President?

  3. #1403
    I don't know how many times people have had to say that birth-control is not JUST for preventing pregnancy.
    yeah at least half of all women who use hormonal birth control use it for reasons beyond just birth control. Shit 14% of the users don't use it for birth control at all.

    Blanks is just over his head.

  4. #1404
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    yeah at least half of all women who use hormonal birth control use it for reasons beyond just birth control. Shit 14% of the users don't use it for birth control at all.

    Blanks is just over his head.
    The problem is that they literally don't want to understand this. They take pleasure from denigrating others and engaging in slut shaming, and taking a rational view of things would take that way.

  5. #1405
    I'm just wondering how someone can manage to say birth control is a convenience medication with a straight face.

  6. #1406
    Unfortunately, I had that conversation with a family member today, and they absolutely insisted that I shouldn't refer to it as health care. I really didn't even know what to say. When someone's being deliberately obtuse, it's hard to do anything other than walk away.

  7. #1407
    The government should not be interfering so much in our sex lives. Or even our personal lives. gay marriage is not even a real thing to me, it is just marriage. Why do people have to add gay to it? Does it REALLY effect anybody if two men or two women get married? Does it somehow doom us all to some hell? No? Does it somehow make your neighborhood bad if a gay couple move in? No? What the hell does anyone care, and why is the government even involved? There should be no such thing as gay marriage, it is just marriage.

    Legalize Marijuana while you are at it. You cannot seriously say it is worse for you then alcohol, you cannot say it impairs you more. Would you rather be driven to the hospital by someone that had five shots of whiskey or someone that had been smoking pot all day? And I do not even use it, I just find it hilarious that people are like "ITS BAD MMMK!" when alcohol is much, much worse.

    Seperate church and state more as well. There should be no pandering to church people in elections, it should be about actual issues that decide the country. I would vote for a satanist if they were the right choice for president.

    And while I am ranting, end super PAC's. Stop all this ridiculous spending on elections. Stop all donations from any companies. Stop all donations of more then 100 dollars a person.


    Oh and stop this ridiculous birth control conversation. Really? You think health insurance covering birth control is bad? Have fun with a bunch of unwanted kids running around, not paying for birth control is not going to stop teens from having sex.

  8. #1408
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Of course it should. You shouldn't have any right to inflict your personal moral or religious views on others to restrict their access to legal products and procedures.
    You do not have any right to inflict your personal moral or religious views on others by demanding other people to go against their's! (As long as the moral values of each party are lawful, i.e. no murder)

    A muslim employer at a finance firm is not obligated to compensate his employee through debt instruments if he believes interest bearing debt is against his religion. An environmentalist employer is not obligated to provide car benefit to his employees if it goes against his environmentalist views. A financial genius employer is not obligated to provide health insurance for his employers but can instead compensate them through higher wages if he thinks it saves money. A jew is not obligated to provide non-kosher food during the lunch break to his employees. A person who is opposed to contraceptives is not obligated to provide health insurance that pays for contraceptives. All that they're obligated to do is to provide a total compensation that exceeds the minimum wage.

    In the above scenarios, no one has their rights infringed upon. Everything stays voluntary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    Remember when we were talking about left wing and right wing libertarians? This is pretty far right wing, even for you. Where as the left wing libertarian position is to protect employers from having religious views forced on them by their employers.
    My position is strictly libertarian. In this case I'm defending the freedom of the employer. The employees freedom is not being harmed here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    They're imposing their personal religious beliefs on your private life? That your employer thinks they have a place between you and your doctor?
    They are not. They are not telling you how to spend your money. They are not telling you what you can and cannot do in your free time. All they're doing is deciding that they're not going to directly give you something that they don't like, regardless of reasoning. They do not even have to explain why they don't like it.

    Sorry Wells, but you're way out on this one.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-03-05 at 09:51 AM.

  9. #1409
    You do not have an inherent right to be provided any products by other people.
    A thing I never said.

    The employer gets to choose what he offers his employees, and they get to choose if they accept of decline.
    yeah sorry most of us don't buy into your form of right wing libertarianism. I have a right not to have your religious beliefs forced on my private affairs, which is exactly what this is. You're deciding to restrict my access to birth control in my private life because your god says so.


    My position is strictly libertarian. In this case I'm on the side of the freedom of the employer. The employees freedom is not being harmed here.
    Except for my right to be free from the religious dictates of others.


    They are not. They are not telling you how to spend your money. They are not telling you what you can and cannot do in your free time. All they're doing is deciding that they're not going to directly give you something that they don't like, regardless of reasoning. They do not even have to explain why they don't like it.
    Why don't you get in the real world where when an employer decides they find birth control amoral and won't cover it that means the employee in many cases won't have access to it.

    What space fairy my boss believes in should have zero influence on what treatment I can get from my doctor. There's no excuse for forcing others to live by your religious laws.

  10. #1410
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    I have a right not to have your religious beliefs forced on my private affairs, which is exactly what this is. You're deciding to restrict my access to birth control in my private life because your god says so.
    Is a muslim meat vendor that does not sell pork for religious reasons restricting your access to pork meat in your private life because his god said so?

    You're assuming that you have a right to birth control insurance from your employer. But you don't, it's the employer that gets to choose what and how much he is willing to offer compensation for your labour. He also has the right to decide in what form he will compensate, hard cash, different benefits like health insurance, car or housing. The employee then accepts or declines, and they adjust acordingly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    Why don't you get in the real world where when an employer decides they find birth control amoral and won't cover it that means the employee in many cases won't have access to it.

    What space fairy my boss believes in should have zero influence on what treatment I can get from my doctor. There's no excuse for forcing others to live by your religious laws.
    If an employer does not cover birth control insurance, the total compensation to the employee will go down, which means due to market forces he will have to make up for the compensation in other ways. Most probably through a higher cash wage. This wage can be spent any way you please.

    Your boss should have influence over how he compensates you. Whether he includes moral values to his reasoning, such as not providing environmentally harmful cars, contraceptives, lunch tickets that buy pork meat etc, is up to him.

    None of this forces you to live by his laws. However, you can't force him to live by your's either.

    Also stop with the religious hating remarks of calling god a "space fairy". Just use a lower case 'g' to note that you're atheist instead of stirring trouble.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-03-05 at 10:06 AM.

  11. #1411
    Is a muslim meat vendor that does not sell pork for religious reasons restricting your access to pork meat in your private life because his god said so?
    This analogy is so fail. I have no relationship with the pork vendor. My livelihood is not tied to the pork vendor. The pork vendor is not my sole portal to health care as employers so often are.

    You're assuming that you have a right to birth control insurance from your employer.
    No. I have a right to not have their faith meddle in my medical treatment. If they for financial reasons choose not to offer care that is one thing, but to decline to offer birth control coverage because jesus says the pill makes angels cry is not acceptable.
    If an employer does not cover birth control insurance, the total compensation to the employee will go down, which means due to market forces he will have to make up for the compensation in other ways. Most probably through a higher cash wage. This wage can be spent any way you please.
    Or in the real world, he won't raise your wages at all because you're still getting medical coverage for most things.



    Your boss should have influence over how he compensates you
    Of course he should. But that doesn't mean he should be able to inflict his religious views on you.


    None of this forces you to live by his laws. However, you can't force him to live by your's either.
    No one is forcing him to use birth control. Freedom of religion doesn't mean the freedom to force other's to follow your religious law, which is exactly what you want to let him do. Freedom of Religion for the businesses and whatever they want to throw to everyone else! Sounds like a lot of libertarian social policy really.

    ---------- Post added 2012-03-05 at 10:27 AM ----------

    Its pretty ludicrous to claim they're not forcing their religion on people when the literally thing that is being said is "we are providing health care coverage except for this one treatment we refuse to cover because it violates our religious beliefs".

  12. #1412
    I still do not understand why people are so obsessed with other peoples bodies and what they do in bed. Birth control is related to health care, and should be offered through insurance if the person so desires it. You cannot say "Birth control is not related to health" that would be completely asinine.


    "No one is forcing him to use birth control. Freedom of religion doesn't mean the freedom to force other's to follow your religious law, which is exactly what you want to let him do. Freedom of Religion for the businesses and whatever they want to throw to everyone else! Sounds like a lot of libertarian social policy really. "

    Exactly. If something is related to health, why would it NOT be covered by a health care plan? Just because you do not believe in something/think it is wrong, does not mean you have the right to tell others it is wrong, and they are wrong for using it.

  13. #1413
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This analogy is so fail. I have no relationship with the pork vendor. My livelihood is not tied to the pork vendor. The pork vendor is not my sole portal to health care as employers so often are.
    The employer isn't even obligated to provide you with health insurance in the first place. Just because healthcare is more important than pork meat doesn't change this at all. But if you want an even closer analogy:

    Is an environmentalist employer that does not want to compensate you with a company car benefit because of his moral views, an act of restricting your access to cars?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    No. I have a right to not have their faith meddle in my medical treatment. If they for financial reasons choose not to offer care that is one thing, but to decline to offer birth control coverage because jesus says the pill makes angels cry is not acceptable.
    So in other words, your saying that employers can only make decisions based on financial reason, but not on moral grounds?
    The aforementioned environmentalist employer should be forced to offer you a company car as compensation as his only objection is his environmentalism based morals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    Or in the real world, he won't raise your wages at all because you're still getting medical coverage for most things.
    Your job will become less attractive due to weaker compensation which will put pressures to raise compensations in other ways. You can't deny this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    Of course he should. But that doesn't mean he should be able to inflict his religious views on you.
    He is not. He's not telling you how to spend your wage. All he is doing is spending the money he is in posession of according to his own beliefs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    No one is forcing him to use birth control. Freedom of religion doesn't mean the freedom to force other's to follow your religious law, which is exactly what you want to let him do. Freedom of Religion for the businesses and whatever they want to throw to everyone else! Sounds like a lot of libertarian social policy really.
    The employer is not forcing you to follow his religious law. You're however trying to force him to stop following his own.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-03-05 at 10:38 AM.

  14. #1414
    The employer isn't even obligated to provide you with health insurance in the first place.
    Of course he isn't. but if he chooses to do so then he shouldn't be allowed to use it as a vector to force religious beliefs on others.


    Is an environmentalist employer that does not want to compensate you with a company car benefit because of his moral views, an act of restricting your access to cars?
    I have no right to a car. I have a right to freedom from the dictates of another's religion.


    So in other words, your saying that employers can only make decisions based on financial reason, but not on moral grounds?
    We'll restrict my claims to financial grounds not religious grounds for the sake of keeping the argument concise.


    Your job will become less attractive due to weaker compensation which will put pressures to raise compensations in other ways. You can't deny this.
    Not really. The demand for jobs that offer health care is so high right now that there is going to be little to no pressure to raise wages to compensate.



    The employer is not forcing you to follow his religious law. You're however trying to force him to stop following his own.
    If his religious laws constitute forcing others to follow them then he's in the wrong and can shove off.


    He is not. He's not telling you how to spend your wage. All he is doing is spending the money he is in posession of according to his own beliefs.
    He's curtailing my benefits to fit his religious beliefs. I'd say you're being obtuse here but apparently that's infractable.

  15. #1415
    The Insane Cattaclysmic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Århus
    Posts
    17,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post

    Also stop with the religious hating remarks of calling god a "space fairy". Just use a lower case 'g' to note that you're atheist instead of stirring trouble.
    the term space fairy is used here because we arent allowed to discuss religion and oddly enough god = religion, space fairy = superstition

  16. #1416
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    I have no right to a car. I have a right to freedom from the dictates of another's religion.
    ...What? You say:

    Employer choosing not to compensate you with a company car on moral grounds is ok.
    Employer choosing not to compensate you with birth control insurance on moral grounds is not ok, because you're not allowed to make decisions on moral grounds.

    Wells, what you're saying is that if the morals of the person in question are to your likings, they can do whatever they want. If the morals are opposed to yours, they need to fall in line with yours ASAP or they're violating your freedom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    We'll restrict my claims to financial grounds not religious grounds for the sake of keeping the argument concise.
    So employers should not be allowed to display religion within the company in anyway, or donate to any charities or do other moral actions, unless there is a financial incentive behind all of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    Not really. The demand for jobs that offer health care is so high right now that there is going to be little to no pressure to raise wages to compensate.
    So you're saying that these people are overpaid? If they're overpaid a reduction in compensation will not put pressures to raise wages. However if they're paid according to the fair market price, a reduction in compensation will put them below that, which will put pressures on them to raise it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    If his religious laws constitute forcing others to follow them then he's in the wrong and can shove off.
    He's curtailing my benefits to fit his religious beliefs. I'd say you're being obtuse here but apparently that's infractable.
    Just like the muslim meat vendor has the right to decide what he offers his customers, the employer has the right to decide what he offers to his employees. No one forces you to take the job or to buy from him. Obviously existing job contracts cannot be unilaterally altered on moral or financial grounds, so he cannot curtail existing benefits.

    And for the final time. He is not forcing anyone to follow his religious laws. He is only following them himself.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-03-05 at 11:03 AM.

  17. #1417
    Employer choosing not to compensate you with a company car on moral grounds is ok.
    Employer choosing not to compensate you with birth control insurance on moral grounds is not ok, because you're not allowed to make decisions on moral grounds.
    Its like you're not reading. I have no rights in play with regard to a car. I do have a right to not have my medical coverage limited by my boss's religious beliefs because I have a right not to be subject to his religious laws.


    So employers should not be allowed to display religion within the company in anyway, or donate to any charities or do other moral actions, unless there is a financial incentive behind all of it?
    None of this has anything to do with what I'm talking about and you know it. Stop trying to hide behind red herrings.

    Just like the musli meat vendor has the right to decide what he offers his customers, the employer has the right to decide what he offers to his employees.
    Lol I'm amazed you think these two have anything in common here (not that I think you do, I think you know what you're doing). The meat vendor is not forcing anything on anyone.

    No one forces you to take the job
    What a privileged thing to say.

    ---------- Post added 2012-03-05 at 11:12 AM ----------

    I mean that you think comparing a business's right to choose what it wants to sell to this is kinda 0.o

    Its like you don't understand how religious freedom plays into this when you start involving employees.

  18. #1418
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Its like you're not reading. I have no rights in play with regard to a car. I do have a right to not have my medical coverage limited by my boss's religious beliefs because I have a right not to be subject to his religious laws.
    Shouldn't you have a right to not have your car benefit limited by your boss's moral beliefs?

    What about the employer not offering medical insurance at all because of moral beliefs? (For example moral opposition to insurance companies, or some moral opposition to medicine in general)


    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    None of this has anything to do with what I'm talking about and you know it. Stop trying to hide behind red herrings.
    It's not a red herring. It shows that decisions are made by companies on moral grounds all the time.



    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    Lol I'm amazed you think these two have anything in common here (not that I think you do, I think you know what you're doing). The meat vendor is not forcing anything on anyone.
    The employer is not forcing anything on anyone either. You don't have to take his job offer if you don't like the terms.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    What a privileged thing to say.
    How is it a privilegied thing to say that you're not forced to take a job offer which you don't like? What's with you and this "privilegie" thing anyway? You think because I am from Finland that I'm living like a king on the taxpayers expense?

  19. #1419
    Shouldn't you have a right to not have your car benefit limited by your boss's moral beliefs?
    Car benefits aren't religious strictures. Stop with the red herrings.


    It's not a red herring. It shows that decisions are made by companies on moral grounds all the time.
    I never said I had a problem with moral grounds. In fact I specifically told you I didn't want to branch into this. There is a distinct difference between making a decision based on moral views and making one based on religion.

    The employer is not forcing anything on anyone either.
    If you can say "we're exempting birth control from your coverage because baby jesus amen" is not forcing a religious belief on someone with a straight face there's no point in continuing this.

    How is it a privilegied thing to say that you're not forced to take a job offer which you don't like?
    Because we don't all live in a world where we can realistically turn down a job based on a moral dilemma, or even one where we realistically have a choice on what job to take.

    What's with you and this "privilegie" thing anyway? You think because I am from Finland that I'm living like a king on the taxpayers expense?
    Maybe you should spend some time reading up on privilege and how it pervades the arguments you make. I mean I know you have no high opinions of sociology but still, wouldn't hurt. It has nothing to do with your country of origin.

  20. #1420
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Car benefits aren't religious strictures. Stop with the red herrings.
    You're not getting away with this.

    Car benefits for personal transport are against the morals of many environmentalist people. Why should these environmentalist employers be allowed to make moral decisions but those who are opposed to birth control insurance should not?

    I ask again:

    What about the employer not offering medical insurance at all because of moral beliefs? (For example moral opposition to insurance companies, or some moral opposition to medicine in general)


    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    I never said I had a problem with moral grounds. In fact I specifically told you I didn't want to branch into this. There is a distinct difference between making a decision based on moral views and making one based on religion.
    Decisions made on religious grounds are the same as decisions made on moral grounds. Religious people derive much of their morals from religion. That they're derived from religion doesn't make them any less worthy than those derived from what your parents thaught you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    If you can say "we're exempting birth control from your coverage because baby jesus amen" is not forcing a religious belief on someone with a straight face there's no point in continuing this.
    I ask you again to cool it with the anti-christian remarks. But how is "we're not providing birth control insurance because of christianity" any different from "we're not going to provide you with a company car because of mother nature" or "I'm not selling pork meat because of Allah"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    Because we don't all live in a world where we can realistically turn down a job based on a moral dilemma, or even one where we realistically have a choice on what job to take.
    You're not turning down a job based on a moral dilemma. You're turning down the job because the compensation they offer is not high enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    Maybe you should spend some time reading up on privilege and how it pervades the arguments you make. I mean I know you have no high opinions of sociology but still, wouldn't hurt. It has nothing to do with your country of origin.
    Oh because I try to look at everything from an objective point of view instead of always siding with the supposed protectors of the "little guy" ?
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-03-05 at 11:31 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •