Faith Healing

[Chizzang]

Mental prison (not murder)
Just because I think its stupid doesn't mean our glorious elected officials ought to be managing it
I would like our government out of the family management business all together

I know I was just fvcking with you.

Agreed

I also believe - unlike Hen and a few others on here - that each person should regularly review their positions on the larger philosophical cultural situations like this - if not regularly reviewing (checking ourselves) we might find ourselves at odds with ourself in our own argument

Which is why I actively drag one debate into the middle of another on here
Abortion Rights / Government Intervention / Faith Healing (or very late term Abortion) and government Intervention / Gun Rights / Government Intervention / Death with Dignity / Government Intervention


Things that involve killing and dying vs. The Gubmnt'
should regularly be scrambled together
because when you "parse them out and sniper one at a time" you'll find yourself all over the map

As a Liberal I'm predisposed to Like some things and be opposed to others
It is the nature of the human mind once its settled in to a philosophical position
The problem is if I just follow the Liberal road map I contradict myself and use lazy thinking

and that all ^ goes double for Conservatives that also think Jeezus is watching them

[89Hen]

Anybody that believes in faith healing probably would be serving mankind best by not reproducing anyway...but still, at the same time-

Meh, I feel the same about you.

[89Hen]

I also believe - unlike Hen and a few others on here - that each person should regularly review their positions on the larger philosophical cultural situations like this - if not regularly reviewing (checking ourselves) we might find ourselves at odds with ourself in our own argument

Can't tell if you're fishing again or just being pompous again.

[Brock Landers]

The thing is, it is important that we not accept the idea that government has ultimate say over decisions pertaining to the well being of children. We must defend the principle that, when government thinks one thing is best and parents think that some other thing is best, the parents' view rules.

If we don't do that, Pandora's box is open.

So parents get to decide what's abusive?

Well, or whatever religion decides for them



Way to just be terrible at everything Idaho.

[kalm]

I know I was just fvcking with you.

Agreed

I also believe - unlike Hen and a few others on here - that each person should regularly review their positions on the larger philosophical cultural situations like this - if not regularly reviewing (checking ourselves) we might find ourselves at odds with ourself in our own argument

Which is why I actively drag one debate into the middle of another on here
Abortion Rights / Government Intervention / Faith Healing (or very late term Abortion) and government Intervention / Gun Rights / Government Intervention / Death with Dignity / Government Intervention


Things that involve killing and dying vs. The Gubmnt'
should regularly be scrambled together
because when you "parse them out and sniper one at a time" you'll find yourself all over the map

As a Liberal I'm predisposed to Like some things and be opposed to others
It is the nature of the human mind once its settled in to a philosophical position
The problem is if I just follow the Liberal road map I contradict myself and use lazy thinking

and that all ^ goes double for Conservatives that also think Jeezus is watching them

Sure, but beginning every discussion (especially this one) from a perspective that "the government is always bad…slippery slope…pandora's box etc can also lead to lazy thinking.

Foolish consistencies, hobgoblins, and all that stuff…

[Chizzang]

I also believe - unlike Hen and a few others on here - that each person should regularly review their positions on the larger philosophical cultural situations like this - if not regularly reviewing (checking ourselves) we might find ourselves at odds with ourself in our own argument

Can't tell if you're fishing again or just being pompous again.

Jesus is watching you... and judging you right now


I'm told around here "It's all about Jesus" you know...

[JohnStOnge]

Sure, but beginning every discussion (especially this one) from a perspective that "the government is always bad…slippery slope…pandora's box etc can also lead to lazy thinking.

The real lazy thinking involves the idea that, if there is a problem, government should fix it. Also the related idea that if you can make the argument that a government action is for what is immediately perceived as being "for the common good," it is justified.

It takes a little more complex thinking to understand that sometimes we have to accept negatives in order to avoid greater negatives.

[JohnStOnge]

So parents get to decide what's abusive?

Yes. And what makes you think establishing the paradigm of allowing government to decide that is ultimately better?

[kalm]

So parents get to decide what's abusive?

Yes. And what makes you think establishing the paradigm of allowing government to decide that is ultimately better?

So do you believe we should do away with child abuse laws altogether?

[JohnStOnge]

So do you believe we should do away with child abuse laws altogether?

As noted earlier, I have settled on an "intent to do harm" standard. As long as the parent is trying to do what the parent thinks is best for the child government should butt out. If it comes down to a choice between what the parent thinks is best for the child and what government thinks is best for the child, the parent's view should prevail.

So, for example, if the parent thinks corporal punishment is best for the child and government thinks otherwise, he parent's view should prevail. Or if the parent thinks going without vaccination is best for the child the parent's view should prevail. So on and so forth.

It is important to maintain the principle that the ultimate authority over the socialization and well being of each child rests with the parents rather than with the government even if there are individual circumstances where most of us would think that is not the case.

[CID1990]

I also believe - unlike Hen and a few others on here - that each person should regularly review their positions on the larger philosophical cultural situations like this - if not regularly reviewing (checking ourselves) we might find ourselves at odds with ourself in our own argument

Which is why I actively drag one debate into the middle of another on here
Abortion Rights / Government Intervention / Faith Healing (or very late term Abortion) and government Intervention / Gun Rights / Government Intervention / Death with Dignity / Government Intervention


Things that involve killing and dying vs. The Gubmnt'
should regularly be scrambled together
because when you "parse them out and sniper one at a time" you'll find yourself all over the map

As a Liberal I'm predisposed to Like some things and be opposed to others
It is the nature of the human mind once its settled in to a philosophical position
The problem is if I just follow the Liberal road map I contradict myself and use lazy thinking

and that all ^ goes double for Conservatives that also think Jeezus is watching them

Sure, but beginning every discussion (especially this one) from a perspective that "the government is always bad…slippery slope…pandora's box etc can also lead to lazy thinking.

Foolish consistencies, hobgoblins, and all that stuff…

You're engaging in the very lazy thinking you criticize.

Few conservatives suggest that all government is bad, and exactly zero think there is no good use to which government can be usefully employed.

There's a difference between big government and good government. Big government is not speed limits or infrastructure or antitrust actions. Big government is when you think my child should be educated a certain way, or that I should be compelled to hand over half of the nest egg I built for my children when I die, and using the government to bend me to your will.

Government can do many beneficial things without infringing on personal liberties. You and many others don't seem to be able to recognize that conservatives see the distinction but just don't feel it is necessary to "voxsplain" it to liberals.

[houndawg]

So do you believe we should do away with child abuse laws altogether?

As noted earlier, I have settled on an "intent to do harm" standard. As long as the parent is trying to do what the parent thinks is best for the child government should butt out. If it comes down to a choice between what the parent thinks is best for the child and what government thinks is best for the child, the parent's view should prevail.

So, for example, if the parent thinks corporal punishment is best for the child and government thinks otherwise, he parent's view should prevail. Or if the parent thinks going without vaccination is best for the child the parent's view should prevail. So on and so forth.

It is important to maintain the principle that the ultimate authority over the socialization and well being of each child rests with the parents rather than with the government even if there are individual circumstances where most of us would think that is not the case.

Should it still prevail when the abused person retaliates against the tormentor?

[kalm]

Sure, but beginning every discussion (especially this one) from a perspective that "the government is always bad…slippery slope…pandora's box etc can also lead to lazy thinking.

Foolish consistencies, hobgoblins, and all that stuff…

You're engaging in the very lazy thinking you criticize.

Few conservatives suggest that all government is bad, and exactly zero think there is no good use to which government can be usefully employed.

There's a difference between big government and good government. Big government is not speed limits or infrastructure or antitrust actions. Big government is when you think my child should be educated a certain way, or that I should be compelled to hand over half of the nest egg I built for my children when I die, and using the government to bend me to your will.

Government can do many beneficial things without infringing on personal liberties. You and many others don't seem to be able to recognize that conservatives see the distinction but just don't feel it is necessary to "voxsplain" it to liberals.

I think we can all agree that personal personal liberties are great and only limited by infringing upon the rights of others. We can also agree that denying life saving medical care to a sick child can be negligent.

Wait...government agrees? Fuck that shit!

Bunch a JSO dog abusing acolytes...

(Taking us right back to Chizzy's original conundrum)

[Vidav]

So do you believe we should do away with child abuse laws altogether?

As noted earlier, I have settled on an "intent to do harm" standard. As long as the parent is trying to do what the parent thinks is best for the child government should butt out. If it comes down to a choice between what the parent thinks is best for the child and what government thinks is best for the child, the parent's view should prevail.

So, for example, if the parent thinks corporal punishment is best for the child and government thinks otherwise, he parent's view should prevail. Or if the parent thinks going without vaccination is best for the child the parent's view should prevail. So on and so forth.

It is important to maintain the principle that the ultimate authority over the socialization and well being of each child rests with the parents rather than with the government even if there are individual circumstances where most of us would think that is not the case.

Going without vaccination can cause harm to others, though. That shouldn't be a choice.

[Brock Landers]

So do you believe we should do away with child abuse laws altogether?

As noted earlier, I have settled on an "intent to do harm" standard. As long as the parent is trying to do what the parent thinks is best for the child government should butt out. If it comes down to a choice between what the parent thinks is best for the child and what government thinks is best for the child, the parent's view should prevail.

So, for example, if the parent thinks corporal punishment is best for the child and government thinks otherwise, he parent's view should prevail. Or if the parent thinks going without vaccination is best for the child the parent's view should prevail. So on and so forth.

It is important to maintain the principle that the ultimate authority over the socialization and well being of each child rests with the parents rather than with the government even if there are individual circumstances where most of us would think that is not the case.

There's parents out there that will smoke meth with their kid. Not because they intend to do harm, but because people are really, really, really, f#$king stupid

[Chizzang]

Sure, but beginning every discussion (especially this one) from a perspective that "the government is always bad…slippery slope…pandora's box etc can also lead to lazy thinking.

Foolish consistencies, hobgoblins, and all that stuff…

You're engaging in the very lazy thinking you criticize.

Few conservatives suggest that all government is bad, and exactly zero think there is no good use to which government can be usefully employed.

There's a difference between big government and good government. Big government is not speed limits or infrastructure or antitrust actions. Big government is when you think my child should be educated a certain way, or that I should be compelled to hand over half of the nest egg I built for my children when I die, and using the government to bend me to your will.

Government can do many beneficial things without infringing on personal liberties. You and many others don't seem to be able to recognize that conservatives see the distinction but just don't feel it is necessary to "voxsplain" it to liberals.

CID,
I have a few adders for the above... But I like where you're going

The Tea Party has assisted in blurring the lines of demarcation for the "average" Conservative (as observed) by the rest of America... for conversational purposes I'll proceed. The Tea Party bullet pointers are confusing when all placed together in one concise argument and up just being low hanging fruit to the organized media or anybody mustering up an argument against the right

The Right in Theory vs. The Right in Practice / is where we get in trouble...

The whole Christian Nation thing / When Congress shall favor no Religion
The "They don't even speak English" thing / which is of course is meaningless as there is no national language
Get Big Government away from my Medicare...


The whole "Less Government" except when I want more Government thing is getting tired
And the Republican Argument is confusing and easily dismissed as no Republican president in the last 100 years has actually reduced spending from the inherited president

So... Your point above is nice (cute even) but missing a few adders for clarification
The Tea Party is actually hurting the Conservative story line

[Grizalltheway]

As noted earlier, I have settled on an "intent to do harm" standard. As long as the parent is trying to do what the parent thinks is best for the child government should butt out. If it comes down to a choice between what the parent thinks is best for the child and what government thinks is best for the child, the parent's view should prevail.

So, for example, if the parent thinks corporal punishment is best for the child and government thinks otherwise, he parent's view should prevail. Or if the parent thinks going without vaccination is best for the child the parent's view should prevail. So on and so forth.

It is important to maintain the principle that the ultimate authority over the socialization and well being of each child rests with the parents rather than with the government even if there are individual circumstances where most of us would think that is not the case.

There's parents out there that will smoke meth with their kid. Not because they intend to do harm, but because people are really, really, really, f#$king stupid

I wonder if JSO is okay with women doing meth or other drugs while pregnant...you know, as long as they don't intend to do harm.

[kalm]

There's parents out there that will smoke meth with their kid. Not because they intend to do harm, but because people are really, really, really, f#$king stupid

I wonder if JSO is okay with women doing meth or other drugs while pregnant...you know, as long as they don't intend to do harm.

C'mon, intent is a viable defense under the law. Just look at DUI's and vehicular manslaughter.

Amirite, CidStOnge?

[JohnStOnge]

Going without vaccination can cause harm to others, though. That shouldn't be a choice.

Lots of stuff carries some probability of causing harm to others. For example: Allowing unfettered extra-marital sex clearly promotes the spread of disease. Allowing male homosexual sex REALLY promotes it.

Should those things be prohibited? I don't think so.

Back to vaccinations: I have written before about how I opted out of the live oral polio vaccine when that was the recommendation in favor of the injectable killed vaccine. I did it because the killed vaccine was just as likely to confer immunity to my child but did not carry the risk of my child catching polio from the live oral vaccine. But me opting for the killed vaccine meant my children could be polio vectors if they somehow encountered wild poliovirus.

Do you REALLY think I should've been forced to have my kids vaccinated with the live oral vaccine for "the common good" when I knew that that risk to my own kids was minimized by giving them the killed vaccine? Really? Would YOU do that if you knew the situation? If you give your kid the live oral polio vaccine they could get polio from the vaccine but if you give them the killed injectable vaccine they CAN'T get polio from the vaccine but may carry the wild virus? Would YOU risk sacrificing your kid for the "common good" like that?

That's a very real illustration of the kinds of calculations that go on during the generation of vaccination policies.

[JohnStOnge]

I wonder if JSO is okay with women doing meth or other drugs while pregnant...you know, as long as they don't intend to do harm.

That is a very tough one but I basically come down on the "yes" side. If you start worrying about what women do when pregnant that might damage the developing unborn you are going into a very wide area. For example: A woman who does not get enough sleep can do harm to the unborn. A woman who does not eat a healthy diet. A woman who does not ingest enough folic acid. So on and so forth.

I would stick to the "intent to do harm" standard.

[CID1990]

You're engaging in the very lazy thinking you criticize.

Few conservatives suggest that all government is bad, and exactly zero think there is no good use to which government can be usefully employed.

There's a difference between big government and good government. Big government is not speed limits or infrastructure or antitrust actions. Big government is when you think my child should be educated a certain way, or that I should be compelled to hand over half of the nest egg I built for my children when I die, and using the government to bend me to your will.

Government can do many beneficial things without infringing on personal liberties. You and many others don't seem to be able to recognize that conservatives see the distinction but just don't feel it is necessary to "voxsplain" it to liberals.

CID,
I have a few adders for the above... But I like where you're going

The Tea Party has assisted in blurring the lines of demarcation for the "average" Conservative (as observed) by the rest of America... for conversational purposes I'll proceed. The Tea Party bullet pointers are confusing when all placed together in one concise argument and up just being low hanging fruit to the organized media or anybody mustering up an argument against the right

The Right in Theory vs. The Right in Practice / is where we get in trouble...

The whole Christian Nation thing / When Congress shall favor no Religion
The "They don't even speak English" thing / which is of course is meaningless as there is no national language
Get Big Government away from my Medicare...


The whole "Less Government" except when I want more Government thing is getting tired
And the Republican Argument is confusing and easily dismissed as no Republican president in the last 100 years has actually reduced spending from the inherited president

So... Your point above is nice (cute even) but missing a few adders for clarification
The Tea Party is actually hurting the Conservative story line

You're falling into the trap of thinking the Tea Party is monolithic and representative of conservatives as a whole. Congrats to the media for a successful campaign on that.

Remember- depending on who you talk to- both you and I are foamy mouthed Tea Partiers because we would be considered fiscal conservatives. I agree with the fiscal platform. I am not threatened by the whacko religious side because I know they have ZERO chance of making substantial changes to their pet issues.

But yeah, "Tea Party" writ large has a bad image issue

[houndawg]

You're engaging in the very lazy thinking you criticize.

Few conservatives suggest that all government is bad, and exactly zero think there is no good use to which government can be usefully employed.

There's a difference between big government and good government. Big government is not speed limits or infrastructure or antitrust actions. Big government is when you think my child should be educated a certain way, or that I should be compelled to hand over half of the nest egg I built for my children when I die, and using the government to bend me to your will.

Government can do many beneficial things without infringing on personal liberties. You and many others don't seem to be able to recognize that conservatives see the distinction but just don't feel it is necessary to "voxsplain" it to liberals.

CID,
I have a few adders for the above... But I like where you're going

The Tea Party has assisted in blurring the lines of demarcation for the "average" Conservative (as observed) by the rest of America... for conversational purposes I'll proceed. The Tea Party bullet pointers are confusing when all placed together in one concise argument and up just being low hanging fruit to the organized media or anybody mustering up an argument against the right

The Right in Theory vs. The Right in Practice / is where we get in trouble...

The whole Christian Nation thing / When Congress shall favor no Religion
The "They don't even speak English" thing / which is of course is meaningless as there is no national language
Get Big Government away from my Medicare...


The whole "Less Government" except when I want more Government thing is getting tired
And the Republican Argument is confusing and easily dismissed as no Republican president in the last 100 years has actually reduced spending from the inherited president

So... Your point above is nice (cute even) but missing a few adders for clarification
The Tea Party is actually hurting the Conservative story line

No Excretions?

[houndawg]

CID,
I have a few adders for the above... But I like where you're going

The Tea Party has assisted in blurring the lines of demarcation for the "average" Conservative (as observed) by the rest of America... for conversational purposes I'll proceed. The Tea Party bullet pointers are confusing when all placed together in one concise argument and up just being low hanging fruit to the organized media or anybody mustering up an argument against the right

The Right in Theory vs. The Right in Practice / is where we get in trouble...

The whole Christian Nation thing / When Congress shall favor no Religion
The "They don't even speak English" thing / which is of course is meaningless as there is no national language
Get Big Government away from my Medicare...


The whole "Less Government" except when I want more Government thing is getting tired
And the Republican Argument is confusing and easily dismissed as no Republican president in the last 100 years has actually reduced spending from the inherited president

So... Your point above is nice (cute even) but missing a few adders for clarification
The Tea Party is actually hurting the Conservative story line

You're falling into the trap of thinking the Tea Party is monolithic and representative of conservatives as a whole. Congrats to the media for a successful campaign on that.

Remember- depending on who you talk to- both you and I are foamy mouthed Tea Partiers because we would be considered fiscal conservatives. I agree with the fiscal platform. I am not threatened by the whacko religious side because I know they have ZERO chance of making substantial changes to their pet issues.

But yeah, "Tea Party" writ large has a bad image issue

I'm guilty of this, but now that I see how the Tea Party has become more accepting of socialized medicine I recognize the error of my ways...

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-r ... ical-bills" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


tman, Z, ALPACAJIZZ, Bunco, Chitgrad.... here's your future, come in from the cold and join America, the greatest nation ever. We'll take care of you when your health deteriorates as far as you brains have.

[Chizzang]

You're falling into the trap of thinking the Tea Party is monolithic and representative of conservatives as a whole. Congrats to the media for a successful campaign on that.

Remember- depending on who you talk to- both you and I are foamy mouthed Tea Partiers because we would be considered fiscal conservatives. I agree with the fiscal platform. I am not threatened by the whacko religious side because I know they have ZERO chance of making substantial changes to their pet issues.

But yeah, "Tea Party" writ large has a bad image issue

MY point:
Which I made poorly was the willingness with which the "regular old Conservative" surrendered the party over to the hands of the nut balls... (to get votes maybe?)

Each Party is only as Reasonable and Common Sense as it's looses bolts and wildest canons
Which is why Obama has been in my opinion a disaster

[kalm]

You're falling into the trap of thinking the Tea Party is monolithic and representative of conservatives as a whole. Congrats to the media for a successful campaign on that.

Remember- depending on who you talk to- both you and I are foamy mouthed Tea Partiers because we would be considered fiscal conservatives. I agree with the fiscal platform. I am not threatened by the whacko religious side because I know they have ZERO chance of making substantial changes to their pet issues.

But yeah, "Tea Party" writ large has a bad image issue

MY point:
Which I made poorly was the willingness with which the "regular old Conservative" surrendered the party over to the hands of the nut balls... (to get votes maybe?)

Each Party is only as Reasonable and Common Sense as it's looses bolts and wildest canons
Which is why Obama has been in my opinion a disaster