Ask Me Help Desk - Birth control pills

Oh dear: Hooking Kids on Sex II - YouTube
That's satire right? Please tell me this is satire...

So you think PP teaching 10-year-olds how to masturbate is a good thing?

But they aren't.

That video is full of logical fallacies made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Escpecially for those that think sex and our bodies are bad and dirty.

Limprod is a radio clown, a ratings chaser, who righty political types are scared to death of. He is fair game. And no way do you get to use inflammatory rhetoric and superlatives and I don't. Plain and simple.

Her we go again, we can debate facts and somehow get a consensus, but don't get mad at someone that you throw rocks at, and they throw back. Especially when you frame a debate about business policy as a freedom of religion issue and fail to recognize when the church jumps into the public domain of business, then it has to play by business rules.

Its like the freedom of speech allows you the right to say what you please, but doesn't entitle employers to keep you working if you feel religiously bound to not make him some money. The church doesn't pay for female pills, she pays through contractual agreement to have premiums deducted from her check like all of us do, so she pays for a service that a group rate provides for those employees.

Employees cannot by law be bound to the same constraint of a religious organization, or their flock, because they are not a part of a flock but are employees with certain rights and guarantee.

The law defines that role, not the church. Fee for service is an accepted way of doing business, and the church is clearly overstepping the boundaries of church, and state by attempting to blur the lines between religion, and business.

Like the pharmacist who works for a pharmacy. He is bound by law to sell the products the employer has at the risk of his job! Or find another job right?

Quote:

So you think PP teaching 10-year-olds how to masturbate is a good thing?

Jokes on you if you believe the clearly adult satire as a statement of fact.

Quote:

Limprod is a radio clown, a ratings chaser,

Why is your name calling OK ,but mine isn't ?

Quote:

when you frame a debate about business policy

Interesting you say that ;because the way I see it ,the biggest winner in this whole thing is Big Pharma. Is this payback by the President for their support for Obamacare ? Note the President doesn't qualify his mandate by saying they must offer generics .

The answer for the Church is clear. If you force them to either surrender their morals or to stop providing insurance they will chose to stop providing insurance. That works very well for the Obots because their goal is to destroy private insurance and have everyone in a single payer socialist system .

You can stop the pretext of women's rights to health care choices . That is bunk . Or are we to believe that the left thinks pregnancy is a disease ? Geesh!. and this thread questions the rights understanding of reproduction!

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

But they aren't.

That video is full of logical fallacies made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Escpecially for those that think sex and our bodies are bad and dirty.

I'm not commenting on the whole video, I asked a specific question. It has nothing to do with anyone thinking "sex and our bodies are bad and dirty". That sir is a logical fallacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I'm not commenting on the whole video, I asked a specific question. It has nothing to do with anyone thinking "sex and our bodies are bad and dirty". That sir is a logical fallacy.

Which fallacy is it?

You're the smart guy, it's in my answer so you figure it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You're the smart guy, it's in my answer so you figure it out.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And your point is what, you can't figure it out? You assume because I don't think it's smart for PP to teach 10 year-olds how to masturbate with or without graphic images that would get a grown man arrested, that I think "sex and our bodies are bad and dirty". You can't get there from that.

Quote:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice list karma and I see all of them in play on this site

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Nice list karma and I see all of them in play on this site

Agreed. It's been like that for as long as I can remember. Current Events has never been the place for logical discussion. For an example of what it *could* be you can check out any thread at Slashdot.org. Anyone using false arguments based on fallacies gets modded down by their peers. There are some very learned people there.

A fallacy could be seen as a mistake in reasoning or inference and I think this is what some people are pointing out. The problem is that any list of fallacies presented is not exhaustive. What also makes it difficult is that some statements can contain more than on fallacy.

Perhaps we could look at the different types of fallacies as belonging to particular sub-species. Dog is a sub-species. So if something looks like a dog, acts like a dog and smells like a dog it is probably a dog. It belongs to this sub-species.

By the same token if a statement appears to be ambigious ( a type of broad deffinition of a particular fallacy) then we might apply the same criterion. If it looks ambigious, appears to be ambigious then perhaps we need to invistigatge the possibility that this statement is a specific type of fallacy that involves ambiguity.

Don't know if this is of any help.

Tut

Here's a fallacy . Sandra Fluke is not the typical co ed from Georgetown U she is portrayed as .In fact she enrolled there specifically to challenge their medical coverage . She is in fact an activist for the cause. She is also an activist for LGBTQ rights ,advocating that sex change operations should also be a "right" covered by employer provided insurance.

So Rush is wrong in his satirical description . He apologized for his words . But when speaking of fallices ;make sure you include the left's fallacies in their portrayal of Fluke.

Ps... do you think the President will drop Bill Maher as a $million donor given his frequent derogatory characterizations of women ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Here's a fallacy . Sandra Fluke is not the typical co ed from Georgetown U she is portrayed as .In fact she enrolled there specifically to challenge their medical coverage . She is in fact an activist for the cause. She is also an activist for LGBTQ rights ,advocating that sex change operations should also be a "right" covered by employer provided insurance.

So Rush is wrong in his satirical description . He apologized for his words . But when speaking of fallices ;make sure you include the left's fallacies in their portrayal of Fluke.

Hi Tom,

This is not an example of a fallacy. This is an example of someone who is a plant undertaking an undercover operation. It would also be an example of dishonesty

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Here's a fallacy . Sandra Fluke is not the typical co ed from Georgetown U she is portrayed as .

Hello again, tom,

You're right... Yeah, I read where female "activists", don't have the same women parts as NON activists do.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

A college student activist, who would have thunk it? Seems to be a lot of those lately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom,

You're right... Yeah, I read where female "activists", don't have the same women parts as NON activists do.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

You guys would consider her an "astroturf" activist if she were a conservative. Among other, less printable things.

Indeed .It doesn't come close to terms like teabagger ;or that urban dictionary definition of 'Santorum' .

A real fallacy I think is the notion that churches can control insurance company product that they sell.

Another fallacy, and just MY opinion, is the notion that churches pay for abortions or contraceptions. They don't as a matter of facts. The insured pays a premium for a policy. The church subsidizes a policy. The free market at work.

Its no fallacy to me that the right is undermining the affordable care act, as insurance companies yet again raise the cost of premiums, and the nation has a lower class that can't afford them. Its no fallacy that the money goes to the 1% faster a lot faster than it trickles down to anyone else. Its no fallacy that investors have not invested in JOBS, at a fast enough rate, while most banks, companies, and individuals benefit from the law to make safe money they extract from the economy as a whole.

Its no fallacy that republicans have a social agenda that cuts their own safety net while enriching those that need it least. Its no fallacy that republicans have angered females by minimizing their unique needs. Its no fallacy that republican state governments have focused more on overturning settled law, and turning the clock back on social gains, and education than they have in creating solutions to the needs of the many, who live in their state.

See, no name calling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

A real fallacy I think is the notion that churches can control insurance company product that they sell. Another fallacy, and just MY opinion, is the notion that churches pay for abortions or contraceptions. They don't as a matter of facts. The insured pays a premium for a policy. The church subsidizes a policy. The free market at work.

And yet the left actually believes if advertisers don't boycott Rush that means they endorse his insult of Fluke.

Quote:

Its no fallacy to me that the right is undermining the affordable care act,

Wow, you saw right through us. I don't recall anyone on the right trying to hide their disdain for Obamacare or their intent to see it go down in flames. I don't to undermine it, I want to obliterate it.

Quote:

as insurance companies yet again raise the cost of premiums and the nation has a lower class that can't afford them. Its no fallacy that the money goes to the 1% faster a lot faster than it trickles down to anyone else.

And as the new Medicaid rules force out small pharmacy owners, but who cares about the little guy? Everyone wants to keep lining the pockets of the 1 percent that will drive the small, home town pharmacy owner out of business, right?

As for the rest of your response, blah, blah, blah same old tired nonsense.

Quote:

And yet the left actually believes if advertisers don't boycott Rush that means they endorse his insult of Fluke.

The power of the free market, what more could the conservatives ask for, oh wait I forgot, Rush is the right wing god, and untouchable. Good luck with that!

Quote:

And as the new Medicaid rules force out small pharmacy owners, but who cares about the little guy? Everyone wants to keep lining the pockets of the 1 percent that will
Drive the small, home town pharmacy owner out of business, right?

New Medicaid rules hit small pharmacies | Amarillo Globe-News

Quote:

State law prohibits the companies from requiring patients to use mail-order pharmacies, but the more money the management companies save, the more they make because they are allowed to keep the savings, up to a certain level.

So these companies will likely encourage Medicaid patients to use their services, rather than local pharmacies.

Stephanie Goodman, the spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Health and Human Services, said state law requires the management companies to recruit enough pharmacies to make sure all patients have access to a drug store within 15 miles of their home, and a 24-hour pharmacy within 70 miles.

That's the state of Texas, you know Rick and the boys. AND the free market. What more could a conservative ask for??

Quote:

Wow, you saw right through us. I don't recall anyone on the right trying to hide their disdain for Obamacare or their intent to see it go down in flames. I don't to undermine it, I want to obliterate it.

Yeah you rather be a slave to the ones who keep raising your premiums and kicking you off if care is to expensive, or you reach your limits.

Of course you have no stomach for a resolution that works for us both. Like most conservatives if you don't want it I shouldn't either huh? That's a very obvious FALLACY!!

Let's not pile fallacy upon fallacy

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Let's not pile fallacy upon fallacy

Hello clete:

That sounds very dirty...

excon

No ex

Tal, if I'm forced out of my coverage into the Fed's plans I no longer have choice. I'd rather take my chances in the market than be a slave to unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington D.C.

Just yesterday I found a licensed, legitimate online American pharmacy where I can buy my meds cheaper than with my insurance copay. I like the market, I prefer government playing the role of referee in the market instead of being our nanny. Why does that not work for both of us?

P.S. The only people who consider a mere human to be a god are Obots.

Quote:

I prefer government playing the role of referee in the market instead of being our nanny. Why does that not work for both of us?

I totally agree. But lets be clear, the affordable care act is a combination of government, and private insurance to promote broad coverages and slow the rising costs of both premiums, and prescriptions. A step down from the single payer system many of us rather have. As long as you have employer based health insurance then you are tied to what your job provides you, and you have no unions to balance what ever the employers prefer to buy. At least some of us.

Single payer takes those cost off your boss, and lets you take it with you no matter where you work, or choose to move to, and that's the part I like. It's the partnership gov/private, that supplies the safety net, standardizes premiums, and makes thing flexible for those that are insured. Plus the boss can pay me more money without the burden of carrying insurance, and the best news is for conservatives is... wait for it... churches would not be hindered by laws that now require every EMPLOYER to provide insurance.

Making the current debate of freedom of religion, non existent. Now why can't THAT work for us both?

You know as well as I do that the contraceptive mandate is just the first step in diminishing our rights. I will not budge in my opposition to Obamacare and a single payer system. You should thank me for defending your rights.

So you are now saying that the way for the Church to retain it's rights is to agree to a system where the government has total control . How does that address the choice issue Speech raised ? Surrender to the state to retain liberty ?
I don't like employer provided coverage either .I'd rather the benefit go towards wage or pension.
But my solution would be for people to self insure if they wish to ;get rid of silly regulations and mandates that drives up the costs and let each person negotiate on their own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

so you are now saying that the way for the Church

Hello again, tom:

I thought you guys were opposed to politically correct speech. Let's call a church, a church... And, let's call a hospital, a hospital.. I could call my house an office building, but it ain't. Now, I know you WANT to call a hospital a church - not because you BELIEVE a hospital is a church, but because it's something you can use to challenge Obama.

I promise you, though, your freedom of religion has NOT been impacted.

excon

PS> I'm going to copy this post, because I'm SURE I'll have to use it again...

And religion is not confined by an edifice ;and the state can't tell a religion that they must confine themselves to 'worship' mass or prayer services . The ministries of the church are very much a part of what it means to be of that faith.

I guess I should copy this because I keep repeating it. The left demands we put aside 'religion' and practice our faith... then ties our hands.

This thread is a case in point, I defend the right of the unborn to life and someone eventually argues that we don't care for the child after it's born. At the same time you're telling us we can't practice our faith, as in caring for children in need unless we violate our beliefs by bowing to the state.

While you guys are busy being double-minded on such matters we're putting our money where our mouth is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

as in caring for children in need

But you're charing money for it, it's not a charity, it's a business.

I don't know about other hospitals . The local Catholic Hospital in my area is a non-profit .

Non profit doesn't mean people don't get paid, or they don't charge for services. Non profit doesn't mean free. A free trader, and capitalist like yourself should know that!

They have to meet their expenses ? No ? Oh wait... that would be a government run institution that doesn't have to concern themselves with expenses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

But you're charing money for it, it's not a charity, it's a business.

I'm charging anyone anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Non profit doesn't mean people don't get paid, or they don't charge for services. Non profit doesn't mean free. A free trader, and capitalist like yourself should know that!

Do you guys have any NEW arguments? These have all been addressed ad nauseum and I'm not going to respond to any more posts implying I don't know what a word means.

They also pursue collection for non payment. Nobody begrudges them anything so what's to defend. But there would be no hospital if they didn't pay doctors and nurses, and janitors. What they work for free? They are catholic volunteers?

I don't think so. They have to attract employees like any other business, with wages, AND benefits. That's how they get equal protection under the law, so saying they can spread their religious beliefs to the public sector and get SPECIAL protection is absurd.

I tell you what--try getting qualified employees without benefits as you see it, especially females, and see how that works for your religious hospital.

Why should catholic hospitals be exempt from labor laws? Or any religious body that is fee for service?