quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Well it is they who will need to suffer from a or a number of cases in which [they] or their clients are directly harmed and then finance a very expensive challenge in the federal courts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
It would seem that the Supreme Court is going to have some interesting shit storms to deal with. I am sure with the Hobby Lobby decision that they never thought they would be helping pro-choice people. I am wondering how this is going to play out. Let's see what people think about religious freedom and what it really means.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/28/1317272/-Well-well-Satanists-to-use-Hobby-Lobby-to-block-pro-life-propaganda

quote:

In some states, that information consists of pro-life propaganda that links abortion to a higher incidence of breast and ovarian cancers, or discusses “post-abortion syndrome,” a mental condition not recognized by any major medical or psychiatric organization.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
It would seem that the Supreme Court is going to have some interesting shit storms to deal with. I am sure with the Hobby Lobby decision that they never thought they would be helping pro-choice people. I am wondering how this is going to play out. Let's see what people think about religious freedom and what it really means.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/28/1317272/-Well-well-Satanists-to-use-Hobby-Lobby-to-block-pro-life-propaganda

The iffy portion is here:

quote:

In some states, that information consists of pro-life propaganda that links abortion to a higher incidence of breast and ovarian cancers, or discusses “post-abortion syndrome,” a mental condition not recognized by any major medical or psychiatric organization.

[Bold theirs; Italics mine]

If you're in a State that has informed consent laws that include the mentioned propaganda (provided it truly is propaganda, and not supported by any scientific evidence), there may be a case there. But, if your State doesn't include that propaganda, you've no standing.

I don't have a problem with informed consent laws, provided the information given is based in science, and not just rhetoric/propaganda. While it's true that it's your body, aren't the best decisions made when you have the most accurate information?

I do have a problem with informed consent laws, when they are using inaccurate information and propaganda. In that case, you are not getting the most accurate information, clouding your ability to make a solid decision for yourself.

But, this could very easily get to be a slippery slope for the Federal Government. I'd be lying if I said I'd be unhappy if the Satanists won. But, this "it's my body, my choice," thing can start to unravel a whole bunch of Government controls. And, I'm all for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Well it is they who will need to suffer from a or a number of cases in which [they] or their clients are directly harmed and then finance a very expensive challenge in the federal courts.

They are merely going to go against the States for now. However it all starts with a letter that they are providing for every woman that might wish to use it. It is quite an interesting legal stance and I think it will be a good one to watch in the news and when it eventually gets into court.

I am not certain what you mean by being harmed. If you read the letter posted on the Satanic Temple site, they are citing their belief in science and their religious conviction that their body is theirs to do with as they see fit. They believe that politically mandated religiously motivated pro-life propaganda is a violation of their religious beliefs.

I am not sure if I am allowed to post a copy of the letter here. Maybe a Moderator can answer that question for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Well it is they who will need to suffer from a or a number of cases in which [they] or their clients are directly harmed and then finance a very expensive challenge in the federal courts.

They are merely going to go against the States for now. However it all starts with a letter that they are providing for every woman that might wish to use it. It is quite an interesting legal stance and I think it will be a good one to watch in the news and when it eventually gets into court.

I am not certain what you mean by being harmed. If you read the letter posted on the Satanic Temple site, they are citing their belief in science and their religious conviction that their body is theirs to do with as they see fit. They believe that politically mandated religiously motivated pro-life propaganda is a violation of their religious beliefs.

I am not sure if I am allowed to post a copy of the letter here. Maybe a Moderator can answer that question for me.

It is useful to consider the following hypothetical case (this is not specifically directed at Gauge, but it is on-topic). A very religious, theocratic individual is elected POTUS. Let's say it's a Rick Santorum type squared. Certainly this is not impossible. Now it becomes the case that homosexual-heterosexual "conversion" therapy becomes popular again. Health insurance, mandated by the government, covers it under mental health. A stalwart company, let's call them Lobby Hobby, says that while they cover most mental health conditions, they don't want to pay for this because they believe it's wrong. Being Unitarian Universalists, these people say it violates their religious beliefs. Now imagine the Supreme Court had ruled against Hobby Lobby. Lobby Hobby goes before SCOTUS and SCOTUS, based on stare decisis, says, sorry. You have to cover this. The point is it works both ways. Whatever bites you in the ass on the right can do the same on the left and vice-versa. That's what happens when you delegate your freedoms to the government. No one would have thought, even 10 years ago that we could have elected someone as left as Obama. Who is to say that in another 10 years we won't elect someone as right as Jerry Falwell. That's why the rule of law and Constitutionalism are so important.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Well it is they who will need to suffer from a or a number of cases in which [they] or their clients are directly harmed and then finance a very expensive challenge in the federal courts.

They are merely going to go against the States for now. However it all starts with a letter that they are providing for every woman that might wish to use it. It is quite an interesting legal stance and I think it will be a good one to watch in the news and when it eventually gets into court.

I am not certain what you mean by being harmed. If you read the letter posted on the Satanic Temple site, they are citing their belief in science and their religious conviction that their body is theirs to do with as they see fit. They believe that politically mandated religiously motivated pro-life propaganda is a violation of their religious beliefs.

I am not sure if I am allowed to post a copy of the letter here. Maybe a Moderator can answer that question for me.

It is useful to consider the following hypothetical case (this is not specifically directed at Gauge, but it is on-topic). A very religious, theocratic individual is elected POTUS. Let's say it's a Rick Santorum type squared. Certainly this is not impossible. Now it becomes the case that homosexual-heterosexual "conversion" therapy becomes popular again. Health insurance, mandated by the government, covers it under mental health. A stalwart company, let's call them Lobby Hobby, says that while they cover most mental health conditions, they don't want to pay for this because they believe it's wrong. Being Unitarian Universalists, these people say it violates their religious beliefs. Now imagine the Supreme Court had ruled against Hobby Lobby. Lobby Hobby goes before SCOTUS and SCOTUS, based on stare decisis, says, sorry. You have to cover this. The point is it works both ways. Whatever bites you in the ass on the right can do the same on the left and vice-versa. That's what happens when you delegate your freedoms to the government. No one would have thought, even 10 years ago that we could have elected someone as left as Obama. Who is to say that in another 10 years we won't elect someone as right as Jerry Falwell. That's why the rule of law and Constitutionalism are so important.

No. Lobby Hobby would have science on their side not nonsense. It wouldn't matter what their religious beliefs were if separation was maintained correctly as a bright line. this has become messy only because we have allowed separation to get reduced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

I disagree because science can be perverted for political ends. To trust that all science will be objective is to ignore the lessons of history. Galileo wasn't the first, nor will he have been the last. The "science" for anthropogenic global warming is at the very least not universally agreed on, unlike say the science supporting evolution, which is indisputable. There have been numerous scandals there. There have also been other research scandals uncovered more recently. Scientists are human, government funding is attractive, universities are political. Scientific truth is objective, but it's dangerous to rely on au courant scientific findings alone. Even if you absolutely disagree with me on anthropogenic global warming, it doesn't matter. The point is that science alone will be twisted toward political ends, making it no longer science, but not politics. Your argument therefore is utopian rather than a reflection of realpolitik and for those reasons, I would stand by my analogy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

I disagree because science can be perverted for political ends. To trust that all science will be objective is to ignore the lessons of history. Galileo wasn't the first, nor will he have been the last. The "science" for anthropogenic global warming is at the very least not universally agreed on, unlike say the science supporting evolution, which is indisputable. There have been numerous scandals there. There have also been other research scandals uncovered more recently. Scientists are human, government funding is attractive, universities are political. Scientific truth is objective, but it's dangerous to rely on au courant scientific findings alone. Even if you absolutely disagree with me on anthropogenic global warming, it doesn't matter. The point is that science alone will be twisted toward political ends, making it no longer science, but not politics. Your argument therefore is utopian rather than a reflection of realpolitik and for those reasons, I would stand by my analogy.

Wrong. The overwhelming consensus of real working scientists in the field agree AGW is happening. Only right wingers inside their bubble don't know this.

The world is simply too large and diverse for such to happen. some idiot regime here might try to suppress science, like W tried, but the researchers else where will keep working and publishing.

Keep your religion private and out of my affairs and everyone will be much better off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

I disagree because science can be perverted for political ends. To trust that all science will be objective is to ignore the lessons of history. Galileo wasn't the first, nor will he have been the last. The "science" for anthropogenic global warming is at the very least not universally agreed on, unlike say the science supporting evolution, which is indisputable. There have been numerous scandals there. There have also been other research scandals uncovered more recently. Scientists are human, government funding is attractive, universities are political. Scientific truth is objective, but it's dangerous to rely on au courant scientific findings alone. Even if you absolutely disagree with me on anthropogenic global warming, it doesn't matter. The point is that science alone will be twisted toward political ends, making it no longer science, but not politics. Your argument therefore is utopian rather than a reflection of realpolitik and for those reasons, I would stand by my analogy.

Wrong. The overwhelming consensus of real working scientists in the field agree AGW is happening. Only right wingers inside their bubble don't know this.

The world is simply too large and diverse for such to happen. some idiot regime here might try to suppress science, like W tried, but the researchers else where will keep working and publishing.

Keep your religion private and out of my affairs and everyone will be much better off.

What religion is that, Ken? Reality?

You must mean idiots like Physics Nobel Prize Winner Ivar Giaever, who said AGW is a "religion" and who knows something about religion, having fought efforts to deem Creationism science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

I disagree because science can be perverted for political ends. To trust that all science will be objective is to ignore the lessons of history. Galileo wasn't the first, nor will he have been the last. The "science" for anthropogenic global warming is at the very least not universally agreed on, unlike say the science supporting evolution, which is indisputable. There have been numerous scandals there. There have also been other research scandals uncovered more recently. Scientists are human, government funding is attractive, universities are political. Scientific truth is objective, but it's dangerous to rely on au courant scientific findings alone. Even if you absolutely disagree with me on anthropogenic global warming, it doesn't matter. The point is that science alone will be twisted toward political ends, making it no longer science, but not politics. Your argument therefore is utopian rather than a reflection of realpolitik and for those reasons, I would stand by my analogy.

Wrong. The overwhelming consensus of real working scientists in the field agree AGW is happening. Only right wingers inside their bubble don't know this.

The world is simply too large and diverse for such to happen. some idiot regime here might try to suppress science, like W tried, but the researchers else where will keep working and publishing.

Keep your religion private and out of my affairs and everyone will be much better off.

What religion is that, Ken? Reality?

You must mean idiots like Physics Nobel Prize Winner Ivar Giaever, who said AGW is a "religion" and who knows something about religion, having fought efforts to deem Creationism science.

You mean the man in his dotage? the man won the Nobel in 1973 in his 40's. He was 80 something and has not done any actual science in decades when he made that comment. Furthermore his knowledge is in semiconductors, i.e. electronics so what does he know about climatology? Now that the required and stupid attempt at an argument from authority is out of the way...

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

I disagree because science can be perverted for political ends. To trust that all science will be objective is to ignore the lessons of history. Galileo wasn't the first, nor will he have been the last. The "science" for anthropogenic global warming is at the very least not universally agreed on, unlike say the science supporting evolution, which is indisputable. There have been numerous scandals there. There have also been other research scandals uncovered more recently. Scientists are human, government funding is attractive, universities are political. Scientific truth is objective, but it's dangerous to rely on au courant scientific findings alone. Even if you absolutely disagree with me on anthropogenic global warming, it doesn't matter. The point is that science alone will be twisted toward political ends, making it no longer science, but not politics. Your argument therefore is utopian rather than a reflection of realpolitik and for those reasons, I would stand by my analogy.

Wrong. The overwhelming consensus of real working scientists in the field agree AGW is happening. Only right wingers inside their bubble don't know this.

The world is simply too large and diverse for such to happen. some idiot regime here might try to suppress science, like W tried, but the researchers else where will keep working and publishing.

Keep your religion private and out of my affairs and everyone will be much better off.

What religion is that, Ken? Reality?

You must mean idiots like Physics Nobel Prize Winner Ivar Giaever, who said AGW is a "religion" and who knows something about religion, having fought efforts to deem Creationism science.

You mean the man in his dotage? the man won the Nobel in 1973 in his 40's. He was 80 something and has not done any actual science in decades when he made that comment. Furthermore his knowledge is in semiconductors, i.e. electronics so what does he know about climatology? Now that the required and stupid attempt at an argument from authority is out of the way...

And he was in his dotage when he opposed Creationism, too. So I guess the Earth is 6,000 years old, then. Dotage, you know. I could give you a large list of substantive scientists, not wackos. Skewed evidence, etc. Faking temperature data. The fact that the ice caps are returning. The fact that the global temps haven't moved in 17 years or so. The fact that the earth has been warmer before humans ever existed. It's simply not settled science. it's settled politics. You don't have to agree with me. But to assert it's settled is simply wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


I don't have a problem with informed consent laws, provided the information given is based in science, and not just rhetoric/propaganda. While it's true that it's your body, aren't the best decisions made when you have the most accurate information?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

there is always a few nuts out there who don't believe in reality

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. ~International Journal of Modern Physics B

quote:



In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings.