70 karma · joined November 22, 2019
1. These companies have every right to legally censor those they disagree with.
2. By exercising that right they put themselves at risk of being regulated more stringently (as utilities for example) when they demonstrate inelasticity in consumer choice.
3. I'd rather them not be treated as utilities because that hampers competition and thus impedes efficiency.
4. Your statement above is a farcical caricature of conservative ideology. Every product/service deserves a debate on what regulation is appropriate but as a society regulation only exists because bad actors necessitated its creation. No one wants car seats for their 8 year olds - we'd much rather be trusted to do the right thing.
1. Abortion is simply the legally sanctioned killing of helpless human beings. I know _many_ single issue voters who begrudgingly voted for trump because of this.
2. Climate change denialism is pretty much anti common sense. Anyone who completely ignores the issue stinks of corruption.
The rigor is to give the public confidence that we're better off getting the vaccine than not.
How far do we go to resuscitate these victims of tragedy? How far do we go as a society to punish wrongdoing? When does institutionalization become dehumanizing? For that matter - what is a disorder versus simply a difference in human beings?
As a doctor, this author should know these are questions her field cannot answer and this overt humanism is just so arrogant.
This taxonomical difficulty has always fascinated me. I give biologists the benefit of the doubt that they have solid evidence for their categorization but in the back of my mind I've always been curious about this. Why would these unique features exist in other lineages? Perhaps the space of diversity in behaviors is smallish to the point that random overlap occurs? Maybe it's purely definitional and the actual behaviors are distinct between say mammals and birds?
Or maybe my problem is that I failed my 7th grade taxonomy exam catastrophically and have never quite gotten over that :)
My abortion "policy" has been that it should be illegal to knowingly put an unborn fetus in jeopardy (unless the mother's life is at risk of course) as soon as the pregnancy is known beyond reasonable doubt. I can't imagine any other policy that doesn't dance with eugenics.
I think that the government's prerogative should be facilitating adoption for the baby and mitigating the "unavoidable" inequity to the mother biology has put upon her.
I understand many disagree with the above, I only ask that you keep an open mind as I also try to do about one of the trickiest moral quandaries in the present age.
Best of luck to your friend! ;)
Maybe they should try? Just because I can describe with words what I want to accomplish doesn't mean the implementation will be simple. I'm all for making abstractions over git but the underlying model is extremely robust.
I think the UI layout could use some adjustment though to be fair. Reset is one of the worst offenders in my opinion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage
So I turn it on you - I'm not an expert so help me understand - how is Obergefell v. Hodges not legislation from the bench when it changes the meaning of these laws unilaterally?
Do you seriously think Scalia cared about protecting people's rights to bear arms beyond the text of the 2nd amendment? Again, what constitutes a true liberal originalist? These justices are not pursuing power but trying to interpret law - and they get accused of undermining democracy...
The correlation here is that conservative presidents pick justices who object to rulings like Roe v Wade. The mistaken 'cause' is that it is Conservatism that leads to this objection when in fact it could also be that originalists object to legislation from the bench.