Ginsburg on Hobby Lobby

[aliantha]

aliantha,

Constitutional rights apply across the board or not at all. You shouldn't pick and choose which groups get rights based upon the cause they fight for.

If I get the right to speak out against racism. Neo-Nazi's and KKK members get to speak out in favor of it.

Granted, and I would be first in line to support the right to free speech. But does the right to free speech extend to buying elections? Because that's in essence what we're talking about.

[SerScot]

Aliantha,

If corporations buy ad time to express their opinions how is that "buying elections"? There are a number of studies that show money =/= election wins.

The problem, in my mind, is the same one I have with Hobby Lobby. If there is no rational business reason to support a given candidate or position why would the Corporation be doing it?

[Cybrweez]

Well, dems and pubs are all rich, and all buy elections, so if all money was gone, it'd still be even match.

But I think money is overhyped as a reason. Sure, probably moreso as time goes on, b/c people are unable to think critically, so whatever message is constantly reiterated is what is believed to be true. But at the same time, people latch onto a party and it takes hell and high water to separate them, isn't that just as much a problem? I mean, both have sheep voting for non-critical reasons right?

[aliantha]

It was my understanding (and I might be wrong) that the issue isn't *business* corporations contributing big bucks to political campaigns, but PACs formed to more or less launder (a suspect word, I know) funds from the wealthy to circumvent the personal contribution limits.

As for the rich contributing to both Dems and the GOP, this popped up at WaPo today. The methodology might be suspect, but the conclusion is that 70% of the wealthiest people, by state, contribute to Republican candidates. Which, frankly, ain't that much of a surprise to me.
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loo ... s/?hpid=z5

[Zarathustra]

Citizens United wasn't about contributions to candidates, but a corporation making a political movie about Hillary during an election year.

Either way you look at it, it's about shutting down speech by the side you don't like. Why would it matter even if Reps get more wealthy people to support them? Rich people don't have a right to pick a side and support it? Now we're not even talking about corporations as persons, anymore. We're getting to the root of the matter: it bothers Dems that Reps might get more money, even if it's from individuals.

[Rawedge Rim]

Soulbiter,

So if women dressed in chadors, never went out, and never drank, there would be no rapes? If not none how many fewer would there be?

This is an argument beneath you.

There is absolutely no difference between dressing and acting in a way the calls attention to ones self, and walking down the street with a handful of hundred dollar bills. Both actions get attention from the predators. In the case of drunken females, that's just one more flag. The vast majority of people out there are decent, but the predators out there make up for thier relatively small number, and usually do a number of crimes, many violent, before being taken off the street.

As to the "alone locked up thing", this is just another way to advertise that one is vunerable.

If you looked at the stat's from the WH, you'll see most rape occurr during those years that one is younger and less experienced. Experience teachs that it's best to stay out of situations that make one vunerable, like locking your door when you leave your house or vehicle, not flashing money around, being aware of your surroundings when making ATM transactions, etc. Heck, a male who is drunk is several more times likely to be rolled than a sober male.

[Rawedge Rim]

However, I still have to ask: why should anyone have to pay for someone elses birth control, regardless of why it's needed (other than as hormonal control and or for migraines)?

Getting back to the original topic: I already explained this, and Ginsburg touches on it in the video I linked to in my OP. There's a thing called the social contract. In our society, we have this thing called Obamacare. We also have a thing called taxes, and even if you claim some kind of religious objection to rendering unto Caesar's that which is his, you still can't get out of paying 'em.

Also, why is it anybody's business what a woman's birth control pills were prescribed for? And if we're going down *that* rabbit hole, what if I object to paying for some guy's Viagra prescription? Can I get a religious objection for that, too?

I don't support some guy getting his "viagra or cialis" either, unless he digs into his own pocket. No one has ever died from failure to do the "beast with two backs."

You mentioned the "Social Contract"......how is it a "social contract" when slightly over half the country opposes "Obamacare"?

[aliantha]

how is it a "social contract" when slightly over half the country opposes "Obamacare"?

Because it's the law of the land? Let's take a popularity poll on taxes, while we're at it. If more than half of us oppose paying them, can we do away with them?

Either way you look at it, it's about shutting down speech by the side you don't like. Why would it matter even if Reps get more wealthy people to support them? Rich people don't have a right to pick a side and support it? Now we're not even talking about corporations as persons, anymore. We're getting to the root of the matter: it bothers Dems that Reps might get more money, even if it's from individuals.

Rich people absolutely get to pick a side and support it. But we're talking advertising dollars here (and make no mistake -- that movie about Hillary was all about pro-GOP advertising). And one of the things I'm learning about while trying to sell books is this thing called effective frequency. Your customer has to see the thing you're selling a certain number of times before it makes a dent. The number varies, depending on the source you're citing -- but the number most widely quoted is seven. That is, your prospective customer needs to see your message at least seven times before it will penetrate his/her consciousness, let alone consider buying it.

This is why marketers blanket the media with ads for everything. But we're not talking toothpaste here; we're talking about the people who are going to run our country. We want to elect the best person for the job, not the person whose loyalty can be bought for a pet cause -- whether they're Democratic or Republican or Green or what-have-you.

I mean, that's the ideal. I realize that's not what happens in practice. But this is why it's important (I think, anyway) for campaign funding to be more or less equal -- because if one candidate has a disproportionate amount of money to get their message out, they're more likely to get elected.

[SerScot]

RR,

Soulbiter,

So if women dressed in chadors, never went out, and never drank, there would be no rapes? If not none how many fewer would there be?

This is an argument beneath you.

There is absolutely no difference between dressing and acting in a way the calls attention to ones self, and walking down the street with a handful of hundred dollar bills. Both actions get attention from the predators. In the case of drunken females, that's just one more flag. The vast majority of people out there are decent, but the predators out there make up for thier relatively small number, and usually do a number of crimes, many violent, before being taken off the street.

As to the "alone locked up thing", this is just another way to advertise that one is vunerable.

If you looked at the stat's from the WH, you'll see most rape occurr during those years that one is younger and less experienced. Experience teachs that it's best to stay out of situations that make one vunerable, like locking your door when you leave your house or vehicle, not flashing money around, being aware of your surroundings when making ATM transactions, etc. Heck, a male who is drunk is several more times likely to be rolled than a sober male.

So, how many fewer women would be raped if they stayed covered head to toe year round and never drank?

[Rawedge Rim]

RR,

Soulbiter,

So if women dressed in chadors, never went out, and never drank, there would be no rapes? If not none how many fewer would there be?

This is an argument beneath you.

There is absolutely no difference between dressing and acting in a way the calls attention to ones self, and walking down the street with a handful of hundred dollar bills. Both actions get attention from the predators. In the case of drunken females, that's just one more flag. The vast majority of people out there are decent, but the predators out there make up for thier relatively small number, and usually do a number of crimes, many violent, before being taken off the street.

As to the "alone locked up thing", this is just another way to advertise that one is vunerable.

If you looked at the stat's from the WH, you'll see most rape occurr during those years that one is younger and less experienced. Experience teachs that it's best to stay out of situations that make one vunerable, like locking your door when you leave your house or vehicle, not flashing money around, being aware of your surroundings when making ATM transactions, etc. Heck, a male who is drunk is several more times likely to be rolled than a sober male.

So, how many fewer women would be raped if they stayed covered head to toe year round and never drank?

Who knows? It's not gonna happen. There is no absolute protection from predators on this plane of existance. One can take precautions to less the chance of becoming a target, but nothing is absolute or foolproof.

OTOH, there are lots of things I can do to call attention to the fact that I'm either easy prey, or that the reward for taking me on might be worth the risk. Walking around drunk, flashing large amounts of cash, showing expensive looking jewelry, etc.

I do know one thing; you could kill every bad guy on the planet, and within less than a generation, another crop would arise to take thier place.

[SerScot]

RR,

So, you know it will work but you can't quantify how well it would work? It that what you are saying?

If so, we can't gauge if the whether or not the loss of freedom to the women affected is worth the "safety" they get for covering themselves head to toe 24/7 and 365 days a year. Do you disagree with that assessment?

[SoulBiter]

Again.. I dont know why everyone is going to the extremes of another persons argument.

NO one has suggested that women cover themselves from head to toe and not ever leave their house.

What has been suggested is that women and men, take precautions that you don't make yourself an easy target for bad people.

Choose to do so, or not... its no sweat off my ___

[SerScot]

Soulbiter,

This is what RR said:

There is absolutely no difference between dressing and acting in a way the calls attention to ones self, and walking down the street with a handful of hundred dollar bills. Both actions get attention from the predators.

If it is the outfits people are wearing that are prompting attacks wouldn't it stand to reason that head to toe coverage would prevent such attacks? Isn't that the logic being offered?

[Ananda]

Again.. I dont know why everyone is going to the extremes of another persons argument.

NO one has suggested that women cover themselves from head to toe and not ever leave their house.

What has been suggested is that women and men, take precautions that you don't make yourself an easy target for bad people.

Choose to do so, or not... its no sweat off my ___

SS, I think you lumped me in there because you missed my longer post on a previous page where I basically agreed with you and talked about common sense and how we see these things growing up and as we get older. I did say, though, that pepper spray seems smarter than a gun (not to mention that guns are not legal to carry here ).

But, I do have another point: you guys keep focusing on what a woman wears as though it is just young, pretty girls in skimpy clothes getting raped. It is not.

Headline from today: 15 year old rapes and kills 77 year old (in danmark)
www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/15-aring- ... it-kvinna/

I am going to suppose she wasn't a young hottie in a skimpy outfit. Young hotties in skimpy clothes are only a small portion of the women being raped. Could be walking home from work, on a track for a run, walking home from the market, using a toilet, whatever. Quit focusing on young hotties in skimpy attire.

Perhaps this should be its own thread?

[Cail]

how is it a "social contract" when slightly over half the country opposes "Obamacare"?

Because it's the law of the land? Let's take a popularity poll on taxes, while we're at it. If more than half of us oppose paying them, can we do away with them?

Yes, that's how a democracy works.

BTW, you might find this information about political donors and the party they donate to interesting. Or not.

[Rawedge Rim]

RR,

So, you know it will work but you can't quantify how well it would work? It that what you are saying?

If so, we can't gauge if the whether or not the loss of freedom to the women affected is worth the "safety" they get for covering themselves head to toe 24/7 and 365 days a year. Do you disagree with that assessment?

Are you suggesting that if something is less that 100% effective then it's absolutely I effective?

Tell you what, me and you will walk down opposite sides of the streets around Fulton County GA. You walk around with a wad of $100 dollar bills openly displayed, and I'll just walk on the other sidewalk with my money safely hidden in my pocket. Let's see who draws the most attention and is approached by fewer of our predator types. Better yet, have a few shots of Jack before you do.

Afterwards we can discuss situational awareness and real life.

[SerScot]

RR,

But we aren't talking about open displays of cash. You are using it as an analogy for women being raped because of how they dress and you cannot quantify the benefit of what you believe is modest dress. You act as if there is no loss for the benefit you cannot quantify.

[SoulBiter]

Again.. I dont know why everyone is going to the extremes of another persons argument.

NO one has suggested that women cover themselves from head to toe and not ever leave their house.

What has been suggested is that women and men, take precautions that you don't make yourself an easy target for bad people.

Choose to do so, or not... its no sweat off my ___

SS, I think you lumped me in there because you missed my longer post on a previous page where I basically agreed with you and talked about common sense and how we see these things growing up and as we get older. I did say, though, that pepper spray seems smarter than a gun (not to mention that guns are not legal to carry here ).

But, I do have another point: you guys keep focusing on what a woman wears as though it is just young, pretty girls in skimpy clothes getting raped. It is not.

Headline from today: 15 year old rapes and kills 77 year old (in danmark)
www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/15-aring- ... it-kvinna/

I am going to suppose she wasn't a young hottie in a skimpy outfit. Young hotties in skimpy clothes are only a small portion of the women being raped. Could be walking home from work, on a track for a run, walking home from the market, using a toilet, whatever. Quit focusing on young hotties in skimpy attire.

Perhaps this should be its own thread?

Thats the extreme.....

40% of rapes women under the age of 18.
80% are under the age of 30

[Cail]

RR,

But we aren't talking about open displays of cash. You are using it as an analogy for women being raped because of how they dress and you cannot quantify the benefit of what you believe is modest dress. You act as if there is no loss for the benefit you cannot quantify.

Your distaste for the analogy is noted. That doesn't make it invalid. You can't quantify how much crime is prevented by locking your doors, yet it's still a good idea.

I will stipulate that dress is less important than location and behavior.

[Ananda]

Thats the extreme.....

40% of rapes women under the age of 18.
80% are under the age of 30

Were all these women wearing skimpy clothes? Your statistics work well enough on the ages for me, though. I was in my 20s.