Lloyd Parker wrote:

> If you cite right-web web sites, and medical-insurance-drug industry sites,
> then, yes, they're propaganda. Consumer Reports analyzed the health care
> situation from a consumer's point of view.

No, they analyzed health care from the CR Editorial Staff's point of view. This is
not the same as any particular consumer's point of view, or even the average
consumer's point of view. I read CR, but I definitely don't agree that they
represent my point of view.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> How is letting people do what they want in the privacy of their home with
> another consenting adult "creating laws"? That's something any conservative
> or libertarian should want the government to stay out of.

I have not advocated having the government interfere with what consenting adults
do in the privacy of their own home. However the government continually regulates
what people can do in and out of their own homes, so I don't see where this
particular argument is going anywhere. A government that can't make any rules to
regulate behavior is not a government at all. It is anarchy.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> How is letting people do what they want in the privacy of their home with
> another consenting adult "creating laws"? That's something any conservative
> or libertarian should want the government to stay out of.

I have not advocated having the government interfere with what consenting adults
do in the privacy of their own home. However the government continually regulates
what people can do in and out of their own homes, so I don't see where this
particular argument is going anywhere. A government that can't make any rules to
regulate behavior is not a government at all. It is anarchy.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> How is letting people do what they want in the privacy of their home with
> another consenting adult "creating laws"? That's something any conservative
> or libertarian should want the government to stay out of.

I have not advocated having the government interfere with what consenting adults
do in the privacy of their own home. However the government continually regulates
what people can do in and out of their own homes, so I don't see where this
particular argument is going anywhere. A government that can't make any rules to
regulate behavior is not a government at all. It is anarchy.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.

It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment? Or do you define a
scientist as someone who agrees with you?

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.

It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment? Or do you define a
scientist as someone who agrees with you?

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.

It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment? Or do you define a
scientist as someone who agrees with you?

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
> discrimination?

Married people have rights that unmarried people don't have. Is that
discrimination? For whatever reason, marriage was accorded certain legal rights
and responsibilities. When these rights were assigned to institution of
marriage it was generally understood to mean a union between a man and a woman.
Trying to extend these rights (as dubious as they may be) to another group by
redefining the word is not the right way to handle the extention of rights to a
different group. I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
> discrimination?

Married people have rights that unmarried people don't have. Is that
discrimination? For whatever reason, marriage was accorded certain legal rights
and responsibilities. When these rights were assigned to institution of
marriage it was generally understood to mean a union between a man and a woman.
Trying to extend these rights (as dubious as they may be) to another group by
redefining the word is not the right way to handle the extention of rights to a
different group. I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
> discrimination?

Married people have rights that unmarried people don't have. Is that
discrimination? For whatever reason, marriage was accorded certain legal rights
and responsibilities. When these rights were assigned to institution of
marriage it was generally understood to mean a union between a man and a woman.
Trying to extend these rights (as dubious as they may be) to another group by
redefining the word is not the right way to handle the extention of rights to a
different group. I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand.

Ed