Copyright © 2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.http://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=50472This thread is an annex to The Left Wing Porch, a moderated thread. [graphic]Subject 50362 and RIGHT WING EXTREMIST THREAD, also a moderated thread. [graphic]Subject 50545 The LWP & RWET have been established as segregated hangouts, this is the designated place for political interaction and debate...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/images/Logo380x132.pnghttp://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=5047238013210Lane3Equal opportunity laws applied to private hiring. I guess we're stuck on the "private" thing. I don't see anything private about hiring unless you're a mom hiring a nanny or a hot dog cart hiring your nephew. As long as you insist that every business action performed by someone who isn't a government employee is pr...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287967963/24/2013 2:24:56 PMTimF Can you offer a couple of examples of mandating private actions? Equal opportunity laws applied to private hiring.http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287967803/24/2013 2:12:04 PMLane3 it mandates private actions provide for equal treatment. You can argue that its good that it does this, but good or not this isn't about equal protection under the law. I won't argue that it is good. I question whether it is so. Can you offer a couple of examples of mandating private actions?http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287960493/23/2013 8:38:23 PMTimF Only in your binary view... No, in reality. For one thing activities that you do by yourself are (at least assuming you aren't talking about them) even more private than any social activity. Sure business activities are not by yourself (you can produce by yourself, but at some point someone else is going to have...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287959753/23/2013 7:10:53 PMLane3Social is irrelevant to private. Only in your binary view... <g> Equal treatment under the law is equal treatment by the law, and by what the law controls. And the law controls a lot of what goes on in business. That's where the equal treatment comes in. There's no need for equal treatment by business where ther...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287959683/23/2013 7:03:01 PMLane3Social is irrelevant to private. Only in your binary view... <g> Equal treatment under the law is equal treatment by the law, and by what the law controls. And the law controls a lot of what goes on in business. That's where the equal treatment comes in. There's no need for equal treatment by business where ther...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287959673/23/2013 7:03:01 PMTimF I don't see what politics has to do with it. The political process determines how we will treat different types of relationships and interactions. It is obvious that when you are engaging in business transactions you are not in a social situation let alone in a private one. Social is irrelevant to private....http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287959313/23/2013 6:20:45 PMLane3 I think the political culture in our country has made entirely too much of it. I don't get that. I don't see what politics has to do with it. It is obvious that when you are engaging in business transactions you are not in a social situation let alone in a private one. Commerce may be private enterprise but it's r...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287959153/23/2013 6:07:38 PMTimFEqual treatment by the law, not properly equal treatment outside of law and government. As for the distinction between private business and private non-business, I think the political culture in our country has made entirely too much of it. http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287958273/23/2013 4:40:40 PMLane3They don't have a right (except perhaps a purely legal one) to make an enforceable demand for equal treatment. They have an enforceable right to equal treatment under law. Surely you noticed that. <g> Its private business, still private, not government. Sure, private vs government. But not private as in the priv...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287907983/21/2013 10:33:58 AMTimF What I question is the extent to which one can reasonably press a claim of religious or any other liberty in a diverse society where other people have liberty and rights, too. They don't have a right (except perhaps a purely legal one) to make an enforceable demand for equal treatment. When private individua...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287900753/20/2013 8:53:32 PMLane3Liberty, properly includes the liberty to treat others unequally. I don't question that. What I question is the extent to which one can reasonably press a claim of religious or any other liberty in a diverse society where other people have liberty and rights, too. And personally I would be against giving equal trea...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287899093/20/2013 7:14:58 PMTimFLiberty, properly includes the liberty to treat others unequally. Even when some other consideration (weather equal treatment itself directly, or some consequence) is considered more important than liberty in this situation, and so a conclusion is teacher that liberty will be limited in the name of equal treatment, or...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287897613/20/2013 6:07:15 PMLane3 Not giving something to someone, isn't punching someone in the nose, not even metaphorically. I agree. But the giving or not giving of something was not what I was addressing in my nose comment. That situation is a function of the federal regulation regarding health care, which is a related issue. And the governme...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287884103/20/2013 6:52:42 AMTimFI agree about the fist nose expression, but it doesn't apply here. Not that this is some special exception, the basic logic of it doesn't apply. Not giving something to someone, isn't punching someone in the nose, not even metaphorically. I agree about the optics. (For some of the areas and situations, perhaps not...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287880003/19/2013 8:35:51 PMLane3The right to exercise any liberty ends where the other guy's nose begins. That the exercise of said liberty may have been otherwise and independently compromised causing exercisers to feel put upon doesn't justify fist/nose contact. Even if it did, the optics on such a strategy are not sympathetic. http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287879603/19/2013 8:07:13 PMTimF they are waging a multi-pronged battle against LGBT rights, not on substantive moral grounds but on the premise that equality for gays restricts the religious liberty of Christians to discriminate against them. Assuming the facts as stated, that is substantive moral grounds. Religious liberty is a political ...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287878103/19/2013 6:33:26 PMLane3In reading this article I had a flashback to the masseur discussion on this thread ten years ago. Figured I'd post it simply out of nostalgia... <g> The ‘Religious Liberty’ Bullies and Their Fight Against LGBT Equality by Jay Michaelson Mar 18, 2013 4:45 AM EDTThirty-five years ago, having lost the ...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287848753/18/2013 11:41:54 AMSolonWell, I consider Islam to be a few centuries behind Christianity so encouraging either of them is not something I am keen on! Certainly, making overtures to Islam seems unnecessary. I think any sentiment beyond toleration is unnecessary. Just as we try to change how countries treat human rights by expressing our di...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287016702/1/2013 6:34:12 PMKid Rockwashingtontimes.com  Thuoghts? President Obama says Islam has always been part of America, which raises the question, does the president know something about American history that we don’t? It has become customary for presidents to offer greetings to various religious communities on the occasion of their most hol...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=287015562/1/2013 5:39:58 PMponokeeRex Murphy: Curtains for Lance and Oprah [graphic] Rex Murphy | Jan 18, 2013 8:00 PM ET [graphic] I see great symmetry in this Lance Armstrong/Oprah Winfrey affair: The worthless admission and the worthless venue in which it was made; between confessor and confessee. Armstrong is the infamous multi-year cheat, li...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=286761241/20/2013 3:08:17 PMorthorodentialisticahttp://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=281071004/26/2012 12:26:43 AMTimFhttp://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280957744/20/2012 6:08:12 PMone_lesshttp://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280957424/20/2012 5:56:49 PMTimF"Person" is not as useful of term because of its vagueness. My opinion is that the embryo is a human, and thus has human rights. I'm not making any claims or requests about "personhood", except perhaps in the sense of legal personhood, as one possible method to legally recognize the human rights in question.http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280820014/14/2012 12:49:00 PMSolon"Personhood is vaguely defined and can apply to such things as corporations." Yes it can apply in other legal ways but it is NEVER defined as an embryo! And it IS VERY PRECISELY defined--as it must be in order for the law to operate! Defining the embryo as a human person is simply inventing your own personal definiti...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280663024/6/2012 8:13:19 PMTimF The discussion of abortion is about the personhood of various forms of human life. Sorry, you don't get to set the terms of the discussion, you only get to set your own opinion. Personhood is vaguely defined and can apply to such things as corporations. The fetus is a human being, just at a very early stage...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280662594/6/2012 7:52:31 PMSolonThat is not an argument. The discussion of abortion is about the personhood of various forms of human life. We could stumble about discussing an embryo as a human being but because that has connotations which confuse it with human person, I will not indulge that. Because what is 100% sure is that the embryo is human li...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280662314/6/2012 7:38:17 PMTimFhttp://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280661684/6/2012 7:02:38 PMSolonhttp://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280661674/6/2012 7:02:11 PMTimF A human embryo is human. A human arm is human. A human embryo is a human being. An arm isn't.http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280661604/6/2012 6:59:30 PMSolon"Which doesn't make it non-existent or even irrelevant." Never said it did. "And that post replied to another post." and ad infinitum and the dinosaurs died. Irrelevant to my point "I would even guess that you agree with the point in this case" I won't know that till I understand your point. A human embryo is no...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280660304/6/2012 5:50:37 PMTimF That conversation was a long time ago. Which doesn't make it non-existent or even irrelevant. You responded to ONE post. And that post replied to another post. So your point is you would like me to say "a human" embryo rather than "human" embryo? Fine. Done. That's using human as an adjective again. N...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280658854/6/2012 4:08:27 PMSolon"The reply is in the context of the whole conversation" The reply was a non sequitur. There was no "whole conversation". That conversation was a long time ago. You responded to ONE post. You picked it. I assumed your response would address the content of THAT post. It did not. I expressed that point to you. You reall...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280658794/6/2012 4:02:22 PMTimFI picked up a conversation that we had been having years ago (I held off on it while trying to catch up in other message areas on SI, but then I realized I'd never catch up). The reply is in the context of the whole conversation. The essential point doesn't automatically become what you consider the essential point. ...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280658424/6/2012 3:47:24 PMSolon"It followed the same point I've been making all along. That's no veering off." Yes it was. It was not any part of your "all along" that happened years ago for several months. YOU picked a post I made years ago and you did not respond to the content of that post but you simply used it to talk about DNA. My post was a...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280658264/6/2012 3:38:41 PMTimF ANyone can see I post generally accepted definitions No you post inaccurate definitions, I clearly and simply but definitively show why they are inaccurate, and you ignore that fact and instead rant about proclamations. The definition you provided simply doesn't cover all life forms. In fact it doesn't cover a s...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280657864/6/2012 3:19:51 PMTimFIt followed the same point I've been making all along. That's no veering off. "The overall point is that the fetus is a human." Good, you've made a point that I have never seen disputed. The fertilized egg (zygote) before twinning is also human life. So do you have a point other than stating the obvious that the zy...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280657644/6/2012 3:13:02 PMSolon"That isn't a non-seqitur, even in the way your misinterpreting it it would be a tautology not a non-sequitur" I did not misinterpret anything. Your post did not follow. It veered off. Hence the designation of being a non sequitur. It may not have been a non sequitur to the entire conversation that occurred years ago...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280657574/6/2012 3:07:13 PMTimFThat isn't a non-seqitur, even in the way your misinterpreting it it would be a tautology not a non-sequitur. But its not a tautology either. The "it" is the fetus. Having human DNA is evidence that the fetus is a human (rather than a dog, a horse, etc.). If the "it" was the DNA, then it would be a tautology. I co...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280656444/6/2012 2:05:02 PMSolonYour non sequitor said: "Having human DNA is evidence that its a human" My response agreed: Nobody objects to the idea that human DNA is human DNA. If you have a point, please make it. I am busy.http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280656314/6/2012 2:00:11 PMTimF Your post was a non sequitor. Nonsense Nobody objects to the idea that human DNA is human DNA. My point is not having human DNA but rather being a human, a member of the species home sapiens.http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280655744/6/2012 1:31:44 PMSolonMy post was about being a "person". <<And my post, which you replied to, was about being a human>> My response was relevant to your post. Your post was a non sequitor. Mine was not. My post addressed the irrelevancy of your post. I did so as a courtesy. Nor was there anything in your non sequitor that I found relev...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280655444/6/2012 1:17:32 PMTimF My post was about being a "person". And my post, which you replied to, was about being a human. Your response was irrelevant to that.http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280655124/6/2012 1:03:52 PMSolonMy post was about being a "person". That is a legal and philosophical question. Your response is irrelevant to that. Notice again that I have put it in quotes as I did in the post you responded to. Being a person is a complex issue in law and philosophy. "Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personh...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280654884/6/2012 12:54:41 PMSolonhttp://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280654674/6/2012 12:45:41 PMSolon"Not part of her body." The Supreme Court ruled that it WAS a body part. But even if it was not it has no rights in her body. It derives all nourishment and all privileges and rights from her body and her will. It is not your body part and it is not in your body and you are not allowed in her body so what are you ...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280654644/6/2012 12:45:00 PMTimFHaving DNA isn't sufficient to be human. Having separate DNA is evidence that its a separate human. Having human DNA is evidence that its a human, not a monkey or a dog.http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280652154/6/2012 10:57:14 AMTimFA human can indeed turn in to more than one human, but only at a very early stage of its development.http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280652134/6/2012 10:57:09 AMTimF All because she excreted a part of her body...her ZYGOTE?? Not part of her body.http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=280652104/6/2012 10:54:43 AM