Bush relaxes wildlife law limits

Originally posted by FMF
Squirm away.

Originally posted by Wajoma
[b]Healthcare workers should be able to refuse to treat a person on any grounds they wish whether it's hair too frizzy, the patient stinks or they're too drunk. [...] Big thumbs up here for the new relaxation of regulation [which stipulated that they must do what they were contracted to do].

It's called trying to have it both ways.[/b]

I see no contradiction or inconsistency. You haven't made one clear.

Originally posted by howardgee
OK, Here goes:

On the one hand you say:
"An employer says "Here is the work, here are the conditions,""

but here you are claiming that:
"Healthcare workers should be able to refuse to treat a person on any grounds they wish whether it's hair too frizzy, the patient stinks"

The contradiction is clear.
It is imperative that in healthcare, rules ...[text shortened]... In hospitals there are standards which must be met by staff, regardless of anything else!

There is nothing inconsistent with the notion that an employer may set conditions of employment, and an employee may reject those conditions. The employer may change them, or terminate the employee.

Employment is a contract, and contracts may usually be terminated by either party at will, unless a specified term of employment is in the contract, and as we see those don't usually hold any water.

What makes a health care worker different than any other? Are they chatel because they chose to be a doctor, nurse or anestesiologist? If standard aren't met, termination is an option, or calling an employee not offended by the work.

Originally posted by howardgee
But the hospital can chose to close down if it doesn't like the "guvamint" regulations.

Hence it is no more binding and agreement than between the employer and employee.

True dat, but because the hospital doesn't object to over regulation, and stand up for it's rights, doesn't obligate it's employees to do the same.

The right to do something doesn't force exercising that right. I have the right to keep and bear arms, but if I choose to go out unarmed that is my right as well.

Originally posted by howardgee
Ignorance must be bliss.

That isn't an argument.

Originally posted by bill718
Good idea. God knows we don't want any of those smart people in the scientific community to have any say in things. We in America must do everything in such a way as to release as much toxic waste and posions into our Air, Earth, and Drinking Water as possible! We'll save a few bucks now, and spend trillions later having to clean up our toxic waste dump called the USA. Another genius move from the George W Bush group!! Any more bright ideas?? 🙄

That would make sense if all the smart, scientific people agreed. There are plenty of smart, scientific people who think that we are crazy not to be extracting our own natural resources because of the objections of radicals who can't define any specific harm from an activity such as drilling for oil in ANWAR.

The previous Alaskan drilling and pipeline have actually considerably helped survival, and breeding of Carabou.

Please, I want clean air, water, and food, but the policies of radical environmentalists are designed only to cost me more to enjoy heat, electricity, and transportation.

What's worse is that the radicals are hypocrites. Why doesn't Al Gore stop traveling in his Gulfstream? The bunch at Kyoto held their meeting in a huge air conditioned building with the outside doors left open. If you follow the origins of the most radical environmentalist they nearly all are radical leftists who have found a new vehicle to attack Western industry and capitalism. The same is true of the global warming alarmists. You'll not that the attacks of both of these groups all target Western industry, and fail to notice that Western industry is a hundred times more clean and environmentally friendly than say China.

Originally posted by Mexico
Ohhhhhh really willfully obtuse..... To the point where its almost, but not quite, trolling.

Come on I know you can draw the correct conclusions from this....

Its a long and difficult process to add or remove species from the list, as I'm sure you know. It takes wangling with all sorts, land owners, politicians the EPA etc etc.

If one has presidentia ...[text shortened]... pictures to help??

Your questions are well targeted so I assume your playing dumb.

😛

Perhaps the truth might be a good thing as it usually is.

If it is true that fewer species are actually endangered then Wajoma is correct.

If species are indiscriminately remove, that is bad, but it is equally bad if species not really endangered were added by the Clinton administration to buy the votes of radical environmentalist, and leftists who are opposed to private property and Western industrialism at any cost.

What is the truth? The grey wolf is still an endangered species but I saw one last month while deer hunting, the first one I've seen in the wild. How many grey wolves are adequate to support the continuation of the species? How long do they need protection? Cougars were endangered, and now in some communities they endanger small children and pets. Bears are cute and cuddly until one rips open your kitchen like a bag of chips. or eats your poodles in your back yard.

Good or bad can't be determined without knowing the truth, without the political intonations.

Originally posted by normbenign
I see no contradiction or inconsistency. You haven't made one clear.

You are obviously unaware (or pretending not to be aware) of what it is that Wajoma peddles on this forum ad nauseam. He has been hoisted by his own petard this time. Your own trademark imperviousness to views you disagree with, allows you to lend your support to Wajoma while at the same time clearly not understanding what the very kernel of the contradiction and inconsistency is. Please read back through the relevant posts.

Originally posted by FMF
Is "pointing out" someone has "displayed" their ignorance an ad hominem attack?

As for suggesting that Wajoma's position is rock solid consistent and logical, simply displays [b]your ignorance. That you disagree with howardgee's dismantling of Wajoma's inspite of its logic, and that you've made no counter argument displays not his ignorance, but yours. ( ...[text shortened]... eem someone as being sussed and cramped is purely an analysis of their position.[/b]

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge or information, not a differing conclusion from the same premises.

Therefore, without some example of a lack of data or knowledge, the accusation of ignorance is an ad hominem, for there is no support of the statement.

I disagree that Howard dismantled Wajoma's logic. He presented no new premises, nor showed Wajoma's were flawed, nor were any additional logical arguments presented. I did not call anyone ignorant, and I did present additional arguments, and questioned premises.

Sussed and cramped or squirming are characterizations of an opponent debater's demeanor and technique, and mostly are considered "fair play" but don't really accomplish much in a text based setting, such as online.

Name calling such as "you're displaying your ignorance", IMHO amounts to an admission that the name caller has run out of new facts (premises), or new logic (arguments), and can only go to his last resort kill the messenger.(hurl insults).

An American ghetto tradition is a form of debate known as ranking or snappin'. Rational arguments and facts be damned. Clever quips, insults, and jest are required, but the party that gets mad first loses. I would think this is a bit higher level than that?

Originally posted by howardgee
Nice to meet another right whinger on this site.

"normbenign" is a bit of a mouthful....mind if I call you "NoBrain"?
It is far more appropriate!!

I don't know how a mouthful is defined on a keyboard. Your suggested moniker is but three characters shorter, but if you've trouble with typing be my guest. How is it you manage to type your own 9 character handle?

And more to the point, how does this contribute an iota to the substance of the point being debated?

You lose. You've just admitted and displayed you have no further premises or arguments.

Originally posted by FMF
You are obviously unaware (or pretending not to be aware) of what it is that Wajoma peddles on this forum ad nauseam. He has been hoisted by his own petard this time. Your own trademark imperviousness to views you disagree with, allows you to lend your support to Wajoma while at the same time clearly not understanding what the very kernel of the contradiction and inconsistency is. Please read back through the relevant posts.

It is true that I don't have a transcript of all of Wajoma's posting, but his statements in this thread are both logical and consistent, and shouting the same stuff doesn't add a single premise or argument to the debate.

His positions are obviously counter to yours, otherwise a debate would not exist, but your position isn't declared right and true until the facts say so. You know, you don't win at chess until checkmate or resignation. You can call your opponent ignorant all day long, and insist you have the better position, but it's nothing but huff until checkmate.

I've read 'em all. It is your duty to support your position, not mine to review and reconstruct what you've done poorly.

Originally posted by normbenign
Name calling such as "you're displaying your ignorance", IMHO amounts to an admission that the name caller has run out of new facts (premises), or new logic (arguments), and can only go to his last resort kill the messenger.(hurl insults).

Would this be an example of what you are talking about?

Originally posted by normbenign
That you [howardgee] disagree with it inspite of its logic, and that you've made no counter argument displays not his ignorance, but yours.

...you yourself, from about 16 hours ago, on this same thread. What a doltish prigg you are! (No offence intended)

So we have an exquisite admission, defined in your own inimitably fustian terms, that you yourself have run out of new facts (premises), or new logic (arguments), and can only go to your last resort and kill the messenger.

Howardgee revealled Wajoma's inconsistancy, so you said to him: "you're displaying your ignorance". Is that it? Is that your analysis? You appear to be admitting defeat - even by your own definition.

Rarely have I come across someone as groundlessly supercilious as your good self.

And I gather you shoot wild animals, in their own habitat, for entertainment.

Originally posted by normbenign
An American ghetto tradition is a form of debate known as ranking or snappin'. Rational arguments and facts be damned. [...] I would think this is a bit higher level than that?

What would be your rational argument for asserting, as you did on this forum not so long ago, that President Elect of the USA Barack Obama is a kindred spirit of the Nazis? Do you really think you can lecture fellow posters on "rational arguments" and "moral and ethical parallels" and the definition of "hatred" when you yourself appear to have some kind of emotional or intellectual disability? I mean: Barack Obama is a kindred spirit of the Nazis? Are you for real? If you were a relative of mine we would be trying to get you to sit down and confront your demons, like families do with alcoholics or drug addicts.

Barack Obama is a kindred spirit of the Nazis? Uh?

Anyway, howardgee pointed out Wajoma's hypocrisy in a couple of posts on Dec 17th. I did the same by simply providing a bit of juxtaposition in my posts on Dec 16th.

Please remember that the government interference in the employer/employee relationship, a thing which Wajoma detests with the very marrow in his bones - even to the extent of being happy to see starvation wages being paid in Third World sweatshops (and denying there is such a thing as a "living wage", which I suppose makes sense to sweatshop workers stitching Wajoma's sneakers together) - is contained in this grubby little 'midnight regulation' from Bush: Allow healthcare workers to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons.

Normally, Wajoma would scream what business is it of government to sanction, regulate, endorse, or intefere in any way, with workers' contractual opt outs or opt ins!! He does so all the time; the topic comes up and the needle goes back to the start of the track, and we all sing two different songs like we did before.

But this time it's different. For some reason (thesis later), powerless yellow and brown folk who stitch trainers in sweatshops aside, in the case of health workers in the USA, Wajoma believes that they should, and I quote, "...be able to refuse to treat a person on any grounds they wish whether it's hair too frizzy, the patient stinks or they're too drunk. That there must presently be laws forcing them to do these things is an abomination."

Do you really think Wajoma means employees are "free to resign" when he says they "...should be able to refuse to treat [anyone they want]"? No. I don't think so. And neither do you. Because it makes nonsense of everything he is saying here.

So, rather out of ideological character, Wajoma - who will brook no inteference in contracts by government anywhere on the face of the globe - believes that health workers should be able to refuse to treat anyone in accordance with their own views and feelings. Lo and behold, along comes the "guvimint" to interfere with contracts in a way that Wajoma approves of. What employees could opt in and out of, which was once the domain of the contract between employer and employee - a thing so utterly sacrosanct in WajomaWorld that I have often imagined Wajoma sleeping standing up and eating broken glass - is now the domain of a last-minute Bush administration regulation which will pass into the Code of Federal Regulations - which are rules that have the same force as law.

Please do not believe Wajoma's bizarre assertion that this new rule is a relaxation of a regulation, a reduction of regulations, an unregulation. It as a regulation, pure and simple. It is taking the side of people with certain ideological motivations, against the rights of the employer whom Wajoma normally champions. One can deduce that Wajoma's "having it both ways-ness" in this case is driven by the same ideology. This ideology in this case trumps his normal consistency.

Feebly - and in an effort to create some semblance of former consistency - Wajoma asserts that "The hospital sets the terms and conditions as an employer, the employee either accepts or finds employment that does suit them." And yet this new regulation will allow existing employees to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons (read: political reasons) regardless of the existing terms of contract. I smell halcyon days on the horizon for right wing lawyers championing the new "rights" of Christian fanatics, protecting them from "discriminatory" recruitment practices, and railing against unamerican contracts! But I digress.

Lest we forget, here is Wajoma's normal mantra (in his own words, taken from a thread about "rights" ): An employer says "Here is the work, here are the conditions, take it or leave it. An employee says "Here I am, these are my skills, these are the minimum conditions I require, take it or leave it." If there is some overlap they get together and do business, if not they go their separate ways in search of an employer or employee that will accept their terms.

All of a sudden Wajoma supports a brand new government regulation that allows employees to opt out of - or refuse to do - some of the things they have been contracted to do, without fear of being dismissed as they now have a shiny new Bush Rule to protect them.

Wajoma's views are therefore contradictory and inconsistent. I blame ideology. And I still think he's squirming because Wajoma is bright enough to know I'm right this time, while you, normbenign, may not be.

Originally posted by FMF
What would be your rational argument for asserting, as you did on this forum not so long ago, that [b]President Elect of the USA Barack Obama is a kindred spirit of the Nazis? Do you really think you can lecture fellow posters on "rational arguments" and "moral and ethical parallels" and the definition of "hatred" when you yourself appear to ha ...[text shortened]... right this time, while you, normbenign, may not be.[/b]

I think I get it now.

I think that, you think that, that I think that when I say a health worker should be able to opt out of treating a person on any grounds they wish, this means they should be able to sign on at the local abortion clinic then refuse to do any work? Indeed, any worker should be able to take any position then make up any reason they like and not do any work at all.

Let's also note here that the relaxing of regulation makes no stipulation about the healthcare worker being an employee, the healthcare worker may well be the employer or a sole trader, that'd put a stick in the spokes of your errant bicycle too.

No, the reason it's been so difficult to grasp what your problem has been:

1/ You'd hadn't stated it until now.
2/ It was so bleed'n obvious what was meant.

You've dug yourself such a deep hole all you can do is keep digging. I would never, never, never suggest an employees position should be protected in such a way by gummint interference, and no such thing has been suggested, Howie couldn't dismantle a cardboard box if he were trapped inside it.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I think that, you think that, that I think that when I say a health worker should be able to opt out of treating a person on any grounds they wish, this means they should be able to sign on at the local abortion clinic then refuse to do any work? Indeed, any worker should be able to take any position then make up any reason they like and not do any work at all.

That's not what I said, as you well know. I specifically worded my long explanation so that you could not bail out with this particular piece of (predictable) disingenuousness. The post is there for you to read. I spent some time spelling out what I meant carefully out of respect for you and because the rather gormless and haughty normbenign was getting on my nerves. But if you're just going to misrepresent what I said and try to lend your squirming a veneer of indignant hubris, then I have miscalculated. What am I supposed to do? Cut and paste the bits you have ignored? Cut and paste the bits that show you have mischaracterized what I have said? What a bore.

This new regulation - it is not a relaxation of regulations, it is a new rule which will have the force of law - will allow existing employees to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons (that is to say political reasons) regardless of the existing terms of contract. This fits with your ideology and so you approve of this particular instance of government interference in the enforcement of contracts and the content of contracts.

So much for your "I would never, never, never suggest an employees position should be protected in such a way by gummint interference...! The whole point here is that you are. Plainly. And obviously. Employees will now be able to opt out of, or refuse to do, some of the things they have been contracted to do and have agreed to do in the past - and if they didn't, presumably they'd have been sacked - without fear of being sacked anymore because they now have a new, extra, additional regulation, to protect them. Bush is throwing a slice of rancid red meat to one of his constituencies.

What employees could opt in of, and out of, used to be regulated by the contract between employer and employee. But now it is to be (in part) regulated by a freshly and furtively minted Bush administration rule which will pass into law as a regulatory addition to the Code of Federal Regulations. Blatant government interference, of which you seemingly approve.

The hole is yours, Wajoma. You are in it. And you continue to dig. Your off own message slip up here could not have been more glaring.

Originally posted by FMF
Would this be an example of what you are talking about?

Originally posted by normbenign
[b]

...you yourself, from about 16 hours ago, on this same thread. What a doltish prigg you are! (No offence intended)

So we have an exquisite admission, defined in your own inimitably fustian terms, that you yourself have run out of new facts (pr ...[text shortened]... good self.

And I gather you shoot wild animals, in their own habitat, for entertainment.[/b]

Read again, and you'll see that I made an argument and drew a conclusion from the premises.

"That you [howardgee] disagree with it inspite of its logic, and that you've made no counter argument displays not his ignorance, but yours."

I take no offense. Name calling diminishes you not me.

Howard in the message I replied to made no arguments but simply labeled Wajoma ignorant. It was plain and simple name calling. In contrast, I presented a simple logical reason that his statement displayed his own ignorance not that of his accused. He may well not be ignorant, but only the presentation of some facts will prove that. Further name calling will only confirm my conclusion. I will repeat some simple stuff you apparently missed. Ignorance is simply not knowing, being unaware of the facts. Incorrect conclusions indicate faulty logic, not ignorance, presuming the facts have been presented. If my conclusions differ from yours, and I am ignorant of facts that would prove your argument, it is your duty to present them, not mine to fill in the blanks where you haven't supplied the premises for your argument.

When all is said and done, if both parties present all the premises, they are questioned and verified, and both parties make all their arguments, then we can agree to disagree, without silly and childish namecalling.


I'm proud to be labeled supercilious under the circumstance, and yes I do shoot, kill and eat wild animals, not for entertainment but for food and so that I and future generations don't forget how to survive in a post apocalypse, or revolutionary environment where there aren't any supermarkets selling food products, either animals raised in horrific conditions, or crops grown with non nutritional chemical fertilizers.

Of course, your mindless crowd would have us not eating any of the above, which would mean starvation for the rest of the planet that isn't already malnourished already.