Originally posted by no1marauderIt's silly. What if RC rallied 19 of his extreme smoking or random meandering comrades and decided to make it an official sport. Should they get as much funding as a 20 man football team, considering the football team rakes in a ton of cash, and no person in his right mind would pay for season tickets to watch extreme smoking?
If there were a equal number of players wanting to play curling as do football and if the costs for maintaining the sports teams were approximately equal, yes. Why not?
Originally posted by no1marauderAny man who thinks that he is entitled to insurance for prostate cancer from an insurer who does not wish to provide it is a fool and worthy of as much mockery as a woman who thinks she is entitled to paid maternity leave.
I fail to see how that supports your argument. Men think that prostrate cancer should be covered by their medical insurance; is that asking for a special sort of rights for men only?
If they mutually negotiate it with their insurers and employers, it's an entirely different situation.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAny example can be stretched to an absurd extreme; this proves nothing. Curling is a sport that's older than Football (the real kind played in the US) so your example is invalid. Your factual assertion is basically incorrect; there are perhaps 50 or 100 at most universities where the football teaam's revenues outstrip operating expenses. Of course, this does not include significant capital expenses that are usually related to the team.
It's silly. What if RC rallied 19 of his extreme smoking or random meandering comrades and decided to make it an official sport. Should they get as much funding as a 20 man football team, considering the football team rakes in a ton of cash, and no person in his right mind would pay for season tickets to watch extreme smoking?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThen your argument is with health insurance laws, per se, rather than with "feminists" who want their medical conditions covered by them. Therefore, you should direct your screeching to the appropriate places which is not at feminists.
Any man who thinks that he is entitled to insurance for prostate cancer from an insurer who does not wish to provide it is a fool and worthy of as much mockery as a woman who thinks she is entitled to paid maternity leave.
If they mutually negotiate it with their insurers and employers, it's an entirely different situation.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhen feminists claim this, they are not claiming that there are types or rights that only women have. Rather, they are claiming that there are types of rights common to all persons the respect for which requires different treatment of women and men. At bottom here is a distinction between equal treatment and equal consideration.
That women's rights exist as something distinct from men's rights or human rights.
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrMost feminists are too simple-minded to actually have this deep of an understanding of their own issue. Most believe what the say at face value, without realizing it is linguistically inaccurate rhetoric.
When feminists claim this, they are not claiming that there are types or rights that only women have. Rather, they are claiming that there are types of rights common to all persons the respect for which requires different treatment of women and men. At bottom here is a distinction between equal treatment and equal consideration.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSince your example is simply analogous to men wanting the same consideration for medical conditions that can happen only to them, you've dismally failed to present an absurd view that is "characteristic of feminists". At best, you've merely pointed out what you regard as an absurd view characteristic of those who support health insurance laws.
I don't have any agenda. Bbarr asked for absurd views characteristic of feminists and I have given an example.
Originally posted by NemesioI believe that should probably read..."In most american schools".
In most schools, sports programs are part
of their profit structure -- that is, while they invest millions in their programs, the sports
return with big dollars.
Luckily, in Ireland, we view sports as something which should be enjoyed by the students, which is good for their personal development and good for their health. I'm delighted to live in a country where everything doesn't have to make a profit, and some things are done for the benefits of the participants.
Nem, would you support a cut in support for art classes if the students can't produce works of art, which can be turned into a revenue stream? In your opinion, should art only be taught in schools if it is profitable to the school?
Is this a standard american view. If its not profitable, then it is of no use? Could this be related to the very high suicide/mental illness rate in the states? People are made to feel worthless if they are not inspired to get a high paying job?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1883991072/ref=wl_it_dp/026-1573595-7232414?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=I2NM261IIBO7U6&v=glance&colid=E3HYETU3U1ON
This is a very interesting book based on the journal of a young american, who was constantly being told that he needed to get a good job, when that wasn't the direction he wanted his life to take. Due to people constantly criticising him for not succumbing to the peer pressure, his sense of self worth was completely eroded and he decided to end it all by walking into a lake. His father published the journals.
D
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI have no idea what you're talking about with all this health insurance rambling. My example is that feminists think they are entitled to be paid by their employer for not working in order to pursue particular choices in life. (Recall that you hold that bearing a child is a choice and not a circumstance like cancer.)
Since your example is simply analogous to men wanting the same consideration for medical conditions that can happen only to them, you've dismally failed to present an absurd view that is "characteristic of feminists". At best, you've merely pointed out what you regard as an absurd view characteristic of those who support health insurance laws.
Perhaps, just as a woman chooses to spend 9 months away from work to bear a child, a man would like to spend 9 months devoting all of his time to chess. They are both choices, after all. Does the man have a right to demand his employer pay for this?
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles1) I see little difference between maternity leave laws and health insurance laws if both are requirements directed to employers. In either case, the employer bears the costs of the particular medical condition;
I have no idea what you're talking about with all this health insurance rambling. My example is that feminists think they are entitled to be paid by their employer for not working in order to pursue particular choices in life. (Recall that you hold that bearing a child is a choice and not a circumstance like cancer.)
Perhaps, just as a woman cho ...[text shortened]... ey are both choices, after all. Does the man have a right to demand his employer pay for this?
2) The fact that a choice in life leads to a medical condition is no reason for saying that the effects of the medical condition need not be the sole responsibility of the individual in a society. People chose to smoke which leads to a higher incidence of lung cancer but we don't say that's your tough luck and allow them to die if they are financially unable to afford treatments.
3) One has the "right" to "demand" anything of anybody. Whether that thing is something that should be required is a rational issue to be decided by the interests of society informed, of course, by the knowledge of the basic purposes of human society.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDoes the same go for people who choose to work in coal mines or who choose to live near power lines?
But we should.
Is there a way to establish whether a smoker with lung cancer fell victim to lung cancer due to smoking (for which medical bills he should pay) or from other causes (for which he should be insured)?