Walgreens Allows Pharmacists To Not Dispense Drugs They Object To

Um, a store has the right not to sell a certain drug if they don't wont to. They don't have the right to not sell a drug because of race etc. But they can choose not to sell a drug or another product at all if they don't want to. It's as simple as that.
 
[quote name='dmpolska']Um, a store has the right not to sell a certain drug if they don't wont to. They don't have the right to not sell a drug because of race etc. But they can choose not to sell a drug or another product at all if they don't want to. It's as simple as that.[/QUOTE]

Correct.

Walgreens chooses to sell the morning after pill.

They had it in stock, ready to sell.

The employee chose not to sell a stocked product.

Suddenly, it's not so simple...
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Correct.

Walgreens chooses to sell the morning after pill.

They had it in stock, ready to sell.

The employee chose not to sell a stocked product.

Suddenly, it's not so simple...[/QUOTE]



Then Walgreens can fire her. Whats the big deal?
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Correct.

Walgreens chooses to sell the morning after pill.

They had it in stock, ready to sell.

The employee chose not to sell a stocked product.

Suddenly, it's not so simple...[/QUOTE]

Why even bother replying to someone who either didn't read the entire thread before posting or knew he was rehashing and just wanted to say "me too!"
 
[quote name='atreyue']Why even bother replying to someone who either didn't read the entire thread before posting or knew he was rehashing and just wanted to say "me too!"[/QUOTE]

Eh, there aren't that many people in this discussion, so why not include somebody else by informing them? Just a note, I was more active earlier on.
 
[quote name='atreyue']Why even bother replying to someone who either didn't read the entire thread before posting or knew he was rehashing and just wanted to say "me too!"[/QUOTE]


I misread the begining of the article. Why bother being an ass?
 
[quote name='dmpolska']I misread the begining of the article. Why bother being an ass?[/QUOTE]

I never said you misread. I just think it's a good idea to completely read everything that's already been posted before posting yourself. That way no one has to say the same thing twice. I apologize for my earlier post, I should have said what I'm saying to you now. That was indeed very ass-like of me.
 
[quote name='camoor']This is discrimination based on religion. Specifically, a fundamentalist christian discriminating against someone who is a more moderate christian / athiest / other.

Easy to say don't shop at Walgreens. I'm assuming that you've never been to a small town where all the mom and pop stores have been run out of business.[/QUOTE]

Its not discrimination based on religion. The fundamentalist christian would not sell the pill to the customer regardless of whether the customer was a fundamentalist christian or not.

Anyway, you don't have a constitutional right to conduct all your business within x miles of your home. Should walgreens be forced to sell bibles, pornos, dildos, and imported japanese videogames also? I mean their customers have a constitutional right to those things too, but that doesn't mean that walgreens is obliged to fulfill that constitutional right.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Using that specific term you didn't. Using the search feature, I dug up a few quotes from our last discussion. And besides, you keep assuming that I'm not religious.[/QUOTE]

I'm not assuming your not religious, but you certainly come across as such by trying to peg me as a religious radical.

All those statements were my thoughts on why people might be motivated to promote evolution beyond what is warranted by science. I wasn't suggesting in any way that the scientists which study evolution are atheists anymore than I would suggest that the scientists which study the ancient middle east are religious. The scientists are usually not the extremists, the ones that twist the facts and popularize halftruths based on the science are usually extremists (religious or antireligious).

[quote name='evilmax17']Correct.

Walgreens chooses to sell the morning after pill.

They had it in stock, ready to sell.

The employee chose not to sell a stocked product.

Suddenly, it's not so simple...[/QUOTE]

Why is it not so simple? The employee is not discriminating against the customers. Just because a product is stocked that doesn't mean it is ready to sell. When I was a teenager I worked at a restaurant where alcohol was sold. I couldn't serve it myself because I was underage. So if someone wanted a beer and I was the only one available to serve it then they couldn't have it.

Walgreens doesn't have to sell whatever they happen to have in stock and if they don't want to hire a person willing to sell it on their behalf then that is their perogative.

If your employer asked you to shovel poop tomorrow wouldn't you reserve the right to say no? And doesn't your employer reserve the right to accept your refusal and tell the customer that their request to have poop shoveled can't be fulfilled until you hire someone to do it for them?
 
[quote name='chunk']Why is it not so simple? The employee is not discriminating against the customers. Just because a product is stocked that doesn't mean it is ready to sell. When I was a teenager I worked at a restaurant where alcohol was sold. I couldn't serve it myself because I was underage. So if someone wanted a beer and I was the only one available to serve it then they couldn't have it.

Walgreens doesn't have to sell whatever they happen to have in stock and if they don't want to hire a person willing to sell it on their behalf then that is their perogative.

If your employer asked you to shovel poop tomorrow wouldn't you reserve the right to say no? And doesn't your employer reserve the right to accept your refusal and tell the customer that their request to have poop shoveled can't be fulfilled until you hire someone to do it for them?[/QUOTE]

I was never a big fan of the "discrimination" arguement that's been used here. If anything, it's just the opposite, and Walgreens/America is being to reverant to the beliefs of these Christian fundamentalists. If they don't believe in it, that's all well and good, and they have my blessing not to take it themselves. But it's a whole different matter when their beliefs start encroaching on the rights and beliefs of others. "Discrimination"? I would say that's the wrong word. We're giving these people too much leverage, and I blame Walgreens for having a policy that would give them leverage.

Your analogy with alcohol is heavily flawed. Restaurants aren't allowed to serve alcohol to minors because it's against the law. Using/purchasing the birth control is not against the law. There are laws in place that say you CANNOT serve this alcohol to people (although I'm pretty sure that in my state at least, you can be a bartender at any age.) In any case, if the law prohibited you from serving alcohol, and you were hired as a bartender, then I would call BS on the company that hired you. This woman was hired to be a pharmecist, and she's not doing her job.

"But Walgreens has that clause, so she WAS doing her job!" I call complete BS on this. Indeed, Walgreens has a policy to support this pharmecists actions. People have said "they can do whatever they want for their business practices, because it's their business! People can go and shop elsewhere if they want to." Again, that's complete BS.

The people who say this are absolving Walgreens of being crazy, saying "well, they can pretty much do what they want if they want to, you don't have to shop there." This response only seems feasible because you are looking at Walgreens as a small minority, and that people have other options. "But it's their business if they want to deny people things!" Well, as a country, we should be concerned with the welfare of our populous. I care more about the PERSON who is denied the pill and forced to get an abortion, rather than the policy a business has in order to protect the relgious beliefs of the few. We shouldn't be catering to the minority, especially when that means encroaching on the rights of the majority.

In short, Walgreens shouldn't be left to do whatever they want, because they're not just "hurting" their own business. When you become a business, you gain a responsibility to look after your customers and the public. If you own a restaurant and a man comes in looking for a glass of water, claiming that he'll die if he doesn't get it, YOU will be responsible if he dies on your floor. You become a service to the people, not the other way around.

"She could've just gone somewhere else." is not an excuse, because as I've said, You're looking at Walgreens as the minority. Well what if they weren't? What if you were repeatedly told "go somewhere else." Eventually there'd be nowhere else to go. And that's not "the business's decision because they can do what they want", and that's SURE AS HELL not American either.

Bottom line: If Ms. Long didn't like what she'd be doing, she shouldn't have gotten into the game. Yes, I realize that "Walgreens has this policy", and I denounce them just as much as I do Ms. Long.

We need executioners to carry out the death penalty, and I would imagine that Ms. Long wouldn't feel right doing this either. So why would she sign up for it? Why would she apply for a pharmacy job if she knew there would be things she wouldn't be comfortable doing (Escape clause or not)? And it's not like they just up-and-surprised her with this duty ("Now you have to shovel poop AHAHAHAHA"), this was clearly in the job description. If you didn't want to shovel shit for a living, you SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN THE JOB.
 
[quote name='chunk']Its not discrimination based on religion. The fundamentalist christian would not sell the pill to the customer regardless of whether the customer was a fundamentalist christian or not.
[/QUOTE]

Well the woman did get a mini-sermon from the fundamentalist christian. The last thing I want to hear from a cashier is why I'm going to hell for buying rubbers or that the latest Anne Rice book is heresy.

[quote name='chunk']Anyway, you don't have a constitutional right to conduct all your business within x miles of your home. Should walgreens be forced to sell bibles, pornos, dildos, and imported japanese videogames also? I mean their customers have a constitutional right to those things too, but that doesn't mean that walgreens is obliged to fulfill that constitutional right.[/QUOTE]

Does Walgreens stock any of the items you mention? If so it should sell them to any of-age customer with enough money to pay the asking price, regardless of the time that the customer comes in the store and which cashier serves the customer. Geez, on a site where people will get pissed if Bestbuy won't honor the low prices promised in their ads, I am surprised that any posters have the gall to suggest that this is a different case.

We aren't talking about constitutional rights here, I mean you don't have a constitutional right to protection from certain scams on Ebay, however I do believe that it is a matter for the better business bureau (IANAL, so I'm not sure what court this goes to).
 
[quote name='evilmax17']I was never a big fan of the "discrimination" arguement that's been used here. If anything, it's just the opposite, and Walgreens/America is being to reverant to the beliefs of these Christian fundamentalists. If they don't believe in it, that's all well and good, and they have my blessing not to take it themselves. But it's a whole different matter when their beliefs start encroaching on the rights and beliefs of others. "Discrimination"? I would say that's the wrong word. We're giving these people too much leverage, and I blame Walgreens for having a policy that would give them leverage.

Your analogy with alcohol is heavily flawed. Restaurants aren't allowed to serve alcohol to minors because it's against the law. Using/purchasing the birth control is not against the law. There are laws in place that say you CANNOT serve this alcohol to people (although I'm pretty sure that in my state at least, you can be a bartender at any age.) In any case, if the law prohibited you from serving alcohol, and you were hired as a bartender, then I would call BS on the company that hired you. This woman was hired to be a pharmecist, and she's not doing her job.

"But Walgreens has that clause, so she WAS doing her job!" I call complete BS on this. Indeed, Walgreens has a policy to support this pharmecists actions. People have said "they can do whatever they want for their business practices, because it's their business! People can go and shop elsewhere if they want to." Again, that's complete BS.

The people who say this are absolving Walgreens of being crazy, saying "well, they can pretty much do what they want if they want to, you don't have to shop there." This response only seems feasible because you are looking at Walgreens as a small minority, and that people have other options. "But it's their business if they want to deny people things!" Well, as a country, we should be concerned with the welfare of our populous. I care more about the PERSON who is denied the pill and forced to get an abortion, rather than the policy a business has in order to protect the relgious beliefs of the few. We shouldn't be catering to the minority, especially when that means encroaching on the rights of the majority.

In short, Walgreens shouldn't be left to do whatever they want, because they're not just "hurting" their own business. When you become a business, you gain a responsibility to look after your customers and the public. If you own a restaurant and a man comes in looking for a glass of water, claiming that he'll die if he doesn't get it, YOU will be responsible if he dies on your floor. You become a service to the people, not the other way around.

"She could've just gone somewhere else." is not an excuse, because as I've said, You're looking at Walgreens as the minority. Well what if they weren't? What if you were repeatedly told "go somewhere else." Eventually there'd be nowhere else to go. And that's not "the business's decision because they can do what they want", and that's SURE AS HELL not American either.

Bottom line: If Ms. Long didn't like what she'd be doing, she shouldn't have gotten into the game. Yes, I realize that "Walgreens has this policy", and I denounce them just as much as I do Ms. Long.

We need executioners to carry out the death penalty, and I would imagine that Ms. Long wouldn't feel right doing this either. So why would she sign up for it? Why would she apply for a pharmacy job if she knew there would be things she wouldn't be comfortable doing (Escape clause or not)? And it's not like they just up-and-surprised her with this duty ("Now you have to shovel poop AHAHAHAHA"), this was clearly in the job description. If you didn't want to shovel shit for a living, you SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN THE JOB.[/QUOTE]

Dispensing morning after pill was not part of her job description. Obviously she isn't doing it and Walgreens is still paying her. So it isn't part of her job. You thinking it should be part of her job doesn't make it so. The only party which defines what is part of her job and what isn't is Walgreens and Walgreens says that it isn't part of her job. Furthermore, Walgreens is not obligated to hire someone to perform any particular job. If Walgreens doesn't want to hire a stock boy to put Pepsi on the shelves then they don't have to. Even if all the stores in the entire country refused to put Pepsi on the shelves, none of them would be obligated to do so. Just because you have a right to buy Pepsi that doesn't mean that any store has an obligation to sell it.

I don't see how you could possibly say that the rights of the customer are being encroached upon. The situation with the person dying of thirst is completely different. No one has a right to let someone die, but of coarse you have the right not to give someone a pill if it won't kill them.

The thing you aren't getting here is that there is a difference between an unconditional right and a right conditioned on your ability to carry it out. The customer in this case does not have an unconditional right to the morning after pill. The right that she has is the right to get the pill, provided that she has a means to obtain it. That means that either she has to make it herself or she needs to find a willing party to sell/give it to her. If she can't do either of those then tough luck. If there wasn't a single store in the country which would sell it to her then her rights would not have been violated. Remember the store has rights too and it has a right to refuse to sell anything it doesn't want to sell, so long as it isn't in violation of someone else's rights.

Remember that our unalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note that we are guaranteed life and liberty, but we aren't guaranteed happiness. We are only guaranteed the freedom to pursue it. Likewise, no one is guaranteed the morning after pill (if they were then the government would pay for it). They are only guaranteed the freedom to pursue it. If they are unsuccessful in that pursuit then none of their rights have been violated.
 
[quote name='camoor']Does Walgreens stock any of the items you mention? If so it should sell them to any of-age customer with enough money to pay the asking price, regardless of the time that the customer comes in the store and which cashier serves the customer. Geez, on a site where people will get pissed if Bestbuy won't honor the low prices promised in their ads, I am surprised that any posters have the gall to suggest that this is a different case.

We aren't talking about constitutional rights here, I mean you don't have a constitutional right to protection from certain scams on Ebay, however I do believe that it is a matter for the better business bureau (IANAL, so I'm not sure what court this goes to).[/QUOTE]

What asking price? Not for sale means not for sale. It doesn't matter if it is in stock or not. If the store chooses to let its cashiers decide which items are for sale and which aren't then who the hell are you to tell them otherwise? Walgreens put that pharmacist in charge of deciding what is for sale in the pharmacy. That is how Walgreens chooses to run its business and it has a right to.

False advertising is another issue entirely. Did Walgreens print an ad saying that the morning after pill was for sale? If so then I consider that ad a written agreement to sell the pill. However, if there was no such written agreeent then Walgreens has a right to sell whatever the hell it wants and it has a right to change its mind every 10 minutes, with every different clerk, and based on whatever other arbitrary criteria it deems suitable, provided those criteria aren't the race, religion, sex, physical handicap, or sexual preference of the customer.

Does the BBB have force of law behind it? I thought it was not a government run organization.
 
[quote name='chunk']Dispensing morning after pill was not part of her job description. Obviously she isn't doing it and Walgreens is still paying her. So it isn't part of her job. You thinking it should be part of her job doesn't make it so. The only party which defines what is part of her job and what isn't is Walgreens and Walgreens says that it isn't part of her job. Furthermore, Walgreens is not obligated to hire someone to perform any particular job. If Walgreens doesn't want to hire a stock boy to put Pepsi on the shelves then they don't have to. Even if all the stores in the entire country refused to put Pepsi on the shelves, none of them would be obligated to do so. Just because you have a right to buy Pepsi that doesn't mean that any store has an obligation to sell it.

I don't see how you could possibly say that the rights of the customer are being encroached upon. The situation with the person dying of thirst is completely different. No one has a right to let someone die, but of coarse you have the right not to give someone a pill if it won't kill them.[/quote]

Of course, the fact that she got an abortion doesn't factor in here, or does it? If you believe abortion to be murder (which I don't), then you could be an accomplice to this "murder". There are plent of other drugs, by the way, that effect the hormones in such a way as to prevent implantation (allergy medicine is one, but there are others). Would this Pharmecist deny this as well? Her opinions are based on hearsay and not science, because if she had read the research, she would know her position is complete bullshit (that is, if she doesn't mind allergy medicines and the like). If you want to ban ALL of this medication, then alright, that's a valid stance. Not so here.

And as I said before, I have an equal beef with Walgreens over the wimp-out policy that they have. So what IS her job description? "Dispense any medicines that she so chooses, based on her opinion?" If Walgreens is giving her money and backing up this description (which they are), then I think they're just as wrong as Ms. Long (which they are). I am not absolving Walgreens for running a horrible business. As somebody jokingly said earlier, what if you get hired for this job but are a Christian Scientiest? What then? ALL medicine's are against your religion, so what would they do? They couldn't demote you, because then they would have to equally demote Ms. Long. Both people would be following the "job description". Where do we draw the line?

The thing you aren't getting here is that there is a difference between an unconditional right and a right conditioned on your ability to carry it out. The customer in this case does not have an unconditional right to the morning after pill. The right that she has is the right to get the pill, provided that she has a means to obtain it. That means that either she has to make it herself or she needs to find a willing party to sell/give it to her. If she can't do either of those then tough luck. If there wasn't a single store in the country which would sell it to her then her rights would not have been violated. Remember the store has rights too and it has a right to refuse to sell anything it doesn't want to sell, so long as it isn't in violation of someone else's rights.
Click to expand...

The customer has the right to purchase any stocked product at the price advertised (within legality). Just like you can't go into EBgames and have them say "nah, I don't feel like selling you this", you can't arbitrarily deny a customer a product. THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF HER RIGHTS.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Of course, the fact that she got an abortion doesn't factor in here, or does it? If you believe abortion to be murder (which I don't), then you could be an accomplice to this "murder". There are plent of other drugs, by the way, that effect the hormones in such a way as to prevent implantation (allergy medicine is one, but there are others). Would this Pharmecist deny this as well? Her opinions are based on hearsay and not science, because if she had read the research, she would know her position is complete bullshit (that is, if she doesn't mind allergy medicines and the like). If you want to ban ALL of this medication, then alright, that's a valid stance. Not so here.

And as I said before, I have an equal beef with Walgreens over the wimp-out policy that they have. So what IS her job description? "Dispense any medicines that she so chooses, based on her opinion?" If Walgreens is giving her money and backing up this description (which they are), then I think they're just as wrong as Ms. Long (which they are). I am not absolving Walgreens for running a horrible business. As somebody jokingly said earlier, what if you get hired for this job but are a Christian Scientiest? What then? ALL medicine's are against your religion, so what would they do? They couldn't demote you, because then they would have to equally demote Ms. Long. Both people would be following the "job description". Where do we draw the line?
[/quote]

Walgreens and their pharmacists don't need to have a valid stance. They have a right to decide whether or not something should be for sale based on any arbitrary criteria they like as long as it isn't the race, sex, physical handicap, or sexual preference of the customer. They could decide not to sell medications because the pharmacist thinks the moon is made of cheese and certain medications remind him of cheese. Also, we don't have to draw the line on who is following the job description. Walgreens can draw the line anywhere they damn well please, as long as it is within the bounds of the contract that they have with their employees.

[quote name='evilmax17']The customer has the right to purchase any stocked product at the price advertised (within legality). Just like you can't go into EBgames and have them say "nah, I don't feel like selling you this", you can't arbitrarily deny a customer a product. THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF HER RIGHTS.[/QUOTE]

Was Walgreens advertising that the pill was available for sale? Also, I disagree about a store's right to deny a customer a product. How many times have us CAG gone into EBgames only to be refused in stock products because they were "preordered". Is that not arbitrary or does the law grant special recognition to the idea of a "preorder"? I imagine that it the idea of a "preorder" was completely made up by the stores and is arbitrary in terms of the law.
 
[quote name='chunk']Dispensing morning after pill was not part of her job description. Obviously she isn't doing it and Walgreens is still paying her. So it isn't part of her job. You thinking it should be part of her job doesn't make it so. The only party which defines what is part of her job and what isn't is Walgreens and Walgreens says that it isn't part of her job. [/QUOTE]
Dispensing the morning after pill is part of her job description. She is granted by Walgreens the ability to choose not to dispense any medication she feels conflicts with her moral beliefs. In doing so, though, the responsibility to ensure that the customer does receive the medication falls on her, as stated by Walgreens policy. Since she obviously didn't do so, the customer has a legitmate complaint against this pharmacist and Walgreens.
 
[quote name='chunk']Walgreens and their pharmacists don't need to have a valid stance. They have a right to decide whether or not something should be for sale based on any arbitrary criteria they like as long as it isn't the race, sex, physical handicap, or sexual preference of the customer. They could decide not to sell medications because the pharmacist thinks the moon is made of cheese and certain medications remind him of cheese. Also, we don't have to draw the line on who is following the job description. Walgreens can draw the line anywhere they damn well please, as long as it is within the bounds of the contract that they have with their employees.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that little bit?

40 years ago, that wouldn't have mattered either. You could've just said "well they don't want to sell to black people". Once again, I'm not trying to argue that THIS particular case is discrimination (by definition anyway), but it's in the same field. I'm thinking big picture, and I would bet dollars to donuts that in another 40 years (hell, another 10 years), we're going to be looking at cases like this in a similar light.

We should be doing everything we can to discourage and ban this behavior, not tolerate it. If we hadn't done this in the first place, that line I bolded wouldn't even be there.
 
[quote name='dcfox']Dispensing the morning after pill is part of her job description. She is granted by Walgreens the ability to choose not to dispense any medication she feels conflicts with her moral beliefs. In doing so, though, the responsibility to ensure that the customer does receive the medication falls on her, as stated by Walgreens policy. Since she obviously didn't do so, the customer has a legitmate complaint against this pharmacist and Walgreens.[/QUOTE]

What that means is that the pharmacist gets to tweak the job description however she likes, but then any responsibilities that Walgreens has which are violated from such tweaking fall on the pharmacist. The customer doesn't have a legitimate complaint because Walgreens doesn't have a responsibility to sell any particular medication, provided certain exceptions such as denying the medication would result in death.

So Walgreens has zero responsibility in this case and after the tweaking of the job description that zero responsibility is passed onto the pharmacist.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Yeah, that little bit?

40 years ago, that wouldn't have mattered either. You could've just said "well they don't want to sell to black people". Once again, I'm not trying to argue that THIS particular case is discrimination (by definition anyway), but it's in the same field. I'm thinking big picture, and I would bet dollars to donuts that in another 40 years (hell, another 10 years), we're going to be looking at cases like this in a similar light.

We should be doing everything we can to discourage and ban this behavior, not tolerate it. If we hadn't done this in the first place, that line I bolded wouldn't even be there.[/QUOTE]

Discourage or ban what behavior? You don't think that people should have a right to choose not to do something? You think you should be legally obligated to stick a dildo up the ass of any person that requests you to? After all, they have a right to have a dildo up their ass and it is, therefore, your responsibility to make sure they get it.

You sound just like the crazy religious right who wants to discourage and ban any behavior that they don't like.

People have a right to disagree about things and to live their lives accordingly.
 
[quote name='chunk']


I'm not assuming your not religious, but you certainly come across as such by trying to peg me as a religious radical.[/quote]

I said, based on your arguments, that you were a creationist and that you don't understand what science is and how it works. Never said religious radical.
 
[quote name='chunk']Discourage or ban what behavior? You don't think that people should have a right to choose not to do something? You think you should be legally obligated to stick a dildo up the ass of any person that requests you to? After all, they have a right to have a dildo up their ass and it is, therefore, your responsibility to make sure they get it.

You sound just like the crazy religious right who wants to discourage and ban any behavior that they don't like.

People have a right to disagree about things and to live their lives accordingly.[/QUOTE]


Some of you're examples have been

"what if someone else reserved it?"
"What if someone walked up to me and asked me to do something sexual to them?"
"Where in the job description of dispensing prescriptions does it say they have to sell particular prescriptions?" etc.

The item was on the shelf, the store carried it. No one had reserved it, there is nothing preventing it from being sold. A woman who was hired to sell prescription medicine to customers is refusing to sell an in stock, fully legal, fully within the descripting of dispensing prescriptions, based solely on her beliefs against it. Again, you don't go into the deli business if you're a muslim and refuse to handle pork, you don't go into the pharmaceutical business if you're a christian and refuse to dispense life preventing pills.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I said, based on your arguments, that you were a creationist and that you don't understand what science is and how it works. Never said religious radical.[/QUOTE]

You suggested to camoor that he be less radical because people tend to dismiss religious radicals and you cited me as an example. In any case, to say that I am a creationist and that I don't understand what science is or how it works isn't true either.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Some of you're examples have been

"what if someone else reserved it?"
"What if someone walked up to me and asked me to do something sexual to them?"
"Where in the job description of dispensing prescriptions does it say they have to sell particular prescriptions?" etc.

The item was on the shelf, the store carried it. No one had reserved it, there is nothing preventing it from being sold. A woman who was hired to sell prescription medicine to customers is refusing to sell an in stock, fully legal, fully within the descripting of dispensing prescriptions, based solely on her beliefs against it. Again, you don't go into the deli business if you're a muslim and refuse to handle pork, you don't go into the pharmaceutical business if you're a christian and refuse to dispense life preventing pills.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that anything which doesn't match any of those specific examples should always be sold. I gave those examples to illustrate that there are plenty of arbitrary reasons why someone might not get assistance in exercising their legal right. Why should the pharmacy example be any different?

Why not go into the deli business if you refuse to handle pork? There are plenty of jewish deli's around here that don't serve pork. There are also plenty of little shops run by muslims and some of them sell porno mags while others don't.

It seems that there are two issues here. One is the rights of the customer. As far as I'm concerned those rights were not violated in any way. The other is the job of the pharmacist. Regarding business I think that everyone has a right to conduct business however they please as long as they aren't violating anyone else's rights. You can think that makes them a bad business if you like, but they are obviously making somebody happy if they are still in business. So whether or not it is a bad business is in the eye of the beholder and there is no justification for using the law to simply enforce your point of view.
 
[quote name='chunk']You suggested to camoor that he be less radical because people tend to dismiss religious radicals and you cited me as an example. In any case, to say that I am a creationist and that I don't understand what science is or how it works isn't true either.[/quote]

Close, but no cigar. This is what I said about you:

When you hear a person complaining about the agenda of "Radical atheists and pagans", or refer to those atheists evolutionary scientists (remember chunk?), don't you just dismiss them?
Click to expand...

I complained about ranting about the radicals behind what you disagree with, which is something you do, didn't necessarily suggest you were a radical yourself.




Why not go into the deli business if you refuse to handle pork? There are plenty of jewish deli's around here that don't serve pork. There are also plenty of little shops run by muslims and some of them sell porno mags while others don't.
Click to expand...

The job description for working in a jewish deli often does not include serving pork. You do not go to work in a pork serving deli (jewish or otherwise) and then expect to refuse to serve pork. All this example accomplishes is it provides an example of where the job description for working at a deli does not involve serving pork, but not where deli workers refuse to fulfill certain parts of their job description (while providing the customer no alternative person). Tack learning how to use examples onto the already large list of things you need to learn more about.
 
[quote name='dmpolska']Couldn't disagree anymore with you evilmax.[/QUOTE]

Smart to keep it as a one sentence rejoinder. Otherwise your underlying arguements (assuming you have any) would get ripped to shreds by logic, American consumer protection law, and just plain horse-sense.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Close, but no cigar. This is what I said about you:

I complained about ranting about the radicals behind what you disagree with, which is something you do, didn't necessarily suggest you were a radical yourself.[/quote]

Ok. I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say there.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']The job description for working in a jewish deli often does not include serving pork. You do not go to work in a pork serving deli (jewish or otherwise) and then expect to refuse to serve pork. All this example accomplishes is it provides an example of where the job description for working at a deli does not involve serving pork, but not where deli workers refuse to fulfill certain parts of their job description (while providing the customer no alternative person). Tack learning how to use examples onto the already large list of things you need to learn more about.[/QUOTE]

Likewise, being a pharmacist at Walgreens does not have to involve serving the morning after pill, nor any other drug to which one might morally object.

The only difference between the example of the walgreens pharmacist and the jewish deli worker is that walgreens lets the pharmacists decide what kind of pharmacy it will be. It is as if the deli owner said to the workers, this deli will be whatever kind of deli you like: jewish, italian, etc. I admit that I generally pick poor examples, but this isn't one of them and if opinions such as yours had been prevalent 200 years ago then there would be no jewish delis today.

In any case, the situation with jewish delis doesn't really matter because this Walgreen pharmacist was fulfilling her job description according to her employer. You want to redefine what the job description of a Walgreens pharmacist is because you don't like what it actually is, but, thankfully, its not your job to decide what Walgreens pharmacists should and should not do. That is the job of Walgreens management and Walgreens management is fulfilling its job description just fine.
 
What tolerance you people exhibit, you are all pathetic.

I at least accept the concept of pacifism as a legitimate anti-war position. You people can't accept that someone's religious or moral views pohibits them from selling a medication.

You are all as closed minded as the people you would claim to villify.

Thats all I have to say.
 
[quote name='atreyue']This may be a controvesrial position for a company to take right now, but with all the new legislation across the country regulating the sales of over the counter drugs like cough syrup and cold medicine it will prove to be a blessing.[/QUOTE]

Good point here. I just thought of something positive I could do with Walgreen's rule, I could use it to push people to Homeopathic cures instead of Pharmaceutials that may cause more harm to their body than the Homeopathic one that works just as or almost as well.
"I have a prescription here for Tylenol to take for my headache.".
"I'm sorry I can't sell this to you based upon my beliefs on prescription drugs. You can wait till the next Pharmacist comes in or I can sell you this EXCELLENT Herbal product that works just as well and is $5 cheaper too.".

edit: I wish there was an organization that tested herbal products and had the credibility of the FDA. If THAT happened we'd definitely see Prescription drug prices start to go down because they'd be competing against a product that can have NO patent placed on it except said companies BLEND of the product. So yeah I'm not completely opposed to prescription but I definitely think with over the counter people they can find something better as well as being cheaper. I'm sure there are some good herbals for some prescription substitutes.
 
[quote name='chunk']
Likewise, being a pharmacist at Walgreens does not have to involve serving the morning after pill, nor any other drug to which one might morally object.

The only difference between the example of the walgreens pharmacist and the jewish deli worker is that walgreens lets the pharmacists decide what kind of pharmacy it will be. It is as if the deli owner said to the workers, this deli will be whatever kind of deli you like: jewish, italian, etc. I admit that I generally pick poor examples, but this isn't one of them and if opinions such as yours had been prevalent 200 years ago then there would be no jewish delis today.

In any case, the situation with jewish delis doesn't really matter because this Walgreen pharmacist was fulfilling her job description according to her employer. You want to redefine what the job description of a Walgreens pharmacist is because you don't like what it actually is, but, thankfully, its not your job to decide what Walgreens pharmacists should and should not do. That is the job of Walgreens management and Walgreens management is fulfilling its job description just fine.[/QUOTE]

If walgreens did not sell the morning after pill, just as jewish deli's do not sell pork, you'd have a point. She's a pharmacist at a company that sells the morning after pill. I am not arguing that, under the current conditions, that every pharmacy should sell every form of medicine, just as not every deli should sell every form of meat. What I'm arguing is that people who go into a line of work should be prepared to do what the job includes. If everything is legally fine, and a particular pill is on the shelf ready to be sold, there is no reason to expect her not to sell it. If she can't handle the job, then she needs a new one.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If walgreens did not sell the morning after pill, just as jewish deli's do not sell pork, you'd have a point. She's a pharmacist at a company that sells the morning after pill. I am not arguing that, under the current conditions, that every pharmacy should sell every form of medicine, just as not every deli should sell every form of meat. What I'm arguing is that people who go into a line of work should be prepared to do what the job includes. If everything is legally fine, and a particular pill is on the shelf ready to be sold, there is no reason to expect her not to sell it. If she can't handle the job, then she needs a new one.[/QUOTE]

But Walgreen's policy states that she doesn't have to dispense what she doesn't want to.

(you know that's going to be the next post)
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If walgreens did not sell the morning after pill, just as jewish deli's do not sell pork, you'd have a point. She's a pharmacist at a company that sells the morning after pill. I am not arguing that, under the current conditions, that every pharmacy should sell every form of medicine, just as not every deli should sell every form of meat. What I'm arguing is that people who go into a line of work should be prepared to do what the job includes. If everything is legally fine, and a particular pill is on the shelf ready to be sold, there is no reason to expect her not to sell it. If she can't handle the job, then she needs a new one.[/QUOTE]

How do you make the determination that they sell the morning after pill? Walgreens certainly wasn't selling it at that particular location and on that day and time. Is Walgreens not allowed to stop selling a product that they sold previously? Are they also not allowed to start selling a product that they previously were not selling? Are they not allowed to sell different products at different locations? Assuming that all these are ok with you, why should there be limitations on how often a company switches between selling/not selling?

Anyway, I don't know why you want to tell Walgreens what their jobs include. According to Walgreens, their pharmacist position does not necessarily include selling the morning after pill. Who the hell are you to tell them what responsibilities their pharmacist position includes? They hire people to fulfill whatever responsibilities they specify, not whatever responsibilities you specify.

How would you like it if I started telling your gardener how to tend your green? "What's that Alonzo? You don't want your lawn mowed today? Only the leaves raked? Too bad. I think a gardener should always mow the lawn and if your gardener doesn't do it then he should get a new job. It doesn't matter that you hired him. I am the ultimate authority on what gardeners should and should not do and you are not allowed to decide what you want your gardener to do."
 
[quote name='CTLesq']What tolerance you people exhibit, you are all pathetic.

I at least accept the concept of pacifism as a legitimate anti-war position. You people can't accept that someone's religious or moral views pohibits them from selling a medication.

You are all as closed minded as the people you would claim to villify.

Thats all I have to say.[/QUOTE]

I tolerate the imperialist, fanatically fundamentalist oligarch that you and your fellow red-staters barely voted into the Presidency because that is how a democracy works.

I don't have to tolerate a cashier at Walgreens who think she knows better then a fully accredited doctor (with over 10 years of medical training), his/her patient, and the state legislature of Winsconsin.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't have to tolerate a cashier at Walgreens who think she knows better then a fully accredited doctor (with over 10 years of medical training), his/her patient, and the state legislature of Winsconsin.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, I didn't know that doctors were accredited on making moral decisions. I thought they were primarily trained in medicine.

I also thought that we have separation of church and state in this country. Since when does the Wisconsin legislature have the authority to decide what my personal values should be and force my employer to enforce those values?

Your right, you don't have to tolerate that Walgreens pharmacist just like that Walgreens pharmacist doesn't have to tolerate people seeking to purchase the morning after pill, but you sure as hell can't do anything to stop her. It's called freedom.
 
[quote name='camoor']I tolerate the imperialist, fanatically fundamentalist oligarch that you and your fellow red-staters barely voted into the Presidency because that is how a democracy works.

I don't have to tolerate a cashier at Walgreens who think she knows better then a fully accredited doctor (with over 10 years of medical training), his/her patient, and the state legislature of Winsconsin.[/QUOTE]

To your first point have a little cheese with your whine.

As for your second point that cashier is just as entitled to their opinion as you are.

But I am sure that point is lost on you.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']To your first point have a little cheese with your whine.

As for your second point that cashier is just as entitled to their opinion as you are.

But I am sure that point is lost on you.[/QUOTE]

As for my first point congrats on weakening America.

As for my second point no they are not, and you're going to find out just how wrong you are when this whole thing gets cleared up.

I thought you had said your last in the previous post. CTL can't even keep a 5 minute promise, just like the president he elected.
 
[quote name='camoor']As for my first point congrats on weakening America.

As for my second point no they are not, and you're going to find out just how wrong you are when this whole thing gets cleared up.

I thought you had said your last in the previous post. CTL can't even keep a 5 minute promise, just like the president he elected.[/QUOTE]

1. As opposed to the haughty French looking Senator from Massachusetts who admitted to committing war crimes? I think not.

2. And people probably think I am an elitist.

3. "That is all I have to say" ie those are my points. As for expanding on them after your sad mis-interpretation that is always on the table.

PS - I didn't elect Bush as NY went for Kerry, do you not even posess the most rudimentary understanding of how our government works? Or can you not see past the end of your own nose?
 
[quote name='chunk']How do you make the determination that they sell the morning after pill? Walgreens certainly wasn't selling it at that particular location and on that day and time. Is Walgreens not allowed to stop selling a product that they sold previously? Are they also not allowed to start selling a product that they previously were not selling? Are they not allowed to sell different products at different locations? Assuming that all these are ok with you, why should there be limitations on how often a company switches between selling/not selling?[/quote]

They were selling that particular pill on that day and at that time. Any other employee would have sold it. They just had an employee who refused, took the prescription, which eventually resulted in the customer becoming pregnant and having an abortion. The store never stopped selling it, and provided no alternate employee to make up for the incompetent one they hired.


How would you like it if I started telling your gardener how to tend your green? "What's that Alonzo? You don't want your lawn mowed today? Only the leaves raked? Too bad. I think a gardener should always mow the lawn and if your gardener doesn't do it then he should get a new job. It doesn't matter that you hired him. I am the ultimate authority on what gardeners should and should not do and you are not allowed to decide what you want your gardener to do."
Click to expand...

Please, go to first grade, do not pass high school, do not collect your diploma. Please, when you get there, sit through the english lesson titled "how to make an example", when you do that, please come back to continue this discussion.

The gardener is working for me, not you. What he/she does on my lawn and yard have absolutely no effect on your day, or your life whatsoever.

This pharmacist is dealing with the public, she refused to sell a pill that the store itself willingly sold (and stole that prescription), resulting in the customer not getting the emergency treatment she needed, resulting in pregnancy and ending in an abortion (which costs much more than the pill). Please tell me how what I do with my lawn has anything in common with that.
 
[quote name='chunk']I'm sorry, I didn't know that doctors were accredited on making moral decisions. I thought they were primarily trained in medicine.

I also thought that we have separation of church and state in this country. Since when does the Wisconsin legislature have the authority to decide what my personal values should be and force my employer to enforce those values?

Your right, you don't have to tolerate that Walgreens pharmacist just like that Walgreens pharmacist doesn't have to tolerate people seeking to purchase the morning after pill, but you sure as hell can't do anything to stop her. It's called freedom.[/QUOTE]

Freedom not to do jobs she cannot carry out. Freedom, in this or any other country, is not being able to get any job, and then decide what part of that job you want to do.

And separation of church and state, so if someone decides blacks are evil on religious grounds, they should be able to bar their company from hiring any black employees? The wisconsin legislature did no such thing as to decide what her values were, but they can decide whether she can refuse to sell prescription medicine to a customer in her chosen profession. Being allowed to hold certain religious beliefs, and being able to act them out in any place, at any job, in any situation, and to the detriment of any individual are two totally different things. Remember, when a decision has to be made, government trumps religion, not the other way around.
 
Wow, I take a break and this bitch blows up. Some really quick things:

Chunk, you were talking earlier (I'm far too lazy to look it up) about someone criticizing you for using analogies that were not quite apt, and they were right. You should just stick to your logic. I agree with you up until a certain point, and that's usually the point when you start into an analogy. They usually turn out to be misrepresentations of the actual situation that would strengthen your argument if they were good, but end up doing the opposite when they're off.

The real question is: who's responsible for Ms. Long? If I refused to sell a customer merchandise at any of the myriad retail jobs I've worked, I'd be fired. If I was morally opposed to 10 year old girls wearing thongs it wouldn't make a difference. Even if I was 100% sure the customer was stealing something it wouldn't make a difference. I think the complainant is a stupid whore, but refusing to sell the pill to her is more than just making a decision for herself, she also made the decision for the customer since she was the only one there who could give the customer the product. If she worked for me, I'd fire the bitch since that's pretty bad customer service. Is she legally liable? No. She didn't do anything wrong in the eyes of the law, so only her employer can discipline her at this point. Unfortunately, she is within her rights as a walgreens pharmacist to do what she did. As someone already posted way back when, I don't really trust the customer's story beyond this point. I don't know if Walgreens has this policy in place for this reason or another, so I don't know whether or how this woman abused it. But it seems clear to me that the ultimate responsibility for this is carried by the company for condoning this action. Doesn't change the fact the Long is an idiot and that she did impose her beliefs on the customer.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Freedom not to do jobs she cannot carry out. Freedom, in this or any other country, is not being able to get any job, and then decide what part of that job you want to do.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, with all the stuff that employees get away with these daysand with company brass kowtowing to them to a sickening degree, that is a pretty good description of freedom in the workplace.
 
[quote name='atreyue']The real question is: who's responsible for Ms. Long? If I refused to sell a customer merchandise at any of the myriad retail jobs I've worked, I'd be fired. If I was morally opposed to 10 year old girls wearing thongs it wouldn't make a difference. Even if I was 100% sure the customer was stealing something it wouldn't make a difference. I think the complainant is a stupid whore, but refusing to sell the pill to her is more than just making a decision for herself, she also made the decision for the customer since she was the only one there who could give the customer the product. If she worked for me, I'd fire the bitch since that's pretty bad customer service. Is she legally liable? No. She didn't do anything wrong in the eyes of the law, so only her employer can discipline her at this point. Unfortunately, she is within her rights as a walgreens pharmacist to do what she did. As someone already posted way back when, I don't really trust the customer's story beyond this point. I don't know if Walgreens has this policy in place for this reason or another, so I don't know whether or how this woman abused it. But it seems clear to me that the ultimate responsibility for this is carried by the company for condoning this action. Doesn't change the fact the Long is an idiot and that she did impose her beliefs on the customer.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this, as I stated much earlier the customer just followed company policy (well, unless she didn't know about it and was just lucky that the company had that policy in place). I keep getting sidetrack into discussing what should be done with her and what her rights should be, but the company should get the brunt of the complaints and legal problems. That is unless the pharmacist didn't know and, while she still probably wouldn't be liable since she within company rules, she should be liable.

And I used to work at sears, usually mens or childrens. Believe me, as ugly as most of sears clothing is, there were plenty of kids clothes that would be a pedophiles wet dream.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']1. As opposed to the haughty French looking Senator from Massachusetts who admitted to committing war crimes? I think not.

2. And people probably think I am an elitist.

3. "That is all I have to say" ie those are my points. As for expanding on them after your sad mis-interpretation that is always on the table.

PS - I didn't elect Bush as NY went for Kerry, do you not even posess the most rudimentary understanding of how our government works? Or can you not see past the end of your own nose?[/QUOTE]

Give me a freaking break. Oh Kerry looks French, let's vote for the hick who talks like "good people".

You want to get off the hook by saying your vote for Bush didn't count since NY went to Kerry.

Problem is, I hold individual voters accountable for their choices. Not whole states.

And I never called you an elitest. Ignorant and mis-informed? Yes. Full of hubris? Absolutely. Elitest? No, because you never dodged a war like Bush and Cheney. You just enjoy electing elitests.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']They were selling that particular pill on that day and at that time. Any other employee would have sold it. They just had an employee who refused, took the prescription, which eventually resulted in the customer becoming pregnant and having an abortion. The store never stopped selling it, and provided no alternate employee to make up for the incompetent one they hired.[/quote]

The employee was acting on behalf of the store. Therefore the store was not selling it at that place and time. There is no question about this. Its not like Walgreens is denying that they gave their employees this power. They gave it explicitly.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Please, go to first grade, do not pass high school, do not collect your diploma. Please, when you get there, sit through the english lesson titled "how to make an example", when you do that, please come back to continue this discussion.

The gardener is working for me, not you. What he/she does on my lawn and yard have absolutely no effect on your day, or your life whatsoever.

This pharmacist is dealing with the public, she refused to sell a pill that the store itself willingly sold (and stole that prescription), resulting in the customer not getting the emergency treatment she needed, resulting in pregnancy and ending in an abortion (which costs much more than the pill). Please tell me how what I do with my lawn has anything in common with that.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but if you weren't such a fucking idiot and you understood simple logic then there wouldn't be a need for me to always bring up stupid analogies. I try to present both the logic and an analogy for convenience, but refuse to think logically and instead insist on criticizing my analogies. I admit that my analogies aren't the best, but if you would actually think for a moment then I wouldn't need to use them.

The fact that the pharmacist is dealing with the public doesn't change anything. If you were running a business from your home then you would be dealing with the public. Would that grant me authority over your gardener? No it wouldn't.

As far as I can tell the pharmacist did not steal the prescription. If she did then that is another issue, but if she didn't then the only thing that resulted in pregnancy and ultimately abortion was the negligence of the customer. So the negligence of the customer is the only thing that makes this situation differ from the gardener analogy, but that is unrelated to the actions of the pharmacist. The pharmacist had no control over the fact that the customer didn't go to another pharmacy to get the prescription filled.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Freedom not to do jobs she cannot carry out. Freedom, in this or any other country, is not being able to get any job, and then decide what part of that job you want to do.

And separation of church and state, so if someone decides blacks are evil on religious grounds, they should be able to bar their company from hiring any black employees? The wisconsin legislature did no such thing as to decide what her values were, but they can decide whether she can refuse to sell prescription medicine to a customer in her chosen profession. Being allowed to hold certain religious beliefs, and being able to act them out in any place, at any job, in any situation, and to the detriment of any individual are two totally different things. Remember, when a decision has to be made, government trumps religion, not the other way around.[/QUOTE]

The fact is that she was carrying out her job as defined by her employer. You can keep saying that she wasn't as much as you want, but you are not her employer. You do not define whether or not she was carrying out her responsibilities.

The think about baring blacks is different because it violates the right for an individual to pursue a job regardless of race. There is no such right to obtain any particular medication from any particular pharmacy or pharmacist. You are right that being able to hold certain religious beliefs and being able to act them out are totally different. The former is unequivocally guaranteed. The later is only guaranteed when you aren't violating the rights of others. In the case of the pharmacist both are guaranteed because no rights were violated.

That is an interesting thought to say that government trumps religion. I would agree that in many cases it does, but certainly not in all cases. The founding of this country is a good example of a case where religion trumped government.

[quote name='atreyue']Wow, I take a break and this bitch blows up. Some really quick things:

Chunk, you were talking earlier (I'm far too lazy to look it up) about someone criticizing you for using analogies that were not quite apt, and they were right. You should just stick to your logic. I agree with you up until a certain point, and that's usually the point when you start into an analogy. They usually turn out to be misrepresentations of the actual situation that would strengthen your argument if they were good, but end up doing the opposite when they're off.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I know I'm not good with making clear analogies. My girlfriend tells me this all the time, but she tells me it because she already understands why the idea is true, without the analogy. How do you suggest I handle people that refuse to listen to logic?
 
[quote name='chunk']
That is an interesting thought to say that government trumps religion. I would agree that in many cases it does, but certainly not in all cases. The founding of this country is a good example of a case where religion trumped government.
[/QUOTE]

I just typed a response and I realized it was just a repeat of everything I already said, so I'm just going to answer the non repeat part.

Considering only 2 and a half commandments are illegal (stealing and murder, the half being lying, since pergury is the only way that you cannot lie), and that many of the founding fathers were deists and not christian, I fail to see how this can be argued. You can argue that religion was (is) so pervasive in society that everything is influenced by it, but that's about as far as I can see it going.

Yeah I know I'm not good with making clear analogies. My girlfriend tells me this all the time, but she tells me it because she already understands why the idea is true, without the analogy. How do you suggest I handle people that refuse to listen to logic?
Click to expand...

Just a point, when your logic fails to agree with the person you're arguing with, or the established community (usually scientific in your case), there may be a reason. You may be right, you may be wrong, but when the people who spend their lives studying something (as well as the target of your argument) disagree, then you shouldn't get angry when they don't suddenly start agreeing with you. You can A) get better evidence
B) better understanding of what they actually believe
C) give up
D) learn how to argue better
E) realize you've got an uphill battle and that what you think of in your little room is not god's gift to the world and that rational people will continue to disagree with you, despite having presented your marvelous revelation to them (was that a bit long?)
 
[quote name='chunk']I'm sorry, but if you weren't such a fucking idiot and you understood simple logic then there wouldn't be a need for me to always bring up stupid analogies. I try to present both the logic and an analogy for convenience, but refuse to think logically and instead insist on criticizing my analogies. I admit that my analogies aren't the best, but if you would actually think for a moment then I wouldn't need to use them.

So how do you suggest I handle people that refuse to listen to logic?[/QUOTE]

If you post an analogy that doesn't fit the context, you allow people to use your faulty analogy to subvert your logic, since the whole point of the analogy is to support your argument. So if you can't find the right analogy, just skip it altogether and you'll be happier with the results.

You can always run them by your girlfriend first :D
[quote name='chunk']That is an interesting thought to say that government trumps religion. I would agree that in many cases it does, but certainly not in all cases. The founding of this country is a good example of a case where religion trumped government.[/QUOTE]

What did the revolutionary War have to do with religious beliefs? Initial colonizing maybe...
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I just typed a response and I realized it was just a repeat of everything I already said, so I'm just going to answer the non repeat part.

Considering only 2 and a half commandments are illegal (stealing and murder, the half being lying, since pergury is the only way that you cannot lie), and that many of the founding fathers were deists and not christian, I fail to see how this can be argued. You can argue that religion was (is) so pervasive in society that everything is influenced by it, but that's about as far as I can see it going.[/quote]

Did the founding fathers create this country on their own? What about the colonists? They didn't come to america for no reason.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Just a point, when your logic fails to agree with the person you're arguing with, or the established community (usually scientific in your case), there may be a reason. You may be right, you may be wrong, but when the people who spend their lives studying something (as well as the target of your argument) disagree, then you shouldn't get angry when they don't suddenly start agreeing with you. You can A) get better evidence
B) better understanding of what they actually believe
C) give up
D) learn how to argue better
E) realize you've got an uphill battle and that what you think of in your little room is not god's gift to the world and that rational people will continue to disagree with you, despite having presented your marvelous revelation to them (was that a bit long?)[/QUOTE]

Its not that my logic fails to agree with you. Its that I present a logical argument and you refuse to reciprocate. What makes me angry isn't when people don't start suddenly agreeing with me. What makes me angry is when what appears to be a solid logical argument is refuted with stubborn adherence to irrational beliefs and a complete misunderstanding of what is necessary to disprove such an argument.

Your suggestions outline what frustrates me very clearly:
A) More evidence does not make a logical argument any stronger. If the initial set of evidence is true and the logic is good then the conclusions are true. Further evidence can neither prove nor disprove it because it has already been proven. The only way to disprove it is to show that the initial evidence was false or that the logic is bad.
B) I always try to arrive at a better understanding of what those that disagree with me believe, but I've never experienced anything like some of the people in this forum. I try to find out what they believe, but instead of telling me they just mock me, ignore my comments, or both.
C) NEVAR! ;)
D) Why do you think I asked atreyue for tips?
E) I frequent a lot number of forums and I am well aware that rational people can disagree with me. However, very few of the active members in the "vs" subforum have shown themselves to be rational people.

[quote name='atreyue']If you post an analogy that doesn't fit the context, you allow people to use your faulty analogy to subvert your logic, since the whole point of the analogy is to support your argument. So if you can't find the right analogy, just skip it altogether and you'll be happier with the results.
[/QUOTE]

That was how I started out here (the "vs" subforum), but I often got replies like "your argument doesn't make any sense". So I purposely started adding analogies to try and make the logic more easily understood in more tangible terms. So it seems that I can't get happy results no matter what.

Interestingly, I don't have this problem at other forums. I've had some very good discussions in the forums of some technical (read computer) websites as well as at some academic forums I frequent. I don't know if it's me or if it's the people here, but it doesn't matter because I'd like to learn how to better communicate with anyone (no matter how dense they are ;)).
 
[quote name='chunk']Did the founding fathers create this country on their own? What about the colonists? They didn't come to america for no reason.[/quote]

Although religion was the cause of some of the first colonists' migration to America, I don't think the actual break with England can be tied to religion solely or even in great part.

[quote name='chunk']Its not that my logic fails to agree with you. Its that I present a logical argument and you refuse to reciprocate. What makes me angry isn't when people don't start suddenly agreeing with me. What makes me angry is when what appears to be a solid logical argument is refuted with stubborn adherence to irrational beliefs and a complete misunderstanding of what is necessary to disprove such an argument.

Your suggestions outline what frustrates me very clearly:
A) More evidence does not make a logical argument any stronger. If the initial set of evidence is true and the logic is good then the conclusions are true. Further evidence can neither prove nor disprove it because it has already been proven. The only way to disprove it is to show that the initial evidence was false or that the logic is bad.
B) I always try to arrive at a better understanding of what those that disagree with me believe, but I've never experienced anything like some of the people in this forum. I try to find out what they believe, but instead of telling me they just mock me, ignore my comments, or both.
C) NEVAR! ;)
D) Why do you think I asked atreyue for tips?
E) I frequent a lot number of forums and I am well aware that rational people can disagree with me. However, very few of the active members in the "vs" subforum have shown themselves to be rational people.

That was how I started out here (the "vs" subforum), but I often got replies like "your argument doesn't make any sense". So I purposely started adding analogies to try and make the logic more easily understood in more tangible terms. So it seems that I can't get happy results no matter what.

Interestingly, I don't have this problem at other forums. I've had some very good discussions in the forums of some technical (read computer) websites as well as at some academic forums I frequent. I don't know if it's me or if it's the people here, but it doesn't matter because I'd like to learn how to better communicate with anyone (no matter how dense they are ;)).[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, we are all guilty from time to time of being caught up in the powere of our convictions. I think a lot of people confuse 'common sense' with logic. Although they appear to be the same on the face of things, common sense prevails upon people's beliefs while logic is indisputable. So they can overlap at times, but logic must adhere to much stricter rules. You have posted a lot of things which are well-structured, but are sometimes lacking in logic. We all do at times. When someone says that your post doesn't make sense, it's probably because of gaps in logic in your argument. Personally, I think that's there's nothing wrong with saying that you don't have a logical case for something, but still believe it to be true. Discussions that come about as a result are often entertaining and informative. But everyone feels so much pressure to be smart and right that this seldom if ever happens.

And if you want your analogies to work better here, try using game analogies.

"you're playing Kotor and you want to buy a new lightsaber from a vendor and the bitch turns you down because she doesn't believe in the dark side!"

i guarantuee that'll be WAY better than anything gardening related.
 
[quote name='camoor']Give me a freaking break. Oh Kerry looks French, let's vote for the hick who talks like "good people".

You want to get off the hook by saying your vote for Bush didn't count since NY went to Kerry.

Problem is, I hold individual voters accountable for their choices. Not whole states.

And I never called you an elitest. Ignorant and mis-informed? Yes. Full of hubris? Absolutely. Elitest? No, because you never dodged a war like Bush and Cheney. You just enjoy electing elitests.[/QUOTE]

Camoor - you are an idiot but an idiot I like on this forum.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']1. As opposed to the haughty French looking Senator from Massachusetts who admitted to committing war crimes? [/QUOTE]

God, why do you hardcore republicans have to be such cunts?

KERRY DID NOT CONFESS TO WAR CRIMES, HE TESTIFIED THAT HE WITNESSED WAR CRIMES.

HE DID SO ON TELEVISION, AND I HAVE WATCHED THE TAPE MYSELF.

In fact, if he had kept quiet about the crimes he had witnessed, would that not have been treason?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']God, why do you hardcore republicans have to be such cunts?

KERRY DID NOT CONFESS TO WAR CRIMES, HE TESTIFIED THAT HE WITNESSED WAR CRIMES.

HE DID SO ON TELEVISION, AND I HAVE WATCHED THE TAPE MYSELF.

In fact, if he had kept quiet about the crimes he had witnessed, would that not have been treason?[/QUOTE]

War crimes!

War crimes!

War crimes!

War crimes!

War crimes!

War crimes!

CTL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top