OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Bazal]

Why would you want that doctor .... go to a doctor who aligns with you

Also, i have always been baffled by people upset about catholic or jewish or whatever schools/hospitals ..... if you are totally anti religion, dont f**kin worry about those merkins

Yeah but is it advertised though?

Like, is a doctor going to advertise "No gays please"? Should that be allowed and is that helpful or harmful?

What about, I dunno, an on call surgeon in a hospital? Or a regional GP in a small town with only one doctor? Should they have or not have the rights to refuse that a big practice GP does? How do you decide and where do you draw the line?

It's not simple is all I'm saying. Sure, most cases might be, but the problem isn't most cases. It's all well and good when you can say "sorry, I won't do that, but Dr Jim next door will." But what about if you have a situation where a doctor says "Sorry, I won't do that, you're gonna have to drive two hours to a doctor who will." Is that right? Surely it's best not to open the can of worms in the first place...

Should a doctor be allowed to refuse treatment to a black man?

 

[Bazal]

Fact is, people who are true shit merkins are gonna be shit merkins regardless of the laws

Yeah of course, but at least there are laws in place to deal with them if and when it gets to that point.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Why did you ignore the second part of that quote?

It qualifies it beyond your rebuttal here.

Your mentioning 'so many exceptions' without providing a single example reeks of trying to dismiss any rebuttal with zero effort.

 

[strider]

Yeah but is it advertised though?

Like, is a doctor going to advertise "No gays please"? Should that be allowed and is that helpful or harmful?

What about, I dunno, an on call surgeon in a hospital? Or a regional GP in a small town with only one doctor? Should they have or not have the rights to refuse that a big practice GP does? How do you decide and where do you draw the line?

It's not simple is all I'm saying. Sure, most cases might be, but the problem isn't most cases. It's all well and good when you can say "sorry, I won't do that, but Dr Jim next door will." But what about if you have a situation where a doctor says "Sorry, I won't do that, you're gonna have to drive two hours to a doctor who will." Is that right? Surely it's best not to open the can of worms in the first place...

Should a doctor be allowed to refuse treatment to a black man?

You will know pretty quick .... i actually think finding a good doctor is a pretty hard thing

And i dont believe public hospitals will allow themselves to land in a place where they cant offer appropriare care to all .... we dont live in the 30s ..... and of course i have already said what i think about religion aligned hospitals - dont f**king go their if you dont agree with em

 

[Bazal]

You will know pretty quick .... i actually think finding a good doctor is a pretty hard thing

And i dont believe public hospitals will allow themselves to land in a place where they cant offer appropriare care to all .... we dont live in the 30s ..... and of course i have already said what i think about religion aligned hospitals - dont f**king go their if you dont agree with em

Yeah ok, that's fine.

So we need to divert ambulances from religious hospitals? And again, what about regional practices?

 

[Gronk]

1. You should't lecture on the basis of "unity, undertstanding and inclusiveness" when many of the people who are critical of the bill are showing anything but that.

2. Rather than silly, meaningless knee jerk reactions I decided to explore each of the listed concerns in detail and form my own opinion on their merit.

3. I doubt you'll be able to argue me on the specifics because based on any rational interpretation, the concerns that have been outlined are pretty weak. They are either irrelevant, unlikely or just plain misguided.

4. I don't have a lot of time for religion, but I don't believe people should be discriminated against because they are practicing it.

5. A lot of the concerns raised by people about not being able to go a jewish schoool or be employed by a church seem like a f**ken pathetic attempt to be a victim. I doubt they'd give two f**ks if there was some other type of discrimination towards some other group that ultimately benefitted them.

Come on man, you are a smart guy. Surely you can concede that I have a point?

I’m not protecting the article in any way as it does draw on some pretty ludicrous scenarios, however as I pointed out the “testing” of the bill needs to go through this process in the (lower and upper house) chamber. This academic process is part of our westminster system. It actually works and usually develops a reasonable outcome
.

 

[Bandwagon]

Thanks mate. Look forward to it.

Here's a submission on the bill from the law Council.

https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/docs/...3b5/3695 - Religious Discrimination Bills.pdf

 

[Gronk]

Bullies like religious people who force their beliefs on others to the extent of doing harm?

No this is about the bad bullies, not the good bullies.

 

[Bandwagon]

Fact is, people who are true shit merkins are gonna be shit merkins regardless of the laws

This is true, however what we don't want to be doing is creating laws that formally legalise their shit merkinry.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Righto. Now you have five points?

Yes. Here they are again for you:

1. You should't lecture on the basis of "unity, undertstanding and inclusiveness" when many of the people who are critical of the bill are showing anything but that.

2. Rather than silly, meaningless knee jerk reactions I decided to explore each of the listed concerns in detail and form my own opinion on their merit.

3. I doubt you'll be able to argue me on the specifics because based on any rational interpretation, the concerns that have been outlined are pretty weak. They are either irrelevant, unlikely or just plain misguided.

4. I don't have a lot of time for religion, but I don't believe people should be discriminated against because they are practicing it.

5. A lot of the concerns raised by people about not being able to go a jewish schoool or be employed by a church seem like a f**ken pathetic attempt to be a victim. I doubt they'd give two f**ks if there was some other type of discrimination towards some other group that ultimately benefitted them.

Instead of being a smart-arse dickbag and throwing around your old faves like "smug", how about paying attention?

I can honestly say that I reserve my worst behaviour for you.

That may not be what you believe, but it is essentially what you are arguing.

No it isn't. You keep wanting to put words in my mouth.

This bill allows people the legal right to be shit merkins based on their religion.
Simple as that, whether you choose to agree or not. Someone can essentially say just about whatever they like, or refuse to provide whatever service they like, based on their religion.

But but but it has to be in "good faith"!! "Sorry your honour, I truly believe I would go to hell if I treated that gay man, so I chose not to."

I put forward a considered view of each of those examples and am struggling to see any major issues. I say this as someone who isn't religious and should now be outraged about all of these major injustices.

Let me spin it this way then. Do you believe that religious people should have different rights than non-religious people?

I'll start believing that everyone should be treated equally when I see evidence of people being treated equally.

Thats the ultimate irony in all of this for me.

Equal rights for everyone (but only when my rights are threatened!!!).

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Why would you want that doctor .... go to a doctor who aligns with you

Also, i have always been baffled by people upset about catholic or jewish or whatever schools/hospitals ..... if you are totally anti religion, dont f**kin worry about those merkins

What about being told you're going to hell if you don't follow a particular religion? How worried about their version of hell could you possibly be?

 

[Gary Gutful]

I’m not protecting the article in any way as it does draw on some pretty ludicrous scenarios, however as I pointed out the “testing” of the bill needs to go through this process in the (lower and upper house) chamber. This academic process is part of our westminster system. It actually works and usually develops a reasonable outcome
.

Agreed.

 

[Bandwagon]

Your mentioning 'so many exceptions' without providing a single example reeks of trying to dismiss any rebuttal with zero effort.

I would have thought you would be aware of such things?

I mean enjoining the conversation advocating change without reference to, or knowledge of, the status quo, would seem to me a very poor grounding upon which to make assertions as to the need for change.

Perhaps I should refrain from such assumptions?

 

[Gronk]

Insecurities? I just don't like bullies.

Ok I’ll bite. You’ve now grouped me as a bully. You definitely need to explain how you arrived at this conclusion.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Let me spin it this way then. Do you believe that religious people should have different rights than non-religious people?

Absolutely. Religious people have a whole layer of vulnerabilities that non-religious people don't have. They don't just live with the threat of physical consequences but they have spiritual consequences as well to protect themselves against.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Here's a submission on the bill from the law Council.

https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/docs/05f00464-68e9-e911-9400-005056be13b5/3695 - Religious Discrimination Bills.pdf

Thanks Bandy. Will go through this tonight.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Bullies like religious people who force their beliefs on others to the extent of doing harm?

I don't see people of a different faith to myself as bullies. Refusing to take my money on religious grounds doesn't harm me.

 

[Bazal]

I can honestly say that I reserve my worst behaviour for you.

That's not what Sticky told me.

I figured you for better than Suity. Hurr durr Baz swears at people and calls them out on stupid shit so he's automatically dismissible.

I'll start believing that everyone should be treated equally when I see evidence of people being treated equally.

Just because something doesn't happen (which of course it doesn't, this is not some Utopian society because that doesn't exist) doesn't mean that a right to discriminate should be enshrined in law...Discrimination happens. What I'm arguing is that in no way is it the right thing to do to give discrimination legal protection

 

[Bazal]

Absolutely. Religious people have a whole layer of vulnerabilities that non-religious people don't have. They don't just live with the threat of physical consequences but they have spiritual consequences as well to protect themselves against.

LMAO

 

[strider]

This is true, however what we don't want to be doing is creating laws that formally legalise their shit merkinry.

Im not sure we are