|
Post by patrick on Jul 30, 2015 12:03:05 GMT -5
In today's world, those who casually sip wine and munch on salad while discussing dissecting babies for the purposes of harvesting their organs for financial gain are the sane ones, and those who find that barbaric are the fanatics. They don't dissect babies, they remove tissues from fetuses that have been aborted and are going to be discarded, to be distributed at cost to medical research laboratories (there's no profit involved). If you want to just outlaw abortion, be honest about it, but stop misrepresenting what PP does.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 30, 2015 12:15:57 GMT -5
Defund them. Immediately, if not sooner. If concerned parties want to see it continue with its mission, let them open up their pocketbooks. Please quit prying mine open to pay for what they do. PP do not use federal funds to fund abortions in violation of federal laws. The Bush DOJ would have seen them prosecuted in an instant if they did.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jul 30, 2015 12:18:44 GMT -5
In today's world, those who casually sip wine and munch on salad while discussing dissecting babies for the purposes of harvesting their organs for financial gain are the sane ones, and those who find that barbaric are the fanatics. They don't dissect babies Holly O'Donnell disagrees. What do you think "at cost" means? The answer is that "cost" is an infinitely elastic term that means essentially nothing. I used to live in the world of allocating costs. The answer is always "what do you want the result to be?" Simple example. What is the "cost" of shipping something on a railroad? One guy is shipping loads of bubble wrap. Another guy is shipping loads of steel. Bubble-wrap guy says that the correct way to calculate cost is to base it on weight. Steel guy says the correct way to calculate cost is to base it on volume. Who is right? I'd be satisfied with not being forced to subsidize it.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Jul 30, 2015 12:30:32 GMT -5
Simple example. What is the "cost" of shipping something on a railroad? One guy is shipping loads of bubble wrap. Another guy is shipping loads of steel. Bubble-wrap guy says that the correct way to calculate cost is to base it on weight. Steel guy says the correct way to calculate cost is to base it on volume. Who is right? Dimensional weight. Maybe you should pick a better example.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jul 30, 2015 12:40:07 GMT -5
Of course, the question has been answered. But the point is, the answer that commercial carriers arrived at is based fundamentally on convenience and ease of administration. There is nothing metaphysically correct about it. In absolute terms, there is no "right" answer. In a similar way, when we are assured that PP spends no public funds on abortion, that conclusion is based on an allocation of costs that is equally arbitrary, not to mention administered by the very people who have a vested financial interest in reaching the "correct" conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 30, 2015 12:41:39 GMT -5
If I give Jeff enough money to totally run his binder business, but I give it to him only so that he can make more time to post to the Soundhole, I'm not supporting his binder business, right?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jul 30, 2015 12:46:38 GMT -5
If I give Jeff enough money to totally run his binder business, but I give it to him only so that he can make more time to post to the Soundhole, I'm not supporting his binder business, right? We should try that. For a few months at least. See how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 30, 2015 12:53:23 GMT -5
I'll get on that GoFunMe page right away.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 30, 2015 14:35:55 GMT -5
Of course, the question has been answered. But the point is, the answer that commercial carriers arrived at is based fundamentally on convenience and ease of administration. There is nothing metaphysically correct about it. In absolute terms, there is no "right" answer. In a similar way, when we are assured that PP spends no public funds on abortion, that conclusion is based on an allocation of costs that is equally arbitrary, not to mention administered by the very people who have a vested financial interest in reaching the "correct" conclusion. Except that that example is transparently unrelated to actual costs. You haven't factored in any costs associated with fuel loads, costs of operating more cars to move the same weight of bubble wrap, wear and tear on tracks as a result of heavier weights on tracks, etc. I live in a world of allocated costs also, costs associated with the operation of a clinical trial that we get reimbursed by drug companies. Those costs can, indeed, be analyzed in detail and we have to stand ready to be audited by the company. They aren't easily fooled.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 30, 2015 14:41:52 GMT -5
If I give Jeff enough money to totally run his binder business, but I give it to him only so that he can make more time to post to the Soundhole, I'm not supporting his binder business, right? That has nothing to do with PP distributing fetal tissues to research institutions at cost. If we pay Catholic hospitals, or other faith-based businesses to provide medical services, are we giving them more time to proselytize, in violation of the First Amendment? Churches insist no, that funds for one can be kept separate from the other. Which is the same argument PP uses, but some people insist that only PP can't do that.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 30, 2015 14:46:59 GMT -5
But the point is, the answer that commercial carriers arrived at is based fundamentally on convenience and ease of administration. There is nothing metaphysically correct about it. In absolute terms, there is no "right" answer. Actually, it is false that there is no "correct answer." It could even be determined empirically. You could fill 5 rail cars with steel and 5 rail cars with bubble wrap, attach each to locomotives, and drive them around a route for, say, a month, then analyze your actual costs from know values, e.g., standard values for depreciation and wear and tear on equipment, fuel costs, manpower, etc. You are correct that many companies use surrogates for this kind of detailed analysis, but it is false that it can't be done. And it is certainly false that it can't be done in a laboratory setting, since that sort of analysis is common.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 30, 2015 15:07:39 GMT -5
If we pay Catholic hospitals, or other faith-based businesses to provide medical services, are we giving them more time to proselytize, in violation of the First Amendment? They do that? You mean because they acknowledge their Catholic founding, that's the same thing as "proselytizing"? You mean it's one of their principle functions (as abortion is for PP)? I'm not seeing it.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Jul 30, 2015 15:15:03 GMT -5
Is everybody here O.K. if I still fish from time to time?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 30, 2015 15:24:36 GMT -5
Fish are TOTALLY different. Nobody anthropomorphizes fish.
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Jul 30, 2015 16:16:35 GMT -5
Blue gill can taste very much like perch.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 30, 2015 16:18:04 GMT -5
Blue gill can taste very much like perch. Only a fool would argue.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jul 30, 2015 16:29:33 GMT -5
Now, back to the lion. Your comparison to classic colonialism is very apt, Patrick. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jul 30, 2015 20:19:33 GMT -5
I saw this picture of a Dallas oilman and trophy hunter in his trophy room in National Geographic. My big question is whether the woman is his current trophy wife or a previous one.
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Jul 30, 2015 20:23:17 GMT -5
Is she stuffed, too?
Why would someone shoot a giraffe?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 30, 2015 20:23:56 GMT -5
My big question is whether the woman is his current trophy wife or a previous one. Nothing wrong with a trophy wife. Been married to mine for 28 years.
|
|