Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The War on Fornication
|1.30.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Here goes the ol' pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. Reasonable people are hereby excused.
|1.30.08 @ 12:58PM|#
I remember that Hager fuckwad. He must have the smallest cock
ever if he could anally rape his wife without waking her up.
But that begs the question, how did she know?
Sexrag|1.30.08 @ 1:10PM|#
I am no lies virgin because I promised Jesus that I wouldn't have sex until marriage if I could pull off some big money dealings which I done did.
|1.30.08 @ 1:11PM|#
Here goes the ol' pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. Reasonable
people are hereby excused.
I know we often have these life vs. choice debates that go upto 200
posts, but Im not sure there are that many people on H&R in the
pro-life camp that consider the plan-B pill a 'baby-killer'. Or are
there?
|1.30.08 @ 1:21PM|#
I think this is the first time I've ever seen a zygote smoking a cigar in a comic. In fact, I think it's the first time a zygote has ever been seen smoking a cigar.
Abdul|1.30.08 @ 1:31PM|#
The Hager story came from an interview the former Mrs. Hager gave to the Nation magazine, and it's one Dr. Hager has always denied. As to how she could be raped in her sleep, she claimed to have narcolepsy. There's little to corroborate her story, but that's often the case in marital rape scenarios. It's basically he-said/she-said.
|1.30.08 @ 1:32PM|#
As Mr. Bagge demonstrates, this issue is so much simpler when you assume the other side is populated exclusively by lying hypocrites. Then, instead of actually engaging the issue, you can just poke fun at hypocrites, examples of which can be found in any large movement.
Abdul|1.30.08 @ 1:33PM|#
you can just poke fun at hypocrites, examples of which can
be found in any large movement.
I just had a large movement and there were no hypocrites in it.
There was some corn, however.
|1.30.08 @ 1:35PM|#
Oh, and the Catholic Church has considered zygotes human persons since zygotes were first discovered in the 1700s. It's not a new doctrine promulgated to control sexuality in light of late 20th century pharmacology, as Bagge implies.
|1.30.08 @ 1:36PM|#
When I read this strip in the print issue, I noticed that Bagge claims that Viagra is responsible for an increase in STDs among the elderly, yet he doesn't bother to cite his source for this. Has anyone else heard of this?
anon.|1.30.08 @ 1:37PM|#
"If public humiliation is the goal, why not go all out and give
female customers the full Taliban treatment?"
I think Plan B should be available over the counter, I think less
of pharmacists that don't offer it, and I support Bagge's right to
criticize them. However, conflating a private merchant's refusal to
sell a product on the free market with the state-sanctioned
violence against women in the Islamic world is ridiculous. The
latter is a rights violation, the former is not.
kl|1.30.08 @ 1:38PM|#
It's fun showing religious people, one and all, as idiots. Kinda like the Ron Paul letters stereotyping blacks as ghetto criminals. What's different?
|1.30.08 @ 1:40PM|#
"If public humiliation is the goal, why not go all out and
give female customers the full Taliban treatment?"
Probably the same reason that we consider it mildly annoying that
tax money is spent humiliating smokers in TV ads, but would have
quite a different reaction if smokers were getting 40 lashes in the
public square.
Kolohe|1.30.08 @ 1:45PM|#
sage-
I have heard of this, but it's a 2nd order causation thing.
viagra has caused old timers to go from no sex to some sex. and
between a combo of not worried about preggers, and not using
condoms even when they were in their prime, std's in old folks
homes have gone up. don't have a link though
|1.30.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Sage,
I have heard of it:
"Once Viagra reared its little blue head into sex, aging people
were able to have even more sex,"
Brandybuck|1.30.08 @ 1:52PM|#
This issue has also re-exposed the fact that many "pro-life" activists are opposed to the use of contraceptives in general...
I gross misconception, in the US at least. "A few" would be a bit
closer to the truth. While this is the official Roman Catholic
doctrine, most US Catholics have no problems using contraceptives.
Among protestants, the only contraceptives that are controversial
are IUDs, but they have little problem with pills or
prophylactics.
Yes, there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. But
characterizing pro-lifers as being anti-contraception is an
erroneous deception, as silly as characterizing pro-choicers as
being promiscuous feminists.
|1.30.08 @ 1:54PM|#
Well, it's good to see there's more sense in the comments section than in the editorial staff on this issue. Here's to us, fellow little people.
Calidore|1.30.08 @ 1:54PM|#
Chris Potter,
Though I've nver read any primary sources on the subject, in the
secondary sources I've seen I think I recall that only in in the
1860s did a Pope declare that stage of embryo creation was the
point at which life starts.
|1.30.08 @ 1:56PM|#
kl-
1) Religion is completely voluntary, outside of areas where it is
mandated by the State. The U.S. is not one of these places.
2) It is silly to respect someone's sensibilities only because they
believe in Omniscient Guy Who Made Everything And Will Tell Us How
To Behave.
|1.30.08 @ 1:57PM|#
"It's fun showing religious people, one and all, as idiots.
Kinda like the Ron Paul letters stereotyping blacks as ghetto
criminals. What's different?"
Religion is a choice. Color is not.
|1.30.08 @ 2:04PM|#
It seems to me that the issue with pharmacists who refuse do dispense contraceptives is primarily one for the organisation that licences them. Personally, I find it outrageous that they would allow licensed pharmacists to behave in this manner. It seems highly unethical to burden a patient with your own personal beliefs.
|1.30.08 @ 2:07PM|#
Calidore,
You're thinking of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which
was promulgated in 1854, and wouldn't make much sense if Mary
wasn't a person immediately after conception. But the idea of life
beginning at conception had been rooted in Catholic thought since
the process of conception was first understood by Italian
biologists in the 1700s. This is in contrast to the oft-quoted
speculations of Thomas Aquinas and other medieval theologians that
ensoulment occurred 40 days after insemination.
|1.30.08 @ 2:07PM|#
Me and mrs brotherben lived in sin for 2 years prior to sentencing. Folks told us premarital sex was a sin. My wife responded that the way I did it was more of a crime.
LarryA|1.30.08 @ 2:08PM|#
However, conflating a private merchant's refusal to sell a
product on the free market with the state-sanctioned violence
against women in the Islamic world is ridiculous. The latter is a
rights violation, the former is not.
1. I seem to remember the burka cops are mostly citizens who march
to the orders of the religious leaders. They are tolerated, but not
sponsored by the government.
2. Did you read the top of page 4? Most of the restrictions on the
sale of Plan B are state-sanctioned, and continue to be so.
Other Matt|1.30.08 @ 2:09PM|#
I remember that Hager fuckwad. He must have the smallest
cock ever if he could anally rape his wife without waking her
up.
I kinda wondered the same thing myself.
Religion is a choice. Color is not.
And a stereotype is a stereotype. You're kind of heading down the
road that homosexual attraction is not a choice, but acting on it
is a choice, so that's really ok. Is that what you mean to
say?
Personally, I find it outrageous that they would allow licensed
pharmacists to behave in this manner.
So you would tell a lawyer that he or she must represent every
single individual that comes to his or her door that has money? You
would tell the engineer that he or she has to design for whomever
calls them with money? If not, why is this any different, and a
matter for regulation boards?
Other Matt|1.30.08 @ 2:09PM|#
Clarification "So that's really ok" to mean "it's ok to discriminate on that basis". Sorry, got distracted in mid sentence there.
|1.30.08 @ 2:11PM|#
oh, and other than that lame ass joke, I'm gonna leave this
alone as I see no profitability to be had by either side.
ever.
|1.30.08 @ 2:18PM|#
I found the comic both funny and insightful.
Even if Bagge isn't completely even-handed.
|1.30.08 @ 2:19PM|#
Here's something I've always been puzzled about - why is Natural
Family Planning a-okay for Catholics but every other method is
not?
I was googling around and found an answer that astounded me. The
Catholic version of NFP means that there must be coitus and the
husband ejaculates in his wife's vajayjay. You're not
allowed to pull out!
I had no idea until I read it that good Catholics can't pull out
and do the ol' tummy dump.
You learn new stuff every day.
|1.30.08 @ 2:19PM|#
So, if you say that all Democrats are communists and all Republicans are fascists, that's OK, and they have no standing to criticize you for it, because being a Democrat or a Republican is a choice.
|1.30.08 @ 2:21PM|#
So you would tell a lawyer that he or she must represent
every single individual that comes to his or her door that has
money? You would tell the engineer that he or she has to design for
whomever calls them with money? If not, why is this any different,
and a matter for regulation boards?
Raise your hand if you thought the Somali cabbies at the MSP
airport should not be allowed to deny passengers that were carrying
booze.
|1.30.08 @ 2:25PM|#
de stijl,
It would be pretty silly if pulling out was allowed, but condoms
weren't, don't you think?
I don't know if you found the answer to your question, but the
difference is that in NFP the participants do nothing to render
conception impossible, merely taking advantage of fertility's
natural periodicity. It is deliberately impeding conception that
causes a problem, not a particular technique.
|1.30.08 @ 2:26PM|#
"Religion is a choice. Color is not.
And a stereotype is a stereotype. You're kind of heading down the
road that homosexual attraction is not a choice, but acting on it
is a choice, so that's really ok. Is that what you mean to
say?"
I'm saying criticizing (or even ridiculing) someone who makes a
choice to believe (or think) something is different than
criticizing someone for being pigmented a certain way that is no
fault of their own. The question was "what's the difference?"
|1.30.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Calidore,
They're referring to a change made in the text of canon law in
1869. That's a lagging indicator. The Pope declared the dogma of
the Immaculate Conception in 1854, saying that Mary's soul was free
from sin from the moment of her conception. Clearly, this would
make no sense if the soul did not yet.
Calidore|1.30.08 @ 2:32PM|#
crimethink,
...but the difference is that in NFP the participants do
nothing to render conception impossible, merely taking advantage of
fertility's natural periodicity.
In both instances one is trying to avoid pregnancy, thus I am
curious why I should draw a distinction between the two.
|1.30.08 @ 2:33PM|#
crimethink,
I wasn't raised Catholic and I guess I always assumed that coitus
interruptus was the accepted way to prevent pregnancy, but if I had
thought it through it makes sense that it wouldn't be. Otherwise,
why the eight kids, ya know.
It was just an instance of something that you think you know and
understand the rationale behind and then it turns out to be
entirely untrue.
|1.30.08 @ 2:33PM|#
Other Matt,
A pharmacist is neither a lawyer nor an engineer. They do not
commit their resources to a client for an extended period, they
merely take pills from a big container and put them in a smaller
container at the request of the patient. Indeed, for prescription
medicines they have no part in the decision making process. Their
only concern is that you are not taking another medication which
contraindicates the prescribed drug. Their professional role is to
dispense what a doctor has prescribed (they have no power to
prescribe, to make decisions as to what medication is medically
appropriate), and check for contraindications and knowledge of
imbibing procedure. Given this I find it difficult to imagine an
analogy involving a lawyer or an engineer.
I think a more apt analogy would be an accountant at an HMO who
refused to sign off on a doctors recommended blood transplant or
treatment with blood derived products because he was a Jehovah's
Witness.
Professional (private) organisations have often pre-dated goverment
regulation and have, in part, sought to ensure reasonable and
ethical from their members.
Now, if this pharmacist could not refer you(in a timely manner -
most important for Plan B) to an alternative, do you think that
this would be ethical or reasonable? Do you think that a
professional body should tolerate this behaviour, this imposition
of personal beliefs onto patients, from one of its members? I find
it outrageous that they should be able to maintain a licence. If
they want to assume the role of doctor, nay FDA, nay religious
authority, I think it is outrageous professional behaviour.
Calidore|1.30.08 @ 2:36PM|#
Chris Potter,
Well, it sounds like to me that the how the issue was viewed was
evolutionary and controverted in nature for quite some time.
Clearly, this would make no sense if the soul did not
yet.
Unless of course the 1854 pronouncement didn't didn't consider that
implication.
Zeb|1.30.08 @ 2:42PM|#
Suppose a pharmacist had an ethical or religious objection to antibiotics, or opiate pain killers. Is it OK for him to refuse to fill those prescriptions?
Danny|1.30.08 @ 2:42PM|#
"The War on Fornication"
Now, if there's any war we can win, SURELY this is it! People don't
like sex anymore, do they?
|1.30.08 @ 2:44PM|#
I think Plan B should be available over the counter, I think
less of pharmacists that don't offer it, and I support Bagge's
right to criticize them. However, conflating a private merchant's
refusal to sell a product on the free market with the
state-sanctioned violence against women in the Islamic world is
ridiculous. The latter is a rights violation, the former is
not.
It's not a conflation at all. Both actions are patronizing,
condescending, and seek to exert personal control over the choices
of other free individuals. Anyway, you are incorrect -- it's not
about a private merchant's refusal to sell a product on the free
market, it's about employees of that private merchant letting their
own personal bigotries affect their ability to do their job
ethically. Their job is to dispense medication, not give moral
counsel.
Kudos to Peter Bagge! That was a great installment.
|1.30.08 @ 2:44PM|#
Suppose a pharmacist had an ethical or religious objection
to antibiotics, or opiate pain killers.
The guy should not be working in the medical field, period. Go
carve furniture on the prairie or something.
Russ 2000|1.30.08 @ 2:45PM|#
they merely take pills from a big container and put them in
a smaller container at the request of the patient.
The pharmacist doesn't do that, the tech does that. The pharmacist
fills out and submits all the insurance forms, he doesn't have time
to do silly shit like count pills.
Abdul|1.30.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Suppose a pharmacist had an ethical or religious objection
to antibiotics, or opiate pain killers. Is it OK for him to refuse
to fill those prescriptions?
Because opiate painkillers are frequently dealt on the black
market, it is my understanding that many pharmacists are stingy
about doling them out and will call doctors to make sure the
prescriptions aren't fraudulent, etc. It's not quite the same thing
as the Plan B dance, but it's an implied moral judgment that
imposes an extra step between the patient and the pill.
|1.30.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Suppose a pharmacist had an ethical or religious objection
to antibiotics, or opiate pain killers. Is it OK for him to refuse
to fill those prescriptions?
Zeb,
No, it is not okay. That pharmacist should have gone into a
different career. It is not right for him to deny other people
their prescribed medications because their taking them would hurt
his wittle feewings. The fact that you are even asking such a
question is another symptom of a hyperindividualistic society.
Russ 2000|1.30.08 @ 2:48PM|#
The pharmacists who refuse to dispense Plan B won't put up any stink about dispensing any other contraceptive. To me, that doesn't speak of policing morals as much as it does malpractice.
jackanapestarian|1.30.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Suppose a pharmacist had an ethical or religious
objection
That's fine with me, unless he took an oath similar to a doctor's
to deal with individuals regardless of his personal beliefs. Then
he would be obliged to fill the prescription and keep his opinions
to himself.
|1.30.08 @ 2:50PM|#
If the pharmacist is also the owner, no problem here. If he
works for me, or is a franchise holder, he gets sacked/contract
termination immediately. If the Somali cabdriver is an independent
agent, it's OK by me. If he works for me, or uses my dispatch
services, he gets sacked/contract termination right then.
It seems rather simple, doesn't it?
|1.30.08 @ 2:52PM|#
However, conflating a private merchant's refusal to sell a
product on the free market....
Ah but a pharmacist isn't exactly a private merchant is he? To be a
merchant in prescription drugs, you have to be licensed by the
state. That makes him, at least in some sense an agent of the
state.
|1.30.08 @ 2:53PM|#
As a former Catholic, I did always find it amusing that a bunch of men who never had sex were dictating rules of sexuality to the rest of us. I'm sorry, "interpreting God's law about sexuality for us." And no, I don't need to respect your religious beliefs, especially when they affect mine, or my girlfriend's, rights.
|1.30.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Citing the Bible (or the Koran) lends moral authority to these outdated rules and restrictions...even though these ancient tomes happen to be the most unabashedly misogynistic books ever written!
This bears re-reading...over and over and over again...until it
gets through people's thick skulls.
Peter Bagge, you're my hero!
|1.30.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Doctors can refuse to do abortions, so why can't pharmacists
refuse to dispense drugs that the Jesusers hate? I think those
people are evil people, and I would hope that NOW types would
picket their stores relentlessly, but I don't see why a pharmacist
should be forced into going against their stupid Jesuser
ways.
Of course, Plan B should be available over the internet too.
|1.30.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Doctors can refuse to do abortions, so why can't pharmacists
refuse to dispense drugs that the Jesusers hate?
Because if a company that a pharmacist is voluntarily working for
opts to carry that drug, then they do not have any say on whether
it is going to be sold or not. The appropriate course of action
would be for the pharmacist to quit his lucrative job and go home
and suck his thumb while reading the Bible.
|1.30.08 @ 3:15PM|#
"Because if a company that a pharmacist is voluntarily
working for opts to carry that drug, then they do not have any say
on whether it is going to be sold or not."
Then the company fires them, problem solved. A few ugly picket
lines should do the trick. Free markets, free minds, Crazy Jesusers
go home and engage in the less than free Jesus market.
|1.30.08 @ 3:17PM|#
Big Pharma companies should sign deals with any pharmacy they sell to that the pharmacy will dispense all drugs without Jesuser judgments.
|1.30.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Wouldn't a pharmacist simply be able to say "we don't have that drug (Plan B) here" because they flushed the shipment when it arrived at the store? No, instead they get all preachy and act like a holier-than-thou asshole.
|1.30.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Wotta lotta horseshit, that pharmacists who don't carry every
single frickin' product on the market are jack-booted thugs
trampling the rights of women and should be driven from the
profession.
That pharmacist is exercising is personal, individual, right to do
what he wants.
To me, that is plainly and obviously different from a law banning
anyone anywhere from doing something that I really cannot grasp how
anyone could confuse the two.
|1.30.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Because if a company that a pharmacist is voluntarily working for opts to carry that drug, then they do not have any say on whether it is going to be sold or not.
Then the company fires them, problem solved.
Exactly. I think I misworded my initial statement. What I was
trying to say is that at that point, the pharmacist in question
should not have a say whether it is going to be sold or not. Either
he STFU and sells it as he was hired to do, or he gets fired, or he
quits on principle (but of course what is the likelihood that such
a judgmental sack of shit would have the integrity to willingly
give up such a good job?).
|1.30.08 @ 3:22PM|#
"That pharmacist is exercising is personal, individual,
right to do what he wants."
We agree on that point. I think where we disagree is that I think
that pharmacist is a semi-worthless piece of moralizing crap, and I
would hope an organization would exercise their personal right to
picket the hell out of that pharmacists store.
|1.30.08 @ 3:23PM|#
R C Dean,
Nobody is accusing independent pharmacists who don't carry that
product of anything. What people are upset about are the moralistic
individuals working for companies who do carry the product
but who are interfering with the business transaction.
jj|1.30.08 @ 3:26PM|#
Religion is a choice. Color is not.
What the fuck does this mean? It's okay to be a mean-spirited SOB
if someone chooses, but it's wrong to be one if they
can't?
Because a man chooses to say a prayer it's okay to call
him a knuckle-dragging troglodyte?
Mean-spirited generalizations are wrong. Period.
jj|1.30.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Nobody is accusing independent pharmacists who don't carry
that product of anything. What people are upset about are the
moralistic individuals working for companies who do carry the
product but who are interfering with the business
transaction.
Then let the company fire them. Perhaps the company sees them as
more valuable than their view on one silly, controversial
product.
Abdul|1.30.08 @ 3:30PM|#
It is not right for him to deny other people their
prescribed medications because their taking them would hurt his
wittle feewings.
Crazy Jesusers
what is the likelihood that such a judgmental sack of shit would
have the integrity to willingly give up such a good job?
a semi-worthless piece of moralizing crap
I'm confused. It seems that those who made the above comments don't
like moralists who are pharmacists, they seem to be just fine being
moralists who criticize moralists who are pharmacists.
|1.30.08 @ 3:32PM|#
Mean-spirited generalizations are wrong. Period.
Fine. When religious people stop making them, so will I.
|1.30.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Abdul: It's alright to be a moralizing sack of crap, as I am much of the time. It is NOT alright to impose that on other people.
|1.30.08 @ 3:38PM|#
I think that some of you are missing the point that the
government has granted a kind of semi-monopoly license to
pharmacists, in exchange for protection of the consumer. So I do
not think that it is as simple as an individual "exercising is
[sic] personal, individual, right to do what he wants."
If you could buy Plan B from the supermarket, or anywhere, then I
would not see a problem with refusal to dispense. But you can't.
First, the federal government has to licence it for sale, then you
have to go to a doctor to get permission to buy and consume it,
then you have to be able to buy it from a pharmacist. Of course
they may be out of stock. If however, they are then refusing to
give it to you, on moral concerns, when they are the official
government monopoly holder, then how is this not a horrible outcome
in the mind of a libertarian?
Could this not be resolved by requiring the pharmacist to provide a
reasonable alternative to the patient? From a quick review, it
seems that many state licensing boards do not allow pharmacists to
refuse to dispense, other than as part of "professional judgement".
New York however, has a policy guideline (not a firm rule I think)
that allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense on moral grounds,
that states:
"When a pharmacist recognizes that his/her religious, moral, or
ethical belief, or any other factor, will result in the refusal to
fill a prescription that is otherwise available in a pharmacy, the
pharmacist has a professional obligation to take appropriate steps
to avoid the possibility of abandoning or neglecting the
patient."
Would this not be a far more reasonable standard to expect from a
government licenced gatekeeper?
|1.30.08 @ 3:38PM|#
There's also something morally repugnant about abusing one's status as a gate-keeper.
|1.30.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Because a man chooses to say a prayer it's okay to call
him a knuckle-dragging troglodyte?
I didn't say anything of the sort, although others have. What I am
saying is that as soon as a person's beliefs begin to dictate how
other people should live their lives. I do think that most religion
is silly at the least, and destructive at the worst. And people who
make a choice to validate their actions by pointing to the Bible or
Koran or Torah are setting themselves up for ridicule, and they
deserve it. I will not treat irrational people with any kind of
gravitas. Teh R Da KraZY.
Paul|1.30.08 @ 3:46PM|#
Aren't we kind of getting a full-court-press from both conservatives and progressives on reproductive rights in general? Aren't progressives pushing for this same kind of scrutiny with fertility clinics (or the fertility 'industry' as they call it)?
|1.30.08 @ 3:51PM|#
Dangerman, it's not just irrationality. The Bible and the Koran are openly misogynistic. The fact that they are still so widely revered is a testament to the fact that misogyny is not understood and accepted as a real bigotry in mainstream society the way that racism is. If there were blatantly racist religious texts, do you think any free-thinking individual would still acknowledge them and revere them as relevant? Hell no! However, these texts blatantly place women as inferior to men, yet inexplicably they still remain popular, and not only that, people defend them! It's absolutely insane! That is why I have difficulty taking religious people seriously, regardless of their defenses of their beliefs. If you are a deist, great, good for you. But there is no defense for the misogynistic, hateful crap spewed about women in these so-called classics.
Danny|1.30.08 @ 3:52PM|#
"Mean-spirited generalizations are wrong. Period.
Fine. When religious people stop making them, so will I."
I agree with you, SugarFree, though I generally shy away from the
childish "I'll stop when you stop!" mentality.
I think that most un-religious people care less about what
religious people do in their spare time (unless it interferes with
the rights of the un-religious) than the religious about the
un-religious. The religious want to save the rest of us from
"ourselves" and "satan", whereas we, the un-religious, would rather
they just shut up and live their own lives.
From a statistical, and therefore most general, point of view, the
religious are the most oppressive.
|1.30.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Time for Godwin's Law.
Calling all Nazis idiots is fine because they have made a choice to
be Nazis. Calling all blacks criminals is not fine, because no one
can choose the color of their skin and being black does not make
one a criminal. Now, remove "Nazis" and insert "religious people,"
and it works, if you think religious people are all idiots. I never
said I did, but I was responding to a question.
See, there's a difference, which is the question I was responding
to when I first said, "Religion is a choice. Color is not." I'd
like to thank those of you who get it.
|1.30.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Where's a Key Master when you need one?
Hello, I'm looking for the keymaster. Are you the keymaster?
|1.30.08 @ 3:57PM|#
de stijl,
R U gay? Just wondering. I thought you would be looking for the
gatekeeper. I'm looking for the keymaster.
|1.30.08 @ 3:59PM|#
de stijl,
In case you weren't aware, the gatekeeper and the keymaster are
analogous to the male and female reproductive roles. Or am I being
master of the obvious now?
|1.30.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Gozer the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms.
During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a
large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the
last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him:
that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be
roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!
PS - I am looking for the gatekeeper. Not that there's anything
wrong with keymaster / keymaster or gatekeeper / gatekeeper
relationships.
|1.30.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Or am I being master of the obvious now?
So, you're still master of your domain?
|1.30.08 @ 4:12PM|#
Danny,
I reduce all of this to a childish taunt in order to stop screaming
obscenities.
|1.30.08 @ 4:15PM|#
I thought gatekeeper/keymaster were Ghostbusters references. Am I mixing things up?
|1.30.08 @ 4:20PM|#
I thought gatekeeper/keymaster were Ghostbusters references.
Am I mixing things up?
I'm throwing in some Seinfeld as a little sugar.
Calidore|1.30.08 @ 4:26PM|#
smacky,
Well, like them or not they are classics (as much Homer's Iliad
is). I personally think that they are worth reading if only for an
appreciation of how influential they have been on various human
cultures.
However, these texts blatantly place women as inferior to men,
yet inexplicably they still remain popular, and not only that,
people defend them!
Well (and you likely already know this) often people lift from the
texts that which they admire and drop the rest.
Brandybuck|1.30.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Here is an analogy to ponder. I don't necessarily agree with it,
but I do think it's worth considering. Since many pro-lifers
consider abortion to be murder, a pro-life pharmacist might
consider "Plan B" to be murder as well. So what if a pro-choice but
anti-murder pharmacist saw a prescription not for Plan B, but for
an infanticide agent. Further imagine that infanticide was legal
(as it has been in some cultures in the past (and for which some
modern feminists still advocate)). You know that this client is
going to use the agent to kill her born child. Would you feel
morally obligated to provide that drug? Should the state compel
that pharmacist to dispense that drug (perhaps indirectly through
licensing certifications)?
People are arguing much the same thing here. They are saying that
if abortion is legal then the pharmacist MUST morally provide the
abortificant. That the only other recourse is to abandon the entire
career. Any pharmacist who refuses to dispense abortificants will
have their state-granted license to dispense Robitusson
revoked.
Call me a hyperindividualist paleo, but somehow I cannot reconcile
libertarianism with the belief that the state must compel
pharmacists to dispense abortificants.
|1.30.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Religion is a choice and color is not
So if Heath ledger made a choice to be in a movie about homos, (not
that there's anything wrong with homos,) knowing that the movie
will be offensive, then the jesusers can picket his funeral or
whatever. And some will suggest that gayness is a choice. So we can
bash them too right?
You are all perfectly able to believe whatever you want without my
ridicule, as long as it's the same as me. That be your joe pesci
given right.
|1.30.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Brandybuck,
You are a hyperindividualist paleo. :)
The state isn't compelling anyone to dispense anything. The
pharmacist is free to leave his line of work for another line of
work that allows for more partiality. Being a drug dispenser
requires impartiality.
|1.30.08 @ 4:41PM|#
I wonder if these same pharmasists stock condoms. If they dont,
no-one raises a stink, because they are not the governement
sanctioned distributors of condoms. However with presecription
medicine, the government grants them a monopoly on distribution.
The day you can buy plan B in any corner store, is the day the
amount of people complaining about moralistic pharmasists drops by
99.9%
BTW: I had a problem with NY cabies no providing service to alcohol
carrying/intoxicated passengers for the exact same reason as above.
NY City grants a limited number of taxi medallions, again making
cabies quasi state sanctioned agents.
|1.30.08 @ 4:46PM|#
The day you can buy plan B in any corner store, is the day
the amount of people complaining about moralistic pharmasists drops
by 99.9%
val,
That's not true at all. Plan B is over-the-counter and has been for
about 2 years now. It is available in most corner stores. The point
is, there are moralistic douches working behind the counter who are
still interfering with the business transaction even though they
really have no right to do so under their contract of employment
(unless Walgreens allows their employees to discriminate against
their customers, but I highly doubt that).
I hope every last one of those pharmacists who morally condescends
against their customers is fired by their parent company and unable
to find work.
|1.30.08 @ 4:54PM|#
Smacky, doesn't it still require purchase from a licensed pharmacy, and for under 18's a prescription? Where as condoms are available at pretty much anywhere.
|1.30.08 @ 4:55PM|#
It is available in most corner stores
No Shit? I didnt know that. If this is indeed true ignore
everything I just said.
Danny|1.30.08 @ 4:56PM|#
"I hope every last one of those pharmacists who morally
condescends against their customers is fired by their parent
company and unable to find work."
Unfortunately, smacky, mostly of those people would feel justified
in their resolution, and probably be "stronger" in their "faith"
because of it...
|1.30.08 @ 4:56PM|#
dbcooper,
Yes.
val, if that's what you meant by buying it "in any corner store",
then please disregard my objection.
|1.30.08 @ 5:00PM|#
dbcooper,
Yes.
val, if that's what you meant by buying it "in any corner store",
then please disregard my objection
Yep thats what I meant. Consider everything I just said
reinstated.
Russ 2000|1.30.08 @ 5:03PM|#
Plan B is not an abortifacient.
That's why I wonder why the pharmacists who won't dispense Plan B
(it's non-prescription but it's BTC, not OTC) aren't getting sued
for malpractice; religious belief won't be much of a defense.
|1.30.08 @ 5:14PM|#
Russ 2000,
They might have an out if they also didn't fill birth control
prescriptions because of religious belief.
Are there any other drugs that are BTC besides Plan B and whetever
your state decided to do with cold medicines that actually work?
Lots of times condoms are behind the counter, but that's because
they are frequently stolen, not because it's required. I can't
think of anything else.
Are there any other age-restricted drugs where if you're under 18
you need a prescription, but not if you're over 18?
|1.30.08 @ 5:15PM|#
Because a man chooses to say a prayer it's okay to call him
a knuckle-dragging troglodyte?
I've made no secret about my ateism over the years. Do you think
I've been called worse than a knuckle dragging troglodyte?
I've no beef with theists. I don't go out of my way to insult them.
But when religion enters a conversation, I'll call 'em as I see
'em.
|1.30.08 @ 5:21PM|#
The state isn't compelling anyone to dispense anything. The
pharmacist is free to leave his line of work for another line of
work that allows for more partiality. Being a drug dispenser
requires impartiality.
An independent pharmicist has every right to stock or not stock a
product. Licensed by the state doesn't enter into it. Go to your
local liquor store and ask for Tullamore Dew. He's licensed by the
state as well.
If you encounter a rude employee, you know what to do. It doesn't
involve the government at all.
|1.30.08 @ 5:25PM|#
How come I have the feeling that these same "religious
objectors" behind the counter are so willing to "stand their
ground" on this religious issue, but you are just as unlikely to
see them working in a soup kitchen on the weekends..
I'm just saying, it's a lot easier to do the negative religious
stuff than the positive.
|1.30.08 @ 5:43PM|#
Is the comparison between a liquor store and a pharmacy a valid
analogy? I don't think so.
If you can't get Tullamore Dew what could you substitute it for. I
dunno, maybe Jamesons, maybe another type of whiskey, maybe a nice
port, a bottle of wine, hell even some beer. It will still do the
trick in a pinch. The whole store might be out of liquor, but
presumably you don't have a medical need for it. They may even
refuse to stock Havana Club over a moral objection to what Bacardi
did. Probably isn't going to be of much consequence though. They
probably don't have much of an ethics code about putting the needs
of the customer first either.
How about if the pharmacy refuses to stock/order Plan B or another
medicine. What are you going to substitute for those to fill your
medical need? What if there is only one timely source of
medication? (I concede that Walgreens.com may be possible.) Refusal
to dispense/stock would seem to be a real problem with govt
licensed gate-keeper/monopoly status for pharmacists, particularly
when they do not exist in an ethical vacuum. Refusal to stock your
favourite brand at the liquor store would seem to be a problem of
much lower importance.
DISCLAIMER: I used to go to "pourings" all the time, I am in no way
disregarding the importance of getting the right drink when you
want it!
|1.30.08 @ 5:48PM|#
If you can't get Tullamore Dew what could you substitute it
for.
There is no substitute for Tullamore Dew.
|1.30.08 @ 5:53PM|#
Hey, I'm all for Plan B. I don't want the government to mandate
business practices. Not in healh care, not in drinking
establishments, no in used car sales.
I do not like them
in a house.
I do not like them
with a mouse.
I do not like them
here or there.
I do not like them
anywhere.
|1.30.08 @ 5:53PM|#
Smacky, I guess this might be some kind of IP rights
purity/litmus test or something. From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Havana_Club_(Bacardi)
"Havana Club rum, was first created by José Arechabala in 1934 and
sold throughout the world from his family-owned distillery in Cuba.
After the Cuban Revolution of 1959, the distillery and company was
nationalized by the Cuban government and the Arechabala family
emigrated to the United States. The Arechabala family allowed the
trademark to lapse in 1973.[1]
In 1994 Bacardi entered into an alliance with the Arechabalas, and
in 1997 the Arechabalas sold their residual rights to Havana Club
to Bacardi, which, among other things, included the recipe for the
original Havana Club rum.
During 1995 and 1996, Bacardi made a trial production of the rum in
the Bahamas and was sold in the United States.
However, the Havana Club trademark was in the hands of Havana Club
International (a business entity formed by the Cuban Government
owners, and Pernod Ricard, the French owners of the Cuban
Government brand) and owned the trademark in the United States
through Inter-American Conventions.
After more than 10 years of legal struggles between the parties, on
August 8, 2006, 5 days after the Cuban version of the trade mark
was denied renewal (in the United States), Bacardi released their
own version of Havana Club (produced in Puerto Rico)."
I vaguely remember something about Bacardi getting legislation
passed to deny Pernod-Ricard ownership of the trademark. I may be
mistaken.
|1.30.08 @ 5:58PM|#
There is no substitute for Tullamore Dew.
The my latent elitist/authoritarian streak says that you should be
drinking Lagavulin 16!
As far as govt mandating business practices, they already are in
that sector, so it just seems difficult to me to take a completely
hands-off stance when there are already so many regulations and
restrictions of competition. If I could buy the stuff like I can
condoms, then no problem.
|1.30.08 @ 6:09PM|#
The my latent elitist/authoritarian streak says that you
should be drinking Lagavulin 16!
Never tried it. What's it go for? Tullamore Dew is downright
reasonable ~$20.00 a fifth.
|1.30.08 @ 6:16PM|#
I think it's up to around $60 a (750mL, think that's ~ a fifth) bottle now, which is a lot more than what I paid for it a few years ago (around $30 to $40 I think, or free if my buddy could get it from work), so I don't drink it very often now. It's got a "strong" flavor but not so much as something like Talisker.
Brandybuck|1.30.08 @ 6:17PM|#
The state isn't compelling anyone to dispense anything. The pharmacist is free to leave his line of work for another line of work that allows for more partiality. Being a drug dispenser requires impartiality.
A state licensing board is what is requiring that impartiality. The
state compells him to dispense! The libertarian solution
is not to increase the penalties on recalcitrant pharmacists, but
to completely disband the licensing board!
|1.30.08 @ 6:18PM|#
...Did I pass?
Solid B grade, more original effort required for honors.
I do wish I could write witty.
Russ 2000|1.30.08 @ 6:34PM|#
They might have an out if they also didn't fill birth
control prescriptions because of religious belief.
Yes, but then it probably wouldn't be malpractice.
I'm more concerned that licenses are being given to quacks. The
whole fucking point of licensure was to reduce quackery, and now
the religion argument is being used to ensure quacks get licenses.
Take away the licensing, and you know there will be a provider even
out in the sticks; put licensing in and you open up the possibility
that the ONLY provider in a certain area is a quack.
x,y|1.30.08 @ 6:42PM|#
Religion is a choice. Color is not.
Perhaps you missed Soul Man with C.
Thomas Howell.
Tacos mmm...|1.30.08 @ 7:13PM|#
A state licensing board is what is requiring that impartiality. The state compells him to dispense! The libertarian solution is not to increase the penalties on recalcitrant pharmacists, but to completely disband the licensing board!
No, the libertarian solution would be to allow you to get plan B
without a pharmacist, period.
|1.30.08 @ 8:06PM|#
So, I guess having a driver's license makes me an agent of the
state. So, New York State has the right force me to transport
people for a "reasonable" fee whether I wish to do so or not,
right? I mean, if I have a problem with doing that, I can always
just ride the bus, no?
The question isn't whether the state licenses something. It is
whether the state limits the number of licenses it gives out, thus
limiting competition. This doesn't really happen with pharmacists
(though it does happen with other occupations).
As for the guy upthread talking about how pharmacists are
state-sanctioned monopolies, I need some of whatever you're
smoking. I can't spit in any direction in this town without some of
the flegm landing on a pharmacy.
|1.30.08 @ 9:02PM|#
And what are you smoking, straw? You have lots of pharmacists in
your area, well good for you. Thanks to the government having very
strict licensing requirements many people don't.
What's that, it's a hell of a lot more difficult to get a license
to operate a pharmacy than to get a drivers license, and price was
never mentioned before? And of course, you can just buy a car for
yourself, you don't have to get approval from a government licensed
gatekeeper to buy one, and if the hypothetical gatekeeper thinks
that its a moral outrage against the environment, then you can
still have one. Wow, would that make your analogy utterly
ridiculous, I guess so. A drivers license is obviously a very
different beast to a pharmacists license.
The government limits you to purchasing Plan B from a rigorously
licensed gatekeeper. In many areas they are effectively a local
monopoly. Why would a libertarian be satisfied with a situation
where this gatekeeper is the only option for purchase of a MEDICAL
product (the need for which is often very much time based), but can
refuse sale on personal moral grounds, and has no duty to provide
an alternate source?
Like it or not, they are operating in a very restricted, government
licensed field, that denies patients the benefits of competition
that are available for other goods. There may be good reasons for
limiting sales of these products to certain professionals, but
giving them moral control over your medical product purchasing
needs is not one of them. The government has already regulated this
industry to a high degree, moral judgment based denial of medical
products should not be a consequence of their regulation. I'm not
arguing that pharmacies should be perfect, I'm just arguing that
the gatekeeper role should not be abused.
|1.30.08 @ 10:11PM|#
dbcooper,
The reason some places don't have multiple pharmacies is because of
scattered demand, not govt regulation. Most of those areas probably
only have one grocer, too. Does that mean that the govt should
force grocers to sell burn cream and condoms?
|1.30.08 @ 11:07PM|#
I think where we disagree is that I think that pharmacist is
a semi-worthless piece of moralizing crap, and I would hope an
organization would exercise their personal right to picket the hell
out of that pharmacists store.
I'm cool with free speech.
Nobody is accusing independent pharmacists who don't carry that
product of anything.
Read some of the above posts a little more carefully. I think
you'll find some calling for those pharmacists to lose their
licenses.
What people are upset about are the moralistic individuals
working for companies who do carry the product but who are
interfering with the business transaction.
That's the company's business, not mine (or yours).
To be a merchant in prescription drugs, you have to be licensed
by the state. That makes him, at least in some sense an agent of
the state.
You have a state-issued license to drive a car. Are you an agent of
the state when you drive to the store for some milk?
The my latent elitist/authoritarian streak says that you should
be drinking Lagavulin 16!
The nectar of the gods. Truly, if it wasn't $80 a bottle, I'd have
a snort every day after work.
|1.30.08 @ 11:14PM|#
The reason some places don't have multiple pharmacies is
because of scattered demand, not govt regulation. Most of those
areas probably only have one grocer, too. Does that mean that the
govt should force grocers to sell burn cream and
condoms?
You dont have to buy condoms at a grocery store. You can buy them
at the gas station, or drop a dollar bill down the vending machine
in the local pub.
On the other hand alot of these places only have one hospital
because of scattered demand not governement regulations. Next thing
you know the government will require hospitals to cary gauze and
antibiotics or face malpractice suits and loss of license if they
fail to do so. Oh wait..
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Peter Bagge
- Will Everyone Please Stop Freaking Out Over Ayn Rand?!?, Peter Bagge, November 10, 2009
- Comics for Freedom Lovers, Peter Bagge, November 3, 2009
- In Search of the Perfect Human, Peter Bagge, March 28, 2008
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245