Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - James S. Rustad

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 85
1
Your Turn / Re: Culture Wars at a Library
« on: Yesterday at 12:25:24 PM »
I've also known parents who tried to change their child's sexual urges - with disastrous results. Sexual orientation is not changeable. Teaching children about homosexuality doesn't turn them into homosexuals. Teaching children about adultery doesn't turn them into adulterers. (Nor will it stop them from lusting. Although such thoughts can become a topic of confession.

Why are you so certain that "Sexual orientation is not changeable"?  It's not clear that it is genetic.  It's not clear that it is learned.  The best science seems able to say is that we do not know.  The paper below is just one example.  It's easy to find more evidence of the lack of clarity in this area.

I am certain because when I look at my life, being attracted to females was nothing I learned; it just happened. I couldn't imagine wanting to be a life-long sexual relationship with a male.

What seems certain is that sexual orientations and identities are much more complex than genetics, hormones, and chromosomes. Like handedness, we know it happens, but haven't yet discovered why.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

You didn't ask for data or even proof, but why I was so certain. I gave my answer.

If you can't give anecdotal evidence that Jesus is alive and powerful, why should anyone believe that what you proclaim is true? An important question to ask when discerning truths from scriptures: If this is true, how is it evident in my life or in the life of someone I know?

My response was that your reasoning is fallacious.

I am certain because when I look at my life, being attracted to females was nothing I learned; it just happened. I couldn't imagine wanting to be a life-long sexual relationship with a male.
Therefore:
Sexual orientation is not changeable.

“My grandfather was a heavy smoker most of his life, but he lived to be 90 years old. Therefore, smoking is not harmful to people.”

2
Your Turn / Re: Culture Wars at a Library
« on: August 06, 2022, 10:37:29 PM »
I've also known parents who tried to change their child's sexual urges - with disastrous results. Sexual orientation is not changeable. Teaching children about homosexuality doesn't turn them into homosexuals. Teaching children about adultery doesn't turn them into adulterers. (Nor will it stop them from lusting. Although such thoughts can become a topic of confession.

Why are you so certain that "Sexual orientation is not changeable"?  It's not clear that it is genetic.  It's not clear that it is learned.  The best science seems able to say is that we do not know.  The paper below is just one example.  It's easy to find more evidence of the lack of clarity in this area.

I am certain because when I look at my life, being attracted to females was nothing I learned; it just happened. I couldn't imagine wanting to be a life-long sexual relationship with a male.

What seems certain is that sexual orientations and identities are much more complex than genetics, hormones, and chromosomes. Like handedness, we know it happens, but haven't yet discovered why.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

3
Your Turn / Re: Culture Wars at a Library
« on: August 06, 2022, 12:08:22 PM »
I've also known parents who tried to change their child's sexual urges - with disastrous results. Sexual orientation is not changeable. Teaching children about homosexuality doesn't turn them into homosexuals. Teaching children about adultery doesn't turn them into adulterers. (Nor will it stop them from lusting. Although such thoughts can become a topic of confession.

Why are you so certain that "Sexual orientation is not changeable"?  It's not clear that it is genetic.  It's not clear that it is learned.  The best science seems able to say is that we do not know.  The paper below is just one example.  It's easy to find more evidence of the lack of clarity in this area.

Genetic analysis of behavioral differences among human beings requires both careful experimental design and appropriate genetic models. Any genetic study must be (1) valid and precise measures of individual differences, (2) appropriate methods to ascertain biological relationships, (3) research subjects who have been randomly recruited, (4) appropriate sample sizes, and (5) appropriate genetic models to interpret the data. In addition, the researchers must exercise caution in interpreting biosocial effects from the observed phenotypic correlations. To date, all studies of the genetic basis of sexual orientation of men and women have failed to meet one or more or any of the above criteria.

4
Your Turn / Re: Culture Wars at a Library
« on: August 05, 2022, 10:36:33 AM »

After the March board meeting, Greenlee compiled a seven-page response to Kruckenberg’s allegations that included a diversity audit of the children’s book collection. At an April 13 library board meeting, she presented her findings, which showed that of the nearly 5,800 children’s books and other materials in the library, only seven books had subject headings with the terms “LGBT,” “gay” or “transgender.” There were 31 books with Christian-related subject headings.

I don't think counting certain words in the titles or subject headings is an accurate method to do a "diversity audit".  I am reminded of the book my son purchased at a bookstore because it contained cartoons that he found funny.  Nothing in the title or description indicated anything that I found objectionable.  I even skimmed through it.  Later that day he came to me and said "This book is inappropriate for me." and showed me a cartoon a short way into the book.  Yep.  Back to the bookstore it went.

5
Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news
« on: August 04, 2022, 07:59:42 PM »
The "gain-of-function" argument heats up again.

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) accused White House coronavirus adviser Anthony Fauci of misleading the public about the U.S. government's funding of gain-of-function research.

"When Dr. Fauci said that this research was reviewed and found to be safe by experts, that was also a lie," said Paul in an interview on Thursday.

6
Your Turn / Re: Would a Good Samaritan kill someone?
« on: July 25, 2022, 02:14:11 PM »
And does the amendment from a time of muskets and flintlocks need to be rethought when gun violence is wrought by 21st century weapons?

There is an amendment process.  Feel free to avail yourself of it.  Good luck!

7
Your Turn / Re: Would a Good Samaritan kill someone?
« on: July 24, 2022, 04:03:46 PM »
I question if "regulated" ever meant "equipped." It comes from Latin regulare, "to rule." "Well regulated" would seem to mean, "to follow the rules." In a similar way, the "irregular ordinations" that took place prior to 2009 in the ELCA, were not "according to the rules."

Here's the great thing about constitutional law and legal precedent:  your dictionary "skill" (searching for a definition that suits your argument and imposing it on others in discussion) have absolutely zero relevance.  Just because you analogize something doesn't make it so.

If you want to learn about what those words mean in the legal/constitutional context, go read Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court in Heller.  Many people opposed to guns continue to insist, like you do, that "well regulated" in this context means something other than it does.  Well regulated does not mean that a state or national government can regulate gun ownership out of existence by ignoring the "right to keep and bear arms" wording of the main clause.  That includes arbitrary or impossible regulatory burdens as was the controversy in the recent New York state concealed carry case just decide.  Looking ahead, it will also be an impossible "regulation" to require so frequent "re-training" classes as to make maintaining your qualification status impossible.  That's regulating something out of existence, not unlike the power to tax is the power to destroy, which is the root of religious organizations  having tax-exempt status.


"Well regulated" doesn't modify "arms," but "militia. When the "demonstration" on Jan 6 became unregulated, i.e., breaking the rules; they became criminals. When a group of people with their legally owned arms become unregulated, they have become criminals.

Thanks for re-affirming your abject rudeness by responding to my post without dealing with the substance of what I wrote.  Obviously you didn't comprehend that I directed you to the Supreme Court's Heller decision which explicitly refutes this, so you didn't bother trying to read it.  As others have already commented, your interpretation has zero value or credibility, given the Supreme Court decision.

Of course you are free to believe whatever you want, even if it is wrong.  But that's your problem here most of the time, you behave as if any grammatical construct you can comment on is automatically correct and challenge people to prove you wrong.  Even after they have before you even make an attempt.

I should of course be terrified at your ignorance for your non sequitor about well-regulated to declaring people criminals for breaking rules.  Normally breaking a law is what makes people criminals, not being "unregulated", whatever you think you mean in this context.  As I mentioned above, the Heller decision explicitly recognizes that guns may be prohibited in sensitive areas.  Of course if anyone carried a weapon into the Capitol, that would be a crime.  Mostly that is not what has been talked about.  It's having weapons outside the Capitol.  I dispute your attempt at reflexively trying to criminalize that by your invocation here of "unregulated".  The entire point of the right to keep and bear arms is that it does not happen at the sufferance or require the permission of any government, absent a showing from government that it needs to be controlled.  I deliberately don't use the term "regulated" because that word in the amendment has nothing to do with what regular people call gun regulations.


I find that Heller defines "regulated" exactly as I did: Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”). (pp. 23-24)

Perhaps you should do further research to understand what you are citing.

In Federalist Paper #29, Alexander Hamilton uses the term "well regulated militia" in the sense of a militia that is trained, equipped, and capable of fulfilling its purpose.
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Silence Dogood uses the term "well regulated" in the same sense as Hamilton above when observing:
And here it will not be improper to observe, That the moderate Use of Liquor, and a well plac’d and well regulated Anger, often produce this same Effect; and some who cannot ordinarily talk but in broken Sentences and false Grammar, do in the Heat of Passion express themselves with as much Eloquence as Warmth.

In a letter to Benjamin Franklin in London, Thomas Bond describes the state of things at home.  He uses the term "well regulated" to describe the state of the House of Employment.  Clearly this is the same sense of "well regulated" used by Hamilton and Dogood.
The Hospital flourishes much, the Old Managers stick to it steadily, the House of Employment is at present well regulated, the Colledge is as when you left it, The School of Physic, could we Streighten one or two Crooked Ribs amongst us, would soon make a considerable Figure, every Branch of Medicine is really well taught in it.

I recommend a search of the National Archives for the term "well-regulated".
https://founders.archives.gov/index.xqy?q=well-regulated&s=1111211111&sa=&r=1&sr=

Certainly, the militia clauses of the US Constitution grant the federal government a number of powers regarding the militia.  Those powers do not mean that the federal government can "regulate gun ownership out of existence" (as MaddogLutheran pointed out above).  But that's in the militia clauses.  There is no grant of power to the federal government in the Second Amendment.

8
Your Turn / Re: Would a Good Samaritan kill someone?
« on: July 23, 2022, 03:07:24 PM »
Numerous constitutional scholars believe the second amendment refers to the state militias and not the individual gun owners.

These would be constitutional scholars who believe something contrary to the clear rulings from SCOTUS about the Second Amendment.  I'll go with what SCOTUS says instead.

9
Your Turn / Re: Would a Good Samaritan kill someone?
« on: July 23, 2022, 03:01:47 PM »

Are you opposed to mandatory gun training or not? Apparently, some states require training others do not. I do not propose that all states must impose additional training to what they already require but that states who do not require training should require it.

My understanding is that in EVERY state, for a concealed handgun permit, there is mandatory coursework and training.  Obviously it will vary from state to state, but there is no state in the union where you can simply go in and get a CHP without taking the required course first.  Here in Nebraska, it is 8 hours in the class and 2 hours at the range, with the requirement of passing a range safety and shooting test, along with a written test first.  Nebraska, I've been told by a certified state police instructor, has some of the more lax requirements for the CHP.

It is my understanding from various sources including Georgia code, that Georgia does not require training for a concealed carry permit.  Georgia has now moved to allowing permitless carry, but I believe they will still issue permits for those who want one for use in states that recognize Georgia permits.

Below is from the Georgia Code section regarding concealed carry permit applications:
(a.1) Gun safety information.

(1) Upon receipt of an application for a weapons carry license or renewal license, the judge of the probate court may provide applicants printed information on gun safety that is produced by any person or organization that, in the discretion of the judge of the probate court, offers practical advice for gun safety.  The source of such printed information shall be prominently displayed on such printed information.

(2) The Department of Natural Resources shall maintain on its principal, public website information, or a hyperlink to information, which provides resources for information on hunter education and classes and courses in this state that render instruction in gun safety.  No person shall be required to take such classes or courses for purposes of this Code section where such information shall be provided solely for the convenience of the citizens of this state.

(3) Neither the judge of the probate court nor the Department of Natural Resources shall be liable to any person for personal injuries or damage to property arising from conformance to this subsection.

Is training a good idea?  You bet!  But it is not a requirement for a concealed carry permit in at least one state.  There are likely others.

10
Your Turn / Re: Would a Good Samaritan kill someone?
« on: July 22, 2022, 12:53:54 PM »
It seems to me that the 2nd Amendment calls for training. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What do you think was meant by "well regulated"?

If civilians plan to use their arms for the necessity of the security of a free State - just like the military and law enforcement do - why shouldn't they all have the same training?

In US v Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States shoots down your argument that the Second Amendment grants the government any authority to require training to exercise "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Now, if you want to argue that the government has the authority to require that every citizen be trained in the use of arms, well, that falls under the militia clauses.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-15%E2%80%9316
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

11
Your Turn / Re: Would a Good Samaritan kill someone?
« on: July 21, 2022, 05:45:45 PM »
CDC WISQARS Non-Fatal Accidents 2001-2020
RankCause of InjuryNumber
1Unintentional Fall167959317
2Unintentional Struck By/Against83016455
3Unintentional Overexertion61396600
4Unintentional MV-Occupant52337178
5Unintentional Cut/Pierce41160894
6Unintentional Other Specified27749865
7Unintentional Other Bite/Sting21105233
8Unintentional Poisoning20858231
9Unintentional Unknown/Unspecified14008972
10Unintentional Foreign Body11448884
11Unintentional Other Transport11308400
12Unintentional Pedal Cyclist9205824
13Unintentional Fire/Burn8011430
14Unintentional Dog Bite6747737
15Unintentional Motorcyclist4706886
16Unintentional Machinery4269191
17Unintentional Pedestrian3608016
18Unintentional Natural/Environment1109966
19Unintentional Inhalation/Suffocation977774
20Unintentional Firearm Gunshot359419

CDC WISQARS Fatal Accidents 2001-2020
RankMechanismNumber of Deaths
1Motor vehicle, traffic774909
2Drug Poisoning736482
3Fall547043
4Suffocation125256
5Unspecified123983
6Drowning (includes water transport)78558
7Fire/Flame58582
8Non-Drug Poisoning52142
9Natural/Environmental33622
10Other specified and classifiable28176
11Transport, other land27182
12Other specified/NEC22062
13Pedestrian, other20815
14Struck by/against16940
15Transport, other (excl. drown by water transp)13194
16Machinery12528
17Firearm11914
18Pedal cyclist, other5646
19Cut/Pierce2416
20Hot object/Substance1617

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

12
Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: July 19, 2022, 12:33:26 PM »
Do you believe theft could be a morally responsible choice to feed a starving child? If so, does that mean you are pro-choice when it comes to theft? That you protest laws against theft?
Theft is illegal. Abortions are not. There are other options for food besides theft. We hope hungry folks choose them. There are other options to abortions (in most cases). We hope pregnant women choose them.

Theft is illegal.  Abortions are also illegal in Wisconsin as reported by Wisconsin Public Radio.

Nearly all abortions are now illegal in Wisconsin.

The U.S. Supreme Court released a decision Friday overturning Roe v. Wade. The landmark case made abortion a constitutional right within the first two trimesters of a pregnancy — when a fetus is unable to survive outside the womb. Now the legality of the health care procedure is up to states.

In Wisconsin, the state's 173-year-old abortion ban is once again the law of the land, making the procedure illegal unless deemed medically necessary to save the patient's life. Providing an abortion is now a felony punishable by up to six years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

13
Your Turn / Re: Would a Good Samaritan kill someone?
« on: July 18, 2022, 01:34:16 PM »
The armed citizen who stopped the shooter is a good samaritan.  He acted to protect those in danger.

14
Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: July 16, 2022, 08:39:34 PM »
For heaven sakes, Peter! Our son was about five weeks old when we adopted him, therefore the child reference was correct. He is now 53 years old, so a reference to him as our child would seem strange. What was your point? My point was that a lot of choices went into that, those choices belonging not just to me but to the birth mother and other people as well.

Charles- as an adoptive father myself, I have to say, even given her successful completion of year one of Law School, she is my child and shall be so until I die. I get what you meant to do now with your explanation, but honestly, at first reading, as an adoptive dad, I found it creepy and low key offensive.

As did I.  My adopted son is my child.  He will always be my son.  He will always be my child, not my "child".

So, if you're talking with a stranger about your child, and use the word child, what age do you think is in the mind of the stranger?

That has exactly nothing to do with Charles's offensive use of scare quotes around the word child.

15
Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: July 16, 2022, 02:31:38 PM »
For heaven sakes, Peter! Our son was about five weeks old when we adopted him, therefore the child reference was correct. He is now 53 years old, so a reference to him as our child would seem strange. What was your point? My point was that a lot of choices went into that, those choices belonging not just to me but to the birth mother and other people as well.

Charles- as an adoptive father myself, I have to say, even given her successful completion of year one of Law School, she is my child and shall be so until I die. I get what you meant to do now with your explanation, but honestly, at first reading, as an adoptive dad, I found it creepy and low key offensive.

As did I.  My adopted son is my child.  He will always be my son.  He will always be my child, not my "child".

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 85