-8 pts ยท March 6, 2018
I know. No good nurse/dr. would intentionally inject an empty syringe into an i.v. because the risk, even if small, is there, and with literally no benefit. So why argue for something like that being safe? Because there aren't any published articles? Of course not, people aren't doing it at scale. My intention is not to insult your years of experience as a nurse. Most people may do fine with the syringe, but putting out that it's safe, I disagree with. If that makes me a troll, then fine.
If you agree it's not safe to randomly inject people with substantial amounts of air we're on the same page, because that what I find egregious. I never argued incidental air bubbles were an issue. As mentioned in your reference 30 percent of people may have a PFO. Venous air can become arterial air easily. Of course literature doesn't speak on something that's not routinely done at scale, but any medical practitioner should rely on judgement as well as evidence.
I hope you and the surgeon friend enjoy that good laugh, but afterwards be sure to ask if he'd be willing to inject a full syringe of air into the IV of his next patient, since your brief google search didn't list it as a cause of air emboli.
I say 'can' because intravascular air has been demonstrated to cause clinically significant morbidity and mortality in specific cases. Not having an exact amount doesn't invalidate that point. Since it's been a problem for some all you need is common sense to know injecting air into iv's isn't something that should be waived off as safe. Comparing that to drinking water is disingenuous. Don't be ridiculous.
They inflate the intraabdominal cavity, the space between your organs, that air doesn't go into your veins. It's not the same.
This is very inaccurate. Air in IVs can be a big problem. bubble studies are performed in a controlled setting and fashion. Look up "air embolism" instead.
"in God we trust" on money can go. I would support open prayers being changed to a "moment of silence" during which anyone of faith could pray silently and those without faith could take a moment of meditation or self reflection. I support separation of church & state. Being objective is supporting things I don't agree with, personally. If a judge, due to her faith, abstains from certifying anyone, she's not discriminating, and it's a non issue. I support that. That would be fair.
I would fight for my right to be provided equal rights in general. I would NOT fight to force any individual to provide me that right against their faith. Gays should have service. No one person should be forced to provide that service against their faith. These 2 views are not contradictory or hypocritical. People of your "anti-christian'' faith should certify marriages for everyone or no one at all and pass part of their job to someone else. Same as what should be the case with this judge.
The main issue is the word 'marriage'. That union has an important part in religion, but the government started using it, and so when the government tried to change the definition to better fit the needs of the citizens, religious people got upset. Really, the government should use 'civic union' for everyone and leave the word marriage alone. Gays and Christians can decide if they want to use or accept the word in their personal communities, but it should have no place in government.
And why do you think Mitch did that? He's a puppet. Get rid of Mitch then. There will be another Mitch. He's being controlled by money. Corporate interests. You gotta cut off the problem at the source.
We've already had years when the Democrats had the majority in Congress. We've had 8 years of Obama. If republicans were "significantly worse" why aren't things "significantly better" when democrats are in charge? The changes have been minimal at best, but keep drinking the cool aid. Republicans are only as bad as they are because the broken system allows them to be. They are a symptom, not the problem. You already admit democrats are bought off also. Money in politics is the real problem.
This would also help voter apathy. Many people don't vote because they feel (whether or not it's true) that their vote doesn't count, since they live in an overwhelming red or blue state. They might vote anyway if they knew registering would literally financially support their candidate, helping them buy more ads for their candidate, etc.
Andrew Yang had an good idea I don't think got enough press. Democracy dollars. Each voter is assigned a certain amount of money ($100 for example), and they can assign it to the candidate of their choosing. Imagine if politicians were forced to run campaigns ONLY using those funds. No personal money or corporate/private donations. All of a sudden, politicians would care more about what the average American would think on issues. Right now everyone yells into the void for change. Money talks.
Nope. This is not a partisan issue. Democrats are also super corrupt. Voting out republicans changes nothing. The real problem is money in politics. Student debt, the economy, and many other problems are the result of broken systems. They aren't fixed cuz everyone in d.c. is bought off. First we need campaign finance reform. Get all the lobbyists and corporate backers out of Washington. Get the money out of politics, and politicians will focus on the needs of the people.
The post is about the judge. She's doesn't feel comfortable certifying gay marriages due her bias/faith, and should not be forced to. That's my point. Here, pro-lgbtq would be that she is very comfortable performing this for them. It's not about the rights of gay people to get married in general. It's also true excluding them is discriminatory at the civic level. Best solution is for her to refrain from certifying anyone, and passing this part of her job off to judges comfortable with this.
This is a good point. Probably the best solution is for those judges to abstain from the marriage license certification of their jobs altogether. This is similar to how some doctors don't feel comfortable prescribing birth control, but keep contact information handy for those doctors that do, so they can direct patients that need that service to someone that can help them.
The religious right is to allow people to live and operate within their faith. Of course Gay people exist. Guess what? So do Christians. We should do our best to live amicably together. I apologize if you've experienced hate and bigotry but Christianity, in purest form, is exemplified by love for God and fellow man. The gay lifestyle is not compatible with Christianity. I accept gay people but don't affirm that lifestyle which isn't enough for some people. Refusal to affirm is not bigotry.
I don't agree that the religious right to abstain from performing a gay ceremony shouldn't exist. She should not be coerced to act against her faith. If you're not from that faith it can be difficult to understand. I DO also see your point regarding the importance of avoiding discrimination. This point is also very valid and important. The best reconciliation is probably for her to resign or abstain from performing marriage altogether deferring to other judges. Thanks for your comment.
Everyone wants to make this about gay marriage equality. I believe they should have the same access to marriage as everyone else. That right should not be imposed on, but I also believe the judge's religious rights shouldn't be imposed on. Her rights are the point of the post. Both are important, objectively. Allow gay people to marry. Allow her to abstain from officiating. My point was that people are generally unwilling to consider other people's rights/values that don't align with their own.
Don't confuse "due to my faith I don't want to officiate gay weddings" with "I don't think gay people should be allowed to be married." They are not the same, although admittedly many hold both views. I don't. There are many things we each believe in for ourselves, but those beliefs shouldn't restrict the rights of others. The judge shouldn't be forced into performing marriages against her beliefs. Gay people shouldn't be restricted from marriage due to their beliefs/lifestyle.
People confuse "due to my faith I don't want to officiate gay weddings" with "I don't think gay people should be allowed to be married." They are not the same, although admittedly many hold both views. I don't. I do have a bias just like everyone, but unlike many of the comments here, I respect those whose bias and opinions differ from my own. I support the judge's right. This does not take away from anyone else's
It's true. everyone has bias. A judge should strive to rule objectively despite their bias. Many of the comments on this post are only angry because the bias is against their viewpoint. They would be fine with the judge's bias if it were super pro-lgbtq, even though that would be the same thing. Thus, the issue isn't really objectivity. It's "this person disagrees with me" so "they are the enemy" Similar to how this very comment will be down voted for the same reason.
Even as some one who tends to be right leaning, politically, it's obvious any type of book banning or burning or other similar censorship of ideas is never the answer. This tactic will not age well.
Exactly! And if they identify as a desk or a pocket watch what difference does it make? Feelings over Facts after all. You know you can still accept people for who they are without accepting all of their beliefs. People are more than their gender or gender identity. Just saying.
Campaign finance is very underrated as an issue. So many problems won't change because of money in politics.
Right! This is beyond sad. There's NOTHING that could have happened that justified this killing. Lock them all up and throw away the key.
Disagree. As anyone who's been paying attention, "more dangerous" is a REALLY tall order.
In partisan politics people don't vote FOR. They vote AGAINST what they hate in the other side. This is how trash candidates get elected.
What makes America great is the ideals it was founded on. However 100% agree corporate greed & corruption has put us FAR behind IRL.
I know. No good nurse/dr. would intentionally inject an empty syringe into an i.v. because the risk, even if small, is there, and with literally no benefit. So why argue for something like that being safe? Because there aren't any published articles? Of course not, people aren't doing it at scale. My intention is not to insult your years of experience as a nurse. Most people may do fine with the syringe, but putting out that it's safe, I disagree with. If that makes me a troll, then fine.
If you agree it's not safe to randomly inject people with substantial amounts of air we're on the same page, because that what I find egregious. I never argued incidental air bubbles were an issue. As mentioned in your reference 30 percent of people may have a PFO. Venous air can become arterial air easily. Of course literature doesn't speak on something that's not routinely done at scale, but any medical practitioner should rely on judgement as well as evidence.
I hope you and the surgeon friend enjoy that good laugh, but afterwards be sure to ask if he'd be willing to inject a full syringe of air into the IV of his next patient, since your brief google search didn't list it as a cause of air emboli.
I say 'can' because intravascular air has been demonstrated to cause clinically significant morbidity and mortality in specific cases. Not having an exact amount doesn't invalidate that point. Since it's been a problem for some all you need is common sense to know injecting air into iv's isn't something that should be waived off as safe. Comparing that to drinking water is disingenuous. Don't be ridiculous.
They inflate the intraabdominal cavity, the space between your organs, that air doesn't go into your veins. It's not the same.
This is very inaccurate. Air in IVs can be a big problem. bubble studies are performed in a controlled setting and fashion. Look up "air embolism" instead.
"in God we trust" on money can go. I would support open prayers being changed to a "moment of silence" during which anyone of faith could pray silently and those without faith could take a moment of meditation or self reflection. I support separation of church & state. Being objective is supporting things I don't agree with, personally. If a judge, due to her faith, abstains from certifying anyone, she's not discriminating, and it's a non issue. I support that. That would be fair.
I would fight for my right to be provided equal rights in general. I would NOT fight to force any individual to provide me that right against their faith. Gays should have service. No one person should be forced to provide that service against their faith. These 2 views are not contradictory or hypocritical. People of your "anti-christian'' faith should certify marriages for everyone or no one at all and pass part of their job to someone else. Same as what should be the case with this judge.
The main issue is the word 'marriage'. That union has an important part in religion, but the government started using it, and so when the government tried to change the definition to better fit the needs of the citizens, religious people got upset. Really, the government should use 'civic union' for everyone and leave the word marriage alone. Gays and Christians can decide if they want to use or accept the word in their personal communities, but it should have no place in government.
And why do you think Mitch did that? He's a puppet. Get rid of Mitch then. There will be another Mitch. He's being controlled by money. Corporate interests. You gotta cut off the problem at the source.
We've already had years when the Democrats had the majority in Congress. We've had 8 years of Obama. If republicans were "significantly worse" why aren't things "significantly better" when democrats are in charge? The changes have been minimal at best, but keep drinking the cool aid. Republicans are only as bad as they are because the broken system allows them to be. They are a symptom, not the problem. You already admit democrats are bought off also. Money in politics is the real problem.
This would also help voter apathy. Many people don't vote because they feel (whether or not it's true) that their vote doesn't count, since they live in an overwhelming red or blue state. They might vote anyway if they knew registering would literally financially support their candidate, helping them buy more ads for their candidate, etc.
Andrew Yang had an good idea I don't think got enough press. Democracy dollars. Each voter is assigned a certain amount of money ($100 for example), and they can assign it to the candidate of their choosing. Imagine if politicians were forced to run campaigns ONLY using those funds. No personal money or corporate/private donations. All of a sudden, politicians would care more about what the average American would think on issues. Right now everyone yells into the void for change. Money talks.
Nope. This is not a partisan issue. Democrats are also super corrupt. Voting out republicans changes nothing. The real problem is money in politics. Student debt, the economy, and many other problems are the result of broken systems. They aren't fixed cuz everyone in d.c. is bought off. First we need campaign finance reform. Get all the lobbyists and corporate backers out of Washington. Get the money out of politics, and politicians will focus on the needs of the people.
The post is about the judge. She's doesn't feel comfortable certifying gay marriages due her bias/faith, and should not be forced to. That's my point. Here, pro-lgbtq would be that she is very comfortable performing this for them. It's not about the rights of gay people to get married in general. It's also true excluding them is discriminatory at the civic level. Best solution is for her to refrain from certifying anyone, and passing this part of her job off to judges comfortable with this.
This is a good point. Probably the best solution is for those judges to abstain from the marriage license certification of their jobs altogether. This is similar to how some doctors don't feel comfortable prescribing birth control, but keep contact information handy for those doctors that do, so they can direct patients that need that service to someone that can help them.
The religious right is to allow people to live and operate within their faith. Of course Gay people exist. Guess what? So do Christians. We should do our best to live amicably together. I apologize if you've experienced hate and bigotry but Christianity, in purest form, is exemplified by love for God and fellow man. The gay lifestyle is not compatible with Christianity. I accept gay people but don't affirm that lifestyle which isn't enough for some people. Refusal to affirm is not bigotry.
I don't agree that the religious right to abstain from performing a gay ceremony shouldn't exist. She should not be coerced to act against her faith. If you're not from that faith it can be difficult to understand. I DO also see your point regarding the importance of avoiding discrimination. This point is also very valid and important. The best reconciliation is probably for her to resign or abstain from performing marriage altogether deferring to other judges. Thanks for your comment.
Everyone wants to make this about gay marriage equality. I believe they should have the same access to marriage as everyone else. That right should not be imposed on, but I also believe the judge's religious rights shouldn't be imposed on. Her rights are the point of the post. Both are important, objectively. Allow gay people to marry. Allow her to abstain from officiating. My point was that people are generally unwilling to consider other people's rights/values that don't align with their own.
Don't confuse "due to my faith I don't want to officiate gay weddings" with "I don't think gay people should be allowed to be married." They are not the same, although admittedly many hold both views. I don't. There are many things we each believe in for ourselves, but those beliefs shouldn't restrict the rights of others. The judge shouldn't be forced into performing marriages against her beliefs. Gay people shouldn't be restricted from marriage due to their beliefs/lifestyle.
People confuse "due to my faith I don't want to officiate gay weddings" with "I don't think gay people should be allowed to be married." They are not the same, although admittedly many hold both views. I don't. I do have a bias just like everyone, but unlike many of the comments here, I respect those whose bias and opinions differ from my own. I support the judge's right. This does not take away from anyone else's
It's true. everyone has bias. A judge should strive to rule objectively despite their bias. Many of the comments on this post are only angry because the bias is against their viewpoint. They would be fine with the judge's bias if it were super pro-lgbtq, even though that would be the same thing. Thus, the issue isn't really objectivity. It's "this person disagrees with me" so "they are the enemy" Similar to how this very comment will be down voted for the same reason.
Even as some one who tends to be right leaning, politically, it's obvious any type of book banning or burning or other similar censorship of ideas is never the answer. This tactic will not age well.
Exactly! And if they identify as a desk or a pocket watch what difference does it make? Feelings over Facts after all. You know you can still accept people for who they are without accepting all of their beliefs. People are more than their gender or gender identity. Just saying.
Campaign finance is very underrated as an issue. So many problems won't change because of money in politics.
Right! This is beyond sad. There's NOTHING that could have happened that justified this killing. Lock them all up and throw away the key.
Disagree. As anyone who's been paying attention, "more dangerous" is a REALLY tall order.
In partisan politics people don't vote FOR. They vote AGAINST what they hate in the other side. This is how trash candidates get elected.
What makes America great is the ideals it was founded on. However 100% agree corporate greed & corruption has put us FAR behind IRL.