Maybe we should have a general Meatball Ron (desantis) thread

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,539
30,020
136
I trust nothing out of the Florida legislature, but I'd like to see real data on this one with regards to the benefits and cons. The wiki page for this material appears to be biased, but it was claiming extremely low levels of radioactivity due to trace amounts of Uranium. No claims were made to how good of pavement it would actually make, though.

Seems like spreading it out and encasing it might be better than just huge open air piles of it.
I am most concerned about the impact on those that would have to deal this material on a daily basis - construction workers. I can’t imagine we would not have a situation in 20 years where they are dying en mass.

A repeat of the asbestos shit show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,255
136
I am most concerned about the impact on those that would have to deal this material on a daily basis - construction workers. I can’t imagine we would not have a situation in 20 years where they are dying en mass.

A repeat of the asbestos shit show.
Yeah, that was my primary concern too.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
26,060
24,365
136
I wonder for when Disney is saving the statement 'we are pausing our future multi billion dollar investments in Florida while we are under attack for exercising our 1st amendment rights and focus our energy on our just legal battles with the governor'
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,260
2,358
136
In the novel Blade Runner is based on, Deckard wears a lead codpiece for protection from radioactive dust.


Thanks for the idea. I guess I need something like this. :p

IMG_2123.jpg
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,480
10,926
136
I wonder for when Disney is saving the statement 'we are pausing our future multi billion dollar investments in Florida while we are under attack for exercising our 1st amendment rights and focus our energy on our just legal battles with the governor'

I give you:

Well, Low-Wattage Ron Dishonest, answer the question.


 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
38,769
31,823
136

Really? So birth control can be denied to couples not married?

Someone comes in for care with a Satanic tatoo on their arm, care denied?

Moral grounds? Don't believe in interracial marriage?

Treatment for Muslims?

Woman is raped and need emergency contraception?
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Pohemi

Pohemi

Lifer
Oct 2, 2004
10,859
16,928
146
Any medical professional that would support this has absolutely no business working in the medical field. It's a violation of their Hippocratic Oath to be subjectively selective on who to treat or not.

I'm sure most of FL's government is perfectly fine with that.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
Oh providers are telling these places to fuck off.


Idaho is running into issues having enough OB providers around to do deliveries. They are all leaving that shithole state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba and Pohemi

Pohemi

Lifer
Oct 2, 2004
10,859
16,928
146
Oh providers are telling these places to fuck off.
GOP is making their own radical policies in fields they have no right to fuck with, and wondering why people start fleeing their states.

I feel bad for any pregnant women in those areas that can't even get proper care because so many doctors and staff have left.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,260
2,358
136

Really? So birth control can be denied to couples not married?

Someone comes in for care with a Satanic tatoo on their arm, care denied?

Moral grounds? Don't believe in interracial marriage?

Treatment for Muslims?

Woman is raped and need emergency contraception?




I would think something could be done at the federal level to counter this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Dave_5k

Platinum Member
May 23, 2017
2,007
3,820
136
GOP is making their own radical policies in fields they have no right to fuck with, and wondering why people start fleeing their states.

I feel bad for any pregnant women in those areas that can't even get proper care because so many doctors and staff have left.
I also feel bad for the OB doctors and staff that are stuck with the choice in Idaho between (a) moving, or (b) violating their Hippocratic oath, or (c) risking jail for saving women's lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Pohemi

Lifer
Oct 2, 2004
10,859
16,928
146
I also feel bad for the OB doctors and staff that are stuck with the choice in Idaho between (a) moving, or (b) violating their Hippocratic oath, or (c) risking jail for saving women's lives.
Right. I do not blame doctors for leaving, but being able to afford to move doesn't make it easy to just pick up and leave established practices, force the moves on their families, etc. Being the best choice doesn't make it the easiest one.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,849
3,279
136

Really? So birth control can be denied to couples not married?

Someone comes in for care with a Satanic tatoo on their arm, care denied?

Moral grounds? Don't believe in interracial marriage?

Treatment for Muslims?

Woman is raped and need emergency contraception?

The satanic tattoo example isn't correct as the law provides protection against religious discrimination, but someone can be denied care based on their sexuality.
 

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,499
3,039
136
The satanic tattoo example isn't correct as the law provides protection against religious discrimination, but someone can be denied care based on their sexuality.
Isn't that contradictory? Isn't the basis of these laws derived from what they considered "their" religious beliefs, as misguided as they are, to begin with? Sounds like selective choosing of when/what religion, and what beliefs they will consider discrimination. Basically, if one is allowed and one is not, then they have to apply a different set of rules to what is considered religious discrimination to each. If they used the same set of rules, that where honest, both would be protected under religious discrimination.

However, what will end up happening is only Christian values and beliefs will be protected under the religious discrimination clause. Everything else will be considered non religious discrimination because it isn't supported by their misguided religious beliefs. Specially when all the doctors, hospitals, etc just has to say that it goes against their religious beliefs to treat such a person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,255
136
GOP is making their own radical policies in fields they have no right to fuck with, and wondering why people start fleeing their states.

I feel bad for any pregnant women in those areas that can't even get proper care because so many doctors and staff have left.
I think they are fine with the fleeing. When the sane people leave it helps solidify their power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,849
3,279
136
Isn't that contradictory? Isn't the basis of these laws derived from what they considered "their" religious beliefs, as misguided as they are, to begin with? Sounds like selective choosing of when/what religion, and what beliefs they will consider discrimination. Basically, if one is allowed and one is not, then they have to apply a different set of rules to what is considered religious discrimination to each. If they used the same set of rules, that where honest, both would be protected under religious discrimination.

However, what will end up happening is only Christian values and beliefs will be protected under the religious discrimination clause. Everything else will be considered non religious discrimination because it isn't supported by their misguided religious beliefs. Specially when all the doctors, hospitals, etc just has to say that it goes against their religious beliefs to treat such a person.

There's nothing honest about what they are doing. I would also say it's a waste of time trying to apply logic to their hypocrisy.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Pohemi

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,499
3,039
136
There's nothing honest about what they are doing. I would also say it's a waste of time trying to apply logic to their hypocrisy.
I agree, but aren't you the one who tried to add logic first, claiming that the satanic tattoo was protected under religious discrimination clause of the law? That was a logical conclusion based on that clause, right?
 
Last edited:

kitkat22

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2005
1,464
1,332
136
I posted this the SB1580 in the anti-LGBTQ thread. I'm a physician and I have soooo many problems with this law.

They do include some anti-discriminatory language, but watch this -

"It's my sincere religious belief to not use drugs, I shouldn't have to treat drug abusers."

"It's my sincere religious belief to not be gay or be in gay relationships, I shouldn't have to provide this HIV medication. They should face the consequences of their actions."

"it's my sincere religious belief transgender people don't exist, I shouldn't have to prescribe hormone therapy."

"it's my sincere religious belief to not kill people, I shouldn't have to take care of this prisoner convicted of murder."

I'm a hospitalist. I take care of patients in the hospital. I don't care who comes through the door, my goal is to care for them in the best way I know how. I have been privileged to help care for gay couples, transgender individuals, drug addicts (a lot of drug addicts), prisoners, etc and my goal is to treat them with the same decency and respect I would give to anyone. This also means I need to know how to care for them which is part of my training and medical degree.

The author of this bill is supposedly a doctor who stated "I am a patriotic doctor." I believe in the Bible, the constitution and hippocratic oath. Sounds like an attempt to establish religion to me.

EDIT: BTW, as a hospitalist, I don't get to choose my patients. I take what I'm given which includes some very difficult cases. Just the thought of trying to discriminate against anyone of the above cases just makes my blood boil and I'm a religious person.
 
Last edited:

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,849
3,279
136
I agree, but aren't you the one who tried to add logic first, claiming that the satanic tattoo was protected under religious discrimination clause of the law? That was a logical conclusion based on that clause, right?

Nope, the article stated.. ”While the legislation says that health care providers can't use it to deny care based on a patient's race, color, religion, sex or national origin”
 

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,499
3,039
136
Nope, the article stated.. ”While the legislation says that health care providers can't use it to deny care based on a patient's race, color, religion, sex or national origin”
I don't see Satanic Tattoos in there anywhere. If you didn't use logic, then what brought you to the conclusion that Satan warship is covered under religion, or rather what brought you to the conclusion that Satanic tattoos was a bad example? Logically, you are correct, but I believe I answered that logical conclusion in the last part of my post #317. You know, the one you responded to about logic, when you used logic yourself to begin with. Or do you not understand how the though process works, and conclusions are reached?
 
Last edited:

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,402
32,976
136
Oh providers are telling these places to fuck off.


Idaho is running into issues having enough OB providers around to do deliveries. They are all leaving that shithole state.
Pass legislation allowing anyone wearing a cowboy hat to deliver babies, problem solved. Calfs are a heck of a lot bigger than babies.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: esquared and Pohemi

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,849
3,279
136
I don't see Satanic Tattoos in there anywhere. If you didn't use logic, then what brought you to the conclusion that Satan warship is covered under religion, or rather what brought you to the conclusion that Satanic tattoos was a bad example? Logically, you are correct, but I believe I answered that logical conclusion in the last part of my post #317. You know, the one you responded to about logic, when you used logic yourself to begin with. Or do you not understand how the though process works, and conclusions are reached?

Satanism is a religion, stop being ignorant.