Logic 101, Hobby Lobby, Facebook, and the Supremes
Of course, people had to use Facebook to make their comments on the Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby. What was clear to me from these posts is that
1. People had not read the decision, and
2. People become so entrenched in their commitment to Obama that they can't deal with issue
3. Logic and Facebook do not coexist.
Argument 1: Because Hobby Lobby sells stuff from China, they ...... They what? Don't have any legal standing? Don't have a right to go to the Supreme Court with their case? We shouldn't shop there? They are morally reprehensible? Then no one in this country has any rights, because we all buy Chinese crap, and we are all morally reprehensible. Now, I don't shop there (I think I bought some fabric at one ten years ago) and I do try very hard not to buy anything from China, which is quite difficult, almost impossible. But that argument is a total red herring. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court case.
Argument 2: This means that now if an employer doesn't want to pay for blood transfusions, etc. they won't have to. Well, first of all, read the whole opinion. It's a narrowly stated decision for a "closely-held" corporation. Secondly, anybody ever heard of slippery slope? Good grief. The reality is, though, that more and more companies will stop giving health benefits due to Obamacare.
What is most frustrating to me is the human inability to say, "I was wrong or might have been wrong." "I voted for Obama because I am not a racist, so everything he does must be right and I will go out of my way to think up illogical arguments to support him against any criticism because he is Obama and I voted for him and therefore he must be right no matter what he does." This is one of the stronger posts I have put up here but I wish some people would come to the realization that the man was not qualified for the job. More than the ACA decision, people should be concerned about the midterm appointments/National Labor Relations Board decision, which stated he was acting unconstitutionally.
1. People had not read the decision, and
2. People become so entrenched in their commitment to Obama that they can't deal with issue
3. Logic and Facebook do not coexist.
Argument 1: Because Hobby Lobby sells stuff from China, they ...... They what? Don't have any legal standing? Don't have a right to go to the Supreme Court with their case? We shouldn't shop there? They are morally reprehensible? Then no one in this country has any rights, because we all buy Chinese crap, and we are all morally reprehensible. Now, I don't shop there (I think I bought some fabric at one ten years ago) and I do try very hard not to buy anything from China, which is quite difficult, almost impossible. But that argument is a total red herring. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court case.
Argument 2: This means that now if an employer doesn't want to pay for blood transfusions, etc. they won't have to. Well, first of all, read the whole opinion. It's a narrowly stated decision for a "closely-held" corporation. Secondly, anybody ever heard of slippery slope? Good grief. The reality is, though, that more and more companies will stop giving health benefits due to Obamacare.
What is most frustrating to me is the human inability to say, "I was wrong or might have been wrong." "I voted for Obama because I am not a racist, so everything he does must be right and I will go out of my way to think up illogical arguments to support him against any criticism because he is Obama and I voted for him and therefore he must be right no matter what he does." This is one of the stronger posts I have put up here but I wish some people would come to the realization that the man was not qualified for the job. More than the ACA decision, people should be concerned about the midterm appointments/National Labor Relations Board decision, which stated he was acting unconstitutionally.
Comments