|
|
 |
| [Apr 09, 2004, 10:22 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
I had along-overdue visit with the eye doctor yesterday, though it turns out my
glasses prescription hasn't changed (I'm nearsighted), so the delay was of no
consequence. I forgot, however, to try to satisfy my curiosity when he asked me
if I had any questions, because I wanted to ask him his thoughts on that LASER
eye surgery (I'm guessing he gets that a lot). I will follow-up with him on this
directly soon enough, but I decided to lay some groundwork on the web...
searching for "LASER eye surgery problems" (naturally the aspect of this I am
most curious about) turned up enough of an abundance of results to turn anyone
off to the prospect. A more refined search for "Custom LASIK problems" was much
less pessimistic, though, with the majority of hits from eye doctor sites
discussing potential complications. Along the way I learned that the Custom
LASIK is also capable of coping with astigmatisms too (though mine is considered
quite mild to start with), so it's possible I'm a candidate for this. At this
point I admit to still being a bit doubtful about all this... I'm not much of a
gambler, and I'm reluctant to risk my vision in order to take the chance on
improving it, but I am still tugged by curiosity, so if anyone has any links or
information about the pros and cons of this procedure, I'd be very interested.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 179. |
Re: $0.02 |
Apr 15, 2004, 20:10 |
Tango |
|
|
if the government is keeping religious celebrations "out of the public eye" then it is most certainly interfering with religion. It's interesting - while I agree the government shouldn't really concern itself with religious matters, and often gets carried away doing so, the separation of church and state works both ways. To paint with a broad brush, anti-gay marriage people fall into two camps, although they often fall into both: "I don't like it because Christianity doesn't like it", and "I don't like it because I don't understand homosexuality." With respect, Morlock, you fall into the second - you made it clear you weren't playing the Christianity card early on. To preempt your calls for evidence, I refer to post #66:
I don't have a problem with homosexuals, although I personally find contemplating the practice repugnant (especially buggery - where is it written that being attracted to men requires jamming one's dick up their asses?). ...continues...
I'm more of the "homosexuality is strange/repugnant - depends on the flavor as to which" crowd Now that is a lack of understanding. It's not intolerance, Im not saying you hate homosexuals - indeed you say you do not and I am willing to believe you. But on the basis of what you have said, you do not understand it.
Therefore, you don't understand how it is possible that two men or women can feel for each other what a man and a woman can. Sure, you say your problem is with the redefinition of marriage, and I can accept that. But the reason you don't want to invite two men or two women into the "married couples club" is because your definition of marriage is of a man and a woman. Sure, I admit the definition of most of American probably agrees with you. But even if 99% of the country didn't like something, if the 1% of the rest of the country want to do it, and it doesn't detract from the liberties and goods of the 99%, they should have every right to. Furthermore, it is an easy argument to say they should be protected by the government - and the constitution agrees.
As for the Christian group, well... by separation of church and state, they're entitled to their opinions. But they sure as hell aren't entitled to actively push one way or the other. However, with Bush being such a twat and in their pocket (on this issue, that isn't meant as a generalisation) , they don't have to push very hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Twitter 
