If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Neither system started out that way... it's the endgame of government interference.
No, it's money and companies having too much influence over politics. The Mickey Mouse laws which continually extend copyright protection are a very good example of that. When copyright was introduced in the US, you had 14 years to monetize your works instead of death + 70 years.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
No, it's money and companies having too much influence over politics. The Mickey Mouse laws which continually extend copyright protection are a very good example of that. When copyright was introduced in the US, you had 14 years to monetize your works instead of death + 70 years.
Q.E.D.
The phrase "endgame" was specifically chosen to contrast what we have now to what we started with... not to mention I explicitly stated there was a difference.
I accuse the government of being bad at their job... how on earth is the fact they've let themselves be influenced by corporate money a counter-argument to what I've said?
I must be misunderstanding you, because it sounds like you just went "you're wrong..." and then proceeded to argue my own point back at me.
Ok, I'm amazed. How do we go from Obama not being for gay marriage in 2008 to him issuing positive guidance for dealing with transgender people in 2016?
Also a million lols for anyone saying bathroom use should be an issue of local governance.
Bathroom use should be up to the business owner, ideally, and if it's a public toilet anyone can go in whichever they choose. We don't live in an ideal world, though.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The solution is for schools and businesses to remove the old style locker rooms and restrooms and replace them with single user facilities. This will PO the SJW's to no end.
Also a million lols for anyone saying bathroom use should be an issue of local governance.
The state laws overrode local ordinances. Very often local/state's rights is just convenient when the states decide what you want them to decide.
Originally Posted by subego
The bathrooms shouldn't be, but since the education should be, I don't approve of those kind of squeezes.
Why should the federal government be mandated to support policies it does not believe in? I think it's just freedom of choice: unless mandated by the constitution or other laws, you don't have to monetarily support what you don't believe in.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
"Mandated"? It's not the federal govt's money, it's money that belongs to the citizens of NC. It's being used as blackmail against NC. "Do what we want or we'll hold your money hostage." It's illegal, it's wrong, and if it goes to the courts Obama will lose (again).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"Mandated"? It's not the federal govt's money, it's money that belongs to the citizens of NC.
We are talking about federal aid — so it's not NC's money. It's the federal government's prerogative to decide how it will allot the money. Why do you think federal aid is money that North Carolin is entitled to?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
It's being used as blackmail against NC.
I think carrot and sticks is a more apt analogy, blackmail implies the federal government has taken something from North Carolina.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
We are talking about federal aid — so it's not NC's money.
Yes it is. They pay into the aid program, that's how it gets its money, all states pay into it. Do you think they just create it out of thin air? None of the money belongs to the federal gov't, not one dime of it. It's extortion, period.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
They have the obvious avenue open to them if they want to avoid the issue, too. Good for the one R in the article that want to repeal the SS but where are the rest of his bros at?
Interesting article at Crux. It takes a man to be a real woman?
Pia de Solenni
Special to Crux May 16, 2016
Until lately, if someone had mentioned patriarchy in the developed world, I would’ve thought we were about to embark on a somewhat archaic conversation. But recent events, crystallized by Target’s decision to open its sex-differentiated bathrooms and fitting rooms to the personal narrative of its customers, have me thinking that patriarchy is alive and well.
Hear me out.
Throughout history, women have been denigrated and oppressed by men. While I don’t always agree with some feminist activists, I certainly acknowledge that I would not have had the opportunities that I have without feminist efforts to right so many wrongs.
Despite these advances, today’s “trans movement” (particularly the transwoman sector) inadvertently takes us back to a time when women were valued based on their appearance, and whether they fit someone else’s preconceived notion of femininity. In essence, all it takes to be a woman today are [fake] breasts and good hair.
As a culture, we are telling women that the feelings and sentiments of a particular group of men – in this case, men who regard themselves as women – matter more than they do. That’s patriarchy by definition, even if women happen to agree to it.
Yes, some individuals suffer from gender dysphoria, but I am very hesitant to say that their struggle gives them the right to identify with the sex of their choice. As a woman, I cannot concede that being female simply means that one wears makeup, sexy lingerie, and a hair-do.
Since when did "what it is to be a man" or "what it is to be a woman" hinge on where you piss?
Isn't it kinda more than that?
Like painting your nails and drinking wine with girlfriends?
This new patriarchy scored a breakthrough when Bruce Jenner, in his April 2015 interview with Diane Sawyer, casually commented that he looked forward to becoming a woman so that he could paint his nails and drink wine with his girlfriends. Jenner equated being a woman with the most trivial accidentals, while mainstream media outlets, including awards from Glamour and ESPN, celebrated his courage.
Never mind that he couldn’t even stand for his Vanity Fair debut, lest we see that his male anatomy remained.
Another defeat for women came after Jenner’s transition to a new identity as Caitlyn, when he (perhaps channeling his inner Dionne Warwick) famously stated that the hardest part about being a woman was deciding what to wear each day. Patriarchy triumphed again.
Time after time, the new patriarchy reinforces that being a woman is simply about the externals, what you look like. Cue Hugh Hefner.
In April, Republican Rep. Steve Russell slipped an amendment into the National Defense Authorization Act that would legalize anti-LGBTQ discrimination by government contractors. When the House approved the NDAA on Wednesday, Russell’s provision remained. So, on Thursday, openly gay Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney put forth an amendment to nullify Russell’s amendment.
Maloney’s amendment appeared destined to succeed as the clock neared zero—with a good deal of Republican support. When the clock ran out, lawmakers cheered; as soon as the Republican legislator sitting in the speaker’s chair brought down the gavel, the amendment’s success would be official. But then something odd happened: The gavel didn’t come down. Republicans instead held the vote open while the leadership persuaded GOP lawmakers to vote against the amendment.
I did not know you could do this.
A handful of Republicans quietly switched their vote, effectively killing the amendment. Those legislators are Rep. Jeff Denham, Rep. Greg Walden, Rep. Mimi Walters, Rep. David Young, Rep. Darrell Issa, Rep. Bruce Poliquin, and Rep. David Valadao. Ultimately, Republicans held the vote open for an additional eight minutes while they rushed to sink the amendment.
I am confused why they voted for the amendment in the first place.
“This is federalism,” he said. “The states should do this. The federal government shouldn't stick its nose in its business.”
Non-discrimination, particularly of federal contractors, should be a state issue. Are you ****ing kidding me?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
WTF? It's an insult to real victims and only makes her out to be a complete psychopath. Maybe that's her agenda, to make Feminists look like manipulative monsters, but I kinda doubt it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It's a lack of forethought. I wouldn't be surprised if all it took was an online campaign to get them to cancel. Unless they really have their hearts set on visiting Russia.
However for sheer practicality, there are not enough stalls/users for everyone to have a stall. If everyone waited to use a stall, gym class would be over before it began.
I explicitly gave you options because 'sheer practicality' was both cold and unfair. The rights of other can be inconveniencing.
Originally Posted by subego
Wait... do you think we should allow patents to continue in their current form? Has not this system, which was explicitly designed to serve the greater good, turned out to be an unmitigated cluster****? Don't even get me started on copyright.
Neither system started out that way... it's the endgame of government interference.
I feel like the spirit of that post got lost by hitting a hot button topic for you. But as far as patents go, they're the opposite of the greater good. They're for smaller entities. (Fair use: That's for the greater good)
I explicitly gave you options because 'sheer practicality' was both cold and unfair. The rights of other can be inconveniencing.
A1. Let the kids out earlier to account for the time required.
A2. Let the kids with prior engagements afterwards out 10 min early.
B. Show up 10 min late for scouts. Maybe those first 10 min are critical. I don't know.
C. Choose which one is more important – YMCA or scouts.
Again, not sure why this is a sticking point, as I think we're on the same general side of this? Whose rights do you think I'm inconveniencing? As to your examples, I think perhaps we have an issue here of "you can't understand, because parenting." I've repeatedly explained A, for example.
A1) would result in a net loss of time invested in the actual activity taking place, or would require some kind of time turner. A swim class is 45 minutes and typically has 10-20 students. I've seen my own child take 15 minutes to get changed. There are 3 booths. 20 children times 15 minutes divided by 3... is that more or less than 45 minutes? Do the math. Show your work.
A2) this sometimes happens currently just because life. However, if the lockerroom became so overcrowded with people waiting for booths, even those proactive people would have to wait and that 10 minutes would be gone. See A1.
B) This also sometimes happens. Again, life, and getting dinner into your kid in the car between events, or stopping off for dry cleaning/groceries. Not optimal though. Inefficient.
C) HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. There are plenty of limitations that cause schedule jenga. Changing booths should not be one of them.
In summary, self-conscious trans people, or folks squeamish about trans people seeing them, can use the booths, or not. I don't care. I've got places to be and a large towel so I'll change in the corner, thanks.
I feel like the spirit of that post got lost by hitting a hot button topic for you. But as far as patents go, they're the opposite of the greater good. They're for smaller entities. (Fair use: That's for the greater good)
The patent system has become such a nightmare, the original intent has been lost.
The greater good a patent is supposed to serve is, one of my faves... the free flow of information.
By patenting something you are required to reveal the details, and ultimately relinquish ownership of your invention. This is in exchange for a period of time where you are granted the sole right of profiting off it.
Without such a system, there is no incentive to share, and progress is retarded because of it. What we have is broken though, and it now retards progress far more than it helps.
Copyright is supposed to do something similar. The benefit to the smaller entity, the sole right to copy it, is meant to be offset by the benefit to everyone from it becoming public domain when the copyright expires.
This has also become broken. It continually gets blocked from serving the greater good by big Mouse.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It's what turned me on to the industrial funk genre. Great stuff.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Let me toss a wholly different argument at you. At the very least I feel I have a better handle on this one.
The basic libertarian rap against discrimination laws is the best tool for punishing discrimination is the market. A business who discriminates loses the business of those it discriminates against, along with those it doesn't, but won't patronize the business on principle. Likewise, those businesses who don't discriminate benefit from the added patronage of those customers.
An asshole business will either fail or see the error of its ways, and everybody goes home happy.
The problem with this, and it's a problem with a lot of libertarian thought, is it doesn't account for whether an individual has access to other options. Access to options directly correlates with how much money you have. The libertarian system ****s over poor people, who are those most in need of protection.
So, this isn't exactly a good argument, but it is one people ascribe to, and it isn't merely "asshole businesses deserve protection". The protection they receive is a side effect, not the intent. The intent is actually the opposite.
At least this is something to chew on while I see if I can bang a more substantial argument together.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
May 24, 2016, 03:19 PM
Originally Posted by subego
The basic libertarian rap against discrimination laws is the best tool for punishing discrimination is the market. A business who discriminates loses the business of those it discriminates against, along with those it doesn't, but won't patronize the business on principle. Likewise, those businesses who don't discriminate benefit from the added patronage of those customers.
An asshole business will either fail or see the error of its ways, and everybody goes home happy.
Unless discrimination is popular with your clientele. See Chick-Fil-A benefiting from their COO's comments about gay marriage or the Kim Davis drama and the fact that Kentucky passed a law to protect her.
The market does the right thing among a population who predominantly know what the right thing is. In a nation where Trump can poll near 50%, you don't have that.
50% is enough for an asshole business to survive, if not thrive.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
The director of the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has resigned over what she says is her philosophical disagreement with the group’s fight to overturn North Carolina’s House Bill 2.
Maya Dillard Smith resigned this week after issuing a statement that there was no room in the ACLU to “engage in dialogue” over the transgender debate.
According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Smith strongly criticized her former employer in a statement accompanying her departure. She accused the ACLU of being “a special interest organization that promotes not all, but certain progressive rights. In that way, it is a special interest organization not unlike the conservative right, which creates a hierarchy of rights based on who is funding the organization’s lobbying activities.”
She also said she and her family have experienced the complexities surrounding the debate over bathroom access and sexual identity.
“I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults over six feet with deep voices entered,” she writes. “My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer.”
Smith’s departing comments present a political embarrassment to the ACLU, even as it pushes for a federal court in Greensboro to throw out HB2. The group’s North Carolina office along with other HB2 critics filed the first lawsuit against the controversial law, claiming it discriminates against the LGBT community. ACLU lawyers have asked a judge to block the enforcement of HB2 until the courts rule on the matter.