I'd pay extra taxes to see New Orleans washed out to see, but that's just me. Food is cheap, I'd happily pay double as long as annoyed people looking for let another excuse to give more power to central governments.
Pretty sure no one has ever been found liable for libel for any sentence starting with "in my opinion". The actual content in no way needs to be true. You can endorse whatever fictions you desire, as long as you're clearly expressing your opinion or emotion about a statement.
. It is an actual crime of promoting a lie, something that is punishable under US law also.
No, it really isn't. We still have freedom of speech here. Even slander and libel aren't crimes, they are torts. Sure, there are laws governing how the civil case should be handled, if the damaged party cares to bring such a case, but that's different from criminal law.
"Fools" said I, "You do not know Silence like a cancer grows Hear my words that I might teach you, Take my arms that I might reach you" But my words like silent raindrops fell, And echoed in the wells of silence
How many times do I have to say it? The worry is not about actual trans people. The worry is about the cover that provides for a man to pretend. To simply say "I identify as a woman today" without being in any way trans.
Is that point clear?
Also, the sexual harassment/assault laws are in place.
After the assault, vs before the assault. If the man clearly doesn't belong in the women's room, problems can be prevented.
On the flip side, why no one cares?
For the same reason most people don't care about female-on-male domestic violence? For the same reason most people would agree that a man can't be raped? For the same reason the man is always assumed to be at fault in any accusation of sexual misconduct? For the same reason female teacher, male student relationships often draw the reaction "lucky boy"?
I guess you'd have to watch the commentary shows, then, to understand (there's a real difference between "commenting on" and "endorsing a side"). Not that I recommend it - your curiosity is better unsatisfied on this point.
Pandering to people who don't have money is retarded when you want green money and not votes. People voted for trump because he lied and told them he could get them a job. Why would anyone care about a group of people who don't have any money to spend and probably never will?
One might well imagine that ESPN would care about the money flowing in from actual subscribers, but the evidence clearly shows they didn't. Odd business plan, that.
Apparently you're either an ignoramus or a liar. Scientists aren't saying it's going to kill us... well, it's probably going to kill a lot of people, but not likely many in the West. But it is going to make our lives a lot more difficult and a lot more expensive, and actually, if you pay any attention to insurance actuaries, it already is.
But I get it, you're a baby, a little infantile child who hasn't the maturity or the wits to assess a situation based on what's actually happening, preferring the nice cooing sounds of a profoundly stupid and disturbed man. You are truly among the most contemptible people of our age, and I hope you suffer for it.
Your flamebait aside, this is the one rational statement of the problem.
Allow be to present the rational opposition position: we need to quantify:
a) The cost of not forcing change here (Solar and fusion will obviously dominate if we look far enough ahead, but this is about facing us off fossil fuels before it happens naturally).
b) The reduction in cost by forcing a certain amount of change.
c) The harm directly caused by forcing that change. Higher energy prices directly couple to lower standard of living.
It should be obvious to anyone considering the question rationally that we need to compare b and c. To act out of panic "we must do something; this is something, so lets do it" is a common source of real harm. To act out of a clear cost-benefit analysis is good policy.
But no one seems interested in that part of the debate. All I ever see is "virtue signalling" by both sides. (Much like the immigration debate, where no one ever is willing to state a quantity of immigration that is ideal, but each side talks endlessly about how the other side's vague hand-waving is evil and wrong.)
In the commentary (ESPN has a lot of talking heads discussion shows). In firing commentators who say something that can be twisted to offend someone if you try hard enough. By making a corporate statement about shit like the NC bathroom bill, or the BLM-affirming stuff some NFL team did, like not standing for the national anthem.
There's just no reason for a sports channel to take a political stance of any kind, to take any position on such issues, or to indulge in social commentary in sports discussion shows. Leave them alone - anything you say will piss of a big chunk of your audience, and nothing you say will get you a new subscriber.
Well, the cops are going to give her the benefit of the doubt, unless the law says they must do otherwise. If he's dressed like a man, and looks like a man, and has the creepy vibe, but says "I identify as a woman today", is he safe? All depends on the law.
No one cares about the flip side. Really. You'll be lucky if the cops don't arrest you if you report it. (Person A is standing nude in their house, Person B sees them though the window. Who's at fault - exhibitionist or peeping tom? Answer: the male goes to prison.)
Oh god shut the fuck up retard. I can;t wait until we have you peasants back to running plows through fields of your own shit. Treating deplorables fairly has turned out to be a huge disaster luckily you all seem happy to embrace feudalism.
How nice to see a congressman posting on Slashdot. It's always humorous when the mask slips.
ESPN blew it when they went aggressively progressive in their commentary and corporate statements. Sure, it made both ESPN subscribers in SF very happy, but the first post is typical of lefty big city dwellers.
ESPN's audience 2 years ago was something like 65-35 conservative (including a lot of folks who kept cable just to keep ESPN). Well, they certainly got rid of that "deplorable" majority of their subscribers, didn't they? Perhaps focusing entirely on pleasing the crowd you have cocktail parties with is a mistake for a nationwide business, just as it was for a Democratic presidential candidate?
The actual Hillary defense would hold up quite well, and always will: you have more dirt on everyone important involved in the process than what you're accused of. Hard to pull off if you weren't recently married to someone with access to the classified dossiers of every congresscritter and senior bureaucrat, however.
Heck, the only reason Obama was able to take the primary was that he came out of nowhere, so the Clintons didn't have any dirt on him.
A woman walks into the restroom and sees a man there, waiting. Can she call the cops? Draw her weapon given the reasonable suspicion? Hope it will all be OK?
Are you honestly asserting that a man has never raped a woman in the restroom? Seriously? Have you ever read the weekly crime statistics for a big city?
Rape, or molestation. It's not uncommon as sex crimes go. This isn't about tans-anything, it's about a rapist or molester throwing on a dress in order to find a victim isolated in a somewhat private space.
Straight men dressed as women commit rapes in women's bathrooms. This is more common than men who get sex-change surgery.
There's no way to allow "trans women, but not male perverts dressed as women" into bathrooms. If you want to keep the sex offenders out, you keep all the men dressed as women out.
No one is complaining about post-op transsexuals here. It's not about " transgender". It's about a penis in the vagina room.
Not true, comically enough. They're less that 50% for "ocean". Many blow up on the pad, and at least one headed straight for China and had to be self-destructed (talk about awkward).
For real, NK just needs to build a dozen or so nukes and send em our way.
By this article, at least half would be successful
NK's missiles seem to go in vaguely the direction of their target about 20% of the time. We just need to get better faster than they do.
But, really, 50% is worth having. If you were likely to be shot next week, and you had a bulletproof vest that had a 50% chance of working, would you turn your nose up at it? Or would you wear it and shop for another layer?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd pay extra taxes to see New Orleans washed out to see, but that's just me. Food is cheap, I'd happily pay double as long as annoyed people looking for let another excuse to give more power to central governments.
Fracking has reduced pollution, was the point you just ignored. So of course it happened despite the best efforts of the greens to stop it.
Pretty sure no one has ever been found liable for libel for any sentence starting with "in my opinion". The actual content in no way needs to be true. You can endorse whatever fictions you desire, as long as you're clearly expressing your opinion or emotion about a statement.
In the US, truth is a perfect defense against libel and slander. Thus, you're in the clear as long as you did, in fact, like the post.
. It is an actual crime of promoting a lie, something that is punishable under US law also.
No, it really isn't. We still have freedom of speech here. Even slander and libel aren't crimes, they are torts. Sure, there are laws governing how the civil case should be handled, if the damaged party cares to bring such a case, but that's different from criminal law.
"Fools" said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might reach you"
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed in the wells of silence
the word "tax" does not appear in the Agreement
"Nevertheless, it's a tax, not a penalty" - John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States
How many times do I have to say it? The worry is not about actual trans people. The worry is about the cover that provides for a man to pretend. To simply say "I identify as a woman today" without being in any way trans.
Is that point clear?
Also, the sexual harassment/assault laws are in place.
After the assault, vs before the assault. If the man clearly doesn't belong in the women's room, problems can be prevented.
On the flip side, why no one cares?
For the same reason most people don't care about female-on-male domestic violence? For the same reason most people would agree that a man can't be raped? For the same reason the man is always assumed to be at fault in any accusation of sexual misconduct? For the same reason female teacher, male student relationships often draw the reaction "lucky boy"?
Human nature, I guess.
I guess you'd have to watch the commentary shows, then, to understand (there's a real difference between "commenting on" and "endorsing a side"). Not that I recommend it - your curiosity is better unsatisfied on this point.
Pandering to people who don't have money is retarded when you want green money and not votes. People voted for trump because he lied and told them he could get them a job.
Why would anyone care about a group of people who don't have any money to spend and probably never will?
One might well imagine that ESPN would care about the money flowing in from actual subscribers, but the evidence clearly shows they didn't. Odd business plan, that.
Apparently you're either an ignoramus or a liar. Scientists aren't saying it's going to kill us... well, it's probably going to kill a lot of people, but not likely many in the West. But it is going to make our lives a lot more difficult and a lot more expensive, and actually, if you pay any attention to insurance actuaries, it already is.
But I get it, you're a baby, a little infantile child who hasn't the maturity or the wits to assess a situation based on what's actually happening, preferring the nice cooing sounds of a profoundly stupid and disturbed man. You are truly among the most contemptible people of our age, and I hope you suffer for it.
Your flamebait aside, this is the one rational statement of the problem.
Allow be to present the rational opposition position: we need to quantify:
a) The cost of not forcing change here (Solar and fusion will obviously dominate if we look far enough ahead, but this is about facing us off fossil fuels before it happens naturally).
b) The reduction in cost by forcing a certain amount of change.
c) The harm directly caused by forcing that change. Higher energy prices directly couple to lower standard of living.
It should be obvious to anyone considering the question rationally that we need to compare b and c. To act out of panic "we must do something; this is something, so lets do it" is a common source of real harm. To act out of a clear cost-benefit analysis is good policy.
But no one seems interested in that part of the debate. All I ever see is "virtue signalling" by both sides. (Much like the immigration debate, where no one ever is willing to state a quantity of immigration that is ideal, but each side talks endlessly about how the other side's vague hand-waving is evil and wrong.)
In the commentary (ESPN has a lot of talking heads discussion shows). In firing commentators who say something that can be twisted to offend someone if you try hard enough. By making a corporate statement about shit like the NC bathroom bill, or the BLM-affirming stuff some NFL team did, like not standing for the national anthem.
There's just no reason for a sports channel to take a political stance of any kind, to take any position on such issues, or to indulge in social commentary in sports discussion shows. Leave them alone - anything you say will piss of a big chunk of your audience, and nothing you say will get you a new subscriber.
Well, the cops are going to give her the benefit of the doubt, unless the law says they must do otherwise. If he's dressed like a man, and looks like a man, and has the creepy vibe, but says "I identify as a woman today", is he safe? All depends on the law.
No one cares about the flip side. Really. You'll be lucky if the cops don't arrest you if you report it. (Person A is standing nude in their house, Person B sees them though the window. Who's at fault - exhibitionist or peeping tom? Answer: the male goes to prison.)
Oh god shut the fuck up retard. I can;t wait until we have you peasants back to running plows through fields of your own shit.
Treating deplorables fairly has turned out to be a huge disaster luckily you all seem happy to embrace feudalism.
How nice to see a congressman posting on Slashdot. It's always humorous when the mask slips.
ESPN?
What's that?
ESPN blew it when they went aggressively progressive in their commentary and corporate statements. Sure, it made both ESPN subscribers in SF very happy, but the first post is typical of lefty big city dwellers.
ESPN's audience 2 years ago was something like 65-35 conservative (including a lot of folks who kept cable just to keep ESPN). Well, they certainly got rid of that "deplorable" majority of their subscribers, didn't they? Perhaps focusing entirely on pleasing the crowd you have cocktail parties with is a mistake for a nationwide business, just as it was for a Democratic presidential candidate?
The actual Hillary defense would hold up quite well, and always will: you have more dirt on everyone important involved in the process than what you're accused of. Hard to pull off if you weren't recently married to someone with access to the classified dossiers of every congresscritter and senior bureaucrat, however.
Heck, the only reason Obama was able to take the primary was that he came out of nowhere, so the Clintons didn't have any dirt on him.
Either that, or it was a case of too much Booze, not enough Allen Hamilton. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by drunken carelessness?
A woman walks into the restroom and sees a man there, waiting. Can she call the cops? Draw her weapon given the reasonable suspicion? Hope it will all be OK?
Are you honestly asserting that a man has never raped a woman in the restroom? Seriously? Have you ever read the weekly crime statistics for a big city?
Rape, or molestation. It's not uncommon as sex crimes go. This isn't about tans-anything, it's about a rapist or molester throwing on a dress in order to find a victim isolated in a somewhat private space.
Straight men dressed as women commit rapes in women's bathrooms. This is more common than men who get sex-change surgery.
There's no way to allow "trans women, but not male perverts dressed as women" into bathrooms. If you want to keep the sex offenders out, you keep all the men dressed as women out.
No one is complaining about post-op transsexuals here. It's not about " transgender". It's about a penis in the vagina room.
Not true, comically enough. They're less that 50% for "ocean". Many blow up on the pad, and at least one headed straight for China and had to be self-destructed (talk about awkward).
For real, NK just needs to build a dozen or so nukes and send em our way.
By this article, at least half would be successful
NK's missiles seem to go in vaguely the direction of their target about 20% of the time. We just need to get better faster than they do.
But, really, 50% is worth having. If you were likely to be shot next week, and you had a bulletproof vest that had a 50% chance of working, would you turn your nose up at it? Or would you wear it and shop for another layer?
int main(int argc, char * const argv[])
{
printf("Hello world!\n");
return 0;
}
Assuming preview isn't lying to me, you want tt, not code, and just use two spaces for indent.
I think in the US you're legally required to verify tickets as part of security theater, but maybe that's not true everywhere.