It tends to be one of the evils of the moral majority to assume that inviduals from some oppressed group speak for that entire group. To assume any black person speaks for all black people. To assume any trans person speaks for all trans people - she certainly only claimed to speak for herself. She consistently used the singular "I" and not once a "we". She also didn't make any claims - she just asked for evidence to back up the bizarre prejudice the GP had claimed (knowing that no such evidence exists - which was rather the point).
I never saw her making any attempt to claim she's speaking for everybody - but frankly, if she DID - I would be more inclined to trust her than some of the people who DO claim to speak for all trans people (like Caitlin Jenner - whose genuineness I rather question considering who she voted for).
As one of the 33% of men with a shy bladder- please get rid of the fucking urinals, they are the worst and most horrible invention in human history. Get them the fuck gone.
Just give us all lots of stalls please.
I'm prepared to bet the only REAL reason urinals cut down on queuing time is because a full third of all men walk in - sees no empty stall and somebody else near a urinal and choose to leave and come back later rather than suffering the embarrassment of standing in front of a urinal and nothing happens because somebody else is in the room and feeling sure that they think you're a perv and only there to check out their junk and jerk off because you're not peeing.
When only 66% of the men actually try to pee - that cuts down on wait times I'm sure.
Free countries don't regulate the voiding of people's bowels and bladders beyond the bare basics required to prevent the spread of diseases like cholera.
Free countries don't regulate women's reproductive organs either.
I'm starting to cheer on the women calling of a sexstrike against republicans. No fucking any republicans until they end all attempts at making abortion harder, all attempts at making birth control more expensive, all attempts at weakening consent laws and all attempts at regulating where people piss.
It makes eminent sense too - those people who think they own other people's female reproductive organs may finally see the error of their thinking when they are deprived of access to any. Meantime, there are plenty of more evolved heterosexual and bi men for heterosexual women who are wanting the D.
Well these social conservatives also tend to think of caring for toddlers as "women's work" - it would never occur to them that I may take my 3-year old daughter out to the mall by myself some days to give mommy a few hours of respite from the hard work of keeping a toddler happy. A father and a young daughter out alone together ? In their minds I'm probably a pedophile for wanting to spend actual time with my daughter instead of just shopping online for guns to threaten her future boyfriends with !
Yes, it's been extensively studied. The suicide rate goes down for transgender people who are 1) Accepted by their family and community 2) Allowed to transition 3) With minimal societal discrimination and rejection.
In fact, it goes down to the normal average for their age groups. Furthermore studies consistently reveal that their trans-status has nothing to do with the suicides, does not make them depressed and does not lead to any psychological problems whatsoever. Societal RESPONSE (especially from family) to that status can, however, cause severe depression and this is what drives that high suicide rate.
The science is pretty abundant that they are correct in their identification, that there are more than two sexes and FAR more than two genders and that your gender and sex may not be the same. The science is also pretty abundant that trying to convince them they are wrong (what YOU want therapists to do) will kill a lot more of them, a lot faster.
Unless you are batshit crazy then you have to admit that all rights have limits. We cannot trust the state to set those limits without oversight. That oversight lies with the judicial branch. Somebody needs to decide if its justified and if there is a less intrusive option. Better a judge than a lawmaker.
I was declaring a moral right, I don't much care what the law says about that one. If I am charged, I will take the punishment - civil disobedience rarely comes without it. But I will stand by the belief that I have that moral right.
> and I don't see anybody yelling that we should be using RCS and ed. No, we say you should use vim instead of emacs, and git actually WAS designed as a bunch of small sharp tools.
And we're right back to the beginning of the thread, full circle.
No this has FUCK ALL to do with mental anguish, obscenity, offensive, feelings or psychology.
It's not hate speech (or hate art) unless it does MATERIAL harm or is likely to lead to, incite or encourage violence against the target group.
Your INTENTIONS with it is not a relevant consideration - except perhaps in deciding if you should be punished for it, it doesn't matter if you MEANT to incite the gaybashers, if your words are likely to lead to some gays being bashed - that makes it harmful. Real, PHYSICAL harm.
There was a recent court case in South Africa that is relevant here. A local church preachers a particularly homophobic message. An LGBTQI activism group arranged a protest. They protested on the church grounds but did not enter the church, did not harass churchgoers or prevent them from going in, were unarmed and peaceful throughout. The worst thing they did was to force the Churchgoers to see their signs. The church subsequently sued the activist group claiming that since the church grounds is private property their protest was a violation of property rights, seeking damages and an injunction against group members entering church grounds again or having another protest there.
The court dismissed the suit after finding that private property rights do not, by default, trump the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and protest. A peaceful protest, on the grounds of an organisation which is at least somewhat open to the public, targeted at that organisation was, the court found, a situation that fully trumped the property right.
Which would be relevant if I had claimed that what we're talking about in climate change was likely to be an extinction level event. I didn't. But it is quite likely a civilization-killing event.
>then the cops can arrest you for public urination/indecency/whatever. You mean they'll arrest me under laws that basically don't exist anywhere in Europe ?
> How is destroying one form of property different than another? Somebody's house does not harm me. Lets use a more accurate analogy. If you forget to pull your handbrake up when you park, and your car starts running down a road and is about to run me down - I sure as fuck will get out of the way EVEN if that means your car hits a pole instead and gets destroyed. I will not feel any qualms about destroying your property to protect myself from harm. Hate art that harms me - I have a right to destroy that property your property rights do not extend to the point of intruding on MY rights not to be harmed.
Supplements: a recent DNA study found that 2/3 supplements sold in the USA contain not a single molecule of the substance they are supposedly made from. Two thirds of all supplement products are complete frauds. There is not single molecule of horny goat weed in the bottle, but on the outside it says "horny goat weed".
Homeopathy: a multibillion dollar international industry - and every single product they sell is flagrantly lied about. They sell you water and call it medicine. I could separately list chiropractics, detox foot baths and about a thousand other 'medical' products that are utter and complete frauds - but I'll just bundle them under the trillion dollar "alternative medicine" industry - not a SINGLE claim ANY of those companies make about their products have even the slightest inkling of truth to them.
The entire history of the Kellogs company: founded to market products for a bullshit medical theory and while they have somewhat toned down the claims about how bowel movements are the final arbiter of immortality over the years, they continue to make flagrantly false or blatantly misrepresentative claims in every single ad they put on TV. A recent example saw them claiming that a Dutch clinical study found an 'up to 20% increase' in the attentiveness of schoolkids who ate one of their cereals. That claim contained not one but TWO gross deceptions. Firstly it said "up to 20%" - they didn't mention they were rounding up from 11% (you're probably aware that this is not how rounding works). Secondly the actual study was compared to kids who ATE NOTHING AT ALL. It didn't prove that Kellogs Cereals were good for learning - all it proved was that HUNGER is BAD for learning. It was a study proving that it's generally a good idea for people to eat food, nothing more.
In 1999 a major scandal broke out in the chocolate industry after journalists revealed that the vast majority of the world's chocolate are farmed by child slaves, literally kidnapped from their parents homes into forced labour - most of them worked to death before they reach adulthood. The journalists revealed that the biggest purchasers of child-slave-chocolate were the 4 big chocolate companies: Nestle, Hersheys, Cadburry's and Beacon. It was clear that the major reason for the slavery is that they favoured the cheapest farms - and the farms that did not use slavery simply could not meet their price requirements - limiting them to the fair dealing market and chocolate companies in more heavily regulated countries like Lindt (which would be shut down if they were caught doing the same due to the strict Swiss laws against supporting slave labour). At the time all four the chocolate companies expressed their shock and dismay and pled ignorance. They went on a massive international marketing spree promissing that they would clean up their supply chains and institute strong checks and inspection protocols to route out slavery in their products. In case you were wondering - they did none of the things they promised. In fact a similar expose happened in 2007 - and all four of them repeated the same thing: they made big promises about how they would deal with the scandal, but to this day every bite of their chocolates is flavored with the tears of parents weeping for their stolen children. They've never made any effort to resolve the issue. But whenever the public takes notice they make some promises with no intention of keeping them. Considering that old man Hershey seemed to genuinely love children and in his will he left his entire fortune to child-wellfare, I think it is safe to say he would be fucking furious about what the corporation bearing his name is doing now. So much for the principles of the founders.
Shampoo: a billion dollar industry telling people how everything from eggwhites to avocado oil will make their hair stronger and healthier. Study after study has consistently found that the only effect ANY of those ingredients have is to make your hair smell like the ingredients (for a little whil
I'm ambivalent over nuclear. A decade ago I strongly pushed for it is as, at the very least, a bridging technology towards cleaner power. Nowadays - the math doesn't work anymore. Nuclear got even more expensive, still takes a decade or more to construct - and renewables have gotten far cheaper, can be constructed rapidly, are low maintenance (which makes them even cheaper) and can scale easily.
There is no call to shut down nuclear reactors - we need the ones we have, but there is very little sense generally to building more. In a few specific cases, where economic and geophysical realities are in a perfect storm - yes, it may still make sense to build one, but in general, it just doesn't work. You can build the same capacity solar in 2 years as a nuclear plant that won't produce a single joule of energy for 15.
Slashdot Mirror
It tends to be one of the evils of the moral majority to assume that inviduals from some oppressed group speak for that entire group. To assume any black person speaks for all black people. To assume any trans person speaks for all trans people - she certainly only claimed to speak for herself. She consistently used the singular "I" and not once a "we".
She also didn't make any claims - she just asked for evidence to back up the bizarre prejudice the GP had claimed (knowing that no such evidence exists - which was rather the point).
I never saw her making any attempt to claim she's speaking for everybody - but frankly, if she DID - I would be more inclined to trust her than some of the people who DO claim to speak for all trans people (like Caitlin Jenner - whose genuineness I rather question considering who she voted for).
As one of the 33% of men with a shy bladder- please get rid of the fucking urinals, they are the worst and most horrible invention in human history. Get them the fuck gone.
Just give us all lots of stalls please.
I'm prepared to bet the only REAL reason urinals cut down on queuing time is because a full third of all men walk in - sees no empty stall and somebody else near a urinal and choose to leave and come back later rather than suffering the embarrassment of standing in front of a urinal and nothing happens because somebody else is in the room and feeling sure that they think you're a perv and only there to check out their junk and jerk off because you're not peeing.
When only 66% of the men actually try to pee - that cuts down on wait times I'm sure.
If anything the possibility that the woman you just followed into the ladies room may have a penis would actually DETER some rapists...
Free countries don't regulate the voiding of people's bowels and bladders beyond the bare basics required to prevent the spread of diseases like cholera.
Free countries don't regulate women's reproductive organs either.
I'm starting to cheer on the women calling of a sexstrike against republicans. No fucking any republicans until they end all attempts at making abortion harder, all attempts at making birth control more expensive, all attempts at weakening consent laws and all attempts at regulating where people piss.
It makes eminent sense too - those people who think they own other people's female reproductive organs may finally see the error of their thinking when they are deprived of access to any. Meantime, there are plenty of more evolved heterosexual and bi men for heterosexual women who are wanting the D.
Well these social conservatives also tend to think of caring for toddlers as "women's work" - it would never occur to them that I may take my 3-year old daughter out to the mall by myself some days to give mommy a few hours of respite from the hard work of keeping a toddler happy.
A father and a young daughter out alone together ? In their minds I'm probably a pedophile for wanting to spend actual time with my daughter instead of just shopping online for guns to threaten her future boyfriends with !
Personally I think they need 9mm brain surgery but year, giving these social conservative lawmakers psychological help is probably worth a try first.
Yes, it's been extensively studied. The suicide rate goes down for transgender people who are
1) Accepted by their family and community
2) Allowed to transition
3) With minimal societal discrimination and rejection.
In fact, it goes down to the normal average for their age groups.
Furthermore studies consistently reveal that their trans-status has nothing to do with the suicides, does not make them depressed and does not lead to any psychological problems whatsoever.
Societal RESPONSE (especially from family) to that status can, however, cause severe depression and this is what drives that high suicide rate.
The science is pretty abundant that they are correct in their identification, that there are more than two sexes and FAR more than two genders and that your gender and sex may not be the same. The science is also pretty abundant that trying to convince them they are wrong (what YOU want therapists to do) will kill a lot more of them, a lot faster.
So instead you're going to force this dude into the ladies room ?
http://i216.photobucket.com/al...
This was not, however, the government.
This kind of evil has not been limited to the government for a very, very long time.
Unless you are batshit crazy then you have to admit that all rights have limits. We cannot trust the state to set those limits without oversight. That oversight lies with the judicial branch.
Somebody needs to decide if its justified and if there is a less intrusive option. Better a judge than a lawmaker.
Giving every reporter at a newspaper free speech does not require giving it to the company that pays him or publishes his words.
I was declaring a moral right, I don't much care what the law says about that one.
If I am charged, I will take the punishment - civil disobedience rarely comes without it. But I will stand by the belief that I have that moral right.
Easy - they can speak, saying whatever they want, on their own dime. They can't use the corporations' bank to do it with.
> and I don't see anybody yelling that we should be using RCS and ed.
No, we say you should use vim instead of emacs, and git actually WAS designed as a bunch of small sharp tools.
And we're right back to the beginning of the thread, full circle.
No this has FUCK ALL to do with mental anguish, obscenity, offensive, feelings or psychology.
It's not hate speech (or hate art) unless it does MATERIAL harm or is likely to lead to, incite or encourage violence against the target group.
Your INTENTIONS with it is not a relevant consideration - except perhaps in deciding if you should be punished for it, it doesn't matter if you MEANT to incite the gaybashers, if your words are likely to lead to some gays being bashed - that makes it harmful. Real, PHYSICAL harm.
No, because the suit was not for 'property damage' but for entering private property without permission of the owner.
It is still relevant because finding is accurate: property rights are not absolute and under certain conditions other rights can trump them.
There was a recent court case in South Africa that is relevant here. A local church preachers a particularly homophobic message. An LGBTQI activism group arranged a protest. They protested on the church grounds but did not enter the church, did not harass churchgoers or prevent them from going in, were unarmed and peaceful throughout. The worst thing they did was to force the Churchgoers to see their signs.
The church subsequently sued the activist group claiming that since the church grounds is private property their protest was a violation of property rights, seeking damages and an injunction against group members entering church grounds again or having another protest there.
The court dismissed the suit after finding that private property rights do not, by default, trump the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and protest. A peaceful protest, on the grounds of an organisation which is at least somewhat open to the public, targeted at that organisation was, the court found, a situation that fully trumped the property right.
No right is absolute, not even property rights.
Ahh, you're learning, you should apply that same logic to corporations.
Which would be relevant if I had claimed that what we're talking about in climate change was likely to be an extinction level event. I didn't. But it is quite likely a civilization-killing event.
>then the cops can arrest you for public urination/indecency/whatever.
You mean they'll arrest me under laws that basically don't exist anywhere in Europe ?
> How is destroying one form of property different than another?
Somebody's house does not harm me. Lets use a more accurate analogy. If you forget to pull your handbrake up when you park, and your car starts running down a road and is about to run me down - I sure as fuck will get out of the way EVEN if that means your car hits a pole instead and gets destroyed. I will not feel any qualms about destroying your property to protect myself from harm. Hate art that harms me - I have a right to destroy that property your property rights do not extend to the point of intruding on MY rights not to be harmed.
Oh where to begin.
Supplements: a recent DNA study found that 2/3 supplements sold in the USA contain not a single molecule of the substance they are supposedly made from. Two thirds of all supplement products are complete frauds. There is not single molecule of horny goat weed in the bottle, but on the outside it says "horny goat weed".
Homeopathy: a multibillion dollar international industry - and every single product they sell is flagrantly lied about. They sell you water and call it medicine. I could separately list chiropractics, detox foot baths and about a thousand other 'medical' products that are utter and complete frauds - but I'll just bundle them under the trillion dollar "alternative medicine" industry - not a SINGLE claim ANY of those companies make about their products have even the slightest inkling of truth to them.
The entire history of the Kellogs company: founded to market products for a bullshit medical theory and while they have somewhat toned down the claims about how bowel movements are the final arbiter of immortality over the years, they continue to make flagrantly false or blatantly misrepresentative claims in every single ad they put on TV. A recent example saw them claiming that a Dutch clinical study found an 'up to 20% increase' in the attentiveness of schoolkids who ate one of their cereals. That claim contained not one but TWO gross deceptions. Firstly it said "up to 20%" - they didn't mention they were rounding up from 11% (you're probably aware that this is not how rounding works). Secondly the actual study was compared to kids who ATE NOTHING AT ALL. It didn't prove that Kellogs Cereals were good for learning - all it proved was that HUNGER is BAD for learning. It was a study proving that it's generally a good idea for people to eat food, nothing more.
In 1999 a major scandal broke out in the chocolate industry after journalists revealed that the vast majority of the world's chocolate are farmed by child slaves, literally kidnapped from their parents homes into forced labour - most of them worked to death before they reach adulthood. The journalists revealed that the biggest purchasers of child-slave-chocolate were the 4 big chocolate companies: Nestle, Hersheys, Cadburry's and Beacon. It was clear that the major reason for the slavery is that they favoured the cheapest farms - and the farms that did not use slavery simply could not meet their price requirements - limiting them to the fair dealing market and chocolate companies in more heavily regulated countries like Lindt (which would be shut down if they were caught doing the same due to the strict Swiss laws against supporting slave labour). At the time all four the chocolate companies expressed their shock and dismay and pled ignorance. They went on a massive international marketing spree promissing that they would clean up their supply chains and institute strong checks and inspection protocols to route out slavery in their products.
In case you were wondering - they did none of the things they promised. In fact a similar expose happened in 2007 - and all four of them repeated the same thing: they made big promises about how they would deal with the scandal, but to this day every bite of their chocolates is flavored with the tears of parents weeping for their stolen children. They've never made any effort to resolve the issue. But whenever the public takes notice they make some promises with no intention of keeping them. Considering that old man Hershey seemed to genuinely love children and in his will he left his entire fortune to child-wellfare, I think it is safe to say he would be fucking furious about what the corporation bearing his name is doing now. So much for the principles of the founders.
Shampoo: a billion dollar industry telling people how everything from eggwhites to avocado oil will make their hair stronger and healthier. Study after study has consistently found that the only effect ANY of those ingredients have is to make your hair smell like the ingredients (for a little whil
If you do not let anybody read it you won't get punished for either.
Because nothing even vaguely resembling us had evolved 55 milion years ago.
Agreed, but it does have everything to do with the parent post I was replying to.
I'm ambivalent over nuclear. A decade ago I strongly pushed for it is as, at the very least, a bridging technology towards cleaner power. Nowadays - the math doesn't work anymore. Nuclear got even more expensive, still takes a decade or more to construct - and renewables have gotten far cheaper, can be constructed rapidly, are low maintenance (which makes them even cheaper) and can scale easily.
There is no call to shut down nuclear reactors - we need the ones we have, but there is very little sense generally to building more. In a few specific cases, where economic and geophysical realities are in a perfect storm - yes, it may still make sense to build one, but in general, it just doesn't work. You can build the same capacity solar in 2 years as a nuclear plant that won't produce a single joule of energy for 15.