The guy can make as many of the shirts as he wants. He just can't sell them without Sanders' permission.
Also, it may be tantamount to defamation in the US. After all, it's a federal crime to be a communist or show any support for communism-related organizations.
It seems to me that the fish is not the tangible object, but instead the replacement fish would be a false entry into the tangible object (the box).
I don't really see how this isn't just an open and shut case (obviously IANAL). While I think the sentence is inapt, that doesn't change whether I agree with the law or whether they're guilty of violating it.
Calling someone a child molester is making a factual claim that said person has molested at least one child. Calling someone an asshole isn't making a claim about anything, other than displeasure. At least, that's assuming that rectums aren't granted personhood. Neither falls into any sort of gray area.
For that gray area, to claim defamation over lying requires not only that the person lied, but that the lie was sufficient to cause some sort of damages and that it went beyond the expectation for them to make misleading or outright false statements.
Describing white males as "spoilt white boys" (disparaging and infantilizing a group based on gender and skin color) isn't really helping your argument that white men aren't oppressed in modern society.
It appears that you are suffering from the idiotic meme that white men never get discriminated against (treated differently based on aspects out of their control, such as race and gender), and that justifies discriminating against them.
It was known of and reported at least a decade ago that there were chemical weapons plants in Iraq. Also, it has been known of and reported, as stated in the summary, that the plants were from early in Hussein's rule and had been in disuse for years by the time the US invaded in 2003.
No, no. If you place any responsibility on the part of a woman who was victimized, then you're completely absolving the person who committed the offense of all responsibility.
Both do, but it *is* sexist. It is far more widespread and vicious towards women. Ignoring that is not helping.
I'm not convinced that it's more widespread and vicious towards women, but if you have evidence I will gladly look at it.
I would posit that it's not at all more vicious than attacks on any other groups, but rather that it's nearly impossible to discuss "feminist issues" on the internet rationally. If you're a troll and you're looking to get a rise out of people, using sexist language is a great way to escalate an argument.
Also, it seems that for a person who identifies as belonging to a given group, and a troll starts spouting derogatory language pertaining to that group, it's written off as trolling. That is, any group aside from women. Any derogatory language pertaining to a woman's gender is taken as bigotry, harassment or threats.
It seems contradictory to me that many people who call themselves feminists claim that want women to be treated equally to men, but think they can accomplish this by shielding women from the realities of the internet.
TFS seems to imply some divide between dolphins and whales, where orcas fall into the latter. Orcas and dolphins share the same subfamily.
For comparison, humans and chimps share the same subfamily, and there are clear examples of similarities between us (assuming most of you are human) and chimps. Thus it's not exactly surprising to find similarities between orcas and dolphins.
The attempt was to discredit specific female games journalists, at least one of whom acted in a manner which was calculated to stir up outrage and was possibly unethical (for those of you who want to argue about whether or not her behavior was unethical, I am not interested in spending the time looking at what she did in order to reach a conclusion).
Even that's not accurate.
There was not attempt to discredit anybody, but rather exposure of corruption in the gaming press. Some of the people exposed were women, but most of them were men. This whole situation probably would have been ignored like every other instance of exposure of corruption in the gaming press, except about 20 articles were posted on the same day proclaiming the end of gamer culture because it was overrun with misogynists.
In particular, they pointed to a claim that a female game developer had had sexual relationships with male game journalists around the same time that they provided positive reviews of or financial backing for her game. The resulting ire was described by all (yes all, as in not one disagreeing) prominent gaming journals as misogyny and slut-shaming the woman in question, even though it was almost completely directed at the men she was purported to have relationships with.
As for what you have in parentheses, I also don't care whether or not one considers her behavior unethical. She is not a journalist. Rather, I care about whether the journalists acted unethically. Even if all of the original claims of corruption are false, it still seems dishonest and unethical that the games journalists have not yet addressed the claims at all, while instead accusing the accusers of being motivated by bigotry. Even if they are bigots, an ad hominem - or more specifically ad feminam - attack does not prove their accusations false.
Why are you assuming that male sexual assault victims are rare? According to the CDC:
19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes. 1.6% of women and a negligible number of men had been raped in the 12 months preceding the survey. Note: Forced or otherwise coerced sex is not rape unless there is penetration of the vagina or anus, or penetration of the mouth by a sexual organ, as per the definition given by the US DOJ.
43.9% of women and 23.4% of men have experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetime, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences. 5.5% of women and 5.1% of men had been victims of these other forms of sexual violence in the 12 months preceding the survey.
That does bring up the question of why these other forms of sexual victimization are nearly identical in the short-term (93 men for every 100 women), but somewhat disparate in the long-term (53 men for every 100 women). Even if we assume that the groups of rape victims and victims of other forms of sexual violence are mutually exclusive, that's 72 men for every 100 women in the short-term and 40 men for every 100 women in the long-term.
During their lifetime, 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped*. During the year preceding the study, 1.6% of women and a negligible number of men have been raped*.
During their lifetime, 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences. During the year preceding the study, 5.5% of women and 5.1% of men experienced these other forms of sexual violence.
Female victims reported predominantly male perpetrators in all categories. Male victims reported predominantly male perpetrators for rape, female perpetrators for being made to penetrate and sexual coercion, and a nearly even split for unwanted sexual contact and noncontact unwanted sexual experience.
*The US DOJ definition of rape: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
Slashdot Mirror
Profit != Speech
The guy can make as many of the shirts as he wants. He just can't sell them without Sanders' permission.
Also, it may be tantamount to defamation in the US. After all, it's a federal crime to be a communist or show any support for communism-related organizations.
It seems to me that the fish is not the tangible object, but instead the replacement fish would be a false entry into the tangible object (the box).
I don't really see how this isn't just an open and shut case (obviously IANAL). While I think the sentence is inapt, that doesn't change whether I agree with the law or whether they're guilty of violating it.
No matter what has happened in the interim, it does not change the accuracy of the original article, so long as the original article was dated.
Your sig references a bible verse, so I assume you identify yourself as Christian.
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. -Ezekiel 23:20
Your example is wanting.
Calling someone a child molester is making a factual claim that said person has molested at least one child. Calling someone an asshole isn't making a claim about anything, other than displeasure. At least, that's assuming that rectums aren't granted personhood. Neither falls into any sort of gray area.
For that gray area, to claim defamation over lying requires not only that the person lied, but that the lie was sufficient to cause some sort of damages and that it went beyond the expectation for them to make misleading or outright false statements.
Describing white males as "spoilt white boys" (disparaging and infantilizing a group based on gender and skin color) isn't really helping your argument that white men aren't oppressed in modern society.
It appears that you are suffering from the idiotic meme that white men never get discriminated against (treated differently based on aspects out of their control, such as race and gender), and that justifies discriminating against them.
To be fair, money IS speech, according to SCoTUS.
Thus, it's not illegal money, it's government-approved talk.
Why would they retract?
It was known of and reported at least a decade ago that there were chemical weapons plants in Iraq. Also, it has been known of and reported, as stated in the summary, that the plants were from early in Hussein's rule and had been in disuse for years by the time the US invaded in 2003.
No, no. If you place any responsibility on the part of a woman who was victimized, then you're completely absolving the person who committed the offense of all responsibility.
Trolls love to "bully" women because they're the easiest group to get a rise out of.
Both do, but it *is* sexist. It is far more widespread and vicious towards women. Ignoring that is not helping.
I'm not convinced that it's more widespread and vicious towards women, but if you have evidence I will gladly look at it.
I would posit that it's not at all more vicious than attacks on any other groups, but rather that it's nearly impossible to discuss "feminist issues" on the internet rationally. If you're a troll and you're looking to get a rise out of people, using sexist language is a great way to escalate an argument.
Also, it seems that for a person who identifies as belonging to a given group, and a troll starts spouting derogatory language pertaining to that group, it's written off as trolling. That is, any group aside from women. Any derogatory language pertaining to a woman's gender is taken as bigotry, harassment or threats.
It seems contradictory to me that many people who call themselves feminists claim that want women to be treated equally to men, but think they can accomplish this by shielding women from the realities of the internet.
To complete the comparison:
Whale is to dolphin what monkey is to human.
That is, a dolphin is a species of whale, just as a human is a species of monkey.
TFS seems to imply some divide between dolphins and whales, where orcas fall into the latter. Orcas and dolphins share the same subfamily.
For comparison, humans and chimps share the same subfamily, and there are clear examples of similarities between us (assuming most of you are human) and chimps. Thus it's not exactly surprising to find similarities between orcas and dolphins.
World of... oh what was the name of that game... it's on the tip of my tongue....
Goo?
I intentionally didn't mention her name because, contrary to what the gaming media and Quinn herself say, she isn't the focus of GamerGate.
I'm a dude. He's a dude. She's a dude. We're all dudes.
Hey!
The attempt was to discredit specific female games journalists, at least one of whom acted in a manner which was calculated to stir up outrage and was possibly unethical (for those of you who want to argue about whether or not her behavior was unethical, I am not interested in spending the time looking at what she did in order to reach a conclusion).
Even that's not accurate.
There was not attempt to discredit anybody, but rather exposure of corruption in the gaming press. Some of the people exposed were women, but most of them were men. This whole situation probably would have been ignored like every other instance of exposure of corruption in the gaming press, except about 20 articles were posted on the same day proclaiming the end of gamer culture because it was overrun with misogynists.
In particular, they pointed to a claim that a female game developer had had sexual relationships with male game journalists around the same time that they provided positive reviews of or financial backing for her game. The resulting ire was described by all (yes all, as in not one disagreeing) prominent gaming journals as misogyny and slut-shaming the woman in question, even though it was almost completely directed at the men she was purported to have relationships with.
As for what you have in parentheses, I also don't care whether or not one considers her behavior unethical. She is not a journalist. Rather, I care about whether the journalists acted unethically. Even if all of the original claims of corruption are false, it still seems dishonest and unethical that the games journalists have not yet addressed the claims at all, while instead accusing the accusers of being motivated by bigotry. Even if they are bigots, an ad hominem - or more specifically ad feminam - attack does not prove their accusations false.
Such as the Goa'uld or Ori.
How does this compare to Learnfun and Playfun, programs publicized last year as learning and playing NES games?
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tom7/ma...
Why not functional items as well as toys, or, even better, functional items including toys?
These are people spending weeks to months, and sometimes even a whole year there. Surely they deserve some fun.
Why are you assuming that male sexual assault victims are rare? According to the CDC:
19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes.
1.6% of women and a negligible number of men had been raped in the 12 months preceding the survey.
Note: Forced or otherwise coerced sex is not rape unless there is penetration of the vagina or anus, or penetration of the mouth by a sexual organ, as per the definition given by the US DOJ.
43.9% of women and 23.4% of men have experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetime, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences.
5.5% of women and 5.1% of men had been victims of these other forms of sexual violence in the 12 months preceding the survey.
That does bring up the question of why these other forms of sexual victimization are nearly identical in the short-term (93 men for every 100 women), but somewhat disparate in the long-term (53 men for every 100 women). Even if we assume that the groups of rape victims and victims of other forms of sexual violence are mutually exclusive, that's 72 men for every 100 women in the short-term and 40 men for every 100 women in the long-term.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...
Not to mention the peredhil.
Looking into it more, prisoners in US prisons get paid between $0.23 and $1.05 per hour.
You say that we can't use forced labor, but we can if someone is being punished for a crime, as is stated in the 13th Amendment.
Thus many prisons in the US run for-profit manufacturing businesses, using forced labor.
During their lifetime, 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped*.
During the year preceding the study, 1.6% of women and a negligible number of men have been raped*.
During their lifetime, 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences.
During the year preceding the study, 5.5% of women and 5.1% of men experienced these other forms of sexual violence.
Female victims reported predominantly male perpetrators in all categories.
Male victims reported predominantly male perpetrators for rape, female perpetrators for being made to penetrate and sexual coercion, and a nearly even split for unwanted sexual contact and noncontact unwanted sexual experience.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...
*The US DOJ definition of rape: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/...