If you interpret the clause in that manner, there's essentially no reason for it to even be there...
Yes, there is one reason... to be interpreted that way. It could also been written:
"or shall private property be taken for public purpose, without just compensation"
But really, having a public, nonprofit or private management is not centrally relevant. What is more relevant is that it is done for the public interest.
I was talking about this new Wuhan-Guangdong route, and you're citing numbers for the entire Shinkansen network.
GP post is correct. I've taken this Shinkansen route.
From the timetable, per day, I count more than 130 departures from Tokyo on the West line (see JR timetable), and more than 200 trains westbound (some don't start from Tokyo).
Considering that the train lines are usually two ways, the numbers should be multiplied by about 2.
So being black protects you from certain insults even though the content is exactly the same? Isn't that in and of itself racist?
No it's not. It's a fact. The situation of black and white is NOT symmetric. Blacks did not have White slaves; at least not in the US. "Black" governements did not colonize the planet, under the argument of the "burden of civilization" (or the "burden of the white man"), that is the duty to bring civilization to inferior races whose sophistication was only marginally better than chimps. Whites did not to left there seat in the bus, when Blacks could not find room.
So of course not, you cannot replace "Black" and "White" in a sentence and expect it to be as neutral. History and present situation make the situation asymmetric.
Come on people, at least be consistent. If comparing people to monkeys is horribly offensive then where were you when Bush was getting this treatment?
I cannot believe you are modded insightful. Comparing M. Obama to a chimp is offensive, because it's exactly what racists did for centuries. Comparing Bush to a chimp is not racist, hence not offensive. Is it hard to understand?
Now, yes, comparing Sarah Palin's disabled child to a chimp, that would be offensive.
Besides, I'm all in favor of free speech, and I would not care much if an Obama Chimp picture replaced the logo of Google or FoxNews. However it is inescapable that it has racially charged.
Slashdot Mirror
If you interpret the clause in that manner, there's essentially no reason for it to even be there...
Yes, there is one reason... to be interpreted that way. It could also been written: "or shall private property be taken for public purpose, without just compensation"
But really, having a public, nonprofit or private management is not centrally relevant. What is more relevant is that it is done for the public interest.
I was talking about this new Wuhan-Guangdong route, and you're citing numbers for the entire Shinkansen network.
GP post is correct. I've taken this Shinkansen route.
From the timetable, per day, I count more than 130 departures from Tokyo on the West line (see JR timetable), and more than 200 trains westbound (some don't start from Tokyo).
Considering that the train lines are usually two ways, the numbers should be multiplied by about 2.
No it's not. It's a fact. The situation of black and white is NOT symmetric. Blacks did not have White slaves; at least not in the US. "Black" governements did not colonize the planet, under the argument of the "burden of civilization" (or the "burden of the white man"), that is the duty to bring civilization to inferior races whose sophistication was only marginally better than chimps. Whites did not to left there seat in the bus, when Blacks could not find room.
So of course not, you cannot replace "Black" and "White" in a sentence and expect it to be as neutral. History and present situation make the situation asymmetric.
I cannot believe you are modded insightful. Comparing M. Obama to a chimp is offensive, because it's exactly what racists did for centuries. Comparing Bush to a chimp is not racist, hence not offensive. Is it hard to understand?
Now, yes, comparing Sarah Palin's disabled child to a chimp, that would be offensive.
Besides, I'm all in favor of free speech, and I would not care much if an Obama Chimp picture replaced the logo of Google or FoxNews. However it is inescapable that it has racially charged.
They never did that for the "Bush chimp" pictures.
That's political satire - not racism.
Racism won't be truly a thing of the past until we can make fun of black and white politicians alike.
It is true and it works the opposite way:
"Racism is not truly a thing of the past therefore we cannot make fun of black and white politicians alike."
Monkey fur is closer in color to black human skin than to white human skin. If you don't realize that, well...
As evidenced by this image. Not racist at all?