I do not intend to establish it at all. I'm already married, thank you very much.
The only reason you know I'm "really" a man is because I gave you that information.
... and I still don't know that.
Do you actually have a way of determining the gender somebody was assigned at birth
It was not "assigned" — the male-female distinction pre-dates any sort of "assignation". The external signs are perfectly obvious.
Yes, there is a tiny number of people (and other animals) born with both genitalia, but that does not apply to the "transgendered" folk like yourself. You have (or claim to have) a disagreement between mind and body.
And I say, your mind needs treatment — you are no different, than a person, whose mind insists, he is a Napoleon.
The Federal Government does not have the right to mandate license-plates...
Says who? They don't do it today, but that's because the States are doing it instead.
could try to mandate outwardly visible identification, but I think the constitution would disagree with this
How? There is nothing in the Constitution against that. And even if there were, it would provide little comfort — consider the explicitly-listed right to keep and bear arms, and how it helps not one bit...
But I was not talking about legality of it, just the utility. I can not think of why the car license-plate is useful, that would not also apply to a personal license plate.
They used to say the same thing about homosexuals.
For the purposes of this conversation, homosexuals are no different. Something is not quite right with them...
You're welcome to your regressive beliefs. [...] Just be aware that they'll soon be a relic of a by-gone era, with people excusing statements like yours with a quick "he's just from a different time" or "things were different when he was young, they didn't know any better".
Attitudes change back in forth — Ancient Greece was generally accepting of homosexuals, then the Christians frowned at them, and now we are accepting once again.
These changes in attitudes don't affect the fundamental truth, however — it is an anomaly. Which, of course, is not to say, it is "evil" or "dangerous". Some people are born deaf, some — blind, and some — with messed-up sexuality... It is unfortunate and the better societies find a way to accommodate all such members as well as possible. But, all of this notwithstanding, it is an anomaly.
Bullshit. The two words are synonyms — the latter was thought up simply to be able to have a conversation about certain matters without the younger part of those present giggling at the former. Says the dictionary:
sex, gender, sexuality -- (the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles; "she didn't want to know the sex of the foetus")
One is what is what is between your legs, the other is how you feel and identify.
People with a mismatch of these two are not well. Abnormal. Up until a few years ago one could be expected to be generous and humour them so as not to hurt their feelings, but their more recent antics require a pushback of some kind.
A person calling himself a cat or Napoleon is universally understood as needing treatment. Why should we view a woman calling herself a man — or the other way around — any differently?
In a few years, medicine and biology may allow us to extend our necks or grow tails — will we see more confused people demanding, they be called giraffes on pain of being denounced as speciist bigots?
and her mind was only THEN admired because she happened to be thus presented
I brought up her being admired for her mind to counter the contention, that "Victorian society" looked down upon smart women.
the point of your original post was that women had "freedom" [...]
The point of my original post was to question the validity of the term "hero", when applied to Ada Lovelace, who never had to risk neither life, nor limb, nor wealth, nor station in life to pursue her interests in Mathematics and computing.
Your — and others' — attempts to turn this into some kind of feminist debate is pitiful, you are grasping at straws in your struggle for relevance.
Poor women at this time were treated mostly as child-bearing and child-rearing machines, legally.
Yes, it sucks to be poor — in any era and in any society. It sucked even more to be a woman, simply because giving birth before antibiotics and tools-sterilization was dangerous, and rearing a child before baby-formula, refrigeration, gas stoves, washing machines, etc. made it a full-time job (though your use of the term "machines" is uncalled for and derogatory.)
More importantly, male "oppression" had nothing to do with it and your kind's attempts to drive a wedge between sexes is destructive to society and detrimental to both women and men.
It is not *me* who is ok with it. In fact whether *I* agree with it or not
And yet your own bias obviously shows through the choice of words and examples — as does mine...
But this topic is beyond personal biases. As I pointed out, the argument that government simply must be the source of rights, because only government can uphold them due to its monopoly on violence is flawed at the core. Because, taken simply one step further, military — the part of government, that does nothing but violence — must then be the source of rights.
The Supreme Court has ruled the second amendment is a personal right to own weapons
No, it upheld the natural right to arm oneself — the right, that existed ever since the opposable thumbs allowed us to hold something, long before humans thought of "government" and other concepts.
I am still struggling to understand, what argument is there for mandatory license-plates on personal vehicles, that would not also apply to people having to carry identification. And not just any identification, but visible at all times from different sides whenever in public or where the public has legal right to access.
And you're overlooking important hints about what was really going on here. She was admired for her "brilliant mind" not just as a woman, but because she was presented at Court.
False. She was presented at Court, because she was a girl of noble birth coming of age — all such teenagers were presented at Court, whether they were dumb or smart, or strong or weak.
there were still severe restrictions even on noblewomen
She fought none of these restrictions and so is no "hero" on that account. Her intellectual pursuits do her credit, but, because these required no risks are not signs of any heroism either.
wealthy aristocratic women did have freedom to pursue intellectual pursuits to some extent
Every woman in 19th century had the necessary freedoms for such pursuits. Being wealthy and well-connected provided the means, but not the freedoms.
But your response is equally nonsensical in acting like "Victorian Britain" wasn't that bad for women.
You just agreed, that it was not as bad as the GGP made it appear, and yet, you are calling my response equally nonsensical? Wow...
women of the lower and middle classes, they certainly wouldn't have had the option to do anything like this
Not because they lacked freedoms — only because they didn't have the wealth. A very important distinction, when judging a culture.
OK, didn't realize Ada was in an assured position.
Well, what did you mean then, when you wrote about her risking her "societal position"?! Being smart was not at all considered "detrimental" — indeed, Ada Lovelace was praised in the royal court for having a "brilliant mind" (see Wikipedia).
but this thread is on the 19th century.
Yes, and the 19th century Britain was, probably, among the best places to be a woman. Baroness had it easier than a commoner, but even for a commoner it was not quite so awful as haters of things "Victorian" would like us to think.
And a human being born with a penis yet without a womb is a male. Deal with it.
Putting things into types and objectifying them means you're a part of the vast conspiracy of foisting the patriarchy on women and keeping them out of programming careers!
This is pretty much standard for any major project.
And it does not bother you, that the suspect must be proving his innocence, rather than the other way around? Wow...
environmental impact study for setting up a bunch of solar cells would be simple and it would be easy to show that this would have no impact on surrounding lands
Only as "easy" and "simple" as the government — the same folks we've just read about — make it. Which, as we've just learned, may not be easy at all. Whatever their reasons — simple stupidity, aesthetics, financial stakes in the three other solar-plants already present around this town — they can (and do) make life hell for people.
You are making it sound as if the proponent — the would-be owner of the plant — didn't do his homework, while in a better country he would not have to do these things at all. The burden of proof must be on whoever is worrying about the plant's impact on environment, or the Sun, or whatever.
Fundamental right of the government (all the three branches put together) to deprive citizens of liberty or property is not under any dispute.
That does not mean, the Government is the source of the rights.
Your property rights are limited to what We, the People, grant you through the Government, that we set up for ourselves to form a more perfect Union.
So, you'd be Ok with Congress deciding — collectively and through all proper procedures — to confiscate an arbitrary property or prohibit certain uses of it? Not because you hate the particular property (like firearms), but because you think, Congress can pass any law?
And, forget Congress, are you Ok with towns banning brass-knuckles, for example? Just how would you reconcile such a position with the Bill of Rights? Do we even need a Constitution — or is it just an impediment — if majority's opinion is the sole source of laws, rules, and rights?
As far the rights granted to you by your Creator... pray for enforcement.
If, as I insist, the rights are granted by the Creator, I can — in addition to prayer — hire the government to help me enforce them. You call my stance "childish", but are unable to point out, what is wrong with it. Yet, I can demonstrate, what's wrong with your approach of placing "community" (Collective) above the Individual — bad things start happening very quickly, when this idea is given a free reign (see USSR).
Worse, by your logic of might makes right, we should be ruled by the military — and any objector can only pray...
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent"
And your objection to this is?..
Has the court ever held that — contrary to the cited statement?
Sure, sure. It is not new — many cultures think, the government's power is unrestricted. It is just that the US is (or pretends to be) different.
Still we recognize that government can incarcerate people
The Executive government (and that is, what we mean, when simply say "Government") can only do that upon convincing the Judiciary, that you are guilty of something, that the Legislature has earlier declared illegal. Nothing of the kind happened here.
or words to that effect
Once you find the actual citation, you'll realize, he is absolutely right — because, in the context, the very word "innocence" is a legal term. One defined by whether or not guilt has been proven through the proper legal process.
The innocence you'd like to make this about is purely between the accused and his creator — but that's not, what Scalia was talking about.
Engaging in an activity typically pursued by men and risking the wrath of the sperglords for doing so?
Nonsense and bullshit. Wikipedia cites her biography thus, for example (emphasis mine):
She was presented at Court at the age of seventeen "and became a popular belle of the season" in part because of her "brilliant mind."
Somebody lied to you, honey. The "Victorian Britain", however much it is hated by the "progressive" teachers of yours, was not as bad as they were telling you.
She happily married later and had three children with a loving husband.
woman trod on men's societal turf only at the risk of losing her social position
Huh? Citations, please... Could you name a few women from Ada's society, who lost their social positions?
[...] and lifetime income
Though Ada's father was an asshole (like many poets), her mother was a freaking baroness — and "independently wealthy". And it was her mother, who promoted little Ada's interest in Mathematics.
If you want to find an actual hero among women-scientists, that would by Hypatia, but Ada Lovelace has done nothing exceptionally heroic. Good for her, because her times didn't require such things from her.
Your have absolutely no property rights, other than what your Government protects
Interesting. Do we derive any other rights from the Government, or is everything else coming from our Creator (whoever that might be), with government merely being hired to help us protect them?
You are putting up great defence of property seizures by the government — without bothering with criminal convictions and even making accusations. You aren't alone, of course, but it is rather rare to see such an idea being so highly moderated.
old man yelling at kids to get off "his" grass.
Ah, so the grass is not mine either, right? It belongs to a community, is that it?
Einstein is definitely considered a great hero in scientific circles
Is he? I never heard him being called hero — just about any other praise, yes, but not hero. And for the same good reason.
The challenge may be intellectual or mental
It is not about the enormity of the challenge, it is about willingly taking some risk to life (or limb or, at least, wealth and station in life), that shows one's bravery and thus heroism.
To some she is a great hero in the history of computing
All respect to women, programmers, engineers, and human-beings in general notwithstanding, don't you need to have undertaken something dangerous to qualify for the term "hero"? Especially "great hero"?
The dictionary definition mentions "exceptional courage and nobility and strength"...
Slashdot Mirror
I do not intend to establish it at all. I'm already married, thank you very much.
... and I still don't know that.
It was not "assigned" — the male-female distinction pre-dates any sort of "assignation". The external signs are perfectly obvious.
Yes, there is a tiny number of people (and other animals) born with both genitalia, but that does not apply to the "transgendered" folk like yourself. You have (or claim to have) a disagreement between mind and body.
And I say, your mind needs treatment — you are no different, than a person, whose mind insists, he is a Napoleon.
Says who? They don't do it today, but that's because the States are doing it instead.
How? There is nothing in the Constitution against that. And even if there were, it would provide little comfort — consider the explicitly-listed right to keep and bear arms, and how it helps not one bit...
But I was not talking about legality of it, just the utility. I can not think of why the car license-plate is useful, that would not also apply to a personal license plate.
For the purposes of this conversation, homosexuals are no different. Something is not quite right with them...
Attitudes change back in forth — Ancient Greece was generally accepting of homosexuals, then the Christians frowned at them, and now we are accepting once again.
These changes in attitudes don't affect the fundamental truth, however — it is an anomaly. Which, of course, is not to say, it is "evil" or "dangerous". Some people are born deaf, some — blind, and some — with messed-up sexuality... It is unfortunate and the better societies find a way to accommodate all such members as well as possible. But, all of this notwithstanding, it is an anomaly.
Bullshit. The two words are synonyms — the latter was thought up simply to be able to have a conversation about certain matters without the younger part of those present giggling at the former. Says the dictionary:
People with a mismatch of these two are not well. Abnormal. Up until a few years ago one could be expected to be generous and humour them so as not to hurt their feelings, but their more recent antics require a pushback of some kind.
A person calling himself a cat or Napoleon is universally understood as needing treatment. Why should we view a woman calling herself a man — or the other way around — any differently?
In a few years, medicine and biology may allow us to extend our necks or grow tails — will we see more confused people demanding, they be called giraffes on pain of being denounced as speciist bigots?
Now you are sounding like a feminist...
I brought up her being admired for her mind to counter the contention, that "Victorian society" looked down upon smart women.
The point of my original post was to question the validity of the term "hero", when applied to Ada Lovelace, who never had to risk neither life, nor limb, nor wealth, nor station in life to pursue her interests in Mathematics and computing.
Your — and others' — attempts to turn this into some kind of feminist debate is pitiful, you are grasping at straws in your struggle for relevance.
Yes, it sucks to be poor — in any era and in any society. It sucked even more to be a woman, simply because giving birth before antibiotics and tools-sterilization was dangerous, and rearing a child before baby-formula, refrigeration, gas stoves, washing machines, etc. made it a full-time job (though your use of the term "machines" is uncalled for and derogatory.)
More importantly, male "oppression" had nothing to do with it and your kind's attempts to drive a wedge between sexes is destructive to society and detrimental to both women and men.
And yet your own bias obviously shows through the choice of words and examples — as does mine...
But this topic is beyond personal biases. As I pointed out, the argument that government simply must be the source of rights, because only government can uphold them due to its monopoly on violence is flawed at the core. Because, taken simply one step further, military — the part of government, that does nothing but violence — must then be the source of rights.
No, it upheld the natural right to arm oneself — the right, that existed ever since the opposable thumbs allowed us to hold something, long before humans thought of "government" and other concepts.
I am still struggling to understand, what argument is there for mandatory license-plates on personal vehicles, that would not also apply to people having to carry identification. And not just any identification, but visible at all times from different sides whenever in public or where the public has legal right to access.
False. She was presented at Court, because she was a girl of noble birth coming of age — all such teenagers were presented at Court, whether they were dumb or smart, or strong or weak.
She fought none of these restrictions and so is no "hero" on that account. Her intellectual pursuits do her credit, but, because these required no risks are not signs of any heroism either.
Every woman in 19th century had the necessary freedoms for such pursuits. Being wealthy and well-connected provided the means, but not the freedoms.
You just agreed, that it was not as bad as the GGP made it appear, and yet, you are calling my response equally nonsensical? Wow...
Not because they lacked freedoms — only because they didn't have the wealth. A very important distinction, when judging a culture.
Well, what did you mean then, when you wrote about her risking her "societal position"?! Being smart was not at all considered "detrimental" — indeed, Ada Lovelace was praised in the royal court for having a "brilliant mind" (see Wikipedia).
Yes, and the 19th century Britain was, probably, among the best places to be a woman. Baroness had it easier than a commoner, but even for a commoner it was not quite so awful as haters of things "Victorian" would like us to think.
And a human being born with a penis yet without a womb is a male. Deal with it.
+1 Funny!
And it does not bother you, that the suspect must be proving his innocence, rather than the other way around? Wow...
Only as "easy" and "simple" as the government — the same folks we've just read about — make it. Which, as we've just learned, may not be easy at all. Whatever their reasons — simple stupidity, aesthetics, financial stakes in the three other solar-plants already present around this town — they can (and do) make life hell for people.
You are making it sound as if the proponent — the would-be owner of the plant — didn't do his homework, while in a better country he would not have to do these things at all. The burden of proof must be on whoever is worrying about the plant's impact on environment, or the Sun, or whatever.
That does not mean, the Government is the source of the rights.
So, you'd be Ok with Congress deciding — collectively and through all proper procedures — to confiscate an arbitrary property or prohibit certain uses of it? Not because you hate the particular property (like firearms), but because you think, Congress can pass any law?
And, forget Congress, are you Ok with towns banning brass-knuckles, for example? Just how would you reconcile such a position with the Bill of Rights? Do we even need a Constitution — or is it just an impediment — if majority's opinion is the sole source of laws, rules, and rights?
If, as I insist, the rights are granted by the Creator, I can — in addition to prayer — hire the government to help me enforce them. You call my stance "childish", but are unable to point out, what is wrong with it. Yet, I can demonstrate, what's wrong with your approach of placing "community" (Collective) above the Individual — bad things start happening very quickly, when this idea is given a free reign (see USSR).
Worse, by your logic of might makes right, we should be ruled by the military — and any objector can only pray...
And your objection to this is?..
Has the court ever held that — contrary to the cited statement?
Sure, sure. It is not new — many cultures think, the government's power is unrestricted. It is just that the US is (or pretends to be) different.
The Executive government (and that is, what we mean, when simply say "Government") can only do that upon convincing the Judiciary, that you are guilty of something, that the Legislature has earlier declared illegal. Nothing of the kind happened here.
Once you find the actual citation, you'll realize, he is absolutely right — because, in the context, the very word "innocence" is a legal term. One defined by whether or not guilt has been proven through the proper legal process.
The innocence you'd like to make this about is purely between the accused and his creator — but that's not, what Scalia was talking about.
And these travails of a sexually confused person have what to do with Ada Lovelace? You do know, she happily married and had three children?
Nonsense and bullshit. Wikipedia cites her biography thus, for example (emphasis mine):
Somebody lied to you, honey. The "Victorian Britain", however much it is hated by the "progressive" teachers of yours, was not as bad as they were telling you.
She happily married later and had three children with a loving husband.
Huh? Citations, please... Could you name a few women from Ada's society, who lost their social positions?
Though Ada's father was an asshole (like many poets), her mother was a freaking baroness — and "independently wealthy". And it was her mother, who promoted little Ada's interest in Mathematics.
If you want to find an actual hero among women-scientists, that would by Hypatia, but Ada Lovelace has done nothing exceptionally heroic. Good for her, because her times didn't require such things from her.
So, the burden of proof is on me, eh? Nice... Remember this attitude next time you are accused of anything by the state...
Interesting. Do we derive any other rights from the Government, or is everything else coming from our Creator (whoever that might be), with government merely being hired to help us protect them?
You are putting up great defence of property seizures by the government — without bothering with criminal convictions and even making accusations. You aren't alone, of course, but it is rather rare to see such an idea being so highly moderated.
Ah, so the grass is not mine either, right? It belongs to a community, is that it?
I dunno, somehow Houston copes.
You are explaining the benefits of zoning laws. That does not change the fact, they infringe on property rights and, ultimately, freedom.
Oh, dear, would somebody, please, think of the children?
Let me Fix That For You:
Live by the permits, die by the permits.
Is he? I never heard him being called hero — just about any other praise, yes, but not hero. And for the same good reason.
It is not about the enormity of the challenge, it is about willingly taking some risk to life (or limb or, at least, wealth and station in life), that shows one's bravery and thus heroism.
All respect to women, programmers, engineers, and human-beings in general notwithstanding, don't you need to have undertaken something dangerous to qualify for the term "hero"? Especially "great hero"?
The dictionary definition mentions "exceptional courage and nobility and strength"...
Seriously? "Appearance" is a rational objection?.. Kennedy much?
Wait, is this the moment of truth? Democrats admit, solar panels may have a negative environmental impact? Could you elaborate?
In a properly Capitalist environment, the cost/benefit analysis of a project is the private matter for the investors to consider...
And yet, what I do on my own land — build a solar plant or dig a lake or raise cows — should not be subject to other people's voting.
The whole idea of "zoning laws" and "permits" for this and that is absolutely contrary to freedom and property rights.
Yeah, the concern about as valid, as the fear, that the inhabitants' flatulence raises the planet's temperature.