Please name a time in history when robots were capable of replacing 80% of the educated jobs that people do, and 100% of the uneducated jobs.
I want to expand on what Kohath said. He is 100% correct that it is a fictional scenario, and to use his example of farming:
150 years ago, 95% of the population in the US were farmers. If we follow your theory, then 94% of the population should currently be unemployed: We now have tractors, reapers, automated milking stations for cows, vastly improved crop yields with smaller landmass (thanks to the green revolution, and the oncoming GM revolution which will improve it even more.) Obviously, that isn't what happened.
In other words, here you have an example of where machinery took over >90% of the jobs over the past 150 years, and it has always been taking more and more of them. But you know what? Nobody is complaining about the loss of farming jobs, meanwhile food has grown less expensive, which means the economy spend less of its time on food and more time on bigger and better things.
The fact is, every time new technology comes around, people just become more productive, and the GDP can climb to new levels that weren't previously possible, which is simultaneously why you see the rich getting richer, but on the same token, the poor also get richer. The lowest one could go on the wealth spectrum today would easily be considered "upper class" 150 years ago, and the top boundary for how possibly rich the richest person could be just keeps going higher and higher, and contrary to popular communist belief, this doesn't come at the expense of the poor. The reason for this is that the economy isn't a zero-sum game, or in other words, there is no pie that you get a slice of at the expense of somebody else, unless this pie were to keep growing in size forever.
To drive this point home, imagine you were a small business owner, and there were no computers. If you need to do math calculations for your finances, you'd probably need to hire somebody to do that work for you, effectively reducing your income, in addition to taking a lot more time. Furthermore, routine tasks that you would otherwise do on paper are now faster on a computer. This means that you have more time to do more meaningful work, rather than having to be a human calculator.
In fact, in the past that's exactly what accountants and mathematicians did: They were given a bunch of numbers, and they had to build spreadsheets and/or calculate the results. Today's accountants now spend most of their time helping executives stay in compliance with all of the many financial rules, and they also serve to audit records for financial fraud. (Which by the way, automation can not and will not replace this job any time soon -- people committing fraud are very sneaky about how they do it, and you won't be able to count on AI to be able to outsmart them.)
Mathematicians now also do more than just serve as a human calculator: They're given a complex problem in plain english, so they build a mathematical model, and give insights into what a solution would be. To bring that point home, look at what the mathematicians' typical work was on the Manhattan Project vs what a mathematician does now. And thanks to calculators, mathematicians now have the time to make math even more accurate (for example, really long Pi digits) so that they can go on to solve even more complex problems and work on more interesting proofs.
And truth be told, you'd do well to drop the communist thinking entirely. There is not and will not be a need for a revolution, and we certainly don't need to invent wealth classes in order to support the farce concept called class warfare in order to divide the population in order to start civil wars. Every time a revolution like the one you speak of has happened -- every single time, without exception -- all it did was result in the rise of a brutal dictator whose close political circle became the only people who were allowed to have any wealth, while the general population just got poorer and poorer, had all of their property and life savings forcibly taken away from them, and were forced to do work that they didn't necessarily want to do.
And what are you basing this on? Contrary to common belief here on slashdot and among pessimists, there is no shrinking middle class, and there never was a middle class to begin with. Defining people by classes, let alone classes based solely on their income is an incredibly stupid idea, and it in no way reflects reality. This whole idea was purported long ago by communists who were using it as propaganda to divide a wedge between people so they could start a civil war. In fact, your entire argument is based on this mindset.
The best way to look at this is based on wealth, not income. And yes, the two are very different. For example, I make roughly 50% of what somebody of my same job makes in San Francisco, yet I'm easily more wealthy. The reason for this is because wealth is defined by material goods, not money, and my money buys me more material goods than the guy in SF who pays three times as much rent for inferior housing to what I have, and has to spend two hours in traffic per day while I only spend 30 minutes in traffic per day.
The reason you (and many others) think the middle class is declining is that we keep moving the income goalpost higher and higher over time, without at all taking into account what people are able to do with their money. Hans Rosling described it quite well:
In other words, today's poor, with all of the material goods they have, would have been defined as rich 100 years ago. The way all of this automation will turn out is actually quite intuitive: We'll all be wealthier while doing less work.
Because the only way this becomes a good thing is for the owners of the automation to give up wealth to the people with no work, and it's already clear that isn't going to happen without some bloody revolution.
/facepalm
That is EXACTLY what is going to happen, and no revolution necessary. Automation makes nice things cost less. When owners of automation produce nice goods at a low cost, they are giving up wealth.
Your assumption here is that nobody would ever have any work to do, thus they couldn't afford anything, but you can't see the big flaw in it: If nobody could afford anything at all, then what is automation producing, and for whom, exactly? That reality simply couldn't exist. Automation is a good thing, whereas communist revolutions have always proven to be very bad.
That is a sad thing, because it means we will not be significantly richer in the future.
Based on what? The whole world has been getting more wealthy since the industrial revolution. The average first world person lives like a king would have lived 150 years ago.
You're such an idiot. I quoted both quebec civil law and canadian criminal law.
The specific entry you pointed out in Quebec provincial law is what that number delimited portion was referring to, and you still wouldn't ever win a case off of it.
Unlike the fuck-up known as the United States, where every state has a different set of criminal laws, Canada has just one - the Canadian Criminal Code. WE are not YOU. WE are BETTER.
The United States is exactly what the name implies: It is a united federation of states that form a larger nation-state. Meanwhile, Canada is a bastardized form of the Iriquois word for village, which is a fitting description for a country that is so low-tech that the industry its best known for is fossil fuels.
And yes, the firebombing of the car was classified as a hate crime.Too bad you live in your alternate reality.
Sometimes I wonder if you're just incapable of understanding what I write. I didn't say firebombing a car can't be a hate crime. What makes a hate crime for anything other than speech is entirely based on somebody's motivation. If somebody firebombed a car that happened to be a muslim, it isn't necessarily a hate crime. It certainly wouldn't be if the person had no knowledge that the car's owner was a muslim.
And besides, you were speaking in the general sense, and now all of a sudden you're referring to a specific (but unnamed) incident. (That, or your grammar skills suck even more ass than your mouth.)
Anyway, it's been a slice, but you're going to have to find someone else to bug. I'm done with slashdot, same as all web sites that are not strictly information. I've got better things to do with my next 50 years than listen to commentards. Back in the 60's, sex sold. Today it's hate, not porn, that is the #1 use of the internet. I'd rather walk my dogs than waste one more hour on useless drivel from useless people like you.
One less narcissist on the internet! Don't let the doggy door pinch your little tail on the way out.
No matter the case, standard copyright rules should apply here: The author of the work owns the work and is free to choose how he publishes or whether he wants to transfer copyrights, unless he was paid by somebody else and that somebody else has exclusive rights to his work. In the case of taxpayer funding, that should be the government.
I'm in the same boat with a few chronic medical conditions, but at the same time I think it should be up to the author to decide whether it is free (which admittedly is hypocritical on my part in light of the fact that I do a lot of pirating of tv shows.)
*UNLESS* the author was taxpayer funded, then that changes things, and I think the best way for this to be handled is to make them agree that by receiving US funding, they have to agree to make it available to an open journal that has a few restrictions:
Keep works funded by US taxpayers available free of charge, but only to US citizens who can demonstrate a particular need for any given work.
Optionally, negotiate a royalty system that foreign governments can subscribe to and make available to their citizens under the same terms, and make it paywalled to non-US people/entities whose governments don't subscribe. The reason for this is I honestly don't like the idea of US taxpayers funding all of this research only for it to benefit somebody else's economy without paying a dime in return.
Who doesn't want a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, and less weight gain.
Ok you're just getting stupid now. Increased blood sugar does not mean diabetes. You can have the negative health effects of elevated blood sugar without high insulin resistance or insufficient insulin production. In some cases, this becomes a condition called nondiabetic hyperglycemia.
Moot point.
Also, the benefits are now main-stream knowledge
I'm not a post-menopausal woman, which is what all of your sources are assuming, so again, moot point. Besides:
There is no reason, at all, for a healthy male to ever use estrogen. Not only that, but hypertension is typically a contraindication for HRT in postmenopausal women. Furthermore, with regard to yourself, there is no long term study on what estrogen does to men, so you really have no idea. I think you just like to go around telling other men to do that because misery wants company.
Talk about invoking the trivial objections fallacy. You're just splitting hairs over the dates rather than offering any actual evidence that the information is obsolete. And as if that isn't enough, you're trying to argue against most of these sources just because there isn't a link. There's a good reason for this: Most of them aren't publicly accessible, which is pretty common. And then you try to refute arguments based on vague terms like "known dubious quality" (known by whom?) "not relevant to transexuals" (Uhh...the title pretty clearly says transexuals...)
The prevalence of suicide attempts among respondents to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS), conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality, is 41 percent
In fact, it even breaks it down by demographic:
Suicide attempts among trans men (46%) and trans women (42%) were slightly higher than the full sample (41%). Cross-dressers assigned male at birth have the lowest reported prevalence of suicide attempts among gender identity groups (21%).
Also, in that PDF you may want to compare the difference in the suicide attempt numbers of those who want genital surgery and those who have had it. Or more precisely, the lack thereof.
I'll give you an A for effort, but it still won't apply for many reasons:
1. This isn't Canadian law, rather it's specific to the Quebec province. Unless you live in Quebec, it's moot. 2. The section you mentioned is only in reference to "nullifying and impairing" these rights. Unless you're in some position of authority, it's completely irrelevant. 3. For the subsection on harassment, you might want to look at Canada's definition of harassment: Somebody will have to cause you fear for the safety of yourself or your property. Making trannie insults certainly doesn't qualify. 4. This page you referenced but didn't link is again for a complaint against a person of authority. If you had read just a few words prior to the part you marked in bold, you can even see that it's talking about employment.
So no, you can't sue anybody based on this.
It also relates to individual members of that group.
Dude, you even quoted a portion that says otherwise: Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group
More importantly, you'd have a very difficult time trying to get your government to prosecute for anything I've ever said, because it doesn't meet any of the standards required for a criminal sanction:
Furthermore, hate speech in Canada is very rarely prosecuted to begin with. If you did actually sue somebody successfully over this, it would certainly be listed among the landmark Canadian hate speech decisions listed in wikipedia, which it certainly doesn't appear to be.
Any section of the public doesn't specify a minimum number, in part because even promoting hatred against ONE member of the protected group will affect other members of the group (chilling effect, intimidation etc).
I haven't said anything that could be construed as intimidation or a chilling effect.
Same as if someone firebombs a muslim's car, they have committed a hate crime against a section of the public distinguished by religion, even if the car was only owned by one person.
Firebombing a car isn't speech, so a whole different standard applies. Furthermore, it would need to be proven that this was done because of the person's religion. If you just firebomb a random person's car, you're not going to be prosecuted for a hate crime.
Anyways, what are you claiming that you won? Wheel of Fortune?
What a loser. I won. The law allows for monetary damages (of which I only asked that they make a donation to charity) and for them to publish a public apology, which they agreed to.
If this is true, then it should be easy for you to prove it by citing the exact statute involved that permits you to collect damages for somebody offending you in public. And yet you don't, because you can't, because it's false.
We have hate speech laws in our criminal code (section 319), so it's my right to have anyone engaging in hate arrested, charged, and jailed for up to two years if indicted and convicted.
That's for a public incitement of hatred against a group. It doesn't work when somebody says things that are directed at you personally, and you certainly can't sue somebody based on this, rather the person would only be subject to criminal sanctions. Nothing I've said here on slashdot would run afoul of that law, and nothing you've said you've sued people for would qualify either. Furthermore, you can't claim any monetary damages unless they were your employer or they were a business who did one of these things while you were trying to transact with them.
Your statements about suing ordinary people are in fact false.
The fact that you claim that no person is superior to any other shows how deluded you are.
And the fact that you believe otherwise shows just how similar to Hitler, Goebbels, Pol Pot, and Stalin that you are.
As I mentioned earlier, you're doing a really good job of bringing yourself down without my help.
The truth is that people really do try to avoid you. You first mentioned people avoiding you by using their smartphones as if it was an ongoing thing, but now you refer to it as a single event once I showed you what was really happening here. At least try to keep your lies consistent.
Quoting yet another out of date study. This is 2017, and the more recent studies of estrogen use find ONLY benefits. Decreased risk of stroke, cardiovascular problems, etc. The study you quoted followed people taking estrogen before 1997, when only horse estrogen was used. Human estrogen doesn't have negative side effects because it's not horse estrogen, and doesn't contain over 50 contaminants. Again, buy a calendar. I've linked to the benefits of human estrogen before, so quit the lying.
And you base this on...absolutely nothing. In fact, I looked at more recent research which shows that it raises blood pressure, increases risk of blood clotting (stroke, heart attack,) blood sugar, water retention, liver damage, and disruption of electrolyte balance (which can manifest in a dangerous condition called hyeprkalemia.)
Fucking idiot who failed reading comprehension. I'll quote the relevant part again:
Try again: That was arguing against the statistics that showed that transpeople had higher suicide rates after surgery, which was indeed true. After 1989, it went from being higher to being roughly the same as those who didn't have surgery, which still remains >40%.
Pretty big fail on your part here.
Also, the shrink's report clearly states no other conditions were found except for anxiety disorder (ptsd) and major depressive disorder, which is understandable for someone who's had to see a murder up close and personal as a kid, and been violently sexually assaulted more recently.
Just like you had people pull out full page ads and/or had them arrested for saying things bad about you, in spite of there being no Canadian law whatsoever that would allow you to win such a lawsuit to begin with? Really, those statements of yours about Canadian law can not have possibly been true. But let's play that game yet again: Provide the court records, or it didn't happen.
This also seems inconsistent with your previous statements about being sexually assaulted numerous times. If those other events really happened, it seems unlikely that you would omit them here.
As for who is superior, by any objective measure, I am.
One other interesting thing about this is I never made any comparison between you and myself beyond the observation that you repeatedly try to claim a moral high ground, which isn't a comparison at all. In fact I don't think any person on this planet is superior to another person, rather they're all just different. But on the same token, there is no such thing as equality either. The fact that you think you are superior to another person just confirms everything I've said about you.
Aside from your invoking of the genetic fallacy, I like how you immediately jump to self-aggrandizement as a means of validation. It is predictable, as I mentioned earlier.
I'll say it again: I am better than you, and smarter than you. Unlike you, who hasn't done anything but go to the gym, play video games, and shit-post on the internet for decades. You've got to be pretty scummy to attack a retired half-blind grandmother, who's also a rape victim, who spends 3-4 days a week working for a charity rather than sitting on their ass doing nothing.
Well, the AC is on the right track here. You already admitted that people bury their heads in their smartphones when you're around, going as far as stating that "ALL" of them will do it during social events until you leave. While not jumping out of windows as AC stated, this is a pretty good sign that they want to avoid interacting with you.
Men who have near-zero experience (such as the 40-year-old virgin I cited) express the desire to interact with women, they just can't bring themselves to. So they withdraw as much as they can.
This is often rooted in somebody being bullied for a significant portion of their life, much as you are no doubt trying to do to this person you keep mentioning. You've demonstrated bigotry numerous times here, so it's not unexpected. This guy obviously has problems, and it doesn't help when somebody like you tries to bully them some more.
It's like people who take all day to work up the courage to call on one potential employer to ask for a job. They're socially inept, and they know it.
That isn't being socially inept; that's just performance anxiety. It's the same kind of anxiety people get when performing on a stage, interviewing, or making public speeches...Ask any hiring manager how often people get nervous during interviews; they'll likely tell you that almost everybody does at some point during the interview. It's perfectly normal, and most people experience this, with narcissists being a notable exception (...remind you of someone?)
As for being "socially presentable", if you can't engage in polite conversation on any topics except computers and games,
People naturally like to talk about things that they're interested in. Thinking that women won't be interested in these things would be misogyny on your part.
In England, 48% of the transgender young people had attempted suicide at least once in their lives.[13] The prevalence of suicide remains high among transgender persons irrespective of disclosing their transgender status to others and undergoing sex reassignment surgery.[8]
Slashdot Mirror
Please name a time in history when robots were capable of replacing 80% of the educated jobs that people do, and 100% of the uneducated jobs.
I want to expand on what Kohath said. He is 100% correct that it is a fictional scenario, and to use his example of farming:
150 years ago, 95% of the population in the US were farmers. If we follow your theory, then 94% of the population should currently be unemployed: We now have tractors, reapers, automated milking stations for cows, vastly improved crop yields with smaller landmass (thanks to the green revolution, and the oncoming GM revolution which will improve it even more.) Obviously, that isn't what happened.
In other words, here you have an example of where machinery took over >90% of the jobs over the past 150 years, and it has always been taking more and more of them. But you know what? Nobody is complaining about the loss of farming jobs, meanwhile food has grown less expensive, which means the economy spend less of its time on food and more time on bigger and better things.
The fact is, every time new technology comes around, people just become more productive, and the GDP can climb to new levels that weren't previously possible, which is simultaneously why you see the rich getting richer, but on the same token, the poor also get richer. The lowest one could go on the wealth spectrum today would easily be considered "upper class" 150 years ago, and the top boundary for how possibly rich the richest person could be just keeps going higher and higher, and contrary to popular communist belief, this doesn't come at the expense of the poor. The reason for this is that the economy isn't a zero-sum game, or in other words, there is no pie that you get a slice of at the expense of somebody else, unless this pie were to keep growing in size forever.
To drive this point home, imagine you were a small business owner, and there were no computers. If you need to do math calculations for your finances, you'd probably need to hire somebody to do that work for you, effectively reducing your income, in addition to taking a lot more time. Furthermore, routine tasks that you would otherwise do on paper are now faster on a computer. This means that you have more time to do more meaningful work, rather than having to be a human calculator.
In fact, in the past that's exactly what accountants and mathematicians did: They were given a bunch of numbers, and they had to build spreadsheets and/or calculate the results. Today's accountants now spend most of their time helping executives stay in compliance with all of the many financial rules, and they also serve to audit records for financial fraud. (Which by the way, automation can not and will not replace this job any time soon -- people committing fraud are very sneaky about how they do it, and you won't be able to count on AI to be able to outsmart them.)
Mathematicians now also do more than just serve as a human calculator: They're given a complex problem in plain english, so they build a mathematical model, and give insights into what a solution would be. To bring that point home, look at what the mathematicians' typical work was on the Manhattan Project vs what a mathematician does now. And thanks to calculators, mathematicians now have the time to make math even more accurate (for example, really long Pi digits) so that they can go on to solve even more complex problems and work on more interesting proofs.
And truth be told, you'd do well to drop the communist thinking entirely. There is not and will not be a need for a revolution, and we certainly don't need to invent wealth classes in order to support the farce concept called class warfare in order to divide the population in order to start civil wars. Every time a revolution like the one you speak of has happened -- every single time, without exception -- all it did was result in the rise of a brutal dictator whose close political circle became the only people who were allowed to have any wealth, while the general population just got poorer and poorer, had all of their property and life savings forcibly taken away from them, and were forced to do work that they didn't necessarily want to do.
And what are you basing this on? Contrary to common belief here on slashdot and among pessimists, there is no shrinking middle class, and there never was a middle class to begin with. Defining people by classes, let alone classes based solely on their income is an incredibly stupid idea, and it in no way reflects reality. This whole idea was purported long ago by communists who were using it as propaganda to divide a wedge between people so they could start a civil war. In fact, your entire argument is based on this mindset.
The best way to look at this is based on wealth, not income. And yes, the two are very different. For example, I make roughly 50% of what somebody of my same job makes in San Francisco, yet I'm easily more wealthy. The reason for this is because wealth is defined by material goods, not money, and my money buys me more material goods than the guy in SF who pays three times as much rent for inferior housing to what I have, and has to spend two hours in traffic per day while I only spend 30 minutes in traffic per day.
The reason you (and many others) think the middle class is declining is that we keep moving the income goalpost higher and higher over time, without at all taking into account what people are able to do with their money. Hans Rosling described it quite well:
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans...
In other words, today's poor, with all of the material goods they have, would have been defined as rich 100 years ago. The way all of this automation will turn out is actually quite intuitive: We'll all be wealthier while doing less work.
Because the only way this becomes a good thing is for the owners of the automation to give up wealth to the people with no work, and it's already clear that isn't going to happen without some bloody revolution.
/facepalm
That is EXACTLY what is going to happen, and no revolution necessary. Automation makes nice things cost less. When owners of automation produce nice goods at a low cost, they are giving up wealth.
Your assumption here is that nobody would ever have any work to do, thus they couldn't afford anything, but you can't see the big flaw in it: If nobody could afford anything at all, then what is automation producing, and for whom, exactly? That reality simply couldn't exist. Automation is a good thing, whereas communist revolutions have always proven to be very bad.
That is a sad thing, because it means we will not be significantly richer in the future.
Based on what? The whole world has been getting more wealthy since the industrial revolution. The average first world person lives like a king would have lived 150 years ago.
Modern day muslim lands, at any rate.
You're such an idiot. I quoted both quebec civil law and canadian criminal law.
The specific entry you pointed out in Quebec provincial law is what that number delimited portion was referring to, and you still wouldn't ever win a case off of it.
Unlike the fuck-up known as the United States, where every state has a different set of criminal laws, Canada has just one - the Canadian Criminal Code. WE are not YOU. WE are BETTER.
The United States is exactly what the name implies: It is a united federation of states that form a larger nation-state. Meanwhile, Canada is a bastardized form of the Iriquois word for village, which is a fitting description for a country that is so low-tech that the industry its best known for is fossil fuels.
And yes, the firebombing of the car was classified as a hate crime.Too bad you live in your alternate reality.
Sometimes I wonder if you're just incapable of understanding what I write. I didn't say firebombing a car can't be a hate crime. What makes a hate crime for anything other than speech is entirely based on somebody's motivation. If somebody firebombed a car that happened to be a muslim, it isn't necessarily a hate crime. It certainly wouldn't be if the person had no knowledge that the car's owner was a muslim.
And besides, you were speaking in the general sense, and now all of a sudden you're referring to a specific (but unnamed) incident. (That, or your grammar skills suck even more ass than your mouth.)
Anyway, it's been a slice, but you're going to have to find someone else to bug. I'm done with slashdot, same as all web sites that are not strictly information. I've got better things to do with my next 50 years than listen to commentards. Back in the 60's, sex sold. Today it's hate, not porn, that is the #1 use of the internet. I'd rather walk my dogs than waste one more hour on useless drivel from useless people like you.
One less narcissist on the internet! Don't let the doggy door pinch your little tail on the way out.
No matter the case, standard copyright rules should apply here: The author of the work owns the work and is free to choose how he publishes or whether he wants to transfer copyrights, unless he was paid by somebody else and that somebody else has exclusive rights to his work. In the case of taxpayer funding, that should be the government.
I'm in the same boat with a few chronic medical conditions, but at the same time I think it should be up to the author to decide whether it is free (which admittedly is hypocritical on my part in light of the fact that I do a lot of pirating of tv shows.)
*UNLESS* the author was taxpayer funded, then that changes things, and I think the best way for this to be handled is to make them agree that by receiving US funding, they have to agree to make it available to an open journal that has a few restrictions:
Keep works funded by US taxpayers available free of charge, but only to US citizens who can demonstrate a particular need for any given work.
Optionally, negotiate a royalty system that foreign governments can subscribe to and make available to their citizens under the same terms, and make it paywalled to non-US people/entities whose governments don't subscribe. The reason for this is I honestly don't like the idea of US taxpayers funding all of this research only for it to benefit somebody else's economy without paying a dime in return.
Who doesn't want a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, and less weight gain.
Ok you're just getting stupid now. Increased blood sugar does not mean diabetes. You can have the negative health effects of elevated blood sugar without high insulin resistance or insufficient insulin production. In some cases, this becomes a condition called nondiabetic hyperglycemia.
Moot point.
Also, the benefits are now main-stream knowledge
I'm not a post-menopausal woman, which is what all of your sources are assuming, so again, moot point. Besides:
https://universityhealthnews.c...
There is no reason, at all, for a healthy male to ever use estrogen. Not only that, but hypertension is typically a contraindication for HRT in postmenopausal women. Furthermore, with regard to yourself, there is no long term study on what estrogen does to men, so you really have no idea. I think you just like to go around telling other men to do that because misery wants company.
... says the guy who keeps bringing up my genitalia
What genitalia?
Talk about invoking the trivial objections fallacy. You're just splitting hairs over the dates rather than offering any actual evidence that the information is obsolete. And as if that isn't enough, you're trying to argue against most of these sources just because there isn't a link. There's a good reason for this: Most of them aren't publicly accessible, which is pretty common. And then you try to refute arguments based on vague terms like "known dubious quality" (known by whom?) "not relevant to transexuals" (Uhh...the title pretty clearly says transexuals...)
Just to drive the point further home:
https://williamsinstitute.law....
The prevalence of suicide attempts among respondents to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS), conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality, is 41 percent
In fact, it even breaks it down by demographic:
Suicide attempts among trans men (46%) and trans women (42%) were slightly higher than the full sample (41%). Cross-dressers assigned male at birth have the lowest reported prevalence of suicide attempts among gender identity groups (21%).
Also, in that PDF you may want to compare the difference in the suicide attempt numbers of those who want genital surgery and those who have had it. Or more precisely, the lack thereof.
I'll give you an A for effort, but it still won't apply for many reasons:
1. This isn't Canadian law, rather it's specific to the Quebec province. Unless you live in Quebec, it's moot.
2. The section you mentioned is only in reference to "nullifying and impairing" these rights. Unless you're in some position of authority, it's completely irrelevant.
3. For the subsection on harassment, you might want to look at Canada's definition of harassment: Somebody will have to cause you fear for the safety of yourself or your property. Making trannie insults certainly doesn't qualify.
4. This page you referenced but didn't link is again for a complaint against a person of authority. If you had read just a few words prior to the part you marked in bold, you can even see that it's talking about employment.
So no, you can't sue anybody based on this.
It also relates to individual members of that group.
Dude, you even quoted a portion that says otherwise: Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group
More importantly, you'd have a very difficult time trying to get your government to prosecute for anything I've ever said, because it doesn't meet any of the standards required for a criminal sanction:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
http://www.thecourt.ca/warman-...
Furthermore, hate speech in Canada is very rarely prosecuted to begin with. If you did actually sue somebody successfully over this, it would certainly be listed among the landmark Canadian hate speech decisions listed in wikipedia, which it certainly doesn't appear to be.
Any section of the public doesn't specify a minimum number, in part because even promoting hatred against ONE member of the protected group will affect other members of the group (chilling effect, intimidation etc).
I haven't said anything that could be construed as intimidation or a chilling effect.
Same as if someone firebombs a muslim's car, they have committed a hate crime against a section of the public distinguished by religion, even if the car was only owned by one person.
Firebombing a car isn't speech, so a whole different standard applies. Furthermore, it would need to be proven that this was done because of the person's religion. If you just firebomb a random person's car, you're not going to be prosecuted for a hate crime.
Anyways, what are you claiming that you won? Wheel of Fortune?
What a loser. I won. The law allows for monetary damages (of which I only asked that they make a donation to charity) and for them to publish a public apology, which they agreed to.
If this is true, then it should be easy for you to prove it by citing the exact statute involved that permits you to collect damages for somebody offending you in public. And yet you don't, because you can't, because it's false.
We have hate speech laws in our criminal code (section 319), so it's my right to have anyone engaging in hate arrested, charged, and jailed for up to two years if indicted and convicted.
That's for a public incitement of hatred against a group. It doesn't work when somebody says things that are directed at you personally, and you certainly can't sue somebody based on this, rather the person would only be subject to criminal sanctions. Nothing I've said here on slashdot would run afoul of that law, and nothing you've said you've sued people for would qualify either. Furthermore, you can't claim any monetary damages unless they were your employer or they were a business who did one of these things while you were trying to transact with them.
Your statements about suing ordinary people are in fact false.
The fact that you claim that no person is superior to any other shows how deluded you are.
And the fact that you believe otherwise shows just how similar to Hitler, Goebbels, Pol Pot, and Stalin that you are.
As I mentioned earlier, you're doing a really good job of bringing yourself down without my help.
So you don't think it's okay
What I'm saying is that you're lying about it, just as I was able to prove that you made other intentionally false statements.
That's all that counts - not your repeated insistence that that is impossible.
I haven't done this, even once.
The truth is that people really do try to avoid you. You first mentioned people avoiding you by using their smartphones as if it was an ongoing thing, but now you refer to it as a single event once I showed you what was really happening here. At least try to keep your lies consistent.
Quoting yet another out of date study. This is 2017, and the more recent studies of estrogen use find ONLY benefits. Decreased risk of stroke, cardiovascular problems, etc. The study you quoted followed people taking estrogen before 1997, when only horse estrogen was used. Human estrogen doesn't have negative side effects because it's not horse estrogen, and doesn't contain over 50 contaminants. Again, buy a calendar. I've linked to the benefits of human estrogen before, so quit the lying.
And you base this on...absolutely nothing. In fact, I looked at more recent research which shows that it raises blood pressure, increases risk of blood clotting (stroke, heart attack,) blood sugar, water retention, liver damage, and disruption of electrolyte balance (which can manifest in a dangerous condition called hyeprkalemia.)
https://apps.carleton.edu/camp...
There really is nothing more to say about it. You're a piece of shit who tries to drag others down because you can't do any better yourself
I don't need to drag you down even if I wanted to; you already do a pretty good job of it without my help.
Being afraid to ask for a job is now "performance anxiety"?
Very much so. There's the concern that one might ask in a wrong way so as to ruin their chances of getting the job.
No, your lack of a sex life is performance ... well, not anxiety, but performance failure.
I've never quite understood why you have repeatedly expressed an interest in my sex life. Why is that?
Yet another literature review using obsolete sources. What an idiot.
The oldest source it cites is from 2000, with the newest being 2015, and most of them being around 2013. What makes you say it is obsolete?
Fucking idiot who failed reading comprehension. I'll quote the relevant part again:
Try again: That was arguing against the statistics that showed that transpeople had higher suicide rates after surgery, which was indeed true. After 1989, it went from being higher to being roughly the same as those who didn't have surgery, which still remains >40%.
Pretty big fail on your part here.
Also, the shrink's report clearly states no other conditions were found except for anxiety disorder (ptsd) and major depressive disorder, which is understandable for someone who's had to see a murder up close and personal as a kid, and been violently sexually assaulted more recently.
Just like you had people pull out full page ads and/or had them arrested for saying things bad about you, in spite of there being no Canadian law whatsoever that would allow you to win such a lawsuit to begin with? Really, those statements of yours about Canadian law can not have possibly been true. But let's play that game yet again: Provide the court records, or it didn't happen.
This also seems inconsistent with your previous statements about being sexually assaulted numerous times. If those other events really happened, it seems unlikely that you would omit them here.
As for who is superior, by any objective measure, I am.
One other interesting thing about this is I never made any comparison between you and myself beyond the observation that you repeatedly try to claim a moral high ground, which isn't a comparison at all. In fact I don't think any person on this planet is superior to another person, rather they're all just different. But on the same token, there is no such thing as equality either. The fact that you think you are superior to another person just confirms everything I've said about you.
It's a classic example of narcissism.
Aside from your invoking of the genetic fallacy, I like how you immediately jump to self-aggrandizement as a means of validation. It is predictable, as I mentioned earlier.
I'll say it again: I am better than you, and smarter than you. Unlike you, who hasn't done anything but go to the gym, play video games, and shit-post on the internet for decades. You've got to be pretty scummy to attack a retired half-blind grandmother, who's also a rape victim, who spends 3-4 days a week working for a charity rather than sitting on their ass doing nothing.
Self-aggrandizement. Predictable behavior.
Well, the AC is on the right track here. You already admitted that people bury their heads in their smartphones when you're around, going as far as stating that "ALL" of them will do it during social events until you leave. While not jumping out of windows as AC stated, this is a pretty good sign that they want to avoid interacting with you.
Men who have near-zero experience (such as the 40-year-old virgin I cited) express the desire to interact with women, they just can't bring themselves to. So they withdraw as much as they can.
This is often rooted in somebody being bullied for a significant portion of their life, much as you are no doubt trying to do to this person you keep mentioning. You've demonstrated bigotry numerous times here, so it's not unexpected. This guy obviously has problems, and it doesn't help when somebody like you tries to bully them some more.
It's like people who take all day to work up the courage to call on one potential employer to ask for a job. They're socially inept, and they know it.
That isn't being socially inept; that's just performance anxiety. It's the same kind of anxiety people get when performing on a stage, interviewing, or making public speeches...Ask any hiring manager how often people get nervous during interviews; they'll likely tell you that almost everybody does at some point during the interview. It's perfectly normal, and most people experience this, with narcissists being a notable exception (...remind you of someone?)
As for being "socially presentable", if you can't engage in polite conversation on any topics except computers and games,
People naturally like to talk about things that they're interested in. Thinking that women won't be interested in these things would be misogyny on your part.
Stop with the bullshit. Suicide rates are just above the general population for post-op transsexuals.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
In England, 48% of the transgender young people had attempted suicide at least once in their lives.[13] The prevalence of suicide remains high among transgender persons irrespective of disclosing their transgender status to others and undergoing sex reassignment surgery.[8]