Other versions of the story indicate that she didn't know she had it until pulled over. So this could well have been the first time she ever heard of it. So she should now lose her license, until cured. But doesn't need to be punished for a rare medical condition she didn't know about.
True, but not. Drunk driving requires some mens rea. The standard for mens rea is pretty low at this point. She had no knowledge of her condition prior to he DUI, and the DUI made her aware of it. From now on, she should be medically banned from driving, until cured. But at the time, not knowing she had any risk of being drunk, she didn't have a drink and then drive. She didn't knowingly drive drunk. She didn't satisfy the criminal requirements for a crime. She took no action that she could have known would have resulted in a breach of law.
First time for someone they didn't know had it, she shouldn't be prosecuted, but should lose her license. And if she doesn't lose her license, the next time she drives she's taking a deliberate act she knows is in breach of the law, so it will be a DUI.
Most Christian denominations teach that the old testament was deprecated by the new.
Most by number of denominations, or by number of practitioners of those denominations? The largest single group still believes in the Old Testament quite strongly. Many of the holdings of the Catholic Church, or a variety of the Orthodox churches are based in the Old Testament. Birth control, condemnation of divorce and gays, and other things like that. Sure the 10,000 new-age denominations that have 3 people each are NT-only, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the OT denominations.
Yet the large numbers of homophobic Christians still quote the Old Book because Jesus never condemned homosexuality. Never paying attention to the fact that crop rotation (as generally practiced), spandex, and so many other things are banned as well. Leviticus is actually a pretty amusing read, and nobody quotes from it, except to condemn women or gays.
The times I've been in environments where the surface material was airborne and blown about, it stayed near the ground. A real pain for someone standing on the ground, but put everything 3m up, and you've solved the problem. But it wasn't specifically the Sahara where I observed this.
Surprising, as at that time https://www.youtube.com/watch?... it would have been making the rounds again, as a Letters to Cleo song. Unless that was before 10 Things I Hate About You came out.
Well, and for people like me, I grab a username on multiple services so I get a version of my usual name (missed it on here). So, I signed up for an iTunes long ago, and had it set up with an expired card. By the support page given, I'd have to make a new iTunes, or put a valid card on the existing one. It's impossible (according to the support page) to link to an iTunes with an expired CC.
The term actually usually refers to those who "fight for social justice" in the sense of critical theory and neo-Marxism.
Do you have a cite for that, or did you just make it up? Human rights is "social justice" so anyone who was for sufferage was an SJW. But you added in the caveat at the end, so you can no true Scotsman out everyone who was involved with Civil Rights or such as not SJW, and come back to a definition of "anyone I don't like". Again, you've said nothing that contradicts me, other than "Don't say that, I don't like it."
In fact, the term originated with left with social activists who described themselves as "fighting for social justice",
Nope. Just like PC was invented by the bigots when they were reacting against the spreading civil rights movement. SJW is the new PC. A term invented by bigots to hide and confuse the anti-bigots.
And you're deluding yourself if you think that anybody cares anymore whether you call them "sexist" (or "homophobic" or "racist", for that matter);
If that were true, Brendan Eich wouldn't have resigned for being called a bigot (specifically homophobic). He obviously cared, and specifically named his identification as being a homophobe as the reason he quit his job.
Reality proves you wrong on every count, but keep trying. Someone may believe your revisionist lies.
Then you talk about a program that isn't run by the military, formed at a time when there was not a large standing army, and has no relation to the point you are disagreeing with. Next time read your cite. Just providing a cite doesn't contradict the point. With a standing army, there's no need for the civilian population to be well armed or trained. When the civilians are called into service, there's a need for them to be trained, and in 1903 when that program was started, there were frequent call-ups, and stand-downs, so the ready population being ready for the draft made it easier training people as they were drafted. As the draft was (permenantly?) ended, the need for such a program ended, and so has the military's participation in it.
Only the unorganized need this right.
And only needed it when there was a draft. Without a draft, you only hire regulars, and give them a full training before any deployment. Only in case of WWIII and a sudden draft of everyone would there be any use in a civilian being militarily ready.
You seem to be agreeing with me in the most disagreeable way possible.
Sufferage fought for social justice. So they are SJWs. We need our niggers in chains and our women property in the kitchen, naked barefoot and pregnant. Anyone who says otherwise is an SJW.
SJW doesn't exist. It's a term made up to give a "face" to an enemy that doesn't know you or care who you are.
SJW is a term invented by MRAs because they got tired of getting called sexist whenever they referred to women as "fucking whores". Substitute "fucking whore" every time you see SJW and it'll be closer to the intended meaning. Like "thug" means "Nigger". You get to call black people "thugs" and aren't called on your racism. Same with calling women SJWs and not getting called on your sexism.
Many people do this already with [...] movies starring actors with certain political positions.
Aside from the right boycotting Jane Fonda, I've never heard of that. Nobody boycotted Mel Gibson because of his politics. It was his bigotry and insanity that people boycotted. The only other boycotts I've seen have been pretty weak, and generally based on religion, not politics (if you can call Scientology a religion).
I'm not disagreeing with your other points, just that the example chosen where people boycott, I've not seen much boycott on political positions, but a wider boycott on religious grounds. Click-fil-A is always in the news for something, and usually under a boycott from someone objecting to how they express their religion. And Westboro is always pretesting something stupid. Westboro even goes so far as to protest its own champions, like Kim Davis.
So you have the right to be a bigot, but not the right to speak out against bigots. Got it. I think.
will you still feel the same way about how our society allows itself to bully those "of different beliefs and opinions" when you or your friend are the ones being bullied?
Ever been suspended from school? I was because I laid a formal complaint against a group of 5 kids who beat me up in 3rd grade. Turns out, one of them was the son of a dean. I was suspended for "spreading rumors". The times I hit back, I usually won. Eventually I was expelled for defending myself. Saying "you are a bigot" to a bigot isn't bullying. Getting hit in the face because others think they can get away with it and they enjoy it is bullying. Pointing out someone did evil was evil is not bullying.
Remember, Brendan Eich was forced out of a position he was eminently qualified for, because he donated to a political movement, and would not recant his religious beliefs.
He quit. And he quit because his public actions were seen to be bigoted. So people called him on it. Free speech shouldn't be allowed. It exposes bigots as bigots.
Two people were fired because the wife of a man exposed his affair with a married women, both worked at Shell. So, getting someone fired because you don't like something they said or did is SJW, right? Even if they did it? How about Bill Cosby? 50 accusations of rape. So they are all SJWs? How about those who told on Lance Armstrong? Getting someone fired because you don't belive in what they did. All SJWs.
No, it's all "no true scotsman'd" down to SJW means "someone I don't like". No more, no less.
If not, define it, and I'll look for counter examples. If there are more exceptions than ones fitting the rule, there's no point in having the rule.
So were his employers SJWs? They were sent the video, with little if any comment attached, and fired the man without any SJWs getting involved. They fired him before the SJWs even found out. It hasn't gone nearly as viral as some others because the employer fired him immediately, without suspension, hearing, or anything else. The video spoke for itself.
So who's the SJW here? And what "radical ideology" is at play?
You obviously haven't lived in an area with rampant bigotry. Speech codes allow people to report crimes easier. When I was younger, I heard things said like "wanna go down to the gay bar and beat up some fags?" With robust hate speech laws, such statements themselves are illegal. But at the time, you'd have to wait for the dead person before the cops would do anything, and what they would do would be to out the dead guy's firends and shame his family.
Stuff like that is why the speech codes were passed. And in a few places they helped. They encouraged people to speak out before the dead person was found, dragged behind a pickup until exsanguinated.
SJW is "anyone I don't like". Nothing more, nothing less, and someone labeled SJW by someone else may not be SJW by your standards. It's a meaningless term. Anyone who uses it is just a hate-monger who hates free speech and is trying to silence those they don't like.
The Founding Fathers fought for social justice. If King George had called them SJWs, would that have made them evil?
You are asserting that anyone who is called an SJW is necessarily evil, just because someone who doesn't like them used "that term" against them. That's not logical. Especially since SJW has no recognized meaning beyond "someone I don't like".
Why do you hate SJWs exercising their free speech? You must hate free speech to lash out against those whose opinion you hate.
Yeah, those damn SJWs, getting Niggers and women the right to vote, speaking out against internment camps in WWII, and all that.
SJW is a good thing, twisted by the irrational conservatives to a term of hate. SJWs have given us all the rights we have today. If SJW were a term at the time, I'm sure the King would have applied it to the Founding Fathers. Terrorists dumping tea, and making a huge deal over taxation of colonies.
The thing Apple should have done is have multiple development trains. Rather than have "newest" and "unsupported" they should have "newest 8.x" and "newest 9.x" and improve features in 8 after 9. Most other systems do that. You can find patches for the older version long after the new version is out. iOS moves so fast, and quickly abandons old devices for security updates. If you want to have the latest security patch, you *must* be on a device that runs the latest release of the highest rev. There is no other way to get security updates. Though, I think they had one exception in there, for a single 2.x or so patch that came out after the next rev level was out.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A capable militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, must have access to weapons of war; the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Given that at the time the "military" was nearly 100% militia, in the US and other places, the Amendment is archaic. With a standing army, the only listed reason for the right to bear arms is void.
Really, the discussion breaks down into a discussion of whether one should keep arms to overthrow their government or not. Is that one of the functions of the militia? If so, the NRA is a bunch of fascist hypocrites, selling "self defense" and "hunting" as the reasons for keeping an Amendment with the sole present function of protecting military arms to use against the government. They are too pansy to read the 2nd Amendment in any reasonable manner, and pretend the first clause doesn't exist, because it doesn't fit their narrative. Those anti-Constitution fascists need to either read the Constitution, or stop pretending they speak for it.
You are not required to have or show ID to travel. Even after 2001, it was possible to fly without ID. You are required by law to identify yourself only if suspected of being involved in a crime (including witnessing). You aren't required to identify yourself if driving, but you must prevent a valid license, which is ID, so it's the same effect as requiring you identify yourself.
The US has prided itself on not being "papers please".
The only thing "new" was the idea of a stormtrooper defector. Aside from that, what "chances" did it take? The only other "chance" I saw brought up was casting a black man in a white movie, and that's not really a chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Other versions of the story indicate that she didn't know she had it until pulled over. So this could well have been the first time she ever heard of it. So she should now lose her license, until cured. But doesn't need to be punished for a rare medical condition she didn't know about.
True, but not. Drunk driving requires some mens rea. The standard for mens rea is pretty low at this point. She had no knowledge of her condition prior to he DUI, and the DUI made her aware of it. From now on, she should be medically banned from driving, until cured. But at the time, not knowing she had any risk of being drunk, she didn't have a drink and then drive. She didn't knowingly drive drunk. She didn't satisfy the criminal requirements for a crime. She took no action that she could have known would have resulted in a breach of law.
First time for someone they didn't know had it, she shouldn't be prosecuted, but should lose her license. And if she doesn't lose her license, the next time she drives she's taking a deliberate act she knows is in breach of the law, so it will be a DUI.
Most Christian denominations teach that the old testament was deprecated by the new.
Most by number of denominations, or by number of practitioners of those denominations? The largest single group still believes in the Old Testament quite strongly. Many of the holdings of the Catholic Church, or a variety of the Orthodox churches are based in the Old Testament. Birth control, condemnation of divorce and gays, and other things like that. Sure the 10,000 new-age denominations that have 3 people each are NT-only, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the OT denominations.
Yet the large numbers of homophobic Christians still quote the Old Book because Jesus never condemned homosexuality. Never paying attention to the fact that crop rotation (as generally practiced), spandex, and so many other things are banned as well. Leviticus is actually a pretty amusing read, and nobody quotes from it, except to condemn women or gays.
The times I've been in environments where the surface material was airborne and blown about, it stayed near the ground. A real pain for someone standing on the ground, but put everything 3m up, and you've solved the problem. But it wasn't specifically the Sahara where I observed this.
Surprising, as at that time https://www.youtube.com/watch?... it would have been making the rounds again, as a Letters to Cleo song. Unless that was before 10 Things I Hate About You came out.
Well, and for people like me, I grab a username on multiple services so I get a version of my usual name (missed it on here). So, I signed up for an iTunes long ago, and had it set up with an expired card. By the support page given, I'd have to make a new iTunes, or put a valid card on the existing one. It's impossible (according to the support page) to link to an iTunes with an expired CC.
The term actually usually refers to those who "fight for social justice" in the sense of critical theory and neo-Marxism.
Do you have a cite for that, or did you just make it up? Human rights is "social justice" so anyone who was for sufferage was an SJW. But you added in the caveat at the end, so you can no true Scotsman out everyone who was involved with Civil Rights or such as not SJW, and come back to a definition of "anyone I don't like". Again, you've said nothing that contradicts me, other than "Don't say that, I don't like it."
In fact, the term originated with left with social activists who described themselves as "fighting for social justice",
Nope. Just like PC was invented by the bigots when they were reacting against the spreading civil rights movement. SJW is the new PC. A term invented by bigots to hide and confuse the anti-bigots.
And you're deluding yourself if you think that anybody cares anymore whether you call them "sexist" (or "homophobic" or "racist", for that matter);
If that were true, Brendan Eich wouldn't have resigned for being called a bigot (specifically homophobic). He obviously cared, and specifically named his identification as being a homophobe as the reason he quit his job.
Reality proves you wrong on every count, but keep trying. Someone may believe your revisionist lies.
Wrong.
Then you talk about a program that isn't run by the military, formed at a time when there was not a large standing army, and has no relation to the point you are disagreeing with. Next time read your cite. Just providing a cite doesn't contradict the point. With a standing army, there's no need for the civilian population to be well armed or trained. When the civilians are called into service, there's a need for them to be trained, and in 1903 when that program was started, there were frequent call-ups, and stand-downs, so the ready population being ready for the draft made it easier training people as they were drafted. As the draft was (permenantly?) ended, the need for such a program ended, and so has the military's participation in it.
Only the unorganized need this right.
And only needed it when there was a draft. Without a draft, you only hire regulars, and give them a full training before any deployment. Only in case of WWIII and a sudden draft of everyone would there be any use in a civilian being militarily ready.
You seem to be agreeing with me in the most disagreeable way possible.
Nobody identifies as an SJW. It's a fabricated insult without useful meaning.
Sufferage fought for social justice. So they are SJWs. We need our niggers in chains and our women property in the kitchen, naked barefoot and pregnant. Anyone who says otherwise is an SJW.
SJW doesn't exist. It's a term made up to give a "face" to an enemy that doesn't know you or care who you are.
SJW is a term invented by MRAs because they got tired of getting called sexist whenever they referred to women as "fucking whores". Substitute "fucking whore" every time you see SJW and it'll be closer to the intended meaning. Like "thug" means "Nigger". You get to call black people "thugs" and aren't called on your racism. Same with calling women SJWs and not getting called on your sexism.
Instead, you want to force us to live in the parody of a free world you want to build.
Many people do this already with [...] movies starring actors with certain political positions.
Aside from the right boycotting Jane Fonda, I've never heard of that. Nobody boycotted Mel Gibson because of his politics. It was his bigotry and insanity that people boycotted. The only other boycotts I've seen have been pretty weak, and generally based on religion, not politics (if you can call Scientology a religion).
I'm not disagreeing with your other points, just that the example chosen where people boycott, I've not seen much boycott on political positions, but a wider boycott on religious grounds. Click-fil-A is always in the news for something, and usually under a boycott from someone objecting to how they express their religion. And Westboro is always pretesting something stupid. Westboro even goes so far as to protest its own champions, like Kim Davis.
will you still feel the same way about how our society allows itself to bully those "of different beliefs and opinions" when you or your friend are the ones being bullied?
Ever been suspended from school? I was because I laid a formal complaint against a group of 5 kids who beat me up in 3rd grade. Turns out, one of them was the son of a dean. I was suspended for "spreading rumors". The times I hit back, I usually won. Eventually I was expelled for defending myself. Saying "you are a bigot" to a bigot isn't bullying. Getting hit in the face because others think they can get away with it and they enjoy it is bullying. Pointing out someone did evil was evil is not bullying.
Remember, Brendan Eich was forced out of a position he was eminently qualified for, because he donated to a political movement, and would not recant his religious beliefs.
He quit. And he quit because his public actions were seen to be bigoted. So people called him on it. Free speech shouldn't be allowed. It exposes bigots as bigots.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u...
Two people were fired because the wife of a man exposed his affair with a married women, both worked at Shell. So, getting someone fired because you don't like something they said or did is SJW, right? Even if they did it? How about Bill Cosby? 50 accusations of rape. So they are all SJWs? How about those who told on Lance Armstrong? Getting someone fired because you don't belive in what they did. All SJWs.
No, it's all "no true scotsman'd" down to SJW means "someone I don't like". No more, no less.
If not, define it, and I'll look for counter examples. If there are more exceptions than ones fitting the rule, there's no point in having the rule.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
So were his employers SJWs? They were sent the video, with little if any comment attached, and fired the man without any SJWs getting involved. They fired him before the SJWs even found out. It hasn't gone nearly as viral as some others because the employer fired him immediately, without suspension, hearing, or anything else. The video spoke for itself.
So who's the SJW here? And what "radical ideology" is at play?
You obviously haven't lived in an area with rampant bigotry. Speech codes allow people to report crimes easier. When I was younger, I heard things said like "wanna go down to the gay bar and beat up some fags?" With robust hate speech laws, such statements themselves are illegal. But at the time, you'd have to wait for the dead person before the cops would do anything, and what they would do would be to out the dead guy's firends and shame his family.
Stuff like that is why the speech codes were passed. And in a few places they helped. They encouraged people to speak out before the dead person was found, dragged behind a pickup until exsanguinated.
SJW is "anyone I don't like". Nothing more, nothing less, and someone labeled SJW by someone else may not be SJW by your standards. It's a meaningless term. Anyone who uses it is just a hate-monger who hates free speech and is trying to silence those they don't like.
The Founding Fathers fought for social justice. If King George had called them SJWs, would that have made them evil?
You are asserting that anyone who is called an SJW is necessarily evil, just because someone who doesn't like them used "that term" against them. That's not logical. Especially since SJW has no recognized meaning beyond "someone I don't like".
Why do you hate SJWs exercising their free speech? You must hate free speech to lash out against those whose opinion you hate.
Yeah, those damn SJWs, getting Niggers and women the right to vote, speaking out against internment camps in WWII, and all that.
SJW is a good thing, twisted by the irrational conservatives to a term of hate. SJWs have given us all the rights we have today. If SJW were a term at the time, I'm sure the King would have applied it to the Founding Fathers. Terrorists dumping tea, and making a huge deal over taxation of colonies.
The thing Apple should have done is have multiple development trains. Rather than have "newest" and "unsupported" they should have "newest 8.x" and "newest 9.x" and improve features in 8 after 9. Most other systems do that. You can find patches for the older version long after the new version is out. iOS moves so fast, and quickly abandons old devices for security updates. If you want to have the latest security patch, you *must* be on a device that runs the latest release of the highest rev. There is no other way to get security updates. Though, I think they had one exception in there, for a single 2.x or so patch that came out after the next rev level was out.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A capable militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, must have access to weapons of war; the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Given that at the time the "military" was nearly 100% militia, in the US and other places, the Amendment is archaic. With a standing army, the only listed reason for the right to bear arms is void.
Really, the discussion breaks down into a discussion of whether one should keep arms to overthrow their government or not. Is that one of the functions of the militia? If so, the NRA is a bunch of fascist hypocrites, selling "self defense" and "hunting" as the reasons for keeping an Amendment with the sole present function of protecting military arms to use against the government. They are too pansy to read the 2nd Amendment in any reasonable manner, and pretend the first clause doesn't exist, because it doesn't fit their narrative. Those anti-Constitution fascists need to either read the Constitution, or stop pretending they speak for it.
You are not required to have or show ID to travel. Even after 2001, it was possible to fly without ID. You are required by law to identify yourself only if suspected of being involved in a crime (including witnessing). You aren't required to identify yourself if driving, but you must prevent a valid license, which is ID, so it's the same effect as requiring you identify yourself.
The US has prided itself on not being "papers please".
Took no chances?? Thats not the movie that I saw.
The only thing "new" was the idea of a stormtrooper defector. Aside from that, what "chances" did it take? The only other "chance" I saw brought up was casting a black man in a white movie, and that's not really a chance.