What she's getting now is beastly bullshit, and you're basically saying "she shouldn't have dressed that way, it's her fault for getting raped."
Where's the line between that and the drunk men who harassed a tiger until the tiger jumped the fence and killed one? Did they not bring it upon themselves by deliberately provoking a tiger?
Locking your car is a sensible precaution. But women getting ruffied in bars is still her fault for dressing "nice". That's like blaming the person with the stolen car for not replacing all the windows with armored glass. Possible, but not reasonable.
If women only dressed like described in the Koran, then we'd be less tempted to rape and kill them, right?
Isn't it also "genuine sexism" to assume she's not lying?
She's provided evidence of harassment. Those accusing her of lying haven't provided proof of lying. The win goes to the side with evidence, even if weak.
Personally, I don't trust her, not because she's a woman or anything stupid like that, but rather because I don't trust anyone I don't personally know.
If that were true, then you'd never leave your house. Assuming everyone is a violent murderer until you "know" them would be debilitating, and that's the natural consequence of your assertion. I trust all the time. I trust the guy in traffic to not deliberately ram me. I trust the ATM to not give me $100 and deduct $1000 from my account. I trust the store to sell me the item labeled, and not poison in a peanut butter jar.
Did you even address his personal experience on why he thought that? No, because you categorized him as a bigot,
No, because he posted none.
Americans live in America. Asian people have black hair. Women have boobs.
I'm an American who doesn't live in America. I work in IT, I think the average guys boobs are bigger than women's.
That you think the use of a generalization makes one unfit to be reasoned with is irrational.
When the generalization is used as a character assassination, then yes. You post on slashdot, therefore you must be a mysogynist. There is no rationalizing with such a bigot, therefore, there is no rationalizing with you. That's the logic the original poster used, and the responder made fun of. Does it work?
A specific threat, with a listed address, proving ability is a crime in all 50 states, and probably most countries. Yes, someone posting your address and death threats is scary. If you disagree, post your address here. Why not? Scared?
Having been born in Texas, the only union members I ran across on a regular basis were teachers, who were banned by law from even threatening to strike. I've lived elsewhere in the US, and they were more like Texas than the union utopias I hear described.
Try asking a set electrician to help move a prop like a chair and see how much of a slave these guys are.
I ask IBEW members in Alaska to do that, and they say yes, with a smile. Just because everyone's an asshole to you (wonder why), doesn't mean they are to everyone.
Where are you where everyone's in a union? Given the movie example, I'd lean towards CA, but I've worked with grad students and didn't run across any unions there.
Then give me a definition of torture, so we can see what fits yours.
The original definition, as it was used in the Inquisition, would include taking away her iPad if she didn't do what you wanted (like clean her room). Threatening to kill her if she didn't perform sex acts with you would be "torture"? Or would you dispute that one as well? Then let's "lessen" the punishment and act demanded, and see where you draw the line.
But then, older definitions of slavery would still come close to applying to minors in the USA (with the exception that there's a fixed term, so it's more like indentured servitude), as indentured servitude was considered "slavery".
Torture is violence or the threat of violence to extract a result. Prison is violent, so threats of prison are threats of violence.
Adding on more charges is to play the game of "we'll get you on something, so if you don't confess to this small list, we'll send you away to prison for a long time." That's threats of violence to get a result. So this is all a game of legal torture.
Cause harm and threaten harm until you get a confession, regardless of the guilt of the people involved. That's the American Way.
Before the 20th century, "world wars" were mostly impractical because it took so damn long to get anywhere. Months to cross the Atlantic, more months to cross the Pacific, much less to do the fighting when you got across, that sort of thing....
Yes, but before 1492, "World Wars" were common, but only involved Eurasia/Africa. The one continent where someone could theoretically walk from South Africa to France to China without ever getting your feet wet, though in practice, boats across the Aegean and Mediterranean were much easier than walking. And, for a while, every England vs world (France and Spain) was a world war. The Crusades were World Wars, even if East Asia didn't really care.
The problem with that statement is that England does not have any armed forces. The Royal Air Force is British, The Royal Navy is British and even specifically regionally English army units are in the British army.
Should I presume the British forces to belong to Britain (England and Wales) or Great Britain? Or are UK forces called British, even if not from or based in Britain?
I was under the assumption that the UK armed forces, whatever they are called, are roughly proportionally staffed by member kingdoms, making English, what, 80% of the population of the force?
An army that's 90%+ English wouldn't be unreasonably called "English".
Yeah, and we've gotten to the point that with the Guard holding "real" tanks and things like fighter jets, and the police with APCs and such, we have a domestic military capable of repelling the entire world, should the entire world declare war tomorrow. The military is surplus, and should be eliminated, saving trillions we can use to pay down the debt. If we paid off the debt and eliminated the military, we could cut Federal income tax in half, and increase services.
But no, being able to kill foreign dictators because they sell oil in Euros, not Dollars, is worth bankrupting the country and destabilizing the world.
There is oil and coal production in NZ, not sure how much as it isn't "my country" just an example of a country with trade partners and near-zero military. A single counter-example proves a generalization wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the response was "It's dumb to poke a hornet's next" or "don't trust an investment advisor who has been bankrupt 3 times"
If your opinion is so outspoken, you should stand by it. If you are just performing douchbaggery, then you shouldn't have it.
What she's getting now is beastly bullshit, and you're basically saying "she shouldn't have dressed that way, it's her fault for getting raped."
Where's the line between that and the drunk men who harassed a tiger until the tiger jumped the fence and killed one? Did they not bring it upon themselves by deliberately provoking a tiger?
Locking your car is a sensible precaution. But women getting ruffied in bars is still her fault for dressing "nice". That's like blaming the person with the stolen car for not replacing all the windows with armored glass. Possible, but not reasonable.
If women only dressed like described in the Koran, then we'd be less tempted to rape and kill them, right?
Read about the naked rambler for more details if you're interested.
If he were a hot chick, maybe, but he sounds like a creepy guy. People (even women) prefer to see a beautiful women, compared to ugly men.
Isn't it also "genuine sexism" to assume she's not lying?
She's provided evidence of harassment. Those accusing her of lying haven't provided proof of lying. The win goes to the side with evidence, even if weak.
Personally, I don't trust her, not because she's a woman or anything stupid like that, but rather because I don't trust anyone I don't personally know.
If that were true, then you'd never leave your house. Assuming everyone is a violent murderer until you "know" them would be debilitating, and that's the natural consequence of your assertion. I trust all the time. I trust the guy in traffic to not deliberately ram me. I trust the ATM to not give me $100 and deduct $1000 from my account. I trust the store to sell me the item labeled, and not poison in a peanut butter jar.
Did you even address his personal experience on why he thought that? No, because you categorized him as a bigot,
No, because he posted none.
Americans live in America. Asian people have black hair. Women have boobs.
I'm an American who doesn't live in America. I work in IT, I think the average guys boobs are bigger than women's.
That you think the use of a generalization makes one unfit to be reasoned with is irrational.
When the generalization is used as a character assassination, then yes. You post on slashdot, therefore you must be a mysogynist. There is no rationalizing with such a bigot, therefore, there is no rationalizing with you. That's the logic the original poster used, and the responder made fun of. Does it work?
A specific threat, with a listed address, proving ability is a crime in all 50 states, and probably most countries. Yes, someone posting your address and death threats is scary. If you disagree, post your address here. Why not? Scared?
No, because the capitalists always spoil it and blame communism.
Right. The US isn't an "advanced" economy, but a service economy. All the 24-hour stores and phone lines are manned by humans working night shifts.
How many times do I have to say "I didn't say 'in every case'?" before you get the clue?
A generalization that's wrong more than right isn't a generalization, it's an unsubstantiated anecdote.
Every time I shoot you in the brain, you die. But correlation does not imply causation, so it must be some other reason.
Try asking a set electrician to help move a prop like a chair and see how much of a slave these guys are.
I ask IBEW members in Alaska to do that, and they say yes, with a smile. Just because everyone's an asshole to you (wonder why), doesn't mean they are to everyone.
Where are you where everyone's in a union? Given the movie example, I'd lean towards CA, but I've worked with grad students and didn't run across any unions there.
Unionized secretary? What's the secretary's union?
An example is not a definition.
Then give me a definition of torture, so we can see what fits yours.
The original definition, as it was used in the Inquisition, would include taking away her iPad if she didn't do what you wanted (like clean her room). Threatening to kill her if she didn't perform sex acts with you would be "torture"? Or would you dispute that one as well? Then let's "lessen" the punishment and act demanded, and see where you draw the line.
But then, older definitions of slavery would still come close to applying to minors in the USA (with the exception that there's a fixed term, so it's more like indentured servitude), as indentured servitude was considered "slavery".
Torture is violence or the threat of violence to extract a result. Prison is violent, so threats of prison are threats of violence.
Adding on more charges is to play the game of "we'll get you on something, so if you don't confess to this small list, we'll send you away to prison for a long time." That's threats of violence to get a result. So this is all a game of legal torture.
Cause harm and threaten harm until you get a confession, regardless of the guilt of the people involved. That's the American Way.
And those are provided over how many networks? Two? Three? How many are resellers with no equipment of their own?
Before the 20th century, "world wars" were mostly impractical because it took so damn long to get anywhere. Months to cross the Atlantic, more months to cross the Pacific, much less to do the fighting when you got across, that sort of thing....
Yes, but before 1492, "World Wars" were common, but only involved Eurasia/Africa. The one continent where someone could theoretically walk from South Africa to France to China without ever getting your feet wet, though in practice, boats across the Aegean and Mediterranean were much easier than walking. And, for a while, every England vs world (France and Spain) was a world war. The Crusades were World Wars, even if East Asia didn't really care.
The problem with that statement is that England does not have any armed forces. The Royal Air Force is British, The Royal Navy is British and even specifically regionally English army units are in the British army.
Should I presume the British forces to belong to Britain (England and Wales) or Great Britain? Or are UK forces called British, even if not from or based in Britain?
I was under the assumption that the UK armed forces, whatever they are called, are roughly proportionally staffed by member kingdoms, making English, what, 80% of the population of the force?
An army that's 90%+ English wouldn't be unreasonably called "English".
he can't even make you do something outside your job description in many cases.
I've never had a job that didn't have "other duties as assigned". So there is nothing "outside the job description."
GDP would triple in 5 years. Easy. Next time ask a hard one.
Yeah, and we've gotten to the point that with the Guard holding "real" tanks and things like fighter jets, and the police with APCs and such, we have a domestic military capable of repelling the entire world, should the entire world declare war tomorrow. The military is surplus, and should be eliminated, saving trillions we can use to pay down the debt. If we paid off the debt and eliminated the military, we could cut Federal income tax in half, and increase services.
But no, being able to kill foreign dictators because they sell oil in Euros, not Dollars, is worth bankrupting the country and destabilizing the world.
There is oil and coal production in NZ, not sure how much as it isn't "my country" just an example of a country with trade partners and near-zero military. A single counter-example proves a generalization wrong.
When the police and the school are contacted for comment and refuse, what would you do? Bury the story to not soil the good reputation of the police?