So, if an adult knows a minor has mental issues, and harasses them online with the intention of causing a suicide (and succeeds, with a trail of proof of intent, and gloating after of the harm they did), is that just subjective emotional harm?
They really didn't have anything to communicate with HQ ABOUT, and they had no idea that their actions were liable to cause the aircraft to stall, until it happened, at which point there was no time (or point) to calling for help.
They were in stall for minutes. When you see your altitude drop steadily from 30,000 ft to 0 ft, you can call in a mayday.
While it may be true that pilots 'fly first and talk later' they also generally call for help pretty quickly when they can. Its human nature if nothing else to want someone to know what's happening so they can share their predicament. Its not exactly HARD for a pilot to make a radio call. In fact the process of making a distress call is deliberately VERY simple and straightforward. It involves generally pushing a button and talking.
So why didn't AF447 call anyone? It took them minutes to fly the plane from cruising altitude into the ocean. And never once did they press the button.
Confused incompetent pilots will forget everything, like calling someone. And calm pilots will call in quickly. USA 1549 had a "long" conversation with the tower, and less than 1/10th the altitude from double engine failure to "crash" in the water.
Where's the release proving it? If it's an "artistic" work, then the cameraman would need to prove model release or work for hire to assume the performance copyright the subject owns.
As the owner, I retain my personal rights to everything there; your rights don't trump mine, because this is MY private space.
Nope. As the owner (legal occupant of record, not owner for rented leased places), you have the right to ask them to leave, and "force" them to leave, and no more. If they take out a camera and start recording things, you may not "stop" them, assault them, take their camera, or any other such action. You may revoke their invitation, and not much more.
The French airliner (AF447) was flown to its destruction by the flight crew over a few minutes, with plenty of opportunity to call, and they never did. They were too busy crashing to tell anyone they were crashing.
Gay's are not "protected". Anchorage passed a resolution about 5 years ago reaffirming the "right" of landlords to discriminate against gays when selecting tenants (And many other similar acts around the US, I just happened to be in Anchorage for that one, and spoke at the hearings).
Funny, when I watch 2D TV, I have no problem telling who is in the foreground and who is in the background, or which light is farther away on the road they are on. Flat surfaces give great representation of depth perception. Go Google M.C. Escher.
Isn't bigoted laws what we're talking about? I'm not saying you're making this argument, but those who would make the "it's too hard to change them" argument are similar to those who argued for only "biblical marriage" (though we know how absurd that term is) because that's what the laws provided for.
I've never seen a law that treated a gay couple differently, unless specifically crafted after the debate started. The definiton of "married" and who could apply that was disputed as part of this, but nothing about how a legally married couple is treated once the marriage is recognized.
With polygamy, many many other laws will have to change. How do you file taxes if you are one of 9 spouses and wish to file separately, when the other 8 wish to file jointly? Is that a biggoted law? Or is it a social convention solidifed in thousands of years of common law?
What do you do when a wife with 10 husbands has a child? With the "traditional" polygamy, it was one man and many women, so any child was assumed to be his, unless challenged. But how do you assign parenthood to a woman with unknown/multiple partners? Listing no father reduces the rigths of the father and child, and there is no means to list multiple fathers on any birth form I've seen.
You can call those bigoted laws, but I see them as practical hurdles. It would take a near complete re-write of US law to allow "fair" polygamy (as opposed to the man-head-only traditional polygyny polygamy).
And the anti-miscegenation laws assumed that a black husband would pollute his wife's womb. Baseless claims can be made, but usually they're being used to support an unjust position.
Are you seriously disagreeing with the assertion that most polygamy was one-man, many woman? That's not a baseless claim, and that you argue it makes you seem to be a troll or mentally ill. I've never seen anyone ever argue that the man-dominated polygamy isn't the domintant form.
One could fairly easily incorporate all of the existing privileges granted to certain-types-of-marriages in such contracts, except that there may be laws that override such contracts. But that just leads us back to the government getting its nose out of how people choose to love each other.
Are you honestly arguing againts spouse and fiance visas? I don't think you understand what you are asking for. And over-estimating the chance of the Christian country of the USA coming to such a conclusion.
The mob had no power to remove the person from their job. So it *can't* be persecution.
I'm not claiming to be any better than anyone. I'm just pointing out the hypocricy of those who decry those who used speech to express displeasure with an action as being anti-speech.
certainly not draconian enough to demote someone because of a private $1000 donation 5 years ago.
Nobody was demoted. One person chose to step down. Why do you condemn people who use their free speech to complain about what they perceive to be an injustice?
lynched? He is alive. Lynched is what happens to gays (I remember regular hate-killings on the news when I was growing up in Texas). And many of the people objecting were't gay. Your intolerance to facts is showing.
Good luck getting married anywhere if you're poly today.
Something I metioned to others, and nobody has answered on is: What happens if you allow poly - fully poly, not men-only (the most popular by far)? Marriage laws work that when two people are married, they each have controlling interest in a single legal entity, even if "only" a 50% owner (neither is a majority owner, but both are treated as if they are). So for poly, would the same rules apply? 1 marries 2, then later 2 marries 3, would 1 need to consent to the marriage? If so, why are you against the right of 2 to marry 3? If not, what happens to 1's rights to 2's property if they conflict with 3?
It's a practical matter. The current laws (nearly all of them) are set up to recognize social groups of two. They don't work as well with a single head of household, and don't work at all with 3+, unless one of those in the group is "master" and the rest are subserviant, which is another reason why poly is rejected. It's assumed to be the mysogynist version.
This is wrong. People must never be demoted because of political activism they do privatly, not using the company brand, and not related to the company mission.
Yet many places have explicit rules about political activisim because, whether you like it or not, your actions away from work affect your work, or the company you work for. If a principal was "caught" for some minor sex-crime (we can use "indecent exposure for using a gay glory hole" for an example if you like, but the details don't matter much), do you think there wouldn't be any link between their non-work actions, and the perception of their ability to do their job?
So I shouldn't have the freedom of speech to denounce those who take actions I disagree with?
That is the question here. Whether the people had the right to complain about the actions of another. Anything else is a distraction to the issue. It isn't about gay rights, or human rights, just free speech and nothing but.
Do I have the right to complain about someone who took an action I didn't like? The "pro-free speech" crowd claims no, and the "anti-free speech" crowd says yes.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if an adult knows a minor has mental issues, and harasses them online with the intention of causing a suicide (and succeeds, with a trail of proof of intent, and gloating after of the harm they did), is that just subjective emotional harm?
So common law is exempted from constitutional restrictions?
How many travel over deep ocean?
They really didn't have anything to communicate with HQ ABOUT, and they had no idea that their actions were liable to cause the aircraft to stall, until it happened, at which point there was no time (or point) to calling for help.
They were in stall for minutes. When you see your altitude drop steadily from 30,000 ft to 0 ft, you can call in a mayday.
While it may be true that pilots 'fly first and talk later' they also generally call for help pretty quickly when they can. Its human nature if nothing else to want someone to know what's happening so they can share their predicament. Its not exactly HARD for a pilot to make a radio call. In fact the process of making a distress call is deliberately VERY simple and straightforward. It involves generally pushing a button and talking.
So why didn't AF447 call anyone? It took them minutes to fly the plane from cruising altitude into the ocean. And never once did they press the button.
Confused incompetent pilots will forget everything, like calling someone. And calm pilots will call in quickly. USA 1549 had a "long" conversation with the tower, and less than 1/10th the altitude from double engine failure to "crash" in the water.
It's estimated to be $200,000 per plane for live tracking. "Billons" would be a huge exaggeration.
Where's the release proving it? If it's an "artistic" work, then the cameraman would need to prove model release or work for hire to assume the performance copyright the subject owns.
As the owner, I retain my personal rights to everything there; your rights don't trump mine, because this is MY private space.
Nope. As the owner (legal occupant of record, not owner for rented leased places), you have the right to ask them to leave, and "force" them to leave, and no more. If they take out a camera and start recording things, you may not "stop" them, assault them, take their camera, or any other such action. You may revoke their invitation, and not much more.
So laws against defamation/slander are all illegal laws?
Deliberately harming someone is usually illegal. Why do you think it should be legal in this case?
The French airliner (AF447) was flown to its destruction by the flight crew over a few minutes, with plenty of opportunity to call, and they never did. They were too busy crashing to tell anyone they were crashing.
Gay's are not "protected". Anchorage passed a resolution about 5 years ago reaffirming the "right" of landlords to discriminate against gays when selecting tenants (And many other similar acts around the US, I just happened to be in Anchorage for that one, and spoke at the hearings).
Perspective is perception. You are the one that's massively confused.
Yup, the ragers against senseless bigotry. How rude..
Funny, when I watch 2D TV, I have no problem telling who is in the foreground and who is in the background, or which light is farther away on the road they are on. Flat surfaces give great representation of depth perception. Go Google M.C. Escher.
Isn't bigoted laws what we're talking about? I'm not saying you're making this argument, but those who would make the "it's too hard to change them" argument are similar to those who argued for only "biblical marriage" (though we know how absurd that term is) because that's what the laws provided for.
I've never seen a law that treated a gay couple differently, unless specifically crafted after the debate started. The definiton of "married" and who could apply that was disputed as part of this, but nothing about how a legally married couple is treated once the marriage is recognized.
With polygamy, many many other laws will have to change. How do you file taxes if you are one of 9 spouses and wish to file separately, when the other 8 wish to file jointly? Is that a biggoted law? Or is it a social convention solidifed in thousands of years of common law?
What do you do when a wife with 10 husbands has a child? With the "traditional" polygamy, it was one man and many women, so any child was assumed to be his, unless challenged. But how do you assign parenthood to a woman with unknown/multiple partners? Listing no father reduces the rigths of the father and child, and there is no means to list multiple fathers on any birth form I've seen.
You can call those bigoted laws, but I see them as practical hurdles. It would take a near complete re-write of US law to allow "fair" polygamy (as opposed to the man-head-only traditional polygyny polygamy).
And the anti-miscegenation laws assumed that a black husband would pollute his wife's womb. Baseless claims can be made, but usually they're being used to support an unjust position.
Are you seriously disagreeing with the assertion that most polygamy was one-man, many woman? That's not a baseless claim, and that you argue it makes you seem to be a troll or mentally ill. I've never seen anyone ever argue that the man-dominated polygamy isn't the domintant form.
One could fairly easily incorporate all of the existing privileges granted to certain-types-of-marriages in such contracts, except that there may be laws that override such contracts. But that just leads us back to the government getting its nose out of how people choose to love each other.
Are you honestly arguing againts spouse and fiance visas? I don't think you understand what you are asking for. And over-estimating the chance of the Christian country of the USA coming to such a conclusion.
The mob had no power to remove the person from their job. So it *can't* be persecution.
I'm not claiming to be any better than anyone. I'm just pointing out the hypocricy of those who decry those who used speech to express displeasure with an action as being anti-speech.
certainly not draconian enough to demote someone because of a private $1000 donation 5 years ago.
Nobody was demoted. One person chose to step down. Why do you condemn people who use their free speech to complain about what they perceive to be an injustice?
lynched? He is alive. Lynched is what happens to gays (I remember regular hate-killings on the news when I was growing up in Texas). And many of the people objecting were't gay. Your intolerance to facts is showing.
So what's the problem? You don't like people exercising their free speech to complain?
Then why are so many here objecting to those who exercised their free speech to complain about somthing they found objectionable?
Why is your list only Democrats? Nobody was talking party, until you brought it in with a loaded list.
Good luck getting married anywhere if you're poly today.
Something I metioned to others, and nobody has answered on is: What happens if you allow poly - fully poly, not men-only (the most popular by far)? Marriage laws work that when two people are married, they each have controlling interest in a single legal entity, even if "only" a 50% owner (neither is a majority owner, but both are treated as if they are). So for poly, would the same rules apply? 1 marries 2, then later 2 marries 3, would 1 need to consent to the marriage? If so, why are you against the right of 2 to marry 3? If not, what happens to 1's rights to 2's property if they conflict with 3?
It's a practical matter. The current laws (nearly all of them) are set up to recognize social groups of two. They don't work as well with a single head of household, and don't work at all with 3+, unless one of those in the group is "master" and the rest are subserviant, which is another reason why poly is rejected. It's assumed to be the mysogynist version.
This is wrong. People must never be demoted because of political activism they do privatly, not using the company brand, and not related to the company mission.
Yet many places have explicit rules about political activisim because, whether you like it or not, your actions away from work affect your work, or the company you work for. If a principal was "caught" for some minor sex-crime (we can use "indecent exposure for using a gay glory hole" for an example if you like, but the details don't matter much), do you think there wouldn't be any link between their non-work actions, and the perception of their ability to do their job?
And stepping down isn't "demoted".
So I shouldn't have the freedom of speech to denounce those who take actions I disagree with?
That is the question here. Whether the people had the right to complain about the actions of another. Anything else is a distraction to the issue. It isn't about gay rights, or human rights, just free speech and nothing but.
Do I have the right to complain about someone who took an action I didn't like? The "pro-free speech" crowd claims no, and the "anti-free speech" crowd says yes.
It gets so confusing.
And ahead of those fenders is a full-width bumper that would also hold cameras.