Thus demanding equality in this context is somewhat impossible.
Tell that to the New York State Court of Appeals. They decided awhile ago that it is an equal protection issue. The end result of that ruling is that a female can go topless in New York State anywhere that a male legally can. At the bare minimum (pun intended) this would include beaches and your own private property or the property of those that wouldn't object.
Just think of sexually-provocative silhouettes. Part of a woman's appealing curves are her breasts. Women know this and show them in their best lights to their advantage.
Well duh. But if it's legal for a man to go topless how can you make it illegal for a woman to do so? As you said a man's chest is also sexual.
Frankly I can't shake the general believe that women who demand the right to bare their breasts in public in fact are just the kinds of women who will not be happy no matter what ideals of feminism are set into law.
I'd agree with you on that but what can you do? It does seem to be an equal protection issue. Why can I bare my chest but a member of the opposite sex can't?
but the owners of the property can---and indeed, should be able to, in a free country---kick out anyone they want.
They can. And in a free country the Mother can let people know what assholes they are and encourage people not to do business with them. I don't know about you but I wouldn't do business with someone that hassled someone merely for trying to feed her child.
Here's my citation of the law in NYS. You'll note it says any place public or private that the Mother is otherwise authorized to be in. So yes, they could ask her to leave -- but they'd have to ask and in so doing would risk a pretty big public backlash for very little gain.
Section 79-e. Right to breast feed.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a mother may breast feed her baby in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether or not the nipple of the mother's breast is covered during or incidental to the breast feeding.
Seems pretty clear to me. I suppose there might be an argument if the owner asks you to leave -- if you remain you are technically trespassing at that point -- but that wouldn't seem to be a good strategy to remain in business. I don't know about you but I wouldn't do business with a company that hassled some poor woman who was only trying to feed her baby.
If you are circulating photos of your breasts, its probably sex related
I don't know about you but I've never been particularly aroused by pictures of breastfeeding. Of course there is a kink for this (what isn't there a kink for?) but I think the vast majority of the human race wouldn't find anything sexual in a picture of someone breastfeeding her baby.
Kids gain nothing from you circulating pictures of them breastfeeding.
Kids gain nothing from you circulating any pictures of them. That seems like a pretty thin argument for banning said photos.
Facebook can ban anything they want. I (and others) can also choose to boycott them if they choose to ban harmless images of breastfeeding. Let's see who wins in the end -- that's the beauty of capitalism.
Disappearance of microsoft will not be a happy event for nerds
Microsoft isn't going anywhere. Let's review which market segments they are involved in:
* Productivity Software (Office) that is (for better or worse) almost universally used.
* Workstating Operating System Software that is (for better or worse) almost universally used.
* Video game consoles.
* Server operating systems
* Database software
* Exchange (e-mail software? Whatever the hell you wanna call it)
* MSNBC
Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure others can add those that I've missed. Microsoft isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future. They've diversified quite well and have a foothold in so many different markets it's not funny. Wait long enough and you'll see them borrow a page from GE's play book and start their own financing division.
Not in New York State it isn't. You could expose your chest anywhere I could expose my chest (as a male) and be completely legal while doing so. Breast-feeding is a further exemption -- you can "expose" yourself in places that you would otherwise be precluded from doing so (i.e: places that require you to wear a shirt).
In the end, breastfeeding in public isn't something I would really want to see
May I ask why? It's never bothered me. Should Mom just not leave the house with little one or ignore his cries if he's hungry when she does? Hell, I'd go one step further. Anywhere it's legal for a male to go topless it should also be legal for women to do the same. This is actually the case in a few jurisdictions already -- including New York State. It seems like simple equality to me.
But posting pictures of yourself breastfeeding just seems like being deliberately provocative.
Why? Nobody is forcing you or anybody else to look at their Facebook pages.
Yeah, but the question is what percentage will survive such a calamity?
Probably not even a majority but I think the human race itself would manage to survive. It'd be rough going for a long time but we'd make it in the end.
If your country is a relatively safe place, it's rather silly to allow your citizens easy access to guns just in the hope that they could stop some terrorist.
See, I look at it from a different vantage point: It's rather silly to tell law-abiding citizens that they can't defend themselves. I wasn't advocating citizens hunting down terrorists -- but I'd rather be hiding in my hotel room with a gun ready to shoot the SOB who kicks the door in with the intent of killing me than hiding in my hotel room with a cell phone praying that the cops find me before the bad guys do.
Would allowing citizens easy access to guns really reduce the number of deaths/injuries a year? I doubt it.
Tell that to the people who had no choice other than cowering in their hotel rooms and waiting to be executed.
Thank you. I wasn't advocating isolationism. There's no reason why we couldn't trade with the rest of the world but maintain a non-interventionist foreign policy.
So basically what this article is really saying is, that by 2020 the West's gradual transition to total fascism will be near completion.
I have a better idea. Let's give up our "empire", withdraw from the World and adopt the Swiss stance of armed neutrality. Back it up with our nuclear deterrent.
Nobody is going to invade us -- nuclear weapons combined with a ridiculous amount of firearms should be a sufficient deterrent. Terrorists will lose their motivation for attacking us when we stop interfering in their countries. Let's see how long the despots in the Middle East can cling to power when they can't blame the United States for everything that's wrong in their countries.
As we saw in India terrorists can just as easily walk into a train station or a hotel and open fire on everyone in sight
Sounds like the best argument I've ever heard for opposing gun control. Didn't the photographer who caught the only picture of the attackers say that he wished he had a gun instead of a camera?
I think that's your own goddamn fault if you're annoyed by something that's absolutely trivial to make go away.
Yeah, it's trivial. Until you get to see it ten times in a single day while setting up new computers. Or unless you have the misfortune of having a slow internet connection -- because apparently "customizing" IE requires communications with a Microsoft webpage instead of being a local configuration.
IE7 being a more natural progression for users of IE6 due to familiarity.
Actually all of the users that I've switched from IE6 to IE7 were more confused than the users I switched from any version of IE to Firefox. The interface changed quite a bit in IE7 and Firefox (version 2 anyway) seems to have more of a classical interface.
IE7 also annoys the hell out of me with that stupid "customize your browser" splash screen that refuses to go away on startup until you acknowledge it and save your settings.
You elect an imbecile to the most powerful office in the world. Twice.
The United States doesn't exactly have a monopoly on electing idiots. You do know that he who shall not be named gained power democratically, right? GWB is an imbecile -- but he isn't a genocidal nutjob who came to power after blaming an unpopular minority for all of our problems.
You spend/borrow your way into a financial crisis.
The financial crisis had less to do with borrowing (although that played a part) and more to do with the real estate bubble. When that bubble burst it unbalanced the books of all the institutions that had money invested in the mortgage market. In any case our national debt is smaller than Japan's when looked at vs. GDP. Why aren't you blaming them for the economic crisis?
bombings inside Pakistan
Maybe that has something to do with that region of Pakistan harboring the people who murdered almost 3,000 Americans?
Kyoto
Kyoto is a flawed treaty. It will cripple the economy of the developed World while giving a license to pollute to the developing World (China/India). Why the hell should we cripple our economy if they aren't going to be on board with solving the problem?
You remove more and more of the basic rights of your own citizens.
Citation?
count your fucking blessings
I count my blessings every day that I was born in the greatest country on Earth. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
and shut the fuck up
You got a +5 insightful for "shut the fuck up"? Guess the anti-American folks have the mod points today.
Try living just one day as an average Somali, Haitian, Zimbabwean, or Burmese.
So which one of those countries are you posting from?
Hehe, I was a staunch Democrat until I started hanging out on Dailykos and saw just how scary some of those fuckers are. Now I'm applying for my pistol permit and earnestly hoping that Obama is as pragmatic as I think he is and governs from the center.
Slashdot Mirror
Thus demanding equality in this context is somewhat impossible.
Tell that to the New York State Court of Appeals. They decided awhile ago that it is an equal protection issue. The end result of that ruling is that a female can go topless in New York State anywhere that a male legally can. At the bare minimum (pun intended) this would include beaches and your own private property or the property of those that wouldn't object.
Just think of sexually-provocative silhouettes. Part of a woman's appealing curves are her breasts. Women know this and show them in their best lights to their advantage.
Well duh. But if it's legal for a man to go topless how can you make it illegal for a woman to do so? As you said a man's chest is also sexual.
Frankly I can't shake the general believe that women who demand the right to bare their breasts in public in fact are just the kinds of women who will not be happy no matter what ideals of feminism are set into law.
I'd agree with you on that but what can you do? It does seem to be an equal protection issue. Why can I bare my chest but a member of the opposite sex can't?
but the owners of the property can---and indeed, should be able to, in a free country---kick out anyone they want.
They can. And in a free country the Mother can let people know what assholes they are and encourage people not to do business with them. I don't know about you but I wouldn't do business with someone that hassled someone merely for trying to feed her child.
Here's my citation of the law in NYS. You'll note it says any place public or private that the Mother is otherwise authorized to be in. So yes, they could ask her to leave -- but they'd have to ask and in so doing would risk a pretty big public backlash for very little gain.
New York State Civil Rights Law:
Section 79-e. Right to breast feed.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a mother may breast feed her baby in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether or not the nipple of the mother's breast is covered during or incidental to the breast feeding.
Seems pretty clear to me. I suppose there might be an argument if the owner asks you to leave -- if you remain you are technically trespassing at that point -- but that wouldn't seem to be a good strategy to remain in business. I don't know about you but I wouldn't do business with a company that hassled some poor woman who was only trying to feed her baby.
And just because something doesn't bother you, that doesn't affect what bothers anyone else. So it doesn't bother you... congratulations.
There's a lot of things that bother me. I just don't feel compelled to restrict other people from engaging in them.
Also, an effective Muslim detector would awful hard to actually build.
Well, I can think of one way to do it, but it might give you false positives and only works on males ;)
+5 funny or -1 troll? Let the mods decide!
If you are circulating photos of your breasts, its probably sex related
I don't know about you but I've never been particularly aroused by pictures of breastfeeding. Of course there is a kink for this (what isn't there a kink for?) but I think the vast majority of the human race wouldn't find anything sexual in a picture of someone breastfeeding her baby.
Kids gain nothing from you circulating pictures of them breastfeeding.
Kids gain nothing from you circulating any pictures of them. That seems like a pretty thin argument for banning said photos.
Facebook can ban anything they want. I (and others) can also choose to boycott them if they choose to ban harmless images of breastfeeding. Let's see who wins in the end -- that's the beauty of capitalism.
Disappearance of microsoft will not be a happy event for nerds
Microsoft isn't going anywhere. Let's review which market segments they are involved in:
* Productivity Software (Office) that is (for better or worse) almost universally used.
* Workstating Operating System Software that is (for better or worse) almost universally used.
* Video game consoles.
* Server operating systems
* Database software
* Exchange (e-mail software? Whatever the hell you wanna call it)
* MSNBC
Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure others can add those that I've missed. Microsoft isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future. They've diversified quite well and have a foothold in so many different markets it's not funny. Wait long enough and you'll see them borrow a page from GE's play book and start their own financing division.
and if you listen slightly to the West, you just might hear some of them land...
And if you listen slightly to the East, you just might hear some stock brokers land... *splat*
One time, my girlfriend and her best friend were tickling each other
I think I stumbled across that video the other day ;) Your girlfriend is hot :P
Thing is, its different when you take photos of yourself breastfeeding. Then it becomes more about sex
Please explain how you've made the leap from A to B in your example.
internet rule number 5: when you have no valid argument, attack spelling and grammar.
You forgot to capitalize the first word of that sentence ;)
If I expose my chest in public, that's a crime
Not in New York State it isn't. You could expose your chest anywhere I could expose my chest (as a male) and be completely legal while doing so. Breast-feeding is a further exemption -- you can "expose" yourself in places that you would otherwise be precluded from doing so (i.e: places that require you to wear a shirt).
it exposes a part of the female anatomy considered again by the society to be shameful and/or only to be exposed in the act of sex
Actually in New York State (and a few other jurisdictions) women can go topless anywhere men can.......
Further they can ask whoever they want to leave their property.
Actually in most states they can't ask you to leave for breastfeeding in public.
In the end, breastfeeding in public isn't something I would really want to see
May I ask why? It's never bothered me. Should Mom just not leave the house with little one or ignore his cries if he's hungry when she does? Hell, I'd go one step further. Anywhere it's legal for a male to go topless it should also be legal for women to do the same. This is actually the case in a few jurisdictions already -- including New York State. It seems like simple equality to me.
But posting pictures of yourself breastfeeding just seems like being deliberately provocative.
Why? Nobody is forcing you or anybody else to look at their Facebook pages.
Yeah, but the question is what percentage will survive such a calamity?
Probably not even a majority but I think the human race itself would manage to survive. It'd be rough going for a long time but we'd make it in the end.
If your country is a relatively safe place, it's rather silly to allow your citizens easy access to guns just in the hope that they could stop some terrorist.
See, I look at it from a different vantage point: It's rather silly to tell law-abiding citizens that they can't defend themselves. I wasn't advocating citizens hunting down terrorists -- but I'd rather be hiding in my hotel room with a gun ready to shoot the SOB who kicks the door in with the intent of killing me than hiding in my hotel room with a cell phone praying that the cops find me before the bad guys do.
Would allowing citizens easy access to guns really reduce the number of deaths/injuries a year? I doubt it.
Tell that to the people who had no choice other than cowering in their hotel rooms and waiting to be executed.
Thank you. I wasn't advocating isolationism. There's no reason why we couldn't trade with the rest of the world but maintain a non-interventionist foreign policy.
So basically what this article is really saying is, that by 2020 the West's gradual transition to total fascism will be near completion.
I have a better idea. Let's give up our "empire", withdraw from the World and adopt the Swiss stance of armed neutrality. Back it up with our nuclear deterrent.
Nobody is going to invade us -- nuclear weapons combined with a ridiculous amount of firearms should be a sufficient deterrent. Terrorists will lose their motivation for attacking us when we stop interfering in their countries. Let's see how long the despots in the Middle East can cling to power when they can't blame the United States for everything that's wrong in their countries.
As we saw in India terrorists can just as easily walk into a train station or a hotel and open fire on everyone in sight
Sounds like the best argument I've ever heard for opposing gun control. Didn't the photographer who caught the only picture of the attackers say that he wished he had a gun instead of a camera?
I think that's your own goddamn fault if you're annoyed by something that's absolutely trivial to make go away.
Yeah, it's trivial. Until you get to see it ten times in a single day while setting up new computers. Or unless you have the misfortune of having a slow internet connection -- because apparently "customizing" IE requires communications with a Microsoft webpage instead of being a local configuration.
IE7 being a more natural progression for users of IE6 due to familiarity.
Actually all of the users that I've switched from IE6 to IE7 were more confused than the users I switched from any version of IE to Firefox. The interface changed quite a bit in IE7 and Firefox (version 2 anyway) seems to have more of a classical interface.
IE7 also annoys the hell out of me with that stupid "customize your browser" splash screen that refuses to go away on startup until you acknowledge it and save your settings.
You elect an imbecile to the most powerful office in the world. Twice.
The United States doesn't exactly have a monopoly on electing idiots. You do know that he who shall not be named gained power democratically, right? GWB is an imbecile -- but he isn't a genocidal nutjob who came to power after blaming an unpopular minority for all of our problems.
You spend/borrow your way into a financial crisis.
The financial crisis had less to do with borrowing (although that played a part) and more to do with the real estate bubble. When that bubble burst it unbalanced the books of all the institutions that had money invested in the mortgage market. In any case our national debt is smaller than Japan's when looked at vs. GDP. Why aren't you blaming them for the economic crisis?
bombings inside Pakistan
Maybe that has something to do with that region of Pakistan harboring the people who murdered almost 3,000 Americans?
Kyoto
Kyoto is a flawed treaty. It will cripple the economy of the developed World while giving a license to pollute to the developing World (China/India). Why the hell should we cripple our economy if they aren't going to be on board with solving the problem?
You remove more and more of the basic rights of your own citizens.
Citation?
count your fucking blessings
I count my blessings every day that I was born in the greatest country on Earth. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
and shut the fuck up
You got a +5 insightful for "shut the fuck up"? Guess the anti-American folks have the mod points today.
Try living just one day as an average Somali, Haitian, Zimbabwean, or Burmese.
So which one of those countries are you posting from?
Obama Republican. I really hope he doesn't suck.
Hehe, I was a staunch Democrat until I started hanging out on Dailykos and saw just how scary some of those fuckers are. Now I'm applying for my pistol permit and earnestly hoping that Obama is as pragmatic as I think he is and governs from the center.