Thanks for the minor clarifications. Unfortunately putting 'nope' at the start of both sentences makes it sound like you don't think that these are examples of government overreach. Also, "having to tell the truth" makes it sound like they were lying, and it violated their freedom of speech, not religion.
You need your wife's permission to do what you want with your body? What bullshit is this?
American doctors in particular have a weird relationship with male genitalia. When they want to perform surgery, they can pressure your exhausted parents just after you're born, and that counts as 'consent'. When they don't want to perform surgery, your signature and repeated attestations aren't enough - many places want you to be 35 or have two kids, as well as the wife's acknowledgement.
But the other reply you got does have a point - they usually apply the same rules about sterilization to women. Not for abortion though, dear God no. 'Cause that's totally different... because reasons.
It does not put men and women on equal reproductive grounds.
Yep - As much as the GOP would like to be able to, you can't force a women to carry a child to term.
So you're admitting that it's not equal. Great.
Wear a condom. Are they perfect? No. But odds of pregnancy plummet.
But not nearly as much as with most other forms of birth control, and not at all similar to having post-intercourse control. I'll take that as a concession.
paternity fraud
Easily disproved with a genetic test.
No, not even close:
If he's married to a woman, even it it's a Common Law marriage that he didn't realize that he was in, he's legally the father regardless of genetics.
If he doesn't get the court summons (in many cases just a first-class letter, no signature required) he's the father by default, no chance to contest.
If it takes six months for him to realize/find out that he might not be the father, it's too late in many places.
In many places if he signs the birth certificate, later paternity tests won't change the legal situation.
So... not at all equal.
Unfortunately the original poster didn't bring up fathers that were victims of statutory rape or unconscious when sex took place, or the countries where paternity tests aren't even legal without the mother's permission, or the strange mess of legal abandonment, so I'll save those extra-fun inequalities for later.
Except build them out in the first place. Though U.S. law...
Absolutely. Don't get me started, you'll never hear the end of it.
My only point was that if a law eliminates some regulations in industry X, then it's not oxymoronic or arcane for its supporters to call it "The X Freedom Act".
2. They say "yes, all lives matter" as a way of agreeing with you, explaining why they agree with you, and being as philosophically universal as possible.
3. You get mad.
And they're the one that's tone deaf?
You realize that up until the BLM phrase went viral "all lives matter" would have been about the most bland and inoffensive pro-equity statement anyone could have made? That you're demanding exclusive focus on your pet racism problem at the expense of all others, including making progress against racism in general? That somehow you've convinced yourself that you (and/or a group that you empathize with) are the only people in pain? Really?
I couldn't care less about your movement's self-inflicted wounds, at worst they're just enjoyable cringe.
I'm just pointing out that if your response to someone stating that they "value all lives" is a rant full of hysterical accusations of racism, the ensuing PR disaster is one of your own making. Best of luck with that.
You've clearly never taken an implicit bias test.... identical resumes with black names get fewer callbacks...
And you've clearly never read any of the critiques of those kinds of tests. They give you a result you like, so they're right.
But for the sake of argument, I'll assume that racism not only exists, but is common and debilitating.
What if your "anti-racism measures" cause more racism, along with a panoply of other unintended consequences?
You should look at it and then realize that while you're trying to solving a problem, which is admirable, you're actually letting perfect be the enemy of the good, which is one of man's most destructive sins.
What you're asking for isn't the acceptance of sub-optimal solutions, you're asking people to deliberately not look at possible downsides.
I have to ask, did that simply not occur to you or are you deliberately ignoring it to make a straw man?
The only straw man I see here is yours:
Or the third and much more reasonable option...
...was exactly what willoughby suggested, except that they stated "If you truly believe..." rather than "If you've tried going through HR and still don't think that the issue is resolved,...".
not get upset about women following the established procedure
Nobody is upset about that.
before passing judgement on her character and truthfulness
Nothing in willoughby's post nor mine passed judgment of any kind on the complainants.
women... her
To their credit, willoughby's post was completely gender neutral. Someone else's was not.
I have to ask, did that simply not occur to you or are you deliberately ignoring it to make a straw man?
The only straw man I see here is yours:
the third and much more reasonable option
Other than not explicitly saying "do this after HR fails you" and instead saying "if you truly believe", that's exactly what willoughby suggested.
not get upset about women following the established procedure
Who got upset about that? Nobody, that's who.
passing judgement on her character and truthfulness
Comrade Ogilvy was the one passing judgement, and I only passed judgement on them in return. No one passed judgment on the people making HR complaints.
women... her
Comrade Ogilvy was the person who decided to drag gender into the discussion. There was literally no mention of the complainant's gender in willoughby's post.
If willoughby offered the opinion that it is better to hire a lawyer, fine. The poster decided go for blaming the victim with this "truly believe" argument.
That's not victim blaming. Nothing about "if you think you're a victim of X, you can do Y." suggests that you're to blame.
If you're going to whine about the single qualifying word ("truly"), that's just there to imply that you shouldn't do this on a vague guess, and that it's the thing you do after you go to HR.
Open your eyes, and step into the adult world like an adult, before lecturing with moralistic tones.
willoughby didn't use moralistic tones, but you did. That was the whole point of my post. You took a gender-neutral suggestion with no real judgement included and accused them of sexism. That's on you.
I expect adults here to notice that women literally get lectured with diametrically opposing moral arguments.
Again, willoughby didn't make a moral argument, and I expect adults to know that people of both sexes face catch-22s.
Well, since it's impossible to please everyone, suggestions on both ends of the spectrum will inevitably be made, and you can use this logic to dismiss all of them as stemming from bigotry. All you have to do is pretend that the same people are making both arguments.
The women always lose. That is what is important.
Any statement you don't like is misogynistic. That is what is important.
Your post is instead a classic clueless white male denial.
You probably think I'm male because I don't like some kinds of feminism - quite an assumption, but not an unexpected kind of stupid.
And you think I'm white... because I use correct spelling? Damn that's racist.
Yet they persist. Thus continued feminist agitation.
No, the continued feminist agitation causes them to still be issues.
The wage gap is primarily caused by career choice, number of hours worked, and years of experience in the workplace. The remaining 3% - 6% is almost certainly caused by the other inconveniences men are more likely than women to accept in favor of higher wages - like longer commutes and risk of death.
Men are totally raped to the same extent as women
They aren't, but only because we don't count 'forced to penetrate' as 'rape'.
Also, how many women who were statutorily raped have to pay their rapists child support?
and have the same legal constraints on their reproduction, you're 100% correct.
Even if abortion was illegal, women would still have more choices and fewer legally-enforced responsibilities surrounding reproduction than men do.
Somehow I find enough sympathy for pregnant women to realize that they should have the right to abort (at least early in the pregnancy) even on a whim. You, on the other hand, will see a man who was coerced into sex at 12 years old by his 35 year old teacher, or one who passed out at a party and woke up to a woman he didn't know climbing off of him, and shout at him to "take responsibility".
But originally you said "bodily integrity and autonomy" - have you heard of the draft and circumcision???
It's not like they'd accidentally pick up a burning stick and remember that dropping it in just the right area results in lots of dinner running about in the open.
I could easily see them picking up and dropping sticks to scare prey out of small grassy patches.
Adding the 'smoking sticks sometimes work even better' part doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.
I'd be willing to bet there vastly more people are using their browsers to do nothing more than read news than all of these shitty single-page apps.
Facebook gets 1.3 billion daily active users.
Wikipedia gets ~100 million.
That is an order of magnitude of difference.
Wikipedia? That's your example? I'll give you Facebook.
But Wikipedia? That website does not need javascript to function. It's basically a bunch of static pages inside a database.
I don't think they were giving two examples of SPAs, I think they were pointing out an example of each type.
Sucrose, glucose, and fructose are the sugars that the FDA actually considers sugar.
That's not a citation, that's just assertion. So I'll do the work for you:
According to this the term "no sugar added" may only be used if no sugar was added using the definition of sugar found here, which states "sugars shall be defined as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides (such as glucose, fructose, lactose, and sucrose)."
How wonderful is the libertarian way of thinking, where if a corporation is comitting fraud, the government is still the main culprit.
How wonderful is the authoritarian way of thinking, where if a government assists thousands of corporations in committing fraud, the government isn't even part of the problem, and giving it more power is the solution.
IANAL, but I think the GP post is confusing "accessory after the fact" (e.g. helping to hide the body) with some other legal ideas like "strict liability" and/or the "felony murder rule" and/or several other things.
would it mean that he can't be charged if the cop is not charged too?
I don't think that would make a difference. If you commit a felony, and it was reasonably foreseeable that someone would die as a result, and someone does die as a result, that's murder. Other factors - if it was an accident, a lawful killing (law enforcement or self defense) - are completely irrelevant.
For example: If you release a bunch of tigers from a zoo, it doesn't matter that tigers aren't "legal persons" and thus aren't murdering the kids they eat, you're still responsible. If you give someone a massive dose of drugs that makes them go on a violent, hallucinatory rampage the cops might be justified in shooting them, but you're still guilty of the any murders they committed, as well as the murder of the person you dosed. If you do an armed robbery and some wannabe hero shoots a bystander, they might be guilty of some kind of negligence or completely innocent, but you are guilty - period.
How much of the energy will be used just to run the lights under the panels.
Since there wouldn't be lights under them, I'm guessing none.
How much more expensive will it be to build all the supports, high enough for the highest trucks, thin enough to be translucent and still strong enough to be out in the elements.
So that sounds expensive, but doing the same thing flat on the ground, with a surface tires can grip, with trucks grinding rock, salt and ice into it, and dealing with mud, oil, and roadkill - that's seems cheaper to you?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the minor clarifications. Unfortunately putting 'nope' at the start of both sentences makes it sound like you don't think that these are examples of government overreach. Also, "having to tell the truth" makes it sound like they were lying, and it violated their freedom of speech, not religion.
You need your wife's permission to do what you want with your body? What bullshit is this?
American doctors in particular have a weird relationship with male genitalia. When they want to perform surgery, they can pressure your exhausted parents just after you're born, and that counts as 'consent'. When they don't want to perform surgery, your signature and repeated attestations aren't enough - many places want you to be 35 or have two kids, as well as the wife's acknowledgement.
But the other reply you got does have a point - they usually apply the same rules about sterilization to women. Not for abortion though, dear God no. 'Cause that's totally different ... because reasons.
It does not put men and women on equal reproductive grounds.
Yep - As much as the GOP would like to be able to, you can't force a women to carry a child to term.
So you're admitting that it's not equal. Great.
Wear a condom. Are they perfect? No. But odds of pregnancy plummet.
But not nearly as much as with most other forms of birth control, and not at all similar to having post-intercourse control. I'll take that as a concession.
paternity fraud
Easily disproved with a genetic test.
No, not even close:
If he's married to a woman, even it it's a Common Law marriage that he didn't realize that he was in, he's legally the father regardless of genetics.
If he doesn't get the court summons (in many cases just a first-class letter, no signature required) he's the father by default, no chance to contest.
If it takes six months for him to realize/find out that he might not be the father, it's too late in many places.
In many places if he signs the birth certificate, later paternity tests won't change the legal situation.
So ... not at all equal.
Unfortunately the original poster didn't bring up fathers that were victims of statutory rape or unconscious when sex took place, or the countries where paternity tests aren't even legal without the mother's permission, or the strange mess of legal abandonment, so I'll save those extra-fun inequalities for later.
Except build them out in the first place. Though U.S. law...
Absolutely. Don't get me started, you'll never hear the end of it.
My only point was that if a law eliminates some regulations in industry X, then it's not oxymoronic or arcane for its supporters to call it "The X Freedom Act".
Patriot Act - Unconstitutional spying and removal of citizen rights
Yep, that one's all backward.
Right to work - delegitimize unions
You have the right to work for an employer on your own terms, even if the union doesn't want you to do so.
Defense of marriage act - restrict marriage to same sex only
Defended the existing, long-standing concept of marriage from being altered.
Internet Freedom Act - attempted to repeal net neutrality
People are free to do as they like with their own networks.
Citizens United - legal bribery, constituents no longer represented
Citizens united for a purpose have the same right to use political ads that they have when they're not united (also not legislation).
1. You say "black lives matter".
2. They say "yes, all lives matter" as a way of agreeing with you, explaining why they agree with you, and being as philosophically universal as possible.
3. You get mad.
And they're the one that's tone deaf?
You realize that up until the BLM phrase went viral "all lives matter" would have been about the most bland and inoffensive pro-equity statement anyone could have made? That you're demanding exclusive focus on your pet racism problem at the expense of all others, including making progress against racism in general? That somehow you've convinced yourself that you (and/or a group that you empathize with) are the only people in pain? Really?
I couldn't care less about your movement's self-inflicted wounds, at worst they're just enjoyable cringe.
I'm just pointing out that if your response to someone stating that they "value all lives" is a rant full of hysterical accusations of racism, the ensuing PR disaster is one of your own making. Best of luck with that.
If you think all lives matter then there's no way BLM should be offensive or controversial to you.
If you think black lives matter then there's no way "all lives matter" should be offensive or controversial to you.
I'm pretty sure that's where the movement went sideways.
You've clearly never taken an implicit bias test. ... identical resumes with black names get fewer callbacks ...
And you've clearly never read any of the critiques of those kinds of tests. They give you a result you like, so they're right.
But for the sake of argument, I'll assume that racism not only exists, but is common and debilitating.
What if your "anti-racism measures" cause more racism, along with a panoply of other unintended consequences?
You should look at it and then realize that while you're trying to solving a problem, which is admirable, you're actually letting perfect be the enemy of the good, which is one of man's most destructive sins.
What you're asking for isn't the acceptance of sub-optimal solutions, you're asking people to deliberately not look at possible downsides.
I have to ask, did that simply not occur to you or are you deliberately ignoring it to make a straw man?
The only straw man I see here is yours:
Or the third and much more reasonable option...
...was exactly what willoughby suggested, except that they stated "If you truly believe ..." rather than "If you've tried going through HR and still don't think that the issue is resolved, ...".
not get upset about women following the established procedure
Nobody is upset about that.
before passing judgement on her character and truthfulness
Nothing in willoughby's post nor mine passed judgment of any kind on the complainants.
women ... her
To their credit, willoughby's post was completely gender neutral. Someone else's was not.
I have to ask, did that simply not occur to you or are you deliberately ignoring it to make a straw man?
The only straw man I see here is yours:
the third and much more reasonable option
Other than not explicitly saying "do this after HR fails you" and instead saying "if you truly believe", that's exactly what willoughby suggested.
not get upset about women following the established procedure
Who got upset about that? Nobody, that's who.
passing judgement on her character and truthfulness
Comrade Ogilvy was the one passing judgement, and I only passed judgement on them in return. No one passed judgment on the people making HR complaints.
women ... her
Comrade Ogilvy was the person who decided to drag gender into the discussion. There was literally no mention of the complainant's gender in willoughby's post.
If willoughby offered the opinion that it is better to hire a lawyer, fine. The poster decided go for blaming the victim with this "truly believe" argument.
That's not victim blaming. Nothing about "if you think you're a victim of X, you can do Y." suggests that you're to blame.
If you're going to whine about the single qualifying word ("truly"), that's just there to imply that you shouldn't do this on a vague guess, and that it's the thing you do after you go to HR.
Open your eyes, and step into the adult world like an adult, before lecturing with moralistic tones.
willoughby didn't use moralistic tones, but you did. That was the whole point of my post. You took a gender-neutral suggestion with no real judgement included and accused them of sexism. That's on you.
I expect adults here to notice that women literally get lectured with diametrically opposing moral arguments.
Again, willoughby didn't make a moral argument, and I expect adults to know that people of both sexes face catch-22s.
Grow up.
Please do.
If they do not go... If they do go...
Well, since it's impossible to please everyone, suggestions on both ends of the spectrum will inevitably be made, and you can use this logic to dismiss all of them as stemming from bigotry. All you have to do is pretend that the same people are making both arguments.
The women always lose. That is what is important.
Any statement you don't like is misogynistic. That is what is important.
Your post is instead a classic clueless white male denial.
You probably think I'm male because I don't like some kinds of feminism - quite an assumption, but not an unexpected kind of stupid.
And you think I'm white ... because I use correct spelling? Damn that's racist.
Yet they persist. Thus continued feminist agitation.
No, the continued feminist agitation causes them to still be issues.
The wage gap is primarily caused by career choice, number of hours worked, and years of experience in the workplace. The remaining 3% - 6% is almost certainly caused by the other inconveniences men are more likely than women to accept in favor of higher wages - like longer commutes and risk of death.
Men are totally raped to the same extent as women
They aren't, but only because we don't count 'forced to penetrate' as 'rape'.
Also, how many women who were statutorily raped have to pay their rapists child support?
and have the same legal constraints on their reproduction, you're 100% correct.
Even if abortion was illegal, women would still have more choices and fewer legally-enforced responsibilities surrounding reproduction than men do.
Somehow I find enough sympathy for pregnant women to realize that they should have the right to abort (at least early in the pregnancy) even on a whim. You, on the other hand, will see a man who was coerced into sex at 12 years old by his 35 year old teacher, or one who passed out at a party and woke up to a woman he didn't know climbing off of him, and shout at him to "take responsibility".
But originally you said "bodily integrity and autonomy" - have you heard of the draft and circumcision???
There are no such peopke or nation as Palestinians.
Calling them something else doesn't make them less dead.
"It now seeks special treatment"?? Says who?
Anyone who pays attention. Your post is almost a parody of a "clueless tumblr feminist".
Special treatment like wage parity? Special treatment like non-hostile workplaces?
We've had laws to deal with both of those issues for decades.
Special treatment like bodily integrity and autonomy?
Since men don't have either of those, asking for them is by definition asking for special treatment.
It's not like they'd accidentally pick up a burning stick and remember that dropping it in just the right area results in lots of dinner running about in the open.
I could easily see them picking up and dropping sticks to scare prey out of small grassy patches.
Adding the 'smoking sticks sometimes work even better' part doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.
I'd be willing to bet there vastly more people are using their browsers to do nothing more than read news than all of these shitty single-page apps.
Facebook gets 1.3 billion daily active users.
Wikipedia gets ~100 million.
That is an order of magnitude of difference.
Wikipedia? That's your example? I'll give you Facebook.
But Wikipedia? That website does not need javascript to function. It's basically a bunch of static pages inside a database.
I don't think they were giving two examples of SPAs, I think they were pointing out an example of each type.
And I always thank people when they're being unusually classy.
So, thank you.
Sucrose, glucose, and fructose are the sugars that the FDA actually considers sugar.
That's not a citation, that's just assertion. So I'll do the work for you:
According to this the term "no sugar added" may only be used if no sugar was added using the definition of sugar found here, which states "sugars shall be defined as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides (such as glucose, fructose, lactose, and sucrose)."
Trehalose is a disaccharide, so...
Because they can claim 'no sugar added' on the package.
I'm skeptical of that - trehalose doesn't appear to be like aspartame or sucralose. Do you have a citation?
The article should elaborate more on why food industries use this rare form of sugar now when they could have used table sugar instead.
Since it can be extracted from starch, I'm going to guess cost.
How wonderful is the libertarian way of thinking, where if a corporation is comitting fraud, the government is still the main culprit.
How wonderful is the authoritarian way of thinking, where if a government assists thousands of corporations in committing fraud, the government isn't even part of the problem, and giving it more power is the solution.
IANAL, but I think the GP post is confusing "accessory after the fact" (e.g. helping to hide the body) with some other legal ideas like "strict liability" and/or the "felony murder rule" and/or several other things.
would it mean that he can't be charged if the cop is not charged too?
I don't think that would make a difference. If you commit a felony, and it was reasonably foreseeable that someone would die as a result, and someone does die as a result, that's murder. Other factors - if it was an accident, a lawful killing (law enforcement or self defense) - are completely irrelevant.
For example: If you release a bunch of tigers from a zoo, it doesn't matter that tigers aren't "legal persons" and thus aren't murdering the kids they eat, you're still responsible. If you give someone a massive dose of drugs that makes them go on a violent, hallucinatory rampage the cops might be justified in shooting them, but you're still guilty of the any murders they committed, as well as the murder of the person you dosed. If you do an armed robbery and some wannabe hero shoots a bystander, they might be guilty of some kind of negligence or completely innocent, but you are guilty - period.
How much of the energy will be used just to run the lights under the panels.
Since there wouldn't be lights under them, I'm guessing none.
How much more expensive will it be to build all the supports, high enough for the highest trucks, thin enough to be translucent and still strong enough to be out in the elements.
So that sounds expensive, but doing the same thing flat on the ground, with a surface tires can grip, with trucks grinding rock, salt and ice into it, and dealing with mud, oil, and roadkill - that's seems cheaper to you?