Did you not read the entire article? I realize it's pretty long, maybe it's above your comprehension level? He's in jail right now, after being convicted of 2 counts of rape. The girl mentioned in the article was the fifth complainant about this particular player.
I realize that things like evidence are unimportant if you have an agenda, but the person discussed in the majority of that article had no evidence and did not behave as if a crime had occurred. If I say you raped me last Friday should you immediately be expelled, terminated, and put in jail without any evidence? Good grief, you have to have some form of mental retardation if you believe that is the correct result of an allegation.
I noticed how you omit the other link which provides a full definition including the history of Rape including links to the various State definitions. I quoted the easy part because the few dozen pages of of State definitions is not feasible. I gave you both links so you did not even have to look, but you grasp the only part which backs your delusion. I hope you get falsely accused of a crime and put in jail, you will get what you advocate in time. Buh Bye now! No more dealing with the irrational you.
I don't believe CEO is a qualification to be a Philosopher or Philanthropist, and quite often would believe the opposite. The Socratic definition of Philosopher includes the qualifier that the person puts truth above all things. CEOs thrive on Sophistry more often than Philosophy. Not all CEOs, and not all the time, but enough where the generalization is valid.
A Philanthropist should be the Philosopher that Socrates defined first. Being short of that, the person is not interested in society as a whole but interested in something other than Philanthropy with the public being simply a tool.
Henry Ford, a good Philanthropist where Thomas Edison was not.
I believe that Trump is just highlighting a lot of the issues that some people have been complaining about for a long time (decades). Money has always influenced politics to some degree, and people with money always claim to be or want to be "thought leaders". Things like Citizens United just made the problem worse, but really not "different".
People in power hate both Trump and Sanders because they are vocalizing the problems without regard for their "political career". The Democrats do not seem to care as much because their base seems fine with Hillary being coronation a year ago. The Republican base was never okay with the previously chosen "Jeb" so it's been rough for them from the start.
I think it's great that people are finally able to see some of the corruption. I doubt much will change any time soon, but we have to start somewhere.
It says it applies to people who get benefits because they can't work. Aren't there checks for that? In the UK there are rigourous and actually quite harmful tests.
I believe there was a qualifier of "good" checks, because what we have is anything but rigorous as you claim to have in the UK.
Don't misunderstand, we do have some checking. It's very subjective as to whether or not it actually prevents fraud.
Could you try to speak with somesemblence of coherence before you accuse others of irrationality and trolling?
*WHAT* is legal under local laws.
Right back at you. My general statement is that a male being allowed in the woman's room is legal under local laws, assuming the male claims identification as a woman. Since that is the exact subject of the law I said people should read, I assumed it was extremely obvious.
And now for the bit of my post that you'll snip and pretend didn't happen because you won't reply:
You claimed this law was to protect women from pervy men who sneak into the toilets to photograph them. That's already illegal everywhere and so a new law is not required.
You on the other hand go to one of several possible illegal consequences and say "it's illegal" without clarification, and have the expectation that I know what "it" you are referring to. Nothing like being balanced.
That said, you are attempting to claim that because a valid consequence is already illegal, placing people in a circumstance which provides the easiest way to perpetrate the crime should be required. Should we pass laws that disallow people from having locks on their doors? Robbery is already illegal. Should we pass laws that require you to place your personal information on a plaque visible on your chest and mailbox? Identity theft is already against the law.
As stated above, the women complaining are females who are being forced to have males in their rest room. In NC girls complaining to parents about situations forced on them at school was the driving rhetoric to the bill. I know plenty of women who complain about the burly looking person wearing a dress being in their bathroom. I can easily find stories of sexual assaults of females in the rest room. Their fears are not phobias, they are well founded rational fears.
Your attempt to force that situation would be fine if all people were altruistic and perfect. Nothing would ever go wrong no matter how we made requirements. Community showers with all genders, races, and ages would be perfectly fine under that circumstance because nobody would ever lust or take an immoral action against anyone else. The fact that people are not altruistic and imperfect kills your position, as it does with most of the progressive left rhetoric.
Are you attempting to prove my point? Your LMGTFY link is to an article where a person alleges that they were raped off of campus, reported it days later to a campus official and were told the campus had no jurisdiction. Days later, they tried to call another campus office, and received no help. Finally the football player was charged with sexual assault and kicked off the team with no evidence or criminal case..
Wow, you just proved my point.
Interesting and twisted way of looking at the Penn State case which I had not considered. Oh, Bill Clinton called and said "position does not matter when allegations are made". Yup, he is scum but the court of public opinion convicted him long before the sweater ever came out.
Or are you saying that checking between a person's legs is a more valid test than anything medical science has come up with?
I don't believe that is always necessary, but the genitals are the fact and the "I dress like the other gender because" is completely subjective. Not everyone who dresses as their non-biological gender is transgender. Statistics show no difference between the percentages of transvestite and transgender people in the population.
Nobody is complaining about the feminine featured biological male who dresses as the opposite gender and uses the opposite gendered rest room. Nobody can tell! Nobody is complaining about the feminine featured male using the male rest room. In the adult space (not K-12 grade schools) nobody cares if a feminine featured woman uses the rest room. People may find it odd, a few may find it somewhat erotic, but nobody is filing charges or complaining. The complains are about the masculine featured biological men who use the female rest room. If you put a dress on a 5'9" 190lb masculine frame it looks like a male in a dress. Women (rightly) feel very uncomfortable in their own rest room when that occurs. Their fears are rational and founded in facts and experience.
People claiming that women should just ignore the fears are simply put, assholes. If it benefited them, they would push for laws to remove all door locks. It's already illegal for someone to steal your stuff, so why have locks on doors? They would similarly pass laws that required you drive slowly through areas like Compton with your windows down, because carjacking is already illegal.
These bathroom gender free-for-all laws are simply FUD which benefits an extreme minority with an irrational view.
In fact the legal definition of rape has been warped so that men can not be raped.
Isn't this kind of thing exactly why traditional gender roles and the rules and expectations regarding them should be eschewed?
Not at all, and quite frankly I find your position completely irrational. Fact: The majority of complaints regarding transgender restroom use is when masculine females use the woman's room. It is such an easy search I am not going to bother with a LMGTFY link. I can tell you that I have worked at 4 companies in the last 10 years where people with penises were reprimanded for using the woman's rest room after several warnings. Women were uncomfortable in their own rest room. Fact: The majority of actual crimes related to restrooms are males in the woman's room.
How is it rational to make it legal for men to enter the woman's room, as long as they claim "I don't believe I'm a male."? I really need a compelling fact based argument to change my mind, and I have not seen one. I see "unisex", but that is not the same thing as men being allowed entry into the woman's room.
Also, there are a lot of examples where it's not so easy for a woman to get a guy arrested or expelled from a college/university. Especially if the alleged aggressor is important to the school's sports program. I would say that was a larger contributor to why Penn State went on for as long as it did, not because they were boys...
Unless you can provide facts I call bullshit. UNLV and Duke both show that assertion to be incorrect, and another quick google search will show that your bias does not appear to exist. The first link in a Google search is a Yale basketball captain who was expelled after an allegation, and the list is rather lengthy.
Would you care to guess how many women generating allegations proven to be false have been prosecuted or expelled?
If you want to cherry pick as an argument at least cherry pick the right parts. ‘(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hos-tilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreignnationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdic-tion of the United States, of any foreign person, foreignorganization, or foreign country that he determines hasplanned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilitiesor attacks against the United States; and all right, title,and interest in any property so confis
This is one of many areas where it defined the jurisdiction as the United States (Federal) level. Prior to this section it refers to Congressional powers, Presidential authority, the authority of the Executive Order, etc...
If you believe my position is wrong how about you argue against the position instead of attempting to censor using your mod points. Better still, have the intestinal fortitude to use a named account to back your position.
Reductio ad absurdum? I can't really tell, so: The law is written because many local Governments have adopted a unisex law without unisex rest rooms. If you have a penis but don't feel like you should, you can use which ever rest room you like. This means it's not illegal in those areas. The State is assuming power over those local laws, so that it is illegal.
II really don't see this as a difficult concept for a rational person.
The difference should be obvious. The woman can file charges and have the guy arrested/expelled without much fuss. The guy attempting to file charges will be ridiculed and ignored. See Title 9 if dealing with College. Need me to site specifics or can you find UNLV, Duke, and Penn State all by yourself? Penn because allegations of boys being raped was ignored for decades. In fact the legal definition of rape has been warped so that men can not be raped.
There is no parity, but it does not favor who you claim it does.
Instead of reading it with the spin and bias someone told you to have, check other laws at the State and Federal level. The majority of State laws are written to have authority over lower levels of Government. Federal laws are similarly written to supersede State laws on the same subject matter. If you are supposed to have a power structure from the bottom up, how do you suppose the upper levels have any power when lower levels could usurp their laws?
I'm guessing like many you never bothered to read the law you are claiming is somehow bad. It states right in the preamble what that wording is for. Now check every other State law and see if there is similarity.
I wish people would actually read the 5 pages and use their noggins a bit. The law is intended to protect girls and women from perverted men. If you want to convince me otherwise, show me some court cases where a woman is arrested for being in a mens room taking pictures of men's genitals. I can find literally hundreds of cases where men are caught doing that to women, many of which include the men dressing as women to gain entry.
Corporate Practices translated to Crime: Their Lobbying group will ensure that they never ever get prosecuted for stealing your stuff. They are calling it PHUCKU, or Political Harassment Until Crime Kills U.
The big words like "auto-responder" are out of favor today. Small buzzy words are where the big money comes from! When you go on vacation, make sure you use your afkbot in your email.
A great way of expressing frustration and reducing tension is with humor. THese types of threads are intended to express humor and blow off steam.
contrary to your assertion, the world does not and should not bow down to your personal biases. Don't like the thread, don't read it. Don't care for snark, satire, or any other genre of humor don't listen. Sit and "be positive", just out of earshot if sound bothers you.
Thinking positive and praising is a good thing to do when it's appropriate, but it often is not.
My use of the term "social justice warrior" was rather intentional, grammatically correct. Plenty of references for the phrase's use, and if the shoe fits maybe you should re-evaluate your belief system instead of claiming I should put something in quotes.
I gave you the questions, and you refused to answer. 1) Would a man be hired if he was going to undergo surgery in a few months and would be out of work for at least a few months after (I don't care about you, I care about the average time for maternity leave.)? NO, you would not hire such a person. No, it's not because of gender discrimination. 2) Would you hire someone that you have pay to for any amount of time for not working within a few months of being hired? Most people have to work for a year to earn 2 weeks vacation and a few sick/holidays off.
If you answer differently you are completely dishonest and simply looking for a way to claim victimhood. Bonding time with a new baby is critical, but the Government should not force employers to pay people to have a family. That last part is why companies don't really want to hire people who are already pregnant. The company gets penalized for doing so. People should really stop trying to make society as a whole responsible for the results of their personal choices.
Funny that you are rated insightful for saying the same thing as I did to get rated flamebait.. You used sarcasm and less words, I guess I missed that as the requirement.
This is where the salary myth goes haywire. For a whole lot of reasons women tend to work less hours than men. That general rule is backed by US Census data, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the US Department of Labor, and every other agency that checks statistics including Universities, State agencies, Large companies, etc..etc..
Do you believe that you working 38 hours a week should make the same wage as someone working 45 hours a week? That is the only way that parity works, unless people work the exact same hours at the same job. Which they do not, for all kinds of reasons. Pregnancy for example, women take time off because they are the only gender that can give birth. Men tend to work tons of extra hours to ensure that the family needs are taken care of during that time.
This dream of utopia where everyone all the time makes the same wage no matter what does not work. It has been tried countless times through history, but it can never work. Read some history books if you have doubts.
You are attempting to conflate some very separate issues. The one I discussed is gender discrimination, and you are talking about a biological function. Which if you don't take time off for, I will assume there is something wrong with you. Given my assumption, and I realize this is difficult for social justice warriors to do, put yourself in the place of a business owner. Would _you_ hire a pregnant person? If it is not skilled work and easy to replace sure, but the majority of businesses would see that as a costly hire. No, not because of gender discrimination, but because of a huge problem with investment which potentially has zero return. If a guy was getting hired in and said "hey, I need to have leg surgery in a few months and will be out of work for a few months" would they be hired? NO, and for the same reason which is exactly not discrimination.
In most jobs you are not productive within your first 30-60 days. Once you start you have to be introduced to everyone, do days worth of mandatory training, do all your paperwork for banking, insurance, federal and state taxes, get your necessary gear and materials, get trained on your specific area of responsibility, learn the chain of command, learn the priorities, learn your bosses style, etc.. etc.. etc... If you are 5-6 months pregnant (you said obvious and most people are not obviously pregnant until then) by the time you get the hang of things and start to produce you are out on leave. By the time you return the manager may be different, accounts and teams get moved around, and if and when you return there is another decent amount of unproductive time. I know plenty of women who never returned to work after having a baby, and many others take a year or more off of work when they have a baby.
Let us not neglect that in San Francisco it was just made law that the company has to pay you for 8 weeks of paid leave without exception. Start a job today, work for a few months, get paid for another 2 months for time off, and maybe never return to that job.
Now again, look at it from a hiring managers perspective. It's not a discrimination problem, that is a liability and cost problem. If you look at that from an unbiased view the reason not to hire is blatantly obvious.
Equality in pay for the same job and the same hours is already the law. In fact it has been repeatedly proven that women make more money in the same job as men when they work the same hours and have the same backgrounds.
Can we please stop perpetuating this bullshit about how everyone should be paid the same as everyone else, no matter what the job is. People need to pay attention to the source of this propaganda. Hint: The people pushing this crap down don't put their own money where their mouths are, and won't. They are ultra rich, and you are a peon.
TBH I am not sure what planet any of your observations are from. We spend hundreds of billions on poor as it is. Are some still falling through the narrowing cracks? Fine. Use your freedom of speech to agitate for more.
Maybe you should stop doing the drugs, because you have a real problem with false dichotomy. Does the money we spend on the poor prevent people from using their money to buy political influence for further gains? I never said we don't spend money, I said we don't have freedom and we don't have equality.
You also regurgitate 1984 Newspeak phrases like the freedom to borrow from a bank (or BE a bank and offer loans) is not freedom. Also, concerns over the rich buying influence wouldn't be as much of an issue if almost unrestricted economic control weren't an assumed power of Congress.
I never said anything about loans, I said the game was rigged and most people could never own a home or land. Maybe those hallucinogens are impacting your ability to read as well as compare.
You introduce that power to government, you (re)introduce many of the problems the founding fathers were trying to nullify -- the divine right of kings to muck about with (other peoples') wealth for their own benefit.
Does it surprise you all the shits you hate through history make a beeline to try to control it? If so, why?
I never did any such thing, but no we don't. The wealthy have the ability _today_ to muck with everyone else' money. Who the fuck do you think lobbies for lower taxes for them and more taxes for everyone else? Who do you think lobbies for, and gets laws passed, to protect them from financial damage? Who do you think lobbies to prevent themselves from being prosecuted criminally for things like bribery, collusion, blackmail, espionage, etc.. etc...? Wholly fuck, if you can't afford to pay for insurance because you are poor you now have to pay a fine and can't get welfare. That has become the fucking law!
If you want to talk about equality, then talk equality. At least the old monarchies used to every few years wipe out everyone's debt and redistrict land. That type of issue was something that the US was not supposed to need because we were "free". I gave examples of how we are not free, and how the field has been tilted to favor the few. Perhaps when you stop taking the drugs and sober up you can formulate an intelligent response.
Preempting my *waiting* because your last paragraph is grating. It simply states exactly what I said was the problem. In your general view, unequal is good. You said it twice, so you must believe it to be true. It is completely unfair, so is unfair also good? Should we codify this unfairness so that certain people always have everything they want and never need to work, and other people perpetually work for no gain?
The summary of Socrates's story of the Artisan is this: When the artisan makes a masterpiece in the Republic should he be allowed to be showered in coins so that he should never want or need again? Socrates argues that the Republic needs to protect against this, because the person will become a detriment to the Republic. Not only does it ensure that they never need to be productive in their craft again, but it will provide the means for them to meddle in the affairs of everyone around them.
We see exactly the latter when we find out how much money certain political figures make for attending a dinner and giving a short speech. Sorry, but there is nothing a politician can say in an hour worth $250,000,000.00 US. If they were giving out cures for cancers in that hour, sure. There is nothing legal that people can get by paying these extraordinary "speaking fees". This is exactly what Socrates discussed in action, and the fact that it is not strictly illegal does not make it morally good. In fact, it does the exact opposite.
The fact that you ignore the dialogue and go right to "unequal is good" demonstrates that you are immorally defunct yourself. It could be caused by ignorance and be curable, but could also be the behavior of a sociopath.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you not read the entire article? I realize it's pretty long, maybe it's above your comprehension level? He's in jail right now, after being convicted of 2 counts of rape. The girl mentioned in the article was the fifth complainant about this particular player.
I realize that things like evidence are unimportant if you have an agenda, but the person discussed in the majority of that article had no evidence and did not behave as if a crime had occurred. If I say you raped me last Friday should you immediately be expelled, terminated, and put in jail without any evidence? Good grief, you have to have some form of mental retardation if you believe that is the correct result of an allegation.
I noticed how you omit the other link which provides a full definition including the history of Rape including links to the various State definitions. I quoted the easy part because the few dozen pages of of State definitions is not feasible. I gave you both links so you did not even have to look, but you grasp the only part which backs your delusion. I hope you get falsely accused of a crime and put in jail, you will get what you advocate in time. Buh Bye now! No more dealing with the irrational you.
I don't believe CEO is a qualification to be a Philosopher or Philanthropist, and quite often would believe the opposite. The Socratic definition of Philosopher includes the qualifier that the person puts truth above all things. CEOs thrive on Sophistry more often than Philosophy. Not all CEOs, and not all the time, but enough where the generalization is valid.
A Philanthropist should be the Philosopher that Socrates defined first. Being short of that, the person is not interested in society as a whole but interested in something other than Philanthropy with the public being simply a tool.
Henry Ford, a good Philanthropist where Thomas Edison was not.
I believe that Trump is just highlighting a lot of the issues that some people have been complaining about for a long time (decades). Money has always influenced politics to some degree, and people with money always claim to be or want to be "thought leaders". Things like Citizens United just made the problem worse, but really not "different".
People in power hate both Trump and Sanders because they are vocalizing the problems without regard for their "political career". The Democrats do not seem to care as much because their base seems fine with Hillary being coronation a year ago. The Republican base was never okay with the previously chosen "Jeb" so it's been rough for them from the start.
I think it's great that people are finally able to see some of the corruption. I doubt much will change any time soon, but we have to start somewhere.
It says it applies to people who get benefits because they can't work. Aren't there checks for that? In the UK there are rigourous and actually quite harmful tests.
I believe there was a qualifier of "good" checks, because what we have is anything but rigorous as you claim to have in the UK.
Don't misunderstand, we do have some checking. It's very subjective as to whether or not it actually prevents fraud.
They are legal under local laws,
Could you try to speak with somesemblence of coherence before you accuse others of irrationality and trolling?
*WHAT* is legal under local laws.
Right back at you. My general statement is that a male being allowed in the woman's room is legal under local laws, assuming the male claims identification as a woman. Since that is the exact subject of the law I said people should read, I assumed it was extremely obvious.
And now for the bit of my post that you'll snip and pretend didn't happen because you won't reply:
You claimed this law was to protect women from pervy men who sneak into the toilets to photograph them. That's already illegal everywhere and so a new law is not required.
You on the other hand go to one of several possible illegal consequences and say "it's illegal" without clarification, and have the expectation that I know what "it" you are referring to. Nothing like being balanced.
That said, you are attempting to claim that because a valid consequence is already illegal, placing people in a circumstance which provides the easiest way to perpetrate the crime should be required. Should we pass laws that disallow people from having locks on their doors? Robbery is already illegal. Should we pass laws that require you to place your personal information on a plaque visible on your chest and mailbox? Identity theft is already against the law.
As stated above, the women complaining are females who are being forced to have males in their rest room. In NC girls complaining to parents about situations forced on them at school was the driving rhetoric to the bill. I know plenty of women who complain about the burly looking person wearing a dress being in their bathroom. I can easily find stories of sexual assaults of females in the rest room. Their fears are not phobias, they are well founded rational fears.
Your attempt to force that situation would be fine if all people were altruistic and perfect. Nothing would ever go wrong no matter how we made requirements. Community showers with all genders, races, and ages would be perfectly fine under that circumstance because nobody would ever lust or take an immoral action against anyone else. The fact that people are not altruistic and imperfect kills your position, as it does with most of the progressive left rhetoric.
Ahh, the old cherry pick by someone who is not very good at it. I never complained about the legal definition of rape, I provided a fact.
The definition of Rape has changed over time.
The prevailing common law definition being most often sited is defined so that women are the only possible victim. Common law defined rape as unlawful intercourse by a man against a woman who is not his wife by force or threat and against her will.
Are you attempting to prove my point? Your LMGTFY link is to an article where a person alleges that they were raped off of campus, reported it days later to a campus official and were told the campus had no jurisdiction. Days later, they tried to call another campus office, and received no help. Finally the football player was charged with sexual assault and kicked off the team with no evidence or criminal case..
Wow, you just proved my point.
Interesting and twisted way of looking at the Penn State case which I had not considered. Oh, Bill Clinton called and said "position does not matter when allegations are made". Yup, he is scum but the court of public opinion convicted him long before the sweater ever came out.
Or are you saying that checking between a person's legs is a more valid test than anything medical science has come up with?
I don't believe that is always necessary, but the genitals are the fact and the "I dress like the other gender because" is completely subjective. Not everyone who dresses as their non-biological gender is transgender. Statistics show no difference between the percentages of transvestite and transgender people in the population.
Nobody is complaining about the feminine featured biological male who dresses as the opposite gender and uses the opposite gendered rest room. Nobody can tell! Nobody is complaining about the feminine featured male using the male rest room. In the adult space (not K-12 grade schools) nobody cares if a feminine featured woman uses the rest room. People may find it odd, a few may find it somewhat erotic, but nobody is filing charges or complaining. The complains are about the masculine featured biological men who use the female rest room. If you put a dress on a 5'9" 190lb masculine frame it looks like a male in a dress. Women (rightly) feel very uncomfortable in their own rest room when that occurs. Their fears are rational and founded in facts and experience.
People claiming that women should just ignore the fears are simply put, assholes. If it benefited them, they would push for laws to remove all door locks. It's already illegal for someone to steal your stuff, so why have locks on doors? They would similarly pass laws that required you drive slowly through areas like Compton with your windows down, because carjacking is already illegal.
These bathroom gender free-for-all laws are simply FUD which benefits an extreme minority with an irrational view.
In fact the legal definition of rape has been warped so that men can not be raped.
Isn't this kind of thing exactly why traditional gender roles and the rules and expectations regarding them should be eschewed?
Not at all, and quite frankly I find your position completely irrational. Fact: The majority of complaints regarding transgender restroom use is when masculine females use the woman's room. It is such an easy search I am not going to bother with a LMGTFY link. I can tell you that I have worked at 4 companies in the last 10 years where people with penises were reprimanded for using the woman's rest room after several warnings. Women were uncomfortable in their own rest room. Fact: The majority of actual crimes related to restrooms are males in the woman's room.
How is it rational to make it legal for men to enter the woman's room, as long as they claim "I don't believe I'm a male."? I really need a compelling fact based argument to change my mind, and I have not seen one. I see "unisex", but that is not the same thing as men being allowed entry into the woman's room.
Also, there are a lot of examples where it's not so easy for a woman to get a guy arrested or expelled from a college/university. Especially if the alleged aggressor is important to the school's sports program. I would say that was a larger contributor to why Penn State went on for as long as it did, not because they were boys...
Unless you can provide facts I call bullshit. UNLV and Duke both show that assertion to be incorrect, and another quick google search will show that your bias does not appear to exist. The first link in a Google search is a Yale basketball captain who was expelled after an allegation, and the list is rather lengthy.
Would you care to guess how many women generating allegations proven to be false have been prosecuted or expelled?
They are legal under local laws, that you just ignore that fact twice makes me think you are just a troll.
If you want to cherry pick as an argument at least cherry pick the right parts. ‘(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hos-tilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreignnationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdic-tion of the United States, of any foreign person, foreignorganization, or foreign country that he determines hasplanned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilitiesor attacks against the United States; and all right, title,and interest in any property so confis
This is one of many areas where it defined the jurisdiction as the United States (Federal) level. Prior to this section it refers to Congressional powers, Presidential authority, the authority of the Executive Order, etc...
If you believe my position is wrong how about you argue against the position instead of attempting to censor using your mod points. Better still, have the intestinal fortitude to use a named account to back your position.
Reductio ad absurdum? I can't really tell, so: The law is written because many local Governments have adopted a unisex law without unisex rest rooms. If you have a penis but don't feel like you should, you can use which ever rest room you like. This means it's not illegal in those areas. The State is assuming power over those local laws, so that it is illegal.
II really don't see this as a difficult concept for a rational person.
Screw you and the bash shell you logged in with! Korn shell and VI 4EVAH!
The difference should be obvious. The woman can file charges and have the guy arrested/expelled without much fuss. The guy attempting to file charges will be ridiculed and ignored. See Title 9 if dealing with College. Need me to site specifics or can you find UNLV, Duke, and Penn State all by yourself? Penn because allegations of boys being raped was ignored for decades. In fact the legal definition of rape has been warped so that men can not be raped.
There is no parity, but it does not favor who you claim it does.
Instead of reading it with the spin and bias someone told you to have, check other laws at the State and Federal level. The majority of State laws are written to have authority over lower levels of Government. Federal laws are similarly written to supersede State laws on the same subject matter. If you are supposed to have a power structure from the bottom up, how do you suppose the upper levels have any power when lower levels could usurp their laws?
I'm guessing like many you never bothered to read the law you are claiming is somehow bad. It states right in the preamble what that wording is for. Now check every other State law and see if there is similarity.
I wish people would actually read the 5 pages and use their noggins a bit. The law is intended to protect girls and women from perverted men. If you want to convince me otherwise, show me some court cases where a woman is arrested for being in a mens room taking pictures of men's genitals. I can find literally hundreds of cases where men are caught doing that to women, many of which include the men dressing as women to gain entry.
Corporate Practices translated to Crime: Their Lobbying group will ensure that they never ever get prosecuted for stealing your stuff. They are calling it PHUCKU, or Political Harassment Until Crime Kills U.
The big words like "auto-responder" are out of favor today. Small buzzy words are where the big money comes from! When you go on vacation, make sure you use your afkbot in your email.
A great way of expressing frustration and reducing tension is with humor. THese types of threads are intended to express humor and blow off steam.
contrary to your assertion, the world does not and should not bow down to your personal biases. Don't like the thread, don't read it. Don't care for snark, satire, or any other genre of humor don't listen. Sit and "be positive", just out of earshot if sound bothers you.
Thinking positive and praising is a good thing to do when it's appropriate, but it often is not.
My use of the term "social justice warrior" was rather intentional, grammatically correct. Plenty of references for the phrase's use, and if the shoe fits maybe you should re-evaluate your belief system instead of claiming I should put something in quotes.
I gave you the questions, and you refused to answer. 1) Would a man be hired if he was going to undergo surgery in a few months and would be out of work for at least a few months after (I don't care about you, I care about the average time for maternity leave.)? NO, you would not hire such a person. No, it's not because of gender discrimination. 2) Would you hire someone that you have pay to for any amount of time for not working within a few months of being hired? Most people have to work for a year to earn 2 weeks vacation and a few sick/holidays off.
If you answer differently you are completely dishonest and simply looking for a way to claim victimhood. Bonding time with a new baby is critical, but the Government should not force employers to pay people to have a family. That last part is why companies don't really want to hire people who are already pregnant. The company gets penalized for doing so. People should really stop trying to make society as a whole responsible for the results of their personal choices.
Funny that you are rated insightful for saying the same thing as I did to get rated flamebait.. You used sarcasm and less words, I guess I missed that as the requirement.
This is where the salary myth goes haywire. For a whole lot of reasons women tend to work less hours than men. That general rule is backed by US Census data, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the US Department of Labor, and every other agency that checks statistics including Universities, State agencies, Large companies, etc..etc..
Do you believe that you working 38 hours a week should make the same wage as someone working 45 hours a week? That is the only way that parity works, unless people work the exact same hours at the same job. Which they do not, for all kinds of reasons. Pregnancy for example, women take time off because they are the only gender that can give birth. Men tend to work tons of extra hours to ensure that the family needs are taken care of during that time.
This dream of utopia where everyone all the time makes the same wage no matter what does not work. It has been tried countless times through history, but it can never work. Read some history books if you have doubts.
You are attempting to conflate some very separate issues. The one I discussed is gender discrimination, and you are talking about a biological function. Which if you don't take time off for, I will assume there is something wrong with you. Given my assumption, and I realize this is difficult for social justice warriors to do, put yourself in the place of a business owner. Would _you_ hire a pregnant person? If it is not skilled work and easy to replace sure, but the majority of businesses would see that as a costly hire. No, not because of gender discrimination, but because of a huge problem with investment which potentially has zero return. If a guy was getting hired in and said "hey, I need to have leg surgery in a few months and will be out of work for a few months" would they be hired? NO, and for the same reason which is exactly not discrimination.
In most jobs you are not productive within your first 30-60 days. Once you start you have to be introduced to everyone, do days worth of mandatory training, do all your paperwork for banking, insurance, federal and state taxes, get your necessary gear and materials, get trained on your specific area of responsibility, learn the chain of command, learn the priorities, learn your bosses style, etc.. etc.. etc... If you are 5-6 months pregnant (you said obvious and most people are not obviously pregnant until then) by the time you get the hang of things and start to produce you are out on leave. By the time you return the manager may be different, accounts and teams get moved around, and if and when you return there is another decent amount of unproductive time. I know plenty of women who never returned to work after having a baby, and many others take a year or more off of work when they have a baby.
Let us not neglect that in San Francisco it was just made law that the company has to pay you for 8 weeks of paid leave without exception. Start a job today, work for a few months, get paid for another 2 months for time off, and maybe never return to that job.
Now again, look at it from a hiring managers perspective. It's not a discrimination problem, that is a liability and cost problem. If you look at that from an unbiased view the reason not to hire is blatantly obvious.
Equality in pay for the same job and the same hours is already the law. In fact it has been repeatedly proven that women make more money in the same job as men when they work the same hours and have the same backgrounds.
Can we please stop perpetuating this bullshit about how everyone should be paid the same as everyone else, no matter what the job is. People need to pay attention to the source of this propaganda. Hint: The people pushing this crap down don't put their own money where their mouths are, and won't. They are ultra rich, and you are a peon.
TBH I am not sure what planet any of your observations are from. We spend hundreds of billions on poor as it is. Are some still falling through the narrowing cracks? Fine. Use your freedom of speech to agitate for more.
Maybe you should stop doing the drugs, because you have a real problem with false dichotomy. Does the money we spend on the poor prevent people from using their money to buy political influence for further gains? I never said we don't spend money, I said we don't have freedom and we don't have equality.
You also regurgitate 1984 Newspeak phrases like the freedom to borrow from a bank (or BE a bank and offer loans) is not freedom. Also, concerns over the rich buying influence wouldn't be as much of an issue if almost unrestricted economic control weren't an assumed power of Congress.
I never said anything about loans, I said the game was rigged and most people could never own a home or land. Maybe those hallucinogens are impacting your ability to read as well as compare.
You introduce that power to government, you (re)introduce many of the problems the founding fathers were trying to nullify -- the divine right of kings to muck about with (other peoples') wealth for their own benefit.
Does it surprise you all the shits you hate through history make a beeline to try to control it? If so, why?
I never did any such thing, but no we don't. The wealthy have the ability _today_ to muck with everyone else' money. Who the fuck do you think lobbies for lower taxes for them and more taxes for everyone else? Who do you think lobbies for, and gets laws passed, to protect them from financial damage? Who do you think lobbies to prevent themselves from being prosecuted criminally for things like bribery, collusion, blackmail, espionage, etc.. etc...? Wholly fuck, if you can't afford to pay for insurance because you are poor you now have to pay a fine and can't get welfare. That has become the fucking law!
If you want to talk about equality, then talk equality. At least the old monarchies used to every few years wipe out everyone's debt and redistrict land. That type of issue was something that the US was not supposed to need because we were "free". I gave examples of how we are not free, and how the field has been tilted to favor the few. Perhaps when you stop taking the drugs and sober up you can formulate an intelligent response.
Preempting my *waiting* because your last paragraph is grating. It simply states exactly what I said was the problem. In your general view, unequal is good. You said it twice, so you must believe it to be true. It is completely unfair, so is unfair also good? Should we codify this unfairness so that certain people always have everything they want and never need to work, and other people perpetually work for no gain?
The summary of Socrates's story of the Artisan is this: When the artisan makes a masterpiece in the Republic should he be allowed to be showered in coins so that he should never want or need again? Socrates argues that the Republic needs to protect against this, because the person will become a detriment to the Republic. Not only does it ensure that they never need to be productive in their craft again, but it will provide the means for them to meddle in the affairs of everyone around them.
We see exactly the latter when we find out how much money certain political figures make for attending a dinner and giving a short speech. Sorry, but there is nothing a politician can say in an hour worth $250,000,000.00 US. If they were giving out cures for cancers in that hour, sure. There is nothing legal that people can get by paying these extraordinary "speaking fees". This is exactly what Socrates discussed in action, and the fact that it is not strictly illegal does not make it morally good. In fact, it does the exact opposite.
The fact that you ignore the dialogue and go right to "unequal is good" demonstrates that you are immorally defunct yourself. It could be caused by ignorance and be curable, but could also be the behavior of a sociopath.