Oh come on, you expect bigoted people to have the education to understand that words are thoughts, and that thoughts are a biological process in an organ inside the human body? Are you fucking nuts?! *roflcopters*
The majority of the places I've worked don't even have segregated restrooms in the first place.
People who want to go into the weeds on this issue might not like the natural solution that cuts through all the various bullshit. One restroom.
Actually they'll love it once they get used to it, because it shifts the demand from segregation to simply having more private stalls. I don't care who is in the stall next to me, but I do prefer having a large urinal divider to just dangling it over a shared trough.
Why is it that people with one view seem to claim that people with an opposing view are only "0.001%?" If that was true, this wouldn't even be an issue. And yet it is an issue. Did you possibly comprehend that: A) the transgender population in the US is at least 0.2% (lowest reasonable estimate) and B) a huge number of birth-gendered heterosexuals support the rights of transgendered people to use whichever restroom they're comfortable with.
Why put fake numbers to your fantasy that transgendered people are unicorns, or that people who support their rights and dignity are unicorns?
I'll bet the local equal rights laws that the State law overturned were supported by more than 0.001% of the respective City Councils. Somehow it seems likely they had over 50% support, even. Do those cities add up to only 0.002% of the State?
That's total horseshit because if somebody is perving in the bathroom, that can happen in whichever bathroom you require that they use. The whole argument is self-mooting.
You use fancy words like "blackmailing" and "social engineering" and "loonies," and you also engage in blatant lies like the idea that "99.9% of the population does not agree." Talk about "fantasy," geeze. And that's after making such a worthless argument; predators can be any gender, and can prey on any gender. If humans share restrooms, there will be some predators in the same room as other people. That has nothing to do with restroom assignments, it is simply a consequence of there being a non-zero number of predators in the world.
Yeah, you're trying to spin a narrative, while admitting it.
Nobody cares. The stories aren't being "sown," people know about it now and they're actually interested. You try to make it sound like nobody cares, they're being somehow manipulated into reading it.
That's just going to make them more angry, if you manage to spin it in a medium with more readership. Nobody is interested in your false narrative except for the far right.
Oh yeah, "we're just some guys writing checks." That argument is contributing to people's anger. People understand their checking accounts. They also understand that they pay their taxes. "Oh gosh we're just like you" is leading to more people demanding punishment, because that is what happens to regular people with checking accounts if they try to play games with the math to avoid taxes.
The funny part is him trying to dissolve Parliament preemptively before they could even take up his scandal, and the President's blocking of that action. That's the real reason he had to resign suddenly; his ass-covering maneuver failed spectacularly, and Parliament was going to be really, really pissed.
The cover-up attempt bit a lot quicker than the scandal.
He's the one that got rid of the assets in question as he entered office. His wife took over those accounts.
False.
He transferred the account to his wife the day before a new law took effect that would have required disclosure.
And "selling" for $1 implies that there was no loss of interest, that they have a combined interest and were just being deceptive. This isn't like a donation that is done as a sale for $1, this is just obfuscation with no movement of the personal financial interest.
It is hard to avoid Trump with Cruz as the only alternative, because he's in the process of being outed as a client of the DC Madam. The phone lists showing his private number in Texas are already leaked online, and there is a pending leak promised by a lawyer with the documents. He hasn't identified the person, but the internet already has.
Cruz is a "family values" "Christian Conservative," and this is going to sink him.
They can't just choose Romney if Trump has the delegates to win the first vote. Plus, Romney already had his run, and did poorly. If they can get past the first vote, I think former Senator Elizabeth Dole is a more likely choice.
This is why the Democrats have "super-delegates." Exactly why.
I don't know what either of you are talking about, but in my State we elect professional legislators, but also use Direct Democracy. We've trained the legislature not to decide anything too controversial themselves; instead of voting on a controversial law, they vote on what language to refer to the People for direct vote. If the people don't like the language, which happens often, they can (and do) write their own version and get it on the ballot. It is not uncommon that we vote on two proposals at the same time, on the same issue: one from the Legislature, and one from some opposing activist group.
People can wave their hands about "mob rule," but that is what the Independent Judiciary protects us from. Those protections don't come from a legislature protecting the people from themselves; legislatures and parliaments commit the same abuses that voters do.
"Mob rule?" No. In the morning, he attempted to dissolve parliament and force early elections. The President asked him if he had support in Parliament from the governing coalition for that, and he didn't have any evidence of support. So the President said no, which is one of the functions of the President in their system. The Prime Minister resigned shortly thereafter, as Parliament was likely going to be really upset, and still had all their power.
They did the transfer the day before a new law that would have required disclosure; the transfer didn't do anything to the conflict of interest, but it did prevent him from being required to disclose it, and kept it secret until this leak.
Nobody ever claimed the purpose was to remove the conflict of interest.
Be more credulous about what China is willing to do, medically.
This is not some joke or corporate PR to gain attention just for cloned pets. This is about food production. And they will also be doing pets for rich people to fund it. And human tests. They don't have the same ethical restrictions. If they think it will help good people, then whatever harm or sacrifice is required from others is also seen as good.
They're executing Falun Gong practitioners on demand to provide organs. Human cloning for organ harvest isn't even going to be controversial in China.
You can't go into the weeds or your argument loses meaning. It can only be defended at the very top level as an artificial distinction. Trying to claim a real difference breaks down quickly.
Like lets say a new insect evolves that eats a type of tree. Now the tree is being selected for different traits than before, entirely due to external pressures. Ants even conduct farming, and maintain herds of aphids that they "milk" for sugar. There are lots and lots of examples of an external selection pressure being introduced by another species. Those are all called "natural selection."
The only difference is because people choose to use different words arbitrarily when humans are involved.
Or are we taking a completely natural world and ruining it with artificial selection?
1) There is lots of cloning taking place in nature. Where do you think we're learning it from?!
2) Clones are not as robust as the source. They will only survive where cared for; for example, growing in a tank to provide transplant organs. A cloned cow might have tasty meat, but it wouldn't have a long lifespan. Doesn't matter if you're eating it as soon as it gets big enough, of course. But it isn't going to escape and displace a natural selection process.
Like my wife said, "I'd rather be a primate than a therapsid."
Tools were also evolved naturally. Funny story, one night I was walking home through the park at 3am and there was a raccoon couple mating in a tree. Raccoons usually ignore humans at that time, but this guy wanted some privacy; he started throwing acorns out of the tree at me! I hadn't even stopped or anything, I just looked at him while I walked by and he started yelling and throwing things.
Crows have no trouble using tools. They have an evolved sense of cause and effect combined with abstract thinking.
The whole distinction is idiotic, a false dichotomy.
Right, but you have to convince a jury of that. You have to have been insane your whole life for a jury to even consider it. And if you're crazy in a way that causes you to claim association with Nazis, who are controlling you, they're probably going to decide you're more evil than crazy.
I accused the cowherd of "propaganda" because he was using blatant propaganda that is not reasonable. A person who dislikes military exercises because they raise tensions still knows that they are done for reasons other than "provocation." If you're trying to provoke a military, you just shoot at them. It is easy to do. It is not rational to claim that military exercises have provocation as the primary goal. It is not a rational belief; it ignores why people do things, and just asserts that they don't even know why they're doing it. It ignores that practice is reasonable on its face as a primary goal.
Believing that military practice is indeed the main goal is not "propaganda." It is an entirely reasonable position, and it doesn't ignore that it can also raise tensions.
You're not thinking about it, you're just saying "I know you are but what am I." Do better. Use your noggin. Practice is a real thing.
I read outdoors a lot. If I'm reading an engineering text all day, it is a lot more pleasant if I'm out in nature somewhere. But I can't imagine sitting in the sun to do it... so any tablet works.
Right, but the "offended person[s]" in this case are the ones freaking out about imaginary "SJWs" that never even tried to throw them in the gulag in the first place, or whatever the accusation is. That is 100% of the offended. Just read the thread.
Considering the way I speak to gender-neutral error messages, I think you might have something there. If I'm less likely to yell at my device, I'll probably have a better day.
With all the testosterone and neck hair on slashdot, I'll take some balance anywhere I can get it.
Stories like this, you'd have to dip the whole submission in Nair(TM) to get a reasoned discussion.
The problem with an insanity defense if that if you decide someday you want to get out of the insane asylum, then you have to go to court and answer to the charges against you.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on, you expect bigoted people to have the education to understand that words are thoughts, and that thoughts are a biological process in an organ inside the human body? Are you fucking nuts?! *roflcopters*
Unisex bathrooms...with closed stalls.
Yay! Everybody wins!
Except Camera Voyeur Peeking Under the Stall.
And Larry Craig.
Yay! Most of us win!
The majority of the places I've worked don't even have segregated restrooms in the first place.
People who want to go into the weeds on this issue might not like the natural solution that cuts through all the various bullshit. One restroom.
Actually they'll love it once they get used to it, because it shifts the demand from segregation to simply having more private stalls. I don't care who is in the stall next to me, but I do prefer having a large urinal divider to just dangling it over a shared trough.
Why is it that people with one view seem to claim that people with an opposing view are only "0.001%?" If that was true, this wouldn't even be an issue. And yet it is an issue. Did you possibly comprehend that: A) the transgender population in the US is at least 0.2% (lowest reasonable estimate) and B) a huge number of birth-gendered heterosexuals support the rights of transgendered people to use whichever restroom they're comfortable with.
Why put fake numbers to your fantasy that transgendered people are unicorns, or that people who support their rights and dignity are unicorns?
I'll bet the local equal rights laws that the State law overturned were supported by more than 0.001% of the respective City Councils. Somehow it seems likely they had over 50% support, even. Do those cities add up to only 0.002% of the State?
That's total horseshit because if somebody is perving in the bathroom, that can happen in whichever bathroom you require that they use. The whole argument is self-mooting.
You use fancy words like "blackmailing" and "social engineering" and "loonies," and you also engage in blatant lies like the idea that "99.9% of the population does not agree." Talk about "fantasy," geeze. And that's after making such a worthless argument; predators can be any gender, and can prey on any gender. If humans share restrooms, there will be some predators in the same room as other people. That has nothing to do with restroom assignments, it is simply a consequence of there being a non-zero number of predators in the world.
Yeah, you're trying to spin a narrative, while admitting it.
Nobody cares. The stories aren't being "sown," people know about it now and they're actually interested. You try to make it sound like nobody cares, they're being somehow manipulated into reading it.
That's just going to make them more angry, if you manage to spin it in a medium with more readership. Nobody is interested in your false narrative except for the far right.
Oh yeah, "we're just some guys writing checks." That argument is contributing to people's anger. People understand their checking accounts. They also understand that they pay their taxes. "Oh gosh we're just like you" is leading to more people demanding punishment, because that is what happens to regular people with checking accounts if they try to play games with the math to avoid taxes.
The funny part is him trying to dissolve Parliament preemptively before they could even take up his scandal, and the President's blocking of that action. That's the real reason he had to resign suddenly; his ass-covering maneuver failed spectacularly, and Parliament was going to be really, really pissed.
The cover-up attempt bit a lot quicker than the scandal.
He's the one that got rid of the assets in question as he entered office. His wife took over those accounts.
False.
He transferred the account to his wife the day before a new law took effect that would have required disclosure.
And "selling" for $1 implies that there was no loss of interest, that they have a combined interest and were just being deceptive. This isn't like a donation that is done as a sale for $1, this is just obfuscation with no movement of the personal financial interest.
It is hard to avoid Trump with Cruz as the only alternative, because he's in the process of being outed as a client of the DC Madam. The phone lists showing his private number in Texas are already leaked online, and there is a pending leak promised by a lawyer with the documents. He hasn't identified the person, but the internet already has.
Cruz is a "family values" "Christian Conservative," and this is going to sink him.
They can't just choose Romney if Trump has the delegates to win the first vote. Plus, Romney already had his run, and did poorly. If they can get past the first vote, I think former Senator Elizabeth Dole is a more likely choice.
This is why the Democrats have "super-delegates." Exactly why.
I don't know what either of you are talking about, but in my State we elect professional legislators, but also use Direct Democracy. We've trained the legislature not to decide anything too controversial themselves; instead of voting on a controversial law, they vote on what language to refer to the People for direct vote. If the people don't like the language, which happens often, they can (and do) write their own version and get it on the ballot. It is not uncommon that we vote on two proposals at the same time, on the same issue: one from the Legislature, and one from some opposing activist group.
People can wave their hands about "mob rule," but that is what the Independent Judiciary protects us from. Those protections don't come from a legislature protecting the people from themselves; legislatures and parliaments commit the same abuses that voters do.
"Mob rule?" No. In the morning, he attempted to dissolve parliament and force early elections. The President asked him if he had support in Parliament from the governing coalition for that, and he didn't have any evidence of support. So the President said no, which is one of the functions of the President in their system. The Prime Minister resigned shortly thereafter, as Parliament was likely going to be really upset, and still had all their power.
Very, very far from "mob rule."
They did the transfer the day before a new law that would have required disclosure; the transfer didn't do anything to the conflict of interest, but it did prevent him from being required to disclose it, and kept it secret until this leak.
Nobody ever claimed the purpose was to remove the conflict of interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Be more credulous about what China is willing to do, medically.
This is not some joke or corporate PR to gain attention just for cloned pets. This is about food production. And they will also be doing pets for rich people to fund it. And human tests. They don't have the same ethical restrictions. If they think it will help good people, then whatever harm or sacrifice is required from others is also seen as good.
They're executing Falun Gong practitioners on demand to provide organs. Human cloning for organ harvest isn't even going to be controversial in China.
You can't go into the weeds or your argument loses meaning. It can only be defended at the very top level as an artificial distinction. Trying to claim a real difference breaks down quickly.
Like lets say a new insect evolves that eats a type of tree. Now the tree is being selected for different traits than before, entirely due to external pressures. Ants even conduct farming, and maintain herds of aphids that they "milk" for sugar. There are lots and lots of examples of an external selection pressure being introduced by another species. Those are all called "natural selection."
The only difference is because people choose to use different words arbitrarily when humans are involved.
Or are we taking a completely natural world and ruining it with artificial selection?
1) There is lots of cloning taking place in nature. Where do you think we're learning it from?!
2) Clones are not as robust as the source. They will only survive where cared for; for example, growing in a tank to provide transplant organs. A cloned cow might have tasty meat, but it wouldn't have a long lifespan. Doesn't matter if you're eating it as soon as it gets big enough, of course. But it isn't going to escape and displace a natural selection process.
I evolved naturally you insensitive clod!
Like my wife said, "I'd rather be a primate than a therapsid."
Tools were also evolved naturally. Funny story, one night I was walking home through the park at 3am and there was a raccoon couple mating in a tree. Raccoons usually ignore humans at that time, but this guy wanted some privacy; he started throwing acorns out of the tree at me! I hadn't even stopped or anything, I just looked at him while I walked by and he started yelling and throwing things.
Crows have no trouble using tools. They have an evolved sense of cause and effect combined with abstract thinking.
The whole distinction is idiotic, a false dichotomy.
Look up near the top of the thread where I quoted the proposed law.
See the words, "cause of action?"
Sec. 2. [604.31] CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NONCONSENSUAL
DISSEMINATION OF PRIVATE SEXUAL IMAGES; SEXUAL SOLICITATION.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Right, but you have to convince a jury of that. You have to have been insane your whole life for a jury to even consider it. And if you're crazy in a way that causes you to claim association with Nazis, who are controlling you, they're probably going to decide you're more evil than crazy.
No, that is called an opinion.
I accused the cowherd of "propaganda" because he was using blatant propaganda that is not reasonable. A person who dislikes military exercises because they raise tensions still knows that they are done for reasons other than "provocation." If you're trying to provoke a military, you just shoot at them. It is easy to do. It is not rational to claim that military exercises have provocation as the primary goal. It is not a rational belief; it ignores why people do things, and just asserts that they don't even know why they're doing it. It ignores that practice is reasonable on its face as a primary goal.
Believing that military practice is indeed the main goal is not "propaganda." It is an entirely reasonable position, and it doesn't ignore that it can also raise tensions.
You're not thinking about it, you're just saying "I know you are but what am I." Do better. Use your noggin. Practice is a real thing.
No, this one is about creating a "cause of action."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I read outdoors a lot. If I'm reading an engineering text all day, it is a lot more pleasant if I'm out in nature somewhere. But I can't imagine sitting in the sun to do it... so any tablet works.
Who knows what is going on with the tech companies, why didn't they give people a choice?
They did, but gamergate can't read, or find an options screen.
LOL no, feminism was never involved, you're just using this as an opportunity to troll about feminism. Propaganda indeed.
Right, but the "offended person[s]" in this case are the ones freaking out about imaginary "SJWs" that never even tried to throw them in the gulag in the first place, or whatever the accusation is. That is 100% of the offended. Just read the thread.
Considering the way I speak to gender-neutral error messages, I think you might have something there. If I'm less likely to yell at my device, I'll probably have a better day.
With all the testosterone and neck hair on slashdot, I'll take some balance anywhere I can get it.
Stories like this, you'd have to dip the whole submission in Nair(TM) to get a reasoned discussion.
The problem with an insanity defense if that if you decide someday you want to get out of the insane asylum, then you have to go to court and answer to the charges against you.