LOL gays were classified as mentally ill people until the 70s and that only changed because people protested not because the doctors and scientist actually found evidence saying otherwise, they just didn't want to hear people complain anymore.
There's a lot of reprehensible posts in this thread already by sad little bigots about murdering people they don't like, and yet this is still qualifies as one of the most ridiculous things posted in this thread. A lack of mental disorder diagnosis for gays has nothing to do with protests and complaining and everything to do with the fact that it is not, and never has been, a mental disorder. |
|
|
|
I think the idea behind this is that sex and gender are not necessarily the same. Usually they are, but not always. Sex is a biological concept and is determined by your chromosomes and physical attributes while gender is a social concept. Someone can be biologically male but identify as female, or vice versa. Or at least that's how I think it works. In this case, the gym decided to segregate people depending on their gender rather than their biological sex.
That's what they did wrong IMHO, any pervert could pretend that "He feels like a woman inside" in order to gain access to all the naked ladies changing in the locker room. The Gym's policy is wrong and I hope that woman decides to sue their asses for this. What locker room a Gym member uses should be decided by what's between their legs and not by what's inside their head. Sue for what? The woman voluntarily went to this gym. If she doesn't like the gym's locker room policy, she's free to go to another gym. You can't voluntarily make yourself a victim and then sue for it. BTW they should inform their customers better about the policies and then the customers can decide if they like that or not. Maybe small private change rooms within the locker room could be a good idea.
I agree with this. I can't imagine this is a common occurrence, but the gym should have a clearly stated policy so people can make an informed decision. My understanding though is the locker rooms already have stalls in them currently, so that's essentially a private area if you choose to change there (to the second part of your statement). |
|
|
|
Look at the extent of the tax evasion problem in Greece. Back when they were occupied territory of the Ottoman Empire, tax evasion was a form of patriotism. The tradition is still so pervasive that today's politicians still openly refer to tax evasion as Greece's national past time. From about 2005 on, tax evasion rates have been around 40% for the country. When nearly half of the population that is supposed to be paying taxes isn't, and then you add on top of that public corruption tied to a deeply ingrained cronyism and nepotism system, and overly generous pension payments driven by politically connected and powerful government unions, it's no wonder Greece is in shambles. A study of tax evasion found that tax evasion from self-employed people alone in Greece in 2009 accounted for 31% of the budget deficit. It was 40% in 2008. Worse, tax evasion is highest among the professional classes (the highest earners). ( http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/09/greece-tax-evasion-professional-classes?CMP=twt_gu) Tax rates are really high there, but that's probably necessary when so many people don't pay and there's so much corruption. The Greek public wants to keep their corrupt government, cronyism, and generous government benefits, and wants to not pay taxes too. That's not a winning combination, and it's a wonder they keep finding people to loan them money when they've proven unable/unwilling to reform their system. Default is inevitable in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Any child with a registered birth certificate is property of the county in which they were born, and therefore property of the state.
Do you actually believe this or are you using hyperbole to make a point? The birth certificate is literally the creation of a corporate entity known as a person, not to be confused with a human being. By registering your child as a person you enter into a contract with the state under which you voluntarily submit to their regulation and jurisdiction under UCC maritime law. It is a fact of contract law. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a corporation, a for profit entity, so is CPS. Beliefs have nothing to do with it. Can you provide any shred of credibility to any of these notions besides your word? |
|
|
|
Any child with a registered birth certificate is property of the county in which they were born, and therefore property of the state.
Do you actually believe this or are you using hyperbole to make a point? |
|
|
|
Did someone mention low-IQ cops?
Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”
He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.
But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.
Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.
Story is from the year 2000, but tells of a really depressing mindset by police forces. |
|
|
|
I don't buy either of your premises. Capitalism at its core is voluntary exchange; an entirely voluntary system in which the initiation of violence harms all. I see you are a true believer in the mythical sort of capitalism that has only ever existed in your imagination. The violence-free capitalist utopia. I read a lot about this capitalism on internet forums, yet strangely I have never read an account of it existing in history. Remember that capitalism was born around four hundred years ago, a time when violence was much more normal and acceptable than it is today. Capitalism makes much more sense in 1700 than it does in 2015, because violence is becoming less and less legitimate. Sorry I don't buy into your anti-capitalist excuse to use force on the unwilling. Do let me know if you ever come up with a viable alternative that is less violent than one based on voluntary exchange. I'll be waiting with bated breathe. [/s] |
|
|
|
|
If you don't care if I understand what you're saying, why do you keep quoting me?
|
|
|
|
I support capitalism, but it seems you don't. Of course I don't, I loathe violence and capitalism could not exist without systemic violence. It seems to me you're conflating voluntary employment with forced employment. There is nothing voluntary about employment so long as non-employment means starvation and homelessness for the vast majority of workers. If everyone started out on equal financial footing at birth, you might have an argument. Since we don't, and since only the privileged few can afford to start their own business (repeatedly as needed since 8 out of 10 fail), your argument has no merit. I don't buy either of your premises. Capitalism at its core is voluntary exchange; an entirely voluntary system in which the initiation of violence harms all. Crony capitalism, in which special interests pay for the use of force by the government to enact their will, is neither voluntary nor capitalism. The fact that you see so much crony capitalism is not proof of failure of a voluntary system, it's evidence the government shouldn't be granted the power to interject in the market place to create winners and losers. Non-employment doesn't mean starvation and homelessness. Non-productivity, on the other hand, does. You can be unemployed and productive, in which you create things the market desires, and are compensated accordingly (keeping the whole fruits of your labor). But your inability to make a living on your own is evidence of you not producing anything the market desires. That's no one else's fault or burden, best to sell your labor at that point to someone who can produce something of value with it where you can't. I don't know what your particular problem is, but I can start a business with ease, it's neither expensive or difficult. I just have nothing to create the market would desire, so I'm better off selling my labor to someone who can use it to create something of value. No one forces you to work, but no one owes you anything either when you don't. |
|
|
|
|
I can honestly say that I have no idea what you're talking about most of the time BitMos, or how it relates even a little to the quotes of me you quote.
|
|
|
|
Why would you expect Fox News to report on this? If it's not useful to push a republican agenda, it's not newsworthy. Most republicans are pro-NSA, so it makes perfect sense it's not a story. Ironically, The Guardian covers the NSA better than American media does. |
|
|
|
I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor or won't protect their work as their property. It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights, not the rest of society to force him to give his work away because you don't want to pay for his book. If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.
a big up to all the forums leeches. I don't understand what you mean, can you explain what that means in relation to what you quoted? |
|
|
|
The tech bubble is now justified in terms of usability and the numbers of users compared to 2000. Valuations are so far into la la land it's bizarre though. Amazon is the world's largest online retailer. It rarely turns a profit and it sells actual stuff.
I could invent an app with a talking arsehole and if enough brain dead tossers downloaded it and then deleted it three minutes later, I could get a few million too no doubt. That's not sustainable once the real world comes knocking.
The difference with Amazon though is everyone believes it can flip a switch and juice profits at any moment. It chooses not to because that would hurt market share while it's still so rapidly growing into and dominating an ever increasing number of markets. The valuation for Amazon based on your basic metrics looks crazy, but Amazon's value as a company is rather intangible at this point. I don't think anyone believes Amazon can't be profitable, which is why the valuation looks as crazy as it does. That's very different from the tech bubble companies of old, that couldn't operate profitably if they tried. |
|
|
|
Either you own the fruit of your labor or you don't. Your copyright-less system does not recognize the product of your work as your property. That's not a just system.
But this "non-system" has been working in countries such as China for many, many years. Maybe time to "re-think" your idea of the system? and home to the largest black market on the planet. That's right, people claiming ownership of stolen copyrighted work for the purpose of selling that work. Not to mention a horrendous track record on tangible and real property rights. Somehow, I don't think it works nearly as well as you believe it does. I'll stick with my predictable ability to enforce my property rights, thanks. |
|
|
|
I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor So you don't support capitalism, I take it? After all, it's a fact that the overwhelming majority of workers are not allowed to keep the fruits of their labor. They are expected to accept a tiny fraction of the profits generated by that labor, or fuck off and starve. It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights Reality check, it's up to whomever commands the monopoly on coercive force and violence. In this case, the nation state. You have no rights, you have privileges granted to you by your masters. These can be revoked at any time. If you don't believe me, google internment camps WW2. I support capitalism, but it seems you don't. It seems to me you're conflating voluntary employment with forced employment. If you want to keep the fruits of your entire labor, go into business for yourself. What you do by agreeing to take a job is sell your labor to someone who pays you for it, so you have already entered an agreement not to own the product of your labor. Ostensibly, whoever is paying you for it can make more off your labor than you could if you were to try to sell whatever it is you were making yourself. That's how you both benefit from an employment arrangement. There's nothing forced about that, and these voluntary employment arrangements have nothing to do with the state's monopoly on force. |
|
|
|
If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.
I think you need to "reverse" your statement. If someone doesn't want anyone to copy their work then simply don't publish it. What does "reverse your statement" mean? The point of working in a field is to make a living, and publication is necessary to monetize your work if you make "artistic" products. Publication does not forfeit your property rights. Either you own the fruit of your labor or you don't. Your copyright-less system does not recognize the product of your work as your property. That's not a just system. |
|
|
|
|
I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor or won't protect their work as their property. It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights, not the rest of society to force him to give his work away because you don't want to pay for his book. If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to see Cuban speak with specific examples as to why exactly he thinks there is such a big tech bubble. Did he go into any detail or was he just speaking in very vague generalities? As someone pointed out, a lot of the tech companies (at least the ones I'm aware of) have cash flows and fundementals that support an investing thesis. They may be lofty and highly optimistic, but that's quite different from the last tech bubble where Wall Street has chasing anyone with a website to throw money at them. Any IPO with .com in the name was wildly successful, until it wasn't. Pets.com is the one that I hear mentioned most often, lost several hundred million dollars worth of invested capital in the few years it was in business.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe copyrights have their place for people who create their work (be it a movie, song, book, etc.) and don't wish for you to consume it without compensation. Getting rid of copyrights gets rid of the legal protection of their property. Crowd funding is great for any artist who wants to go that route. I support copyright protections for those who don't.
|
|
|
|
Also, artists do not need to be fucking millionaires. You make a tune everyone likes? A poem? Does that warrant millions?
This is the part where it starts to lose me. It seems a lot of support for anti-IP sentiment is rooted in the fact that someone's individual subjective conclusion is that someone who wrote that book or created that [insert any artistic item] in [whatever artistic medium] doesn't deserve to be "rich." Just because you personally don't find the value in something doesn't mean the entire market should share your sentiment, and in fact, in cases where someone is rich because of their work, it means the market in fact doesn't at all share your personal sentiment. I find the IP and patent system we currently have to be grossly abusive and anti-innovation, but patents and copyrights do have their place in a more limited setting, and copyright protection for artists is essential. I don't support the entire scrapping of the system, and I definitely don't support any argument against the system that is predicated on someone's personal opinion that popular artists don't deserve what they earn for creating things millions of people value, or that artists owe the world their work for free. For me, an artistic copyright is a legal means to enforce an artist's right to their personal property against anyone who would take it without the artist's permission. A just world is predicated on voluntary exchange, voluntary payment for what the individual creates, with their labor or mind or whatever. It's not voluntary exchange if you don't have permission to take their work, and therefore it's not just. At least, that's how I view it from a libertarian-leaning perspective. I guess this applies more to copyrights than patents. Careful. I'm not saying they shouldn't be rich, or rewarded financially or otherwise for their work. I'm just not in agreement with the copyright cartel's opinion that they MUST be. And that we must do whatever we can, including butchering our first global, un-cenosorable communications medium to salvage every last penny. I have donated to everyone who has created something I approved of (that has made it possible for me to do so!) mozilla, tor, wikimedia etc. The libertarian would say (and I did earlier) that I like what they do (and I consider writing good code to be art) and wish them to continue. If I give them money, they are much more likely to continue! Well, you kinda said that; I quoted it without alteration. In any event, if you're walking back from that sentiment, then I would think that anyone who is in the "industry" of the big media companies is there because they want to be compensated for their work, and the copyright is a legal means to enforce against people who value their work enough to consume it, but don't think they should have to pay for it. That's not a voluntary exchange. Anyone who wants to release their music/writing/art for the public is free to do so outside the industry. Opensource projects are fantastic, primarily because there is no profit motive (ostensibly) and anyone can take and use the code/source material. Artists can do the same thing by releasing under the creative commons license. Jonathon Coulton is one musician in particular I like who has become quite successful doing this (former coder too, btw). But I don't hold it against anyone who doesn't opt to do so. It's a choice. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
