Total posts: 18
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Generally, yes, I would be opposed (but also largely don't care). In a public high school, absolutely opposed.
The reasons stated still apply, but the issue with a public school is that it is ripe for abuse, and at that age with hormones raging, it is likely an abuse that will manifest. Do you know why schools have zero tolerance policies? It is to avoid having to make decisions and take sides. Assume I am a 16 year old male, and I walk into the ladies bathroom. Is the principal going to say I am not transgendered? Did I not file the necessary paperwork or meet the arbitrary rules? This is a lawsuit waiting to happen. In an effort to protect, you will harm others.
I do not understand why people bend over backwards to accommodate transgendered people, especially in the context of bathrooms. Using the bathroom is a function of biology, and thus, biology should matter more than how you feel about yourself. You identify as a woman, but you have male parts, so use the urinal (or sit on the toilet). What is the issue, exactly? It is that they don't want to.
I am further confused because the only reason I can see this being an issue is if a man in a dress uses the woman's bathroom, but who would know?
Now, transexuals are a different story, since they have changed their anatomy. Transgenders just confuse me, since they take issue with their body, but don't want their body to reflect what they feel, and to be honest, I have no idea how or why they feel that the way they feel is akin to a specific gender - it reinforces gender roles.
Question for you - should a 16 yr old boy who identifies as a girl be allowed to shower with the girls in the locker room? If not, why are bathrooms different than locker rooms, given the context of adhering to sexual identity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
By unisex bathrooms, I assume you mean multiple toilets in a room, which are open to either gender.
A bathroom is often considered a safe space in American culture. Need a moment to recompose yourself? Apply lipstick or otherwise freshen up? Talk to someone in private? Have a "private" phone call? Bathrooms are often used, especially in more social venues, like bars or restaurants.
In high schools, I am opposed to these. Teens are still getting used to their changing bodies, are emotional wrecks, and a bathroom is about the closest one can get to have a private moment. Having it open to anyone can impede on this limited privacy.
There is a code of conduct that takes place in public bathrooms, and these are different among the sexes. Allowing both sexes (and genders) eliminates any sanctuary that existed, and can very easily make high school even worse than it already is for many.
Furthermore, if unisex means either sex, then urinals should be in both bathrooms for obvious reasons, and this can be see as awkward for both males and females.
If, however, you mean a single stall in a room, then unisex away. If there is only space for one person and the door locks, who cares about gender?
Created:
Posted in:
What I have noticed with the topic of wages is that it is not an issue of employers screwing over their labor staff, but other employees doing this. Labor is a commodity, subject to supply and demand, and would-be employees are in direct competition with each other. Faulting a business for hiring Mr. X who asked for $15/hr instead of Mr. Y who asked for $20/hr is the same argument for faulting a business (or even a consumer) for having a service provided for them by the cheaper service provider. Some expenses (services or labor) require a premium to ensure good work, but a minimum wage sets the floor for entry, thus setting for the floor for expectations.
Minimum wages and living wages do not address the issues people think they do. According to the BLS, the vast majority of those making minimum wage do not work 30 hrs/week. Raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" is still not a living wage to these people. It helps, sure, but they are still in poverty.
Most minimum wage jobs are unskilled positions, and are filled with people who are generally unskilled. As wages go up, these people are put into competition with other, more skilled/motivated, laborers and the result is that certain individuals are put at greater risk when increasing the minimum wage. This is further compounded when you factor in technology and businesses making the decision to trim the labor fat, since it is more expensive now. In my area, this is seen by fewer cashiers at the grocery store (opting for self-service checkouts), less staff at burger joints during rushes, and a more aggressive cutting of hours of non-peak time. This puts more stress and responsibility on the employee, and some employees cannot keep up, and thus, will find themselves chronically unemployed.
Lastly, since minimum wages set the floor for labor, it helps in keeping big business big. It creates a very real and tangible barrier for entry into the market for new businesses, or existing ones that want to hire help to expand their business. The larger the company, the more they can absorb costs due to economies of scale. Raising prices is not always a viable solution for the small employer, and small employers pay less for labor than their larger competitors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Those are terrible plans, and often unnecessary.
Generally, states have tiered minimum wage laws, so small businesses aren't required to pay the full minimum wage. In MN, it is $8.04, as opposed to $9.86. However, no one pays that, because no one will work for that.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Agreed, if anyone dies (aside from two players), they lose, and three will likely die NP1. How can you judge motivations when you know everyone's motivation is to stay alive? I'm thinking town should have a vig, since apathy in the DP is likely to ensue. Further, when 2/3 are third party, most players will lose the game.
FYI, mharman, the SK should not win until they are the last one alive. This will motivate survivors to find and lynch the SK.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@HistoryBuff
Actually, your source does not say what you stated.
51.9% of families is not the same as 51.9% of Americans. A Gallup poll found 54%. Greyparrot's question has merit in clarifying the statistic, and it is unknown how many Americans of a relevant age have an interest in stock prices. A breakdown of ages might be very telling, and of course, this assumes people are honest in a poll about their personal finances (or even know the correct answer).
Regardless of the percentage, the value of stocks does impact the economy quite a bit, and can impact housing values and pensions (both non-stock related retirement tools). I would say 70% of Americans are directly impacted, in some way.
Greyparrot, many people don't have stocks and many cannot afford them. It really depends on how much disposable income they have, and how they spend it. Between rent, insurance, vehicles, school, kids, food, and taxes, some don't have the means to contribute to an IRA....or at least feel they don't. Not to mention any vices, like gambling, smoking, drinking, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
Is this level of drama normal on this website?
Created:
Posted in:
As someone who often works in and with clients in Minnesota, Trump could win the state, but it would likely depend on the turnout, and that will likely depend on the Democratic nominee. There is a lot of anti-Trump sentiment in the Twin Cities, but a lot of support in the rural areas.
Given certain laws and state-wide issues of the state, I think without Trump, the state would vote red in 2020, but the fevered pitch of anti-Trump people folks may cause Trump to lose, if they show up. The recent Trump protests show outrage, but it is difficult to tell who has the majority, and in many circles in MN, politics is best avoided.
Created:
The argument that universal healthcare would be cheaper appears to be a foregone conclusion. Plus, it makes sense, since there should be lower administrative fees.
However, looking at various data, it is unclear which system is more economically efficient.
This is what I have found:
1. Brand drugs are generally cheaper abroad than in the US (for drugs with available generics, not sure about no alternatives)
2. Generic drugs are generally cheaper in the US than abroad.
3. Foreign government have cost/efficiency standards which limit expensive drugs. For example, if a drug is estimated to add one year of life, it cannot cost more than $5,000 per treatment/pill.
4. Medical procedures cost more in the US, but generally less than twice as much.
5. Per capita, the US spends about four times more on healthcare than other nations (and a good chunk have no access to healthcare).
6. Most countries with universal healthcare have about 25% of their healthcare privately funded.
7. The US has higher success rates of cancer and other costly illnesses.
8. The US has more costly machines, and also appear to use them more, per capita
The problem I run into is I cannot reconcile where (or how) money is saved, nor can I compare apples to apples.
The major problem is identifying what "healthcare" expenses are, and of course, if they are applied evenly for comparison. Only one source I found mentions explicitly research is part of the equation for the US, but it does not say how much that is, if research is more or less than other nations (or even if other nations spend on research), nor if that includes drug companies' R & D.
I would love to see a breakdown of the US's expenses, along other nations, to get a feel of where we spend more, what can be saved, and the likelihood that savings will occur and the impact of such savings. For example, how much can be saved in admin and how many jobs are lost due to it?
Other things to consider, because the US is not the same as other nations:
1. Additional costs due to general unhealthiness of the USA
2. Additional use of healthcare in the US exempt from other nations, for example, prescription drug abuse and gun shot wounds
3. Population density - larger swaths of low population areas than other nations
4. Impact to other nations' costs - the evidence suggests US citizens are subsidizing drug costs
5. Most medical advancements are from the US, and these advancements cost money, and are likely added to the healthcare price tag.
6. Costs associated with drug testing
7. Use of ridiculously expensive drugs (although this may or may not be higher or lower than other nations)
All I ever really hear is the broad statement that the US spends more than other nations, which is easily misinterpreted due to its broadness. I attempted to reconcile the numbers, and was off by about $200 billion with making unreasonable assumptions, which is about 10% of healthcare expense. A large gap, but if my numbers were correct, the US will still be spending more than other nations per capita by a noticeable degree, will have to raise taxes by about 30%, and it is unclear just how much is saved.
Does anyone know of a source that offers a breakdown of healthcare costs by research, drugs, services, equipment, buildings, and admin and compares them to other nations?
Of course, the argument for universal healthcare is two-fold - one is cost, the other is "rights", and I am only addressing the former.
Personally, I go back and forth, but I am curious as to the legitimacy of the arguments offered.
Personally, I go back and forth, but I am curious as to the legitimacy of the arguments offered.
Created:
-->
@linate
Trump did not create this precedent, and blaming him is ignoring Congress' utter failure to override a veto. Congress doesn't need Trumps' signature to pass a budget, and this is the tenth shutdown in 40 years, and there have been 22 gaps (that is 50%) in federal funding - since 1990, any gap results in a shutdown.
Why is a politician standing for their convictions wrong? Their conviction may be wrong or ill-advised, and the tactic may be heavy-handed, but government shut downs are not new, and frankly, occur because Congress uses it as a bartering tool during the elections to garner votes.
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
For the record, BLM is more than about cop shootings. However, that is what is picked up by media.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
If the lawyer was being a jerk, and then the cop called in reinforcements to search the car in retaliation, and then upon seeing the additional police the lawyer started recording, that could be seen as an abuse of power. But, that is not what is being claimed happened.
Let's examine the video, shall we?
- First, as usual, the video doesn't start at the beginning. We do not know what happened before (or after).
- We know there are five cops - which is three police cars. Multiple officers out of their vehicles does not happen with a routine traffic stop.
- We only see the cop lying about some law about filming, and we are led to believe the search is due to the lawyer being a "jerk". However, it sounds like the car was going to be searched long before the taped conversation, evidenced by the numerous police on the scene.
So, was the cop out of line? That is debatable.
On the one hand, he clearly lied about some new law.
On the other hand, from a safety standpoint, some suspect who's car is being searched is not necessarily the kind of person you want making wild movements with their arms. Further, an incomplete record of events can be problematic for any professional.
Your position is to take anyone, including a juror, who is involved in any miscarriage of justice, no matter how slight, and punish them is excessive and ridiculous. Further, you call lying about a law a miscarriage of justice, yet have no problem manipulating people into confessing by lying about evidence.
I have a hard time taking your position seriously.
Created:
-->
@coal
I would disagree that even in the context of a traffic stop. recording the police is legal - if in doing so you are impeding the ability for the police to function. Ironically, this would suggest that a suspect cannot record his own arrest or interrogation.
Of course, dash cams or third parties are not interfering if on the sideline.
I would not be surprised if the search of the car was due to retaliation, and if so, then this "attorney" could have a claim for unlawful detainment or whatever it is called. The retaliation should be the meat of the outrage, not confusion about a law. I would prefer police are fair handed in times of adversity rather than be experts on laws and likely failing in interpreting them.
I also do not have an issue with them lying, as long as the purpose of the lie is for the greater good. For example, lying about evidence to get a confession (from a stable suspect) or lying about a free car to execute arrest warrants, or, of course, any undercover work or sting operation. Lying about what is legal is difficult, because a general rule serves well in the heat of the moment, and can be useful for crowd control, although, this type of lying is narrowly acceptable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Thanks for the quoting ability.I really don't have much time or empathy for these idiots incapable of being responsible with money. If your money is so tight that you're on the brink of filing for bankruptcy, and you then decide to use a credit card which you may or may not be able to pay off, then it's your own fault.
For the idiots that are idiots, like my father, yeah, not much empathy. It is on them.
But, not everyone is on the brink when they spend, but what happens when they have too much debt and income is lessened. And, that credit card companies, at least in the USA, could be argued as being predatory.
Personally, I used credit cards to get by for years (paying $40K in debt payments - plus taxes - while earning about $50K), and while I could make the payments, I knew that if I were to hit the default rate, my payments would double (I had rates of about 12-16%, not 28%) and that hole would have been near impossible to climb out of. You could say I was on the brink of bankruptcy, but I used my credit card for groceries and bills I could pay, causing a slow bleed upwards. I would say that was brilliant, not moronic. My debt problems were assuming debt I could afford at the time (often out of necessity, like car, school, or home repair), and later, no longer being able to afford it due to job loss or other income factors.
Debtors are too often viewed as a victim, and their hands are rarely clean.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
There is no point in watching the link, if you can't tell me what specifically is at issue. We may notice or focus on different things.
You are wrong about the law - which is precisely why it should not be expected police are experts in it. That is what courts are for, unfortunately. The police should be experts in the procedural applications of laws (e.g. probable cause, search warrants, etc.).
The law is that police can be recorded in public in general. It is not carte blanche, and there are obvious limits to this, in addition to any specific statutes or ordinances that may apply in the jurisdiction. In certain circumstances, it is illegal to be filming police.
I would agree the police should have a firm understanding of what action is illegal or legal, but ignorance cannot be helped. Hell, I have contacted two cities directly in anticipation of my clients regarding city ordinances, and they cannot answer the questions I pose. Should everyone in the Department of Human Rights and Equal EmploymentOpportunity all be penalized for not knowing the law as well? If not, what makes cops so different?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
How'd you copy to quote?
I would agree that credit cards, like most tools, have a bad reputation. In fact, debt has a bad reputation. Debt is actually a good thing, if used responsibly.
Credit cards get the blunt of it because it is difficult to get out from under excessive credit card debt, especially if you missed even one payment to go to the default rate, usually around 28-35%. Also, credit cards are easy to get, which means people who should not be offered credit are (e.g. within months of filing bankruptcy), and it is seen as predatory.
And, of course, no one wants to admit fault, and it is easier to blame the credit card company rather than the teen who opened 10 credit cards and maxed them out on their 18th birthday.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
No. I am not even sure if they should be punished at all.
I didn't watch the link, so if you want to explain what happens, feel free. Have you considered the police don't know the law? Or they interpret it differently? They are enforcers, and if they act in good faith, that is not an abuse.
Having worked in highly regulated fields, which require interpretation of the law, different people have different beliefs, and that assumes they bother to think for themselves, and not default to the interpretation they are told.
Created: