Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
its gone way beyond interpretation of observations to become a tower of abstraction that is completely detached from the reality it was meant to interpret.
Why do you think that?
That the universe is expanding is observation. The way space acts, is geometrically curved. The mathematics of curved and expanding space is a description of what reality is actually doing - so in this respect it is actually very specifically tied to reality.
As well as being a description that best matches the observations we see and offers a descriptive model that correctly predicts a multitude of other observations.
It is easy to get carried away, taking our symbols for reality instead of as mere tools of description. Are we uncovering a preexisting order, converging on the way the universe really is, or is it all just a human construction, just a fitting of the data into a carefully crafted mental framework? When are we doing physics? When are we just conjuring with numbers?It is becoming harder and harder to tell how much of the order is truly woven into the world and how much is imposed by the brain’s hunger for pattern. We build these systems to represent the world, and then we are left to wonder what they mean.
Physics is particularly complex because the most predictive, most accurate models of reality that we have accurately match what we see - have no intuitive corresponding analogy in our daily lives.
The reason for the complexity and the difficulty you see is not with the maths, or the equations, those equation can accurately predict events we see to very high margins of accuracy, and have predicted really strange and bizarre behaviour that have no business being true otherwise.
The issue is not the maths; it’s our tiny ape like brain that evolved to hit things with sticks, and to observe and survive in a very limited portion of the universes 4 primary dimensions - the universe doesn’t make sense to us on an intuitive level; and that makes it hard to really appreciate what relativity means, or what paulis exclusion principle is, and how it creates electron degeneracy pressure. But those things are both observable, measurable and conform to the predictable models of our world that we have - whether their implications are intuitive or not.
Created:
Posted in:
I am fine to be mocked for it, I hardly care
I think this a lie - lets see.
One thing I will make clear is there is some real small outer space, outside of the sky that allows real satellite imagery and satellite functionality to take place. However, space debris and the rest of it is false.
And also. I must stress that there is some small real area behind the sofa that actually allows me to put my hands behind it. But when daddy moves the stuffed giraffe behind the sofa - it ceases to exist. It is not real. It is only when daddy re-corporeates the giraffe by saying peekaboo does the giraffe Exist again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
It’s not really expanding into anything.
Higher dimensional examples - like balloons are used to explain the principles; but they can be confusing - because not every aspect of the comparisons are analogous.
The way to think about curvature, and universal expansion, is that is a change in the standard rules of geometry - two parallel lines in curved space may end up diverging or converging; in expanding space the distance between fixed points increases; the analogous examples we have where that happens is curved surfaces and expanding surfaces - so we use them. In reality, it’s not curvature or expansion in the same sense of the word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
It looks like no one changes their mind much. I the think it's rare, but I also suspect folks just don't vocalize much when they r swayed.I change my mind more than I do a good job expressing
I suspect not many change their mind during a debate or during a discussion.
What does happen is that you notice the weakness in your argument, or strength in your opponent, and that leads to a redress; there’s an issue you thought was valid but you realize isn’t. It all goes to turn the oil tanker of thinking around.
As long as your constantly seeking criticism - and are seeking defend everything you belief in the face of it: the correctness of your beliefs will largely take care of itself.
Created:
-->
@Vici
what if he isn't? what if he's on the brink of suicide. You could hav ejust pushed him over the edge.
By asking if he’s ok?
While I would qualify the content as concerning, it doesn’t strike me as if he’s suicidal. If he were, I’d obviously not have commented.
What’s more concerning is the broad content of these blogs. It’s particularly angry, and incoherent - as I touched upon, it’s more of a rant than any form of intelligent thesis on the subject.
If this were coming from a Facebook friend, I’d probably check in with them, or their family to make sure they’re okay, because it’s expressing a level of anger that doesn’t seem healthy. While there’s a lot of politics extremes, it’s always best to look out for people.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
It is an end point.You are not worth my time, effort or patience.Not going to block you, because that is what intellectual cowards do. So, I will ignore you.The ONLY time I will block anyone is if they are a flagrant troll intent on derailing discussions purely because of their lack of maturity. Childish behavior, if you will.Otherwise, I will read your commentary with great amusement.Adieu
While the unsolicited commentary of your blocking criteria makes me aware that was something floating around in your head; it’s a red-herring
While past posts indicate that you have an inability to argue beyond a certain point - the issue I’m pointing out is that you haven’t really provided anything anyone can debate you on. It’s feels more a list of your own grievances with liberals rather than a critique.
If you want a discussion, rather than just to spin your own wheels - fix on one thing, and present a case for it.
Otherwise it’s very easy to dismiss you as a cook or crazy for spamming blog posts that don’t have any actual discernible point.
Created:
-->
@Vici
crying about ad hom when sayingAre you okay?I’m actually asking seriously
An ad-hominem is when you attack the person, and not the persons point. The person in this case didn’t really have an argument per-se, and my post did indeed critique his underlying blog post and what was wrong with it.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Ignoring you. As I will do with any comment, I make you ignorantly retort to.Bottom line, YOU are NOT worth my time, patience, thought, or otherwise.You just are NOT worthy.Goodbye.
Ad Hominem - you are attacking me; not the detail of what i said.
So to have a debate it’s generally best to have an argument; while points of discussion can sometimes be good as a starting point, youe post doesn’t have this type of thesis - it’s more of a collection of assertions about what is, and a collection of anecdotes to support it.
In many ways, asking for a discussion about it; without justification any of the assertions, is akin to shifting the burden of proof - you may provide a series of increasingly crazed assertions; but are unwilling to back them up, then demand people price it wrong.
It’s not a good starting point.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
What, specifically is the point you’re trying to make. As we’ve discussed before, I don’t think anyone really denies the underlying facts at hand, though there is certainly many people who may debate cause and attribution.
A main point consider, is that tone, and behaviour often guide how information is interpreted.
For example, to broach a sensitive topic, one may chose to be very aware of his your words and behaviour are taken; and take steps that there is no possibility that behaviour or actions can be misconstrued.
If one were to broach a sensitive topic such as racism; by launching into what seem to be abrasively negative tirades that seek to bombard the reader with negative information about black males. Such overtly negative, abrasive and angry approaches to presenting an argument very much gives the impression that your issue is with the people you critique, and not whatever your actual point actually is.
If your concerned about being labelled a racist - perhaps understanding how this abrasive tone and caustically negative bombarding of data, almost exclusively presented as if to antagonize - can colour other individuals perception of your intent is a good starting point.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
You are an IGNORANT dick. Your retorts are meaningless garbage. From this response going forward, I am intent on ignoring you.You are a sanctimonious prick who deserves no attention. A pseudo know-it -all. An obnoxious prick.So post away. I will never, ever respond to you beyond this posting.Why? Cause you are a TROLL!Period. Fact. Period,Adieu(not an obvious point, but it is clear given past behavior you will retort with some superfluous comment that means nothing to no one but yourself
Ad Hominem: your attacking me, not the substance of my argument.
By all means - take one argument the author made and let’s explore it in depth, but it’s very difficult to have a meaningful conversation or debate over a one sided attack on a bunch of arguments that are unclear if you have correctly represented.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
This appears to be a largely crazed rant, where you commit appeals to anecdote, have no particular central thesis or argument other than to assert a collection of unsupported claims about liberals as a whole.
There isn’t really much to rebut, considering it’s mostly either anecdote, or assertion; borders slightly on the rabid side of unhinged.
This is the type of blog post the media and law enforcement cite as providing incite to the suspects deteriorating state of mind after an attack.
Are you okay?
I’m actually asking seriously
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
The blog post starts off with a series of ad-hominem attacks, insults; to which you then begin paraphrasing the book, quoting individual snippets that you then attack.
This doesn’t appear an honest or intellectual critique of any of the books collective theses; which would involve a summary of what the primary arguments are, the underpinning data, justifications and reasoning: which you then dismantle point by point.
What this is, appears to be a collection of quote snippets with no inherent context or supporting arguments, which you then trash.
Given that none of the original text is accessible or linked in detail, and that you clearly haven’t rigorously quotes the detail: I can’t tell whether your paraphrasing is accurate, or intentionally misrepresenting the books point, nor can I tell whether your arguments correctly reference all parts of the argument, or address key justifications.
This appears to be a largely one sided rant about what you claim the book says, and what the arguments mean, without any attempt to do so honestly.
In this respect, the most likely conclusion is that this is just a collection of straw men and misrepresentation used as an attempt to spin one’s own tires and linked as pattern of what is stating to appear like spam in order to drive traffic to your blog post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You said:
“Now it appears that the world wide media seem absolutely oblivious why Rushdie would be attacked by a Muslim from New Jersey USA and are still looking for a motive behind the resent attack on the author. ”
But all the news I’ve seen and you’ve cited talk about the Iranian fatwah, how he’s been under death threats for 25 years because of his books apparent disrespect for Islam - and talk about the religion of the attacker. Note. Opinion media - has been pretty specific about it.
If they were trying to show they were oblivious to why he would be attacked - they’ve done a terrible job. Dont you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
All of the posts reference the fatwah, that he’s been subject to death threats. I don’t think anyone appear to be hiding anything in relation to the fatwah or that he’s has a target painted in his back.
It seems more of a procedural thing, reporting on what the police said: who say stuff like that all the time even when it seems fairly clear.
Like during his trial, they’ll say he “allegedly” stabbed Rushdie multiple times - even though it’s abundantly clear he definitely did it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Let’s start off with a basic fact, which should be obvious to almost anyone.
It is not the polices job to shoot unarmed civilians in the head; nor is it their job to shoot someone multiple times when they reach for the license you just asked them to give you.
I have to stress this, I can’t stress this enough; executions by the state must be delivered through the judicial process; after a fair trial and all relevant due process has been followed.
I believe - and correct me if I’m wrong, because apparently I don’t know the law, the penalty for traffic violations are normally fairly light, and resisting or fleeing arrest, or even assaulting an officer is normally a sentence that is measured at most in months or a few years.
Summary execution, as far as I am aware is only the executed punishment for relatively minor crimes in, the fictional world of Judge Dredd, or the Planet Rubicon III - as discovered by Wesley crusher, much to his dismay.
Without getting into race. Without getting into specific statistics, for a moment: the level of apparent comfort you have with agents of the government murdering unarmed citizens, appears to be rather high. And that should be relatively concerning - as it speaks to a deeper issue with those that hold this view.
As far as I am aware, one doesn’t have to believe in systemic racism, or police bias to conclude that someone running from the police or even involved in a tussle - should probably not be shot in the head for it; and that perhaps - training related to how to deal with these sorts of situations without them resulting in someone being shot in the head because an officer felt scared, is perhaps a wise investment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Do you have any specific examples? Because as far as I have seen - every single one of the news articles on this have expressly talked about the Iranian Fatwah calling for Rushdies death.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Your level of legal ignorance, lack of reading comprehension skills and delusions of grandeur knows no bounds.
Ad Hominem: attacking me, not my arguments
You are incorrect on each point, yet again,
Argument by assertion: claiming something without showing it is true.
and I have proven such. One word for ya: denial.
Argument by assertion again: claiming something without showing it. No such proof exists in any of your posts thus:
This is an outright whopping lie.
The text of the law as applies by textualism prohibits transgender discrimination - this has been rigorously shown in my precious posts. You have yet to contest this point, or provide any argument as to why the textual interpretation is invalid. You have relied instead on assertion, repeating your claims, circular arguments, denial, and pretending this argument doesn’t exist. All of which I have explained and justified above.
You provide two arguments to support your contention:
1.) that BFOQ applies here. This is false. It doesn’t, the text doesn’t support this case, and the examples you cite don’t support your case - as shown. You have not contested this point or provide any argument as to why the text of BFOQ in title VII supports your position: you have relied instead on a series of straw men, assertions, repeating your claims and circular arguments : All of which I have explained and justified above.
2.) That precedent allows for discrimination. This is also false. If the Supreme Court ruling correctly decides the case on the law - which it does, as I have shown - this renders all lower court cases irrelevant, as they were wrongly decided. One cannot cite lower court precedent as if it overrides Supreme Court decisions unless you can show the reasoning is better - which you don’t. You have not contested this point or provide any argument as to why the lower court decisions are better interpretations of the text of the law; using textualism. Instead you rely on, on repeated assertion, changing the subject, ignoring the argument - and repeating your claims.
This is an outright whopping lie.
The text of the law as applies by textualism prohibits transgender discrimination - this has been rigorously shown in my precious posts. You have yet to contest this point, or provide any argument as to why the textual interpretation is invalid. You have relied instead on assertion, repeating your claims, circular arguments, denial, and pretending this argument doesn’t exist. All of which I have explained and justified above.
You provide two arguments to support your contention:
1.) that BFOQ applies here. This is false. It doesn’t, the text doesn’t support this case, and the examples you cite don’t support your case - as shown. You have not contested this point or provide any argument as to why the text of BFOQ in title VII supports your position: you have relied instead on a series of straw men, assertions, repeating your claims and circular arguments : All of which I have explained and justified above.
2.) That precedent allows for discrimination. This is also false. If the Supreme Court ruling correctly decides the case on the law - which it does, as I have shown - this renders all lower court cases irrelevant, as they were wrongly decided. One cannot cite lower court precedent as if it overrides Supreme Court decisions unless you can show the reasoning is better - which you don’t. You have not contested this point or provide any argument as to why the lower court decisions are better interpretations of the text of the law; using textualism. Instead you rely on, on repeated assertion, changing the subject, ignoring the argument - and repeating your claims.
This is my last response to you in this thread. You will never 'get it.' Never!
I absolutely get it. You have a strong opinion based on emotion, not logic, you have not thought out your argument, or explored it thoroughly. You don’t know it’s weaknesses or strengths; all you have is a superficial claim with superficial support. You merely have a set of points that you have practiced - rather than a set of good points that you can defend
Thus - when your claims are challenged, as you’re argument has no depth to it - it’s merely a number of points you can parrot off - you rapidly fall out of your intellectual depth as you run out of comfortable, practiced legitimate responses to make and have to defend the deeper logic of your claims with the appropriate intellectual tools to do so
Hence, you start off with claims and arguments; and get to a point where you can no longer defend your argument honestly.
When you feel and believe someone is wrong but don’t have the tools or words to explain why - it generates frustration and hostility. You lash out with ad-hominem attacks - blame them for being obtuse: if you believe you’re right and they’re wrong, the reason you can’t explain it must be because they’re argument is bad or they’re arguing dishonestly.
You fall into a fallacy trap - asserting what you believe rather than showing it; calling people names, you ignore the arguments that make you feel so uncomfortable and pretend they don’t exist to focus on other things you can contest. You restate the same arguments again because while you can’t explain why they’re correct - they feel like they are. Everything becomes emotional - not logical.
Your argument loses coherence; the discussion comes off the rails as there’s no longer any discussion about the points being contested; and all would be well - unless someone keeps dragging you back to the important points of the thread - the key contested issues that drove all this initial frustration and emotional reaction in the first place.
It’s not possible to avoid; so you go from arguing, to the fallacy trap, to looking for an escape route to make that frustration go away - instead of turning the focus inward at your own abilities - again you lash out, and blame the others.
This is all to say that your issue is that you very much over estimate the validity and strength of your own argument due your emotional investment in it; you don’t have the intellectual tools, or maturity to properly explore your position in depth; so you keep getting caught with your pants down after the first page or two of arguments - you get all angry and lash out; and reach an end game of trying to avoid the very discussion you started.
Addressing everything. Justifying everything. Explaining everything. And consider modifying your opinion or beliefs in cases when you can’t - is the only way to make your opinions and beliefs better. It allows you to expose and correct your weaknesses; and helps improve your reasoning skills.
Serious question though. Is all this anger, all this vitriol; lashing out, calling people stupid; or questioning their legal credentials. Spamming threads about racisms: Is continually stoking that obviously negative visceral feeling; that anger - improving your mental health, or making your life better? Because it seems to be the level of anger or vitriol that can eat away at someone, and end up taking over someone’s life.
Thus - when your claims are challenged, as you’re argument has no depth to it - it’s merely a number of points you can parrot off - you rapidly fall out of your intellectual depth as you run out of comfortable, practiced legitimate responses to make and have to defend the deeper logic of your claims with the appropriate intellectual tools to do so
Hence, you start off with claims and arguments; and get to a point where you can no longer defend your argument honestly.
When you feel and believe someone is wrong but don’t have the tools or words to explain why - it generates frustration and hostility. You lash out with ad-hominem attacks - blame them for being obtuse: if you believe you’re right and they’re wrong, the reason you can’t explain it must be because they’re argument is bad or they’re arguing dishonestly.
You fall into a fallacy trap - asserting what you believe rather than showing it; calling people names, you ignore the arguments that make you feel so uncomfortable and pretend they don’t exist to focus on other things you can contest. You restate the same arguments again because while you can’t explain why they’re correct - they feel like they are. Everything becomes emotional - not logical.
Your argument loses coherence; the discussion comes off the rails as there’s no longer any discussion about the points being contested; and all would be well - unless someone keeps dragging you back to the important points of the thread - the key contested issues that drove all this initial frustration and emotional reaction in the first place.
It’s not possible to avoid; so you go from arguing, to the fallacy trap, to looking for an escape route to make that frustration go away - instead of turning the focus inward at your own abilities - again you lash out, and blame the others.
This is all to say that your issue is that you very much over estimate the validity and strength of your own argument due your emotional investment in it; you don’t have the intellectual tools, or maturity to properly explore your position in depth; so you keep getting caught with your pants down after the first page or two of arguments - you get all angry and lash out; and reach an end game of trying to avoid the very discussion you started.
Addressing everything. Justifying everything. Explaining everything. And consider modifying your opinion or beliefs in cases when you can’t - is the only way to make your opinions and beliefs better. It allows you to expose and correct your weaknesses; and helps improve your reasoning skills.
Serious question though. Is all this anger, all this vitriol; lashing out, calling people stupid; or questioning their legal credentials. Spamming threads about racisms: Is continually stoking that obviously negative visceral feeling; that anger - improving your mental health, or making your life better? Because it seems to be the level of anger or vitriol that can eat away at someone, and end up taking over someone’s life.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Damn, if I had a $1 for every time you have been wrong, I would be a millionaire twice over.
Argument by assertion. Saying I’m wrong doesn’t make it true.
An appeal to authority = genetic fallacy when invoked precisely because of it being "dismissed based on where (or who) it came from." It's a catch 22.
False. Absolutely not. Wtf. No. Very no. That’s absurdly wrong. No. I think you misunderstand what citing fallacy is.
Saying that you are making an argument from authority does not make any claims about whether the authority you cite is correct or incorrect. Only that you suggesting they agree with you as a reason for me being wrong is not logically valid.
False. Absolutely not. Wtf. No. Very no. That’s absurdly wrong. No. I think you misunderstand what citing fallacy is.
Saying that you are making an argument from authority does not make any claims about whether the authority you cite is correct or incorrect. Only that you suggesting they agree with you as a reason for me being wrong is not logically valid.
Delusions of grandeur, again.
As hominem. Attacking me not the argument
Nope. You are cherry-picking definitions out of context.
What an absurd, utterly false assertion. This is simply denial of reality.
Name calling: has a single definition - that you cited. It is impossible to cherry pick.
This definition refers to calling people “names”, which has multiple definitions - the one I picked was explicitly related to name calling - not cherry picked.
This means that using the definitions YOU linked - name calling is when someone calls someone by disparaging epithets - which you are doing throughout.
This is not cherry picked (however you using the wrong context for the word “name’ is absolutely cherry picking.
Name calling: has a single definition - that you cited. It is impossible to cherry pick.
This definition refers to calling people “names”, which has multiple definitions - the one I picked was explicitly related to name calling - not cherry picked.
This means that using the definitions YOU linked - name calling is when someone calls someone by disparaging epithets - which you are doing throughout.
This is not cherry picked (however you using the wrong context for the word “name’ is absolutely cherry picking.
Yes, saying "you are an idiot" = name calling.
But saying "Your intellectual cowardice knows no bounds," or "yet another fine display of the Dunning Kruger Effect" does NOT equal name calling. They are descriptive observations based on your behavior, demeanor, attitude and obvious lack of a legal education but still think you're a pseudo-legal scholar. Not name calling. Observation. Descriptions. Not epitaphs.
Absolutely name calling as per the definition; unless you’re trying to make the argument that that “I’m not ‘name-calling’ I’m just using repeated insulting descriptive language about you. Because that would be a pretty stupid semantic argument; that basic concedes the original point I was making.
But let’s not forget this is an absolutely ridiculous semantic derailing of the entire thread by you, why on earth are you spending so much time an energy haggling over the phrase “name calling”, as if whether it’s “name calling”, or just “repeatedly insulting me” makes any practical difference - the entire thread is about crime statistics, and you being called a racist by liberals. Why on earth are you engaging with me over a half dozen posts about whether name calling requires nouns; when you haven’t addressed any of the actual substance of my previous replies:
Specifically:
1.) As shown - adding value statements, implying value, making textual errors applying to an entire race, and your general abrasive tone and negative behaviour is a pattern of behaviour at the most charitable - is easily confused with racism. And it’s not unreasonable for people to make that presumption of you.
2.) you’ve consistently fudged the data, posted poor links, cherry picked correlations about wedlock births and crime rates and otherwise Attributed various causes where the data clearly and indisputably shows othewise. You’ve made false claims and statements about what the data shows, denies data points that were clearly and indisputably accurate and otherwise demonstrate a poor and biased grasp of the facts.
3.) You’re entire argument is predicated on a false premise; you repeatedly claim the left - including myself deny data - and yet have repeatedly failed to show examples: equivocate about what that claim even means, and contradict yourself when pinned down.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
It is NOT a circular argument. Your rebuttal is a strawman argument and an appeal to ignorance.
False. The reasons for it being circular are explained above. That the law supports this form of discrimination is both conclusion and premise of your argument.
Saying it is not without any explanation is an argument by assertion; you also claim it’s a straw man with no explanation as to why: argument by assertion and also claim it’s an argument with ignorance without explaining why: argument by assertion
Saying it is not without any explanation is an argument by assertion; you also claim it’s a straw man with no explanation as to why: argument by assertion and also claim it’s an argument with ignorance without explaining why: argument by assertion
Generally federal courts have held that an employer may adopt a grooming/appearance policy in accordance with generally accepted community standards….
Argument by Repetition. Citing lower court law has already been refuted in posts: #28. #35, #44 - this argument is unchallenged.
Lower court precedent is overridden by what we’re discussing. If my (and Scotus) interpretation of the law is right - then the lower courts interpretation is wrong. You cannot therefore cite the existence of lower court precedent to explain why my textualist explanation is wrong, unless you can explain why it’s better decided
No, it is not <circular>
False. Recall:
You assert BFOQ applies because: hooters
I explain in detail, citing legal text, why it doesn’t.
You assert that I’m wrong - because BFOQ applies because hooters
The argument that BFOQ applies here due to the hooters example is your original conclusion - and a premise in why a rebuttal of that conclusion is wrong : using it both a conclusion, and a premise that supports the conclusion.
Both are independently true and do not depend on the other to be true.
This is hard to decipher; as my point didn’t have “both” of anything that were independently true; this must mean you are arguing that your citation of hooters and models are independent true. This is not my basis for calling your argument a straw man, thus you have misrepresented my argument - and attacked that misrepresentation: A Strawman.
It is becoming clearer you do not comprehend what a circular argument is.
Ad Hominem. Attacking me instead of my argument.
Red Herring. I point out exactly why BFOQ doesn’t apply in posts #28, #35, #44: instead of replying to the argument - you distract away from the issue at hand by attacking the circular reason claim - not the BFOQ claim
Red Herring. I point out exactly why BFOQ doesn’t apply in posts #28, #35, #44: instead of replying to the argument - you distract away from the issue at hand by attacking the circular reason claim - not the BFOQ claim
And you are wrong. They won that case precisely because of BFOQ.
My argument is not that hooters didn’t argue BFOQ in their case, or that BFOQ doesn’t apply to hooters; but that BFOQ doesn’t apply in the reference case in the OP, nor to dress codes in general - or any case where an employee being a given gender is not critical to the business - things you claim are true. You misrepresented my argument - then attacked the misrepresentation: Strawman.
More evidence you are ignorant of the law, how to read statutory law, how to correctly apply the law, and how to research and apply case law correctly and effectively.
Ad hominem. Attacked me instead of my argument.
You spun the discussion off track which required other rebuttals. The OP doesn't cite lower cases in rebuttal to SCOTUS. I used the arguments Stephens made and discredited them based on the Court's implicit responsibility to consult legislative history when reviewing laws that are in question, and to avoid judicial activism while doing it. That's not citing anything other than the responsibility of the Court, which Gorsuch failed to do when he legislated from the bench.
Red herring. You cited Supreme Court constitutional decision as to why male-female discrimination is supportable to a degree. I explained why this irrelevant to the case being discussed. You have now completely ignored this line of defence and are now trying to change the subject to the original post, instead of addressing the primary issue of your cited Supreme Court precedent.
Yes, it does; and the fact you can’t see….
Argument from the stone: dismissing the argument as absurd
None of which you have proven factually inaccurate. You've merely taken this off on your own red herring train track, and an uneducated one at that
This is a lie. You claimed that this case has a big impact on woman’s rights and the world. If this portion of the post is a red herring, it’s because you’ve taken it off on a red herring track.
Also, you are shifting the burden of proof. If you wish to assert harm from this case, you have the burden to show that it causes harm; you cannot demand that I must disprove harm.
Also, you are shifting the burden of proof. If you wish to assert harm from this case, you have the burden to show that it causes harm; you cannot demand that I must disprove harm.
This is so attacking me rather than my point; so another Ad hominem
Note: you ignored my central argument that BFOQ doesn’t apply; you ignored my argument that you cannot use lower court precedent. You continue to ignore my textual justification for the original Supreme Court decision, and you continue to ignore my argument of the basis on why lower court precedent is wrongly decided.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
No, it does not. Legal standards are different for biological men to biological women based on longstanding commonplace gender characteristics/roles as dictated and expected within society. And that includes dress codes and grooming standards expected from biological men and biological women.
Circular argument.
I have provided a justified textualist based explanation of how the law precludes firing a man for something a woman may do.
This response is saying that the law doesn’t preclude the discrimination - because the law allows the discrimination. Your response assumes it’s own conclusion.
Show me:
- how the text of the title VII allows for dress codes.
- what other superseding law, or text allows for this.
Bare assertions are not arguments.
Women are protected from a different kind of discrimination than men precisely because they are women and the only one of the two genders that can get pregnant. Same for breast feeding, as it is a "gender specific condition" protected by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Correct. But completely irrelevant. Only females can breastfeed or become pregnant, or need abortions or birth control; or need time to pump; but males aren’t asking for those rights - and if they did, then you could very well argue that the gender specific condition means title VII doesn’t apply.
What you wear, or how you identify is not a gender specific condition dependent solely on your physiology and so isn’t covered by that unberella.
SCOTUS held in Rostker v Goldberg that it was constitutional to only require men to register for the draft. Again, based on longstanding commonplace gender characteristics/roles differentiating societal expectations between men and women.
There is so much wrong with this argument - it’s hard to know where to begin. So let’s start off by explaining some basic legal stuff - I’m going to simplify this, as it seems you have issues with - it’s a lot to ask of you specifically - but please try not to go for ridiculous straw men.
The constitution sets the limits of governmental power. The argument in Rustier v Goldberg was constitutional - that such discrimination was outside the governments power to legislate due to due process and equal protection. IE: plaintiff: constitution says you can’t make that law - Supreme Court: no it doesn’t.
The title VII decision was based upon what title VII says. That law says you can’t discriminate against transgender people (see above posts)
Rustier v Goldberg is irrelevant because the decision was effectively that the government is allowed to pass laws that include this specific types of sex discrimination. It does NOT mean that other laws that explicitly preclude sex discrimination must now allow it - that’s not how constitutional rulings work.
That the constitution does not preclude some forms of sex discrimination does not mean that explicit prohibition of such discrimination in title VII is not valid: in the same way that the constitution no longer precluding certain limits to abortion does not mean that laws banning, or legalizing abortion are invalid.
If title VII was used as a basis of the draft decision (IE it was a ruling on title VII text or meaninf), or if the constitution somehow was deemed to require specific types of discrimination - this ruling would be relevant. But it didn’t.
You should know this with all your law knowledge.
Yes, it does. Case in point, male clothing designers could legally advertise for male models only, where female models wouldn't be able to model men's clothing as intended. Same also goes for the Hooter's case I cited. Seeing a man in the server uniform just doesn't work.
This argument is circular.
You assert BFOQ applies because: hooters
I explain in detail, citing legal text, why it doesn’t.
You assert that I’m wrong - because BFOQ applies because hooters
I explain again - in detail - the reasons the law doesn’t apply.
You assert that in wrong - because BFOQ applies because hooters
What is wrong with you. This is retarded. Do you not understand how an argument works?
Again a BFOQ - as I explained above and you have not bothered to challenge; applies only when you want to hire an individual; and allows you to hire on the basis of gender only when the gender of a given role is genuinely important to the business. Being male or female has no relevance to a funeral parlour - so does not apply in this case - and doesn’t apply to general dress codes across the board - this interpretation is baseless nonsense without my support in law - and essentially pulled out of your ass.
I asked you to show me:
- Why gender is a BF qualification for a funereal parlour or
- How you conclude - using the text of title VII - how BFOQ applies on cases where gender is not a bona fide occupational qualification.
You can’t do that, obviously - so you’re just restating the same argument.
There is no appeal to authority here when citing cases. That is what one does when arguing matters of law, cite case precedence. That is not an appeal to authority. And you claiming such without proving how and why the citation is wrong is nothing short of a genetic fallacy. And I know full well what the hierarchy of the courts are. You clearly do not, nor do you understand how case law is applied.
You can’t cite a lower court precedent as a reason why the Supreme Court precedent that overrides it - is invalid.
That’s not how precedent works. Which is as my point.
The Supreme Court decision was either rightly decided or wrongly decided. If it was rightly decided - your precedent is an invalid interpretation of the law. If it was wrongly decided, then your precedent is valid.
The mere existence of the precedent has no weight on the argument - you have to explain why the conclusion of this precedent is more valid than that of the Supreme Court decision.
I have justified why it isn’t above. And like everything else - you’ve just completely ignored it.
Holding up this specific precedent as sacrosanct - that its decision is valid and rightly decided; because it is a precedent is demanding that I accept your argument as valid based solely on it coming from an authority. as opposed to you explaining why the argument is valid : that is the argument from authority.
It’s not a genetic fallacy as I’m not rejecting it on the grounds of where it came from - (ie: that judge is an idiot - that ruling is wrong) - I’m rejecting it as an argument on the basis you’re using its authority as the reason the argument must be accepted - rather than justifying the argument it makes.
You confuse these two a lot it seems.
Bottom line, when men pretend to be women win legal cases like this one, it not only makes a mockery of women in general but destroys everything women have fought to achieve over the centuries to still, in the end, benefit men. Men are invading women's spaces across all fronts. It's pure insanity, or in your case, pure idiocy.
No it doesn’t. It effects literally no one. The contents of ones pants should have no bearing on coworkers or corporations; and a man deciding one day to dress and act like a woman because that would make them happy - has no negative impact on anyone.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
That so-called appeal to authority is so overused that it is rendered meaningless.When dissertations, scientific papers, legal research, scholarly books, etc. are written they all share one thing in common: citations to authority.Whenever someone invokes an appeal to authority without rebutting it, all they are doing is committing the genetic fallacy.
Firstly, no; it’s not a genetic fallacy; which is where the content of the argument is dismissed based on where it came from - it’s dismissing the argument because it did not contain an argument, and merely asserted the truth of a given statement supported only by the authority.
Secondly, no; If you’re not making an argument, but are instead simply relying on the authority of other peoples arguments: I can absolutely reject them as an argument from authority - especially as you have just thrown them out with no context, no relevance, no argument, and barely any justification for how any thing relates to anything.
Your inability to show any of your claims, your inability to present any case, and inability to directly refute any of the arguments presented - is your problem; one cannot simply shift the burden of proof by loudly asserting that two authors disagree with me; then demand that I prove them wrong, as opposed to you fulfilling your burden of proof and actually justify any of the nonsense you’ve said thus far.
Using their authority to change the burden of proof, is a text book appeal to authority.
Again, not all ad hominems are true ad hominems when factually accurate.
An Ad Hominem argument is, broadly speaking when you the person making an argument is attacked, rather than the substance of their argument. As you are attacking me personally, as opposed to addressing any of the points I raised - almost every post you’ve made castigating me, since capitulating on the substance, qualifies as Ad-hominem: as your counter argument is solely attacks against me - as opposed to attacking the substance of what I’m saying.
The Ad Hominem maybe true - doesn’t matter, if it’s an attack, or criticism of me personally - and not my argument - it broadly qualifies.
To call a name or names, nouns are required, not adjectives.Adjectives describe (e.g., behavior, demeanor, attitude, actions, etc.) and nouns label by reference to a thing, person, animal, place, etc.
Remember the word describe here…
So let me reiterate that your wholly semantic argument, haggling over extract meaning of various words is complete nonsense because your criteria for what constitutes “name calling” excludes clear and obvious examples name calling. Calling someone stupid - is name calling. Calling you grotesquely idiotic, and an insufferably cretinous, impossibly dense individual - is name calling; yet your definition excludes it.
Are you saying those isn’t name calling? Because that would be absurd.
Secondly, and most importantly : you refute yourself with your own links:
Name-calling (first link)
the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts
Name: (second link)
2 : a descriptive often disparaging epithetcalled him names
- a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing
So as per your provided definition - you are absolutely engaging in the use of offensive disparaging epithet - a characterization - a description. Adjectives.
Now; please stop these continuous red-herrings and absurd ad-hominems - and let’s please get back to the specific arguments related to the title and OP of this thread.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Adjectives do NOT equal nouns.Descriptors of behavior is NOT name calling.
There is no reality in which name calling is required to be nouns only
“you are eye gougingly stupid” or “your disingenuous attempts to argue are cretinous, idiotic, and illustrates that you are clearly retarded” contain calling you no nouns - and yet every individual on the planet would agree that these sentences constitute name calling.
THIS is a semantic argument, where you confuse “name calling” as in levying of insults, with literally calling someone a name, or specifically a noun.
This is simply an incredibly stupid argument and needs no further rebuttal.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Your desperation for attention and acknowledgement across the threads you engage in is so sophomoric.
This is an Ad-hominem attack - adds nothing and can be ignored.
I will draw your attention back to my argument - which you appear to have no response to:
- The text of Title VII clearly and indisputably precludes firing a man for something a woman would be okay with.
- Legal text relating to BFOQ does not cover dress codes; and explicitly does not apply.
- Legal citations you describe are wrongly decided based on the text of the law; and are appeals to authority neglecting that a higher disagreeing authority also exists.
As a result; Title VII clearly and unambiguously applies to examples of transgender discrimination.
In addition - The history of Title VII is clearly intended to apply to examples where one sex is held to a different set of rules than another - of which this is an example.
While it is certainly the case that the writers may not have explicitly intended this example of discrimination to be covered - nonetheless it is covered by the text and the broader intent - if an exception is needed, it should be added to the law by Congress. It is not the judicial branches Job to fix faulty legislation where congress didn’t correctly write the law with all required exemptions - to do so would be indeed legislating from the bench every bit as much as allowing the law to cover cases that where explicitly not intended and have to be based on clear interpretation.
But please - feel free to ignore the legal argument - and call me names.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Your obvious desperation for attention and acknowledgment is rather unbecoming.
You are calling me names; I am trying to call your attention back to the facts, the data and the arguments - all of which you’re ignoring.
I don’t need to rely on insults, just my facts.
Specifically:
1.) As shown - adding value statements, implying value, making textual errors applying to an entire race, and your general abrasive tone and negative behaviour is a pattern of behaviour at the most charitable - is easily confused with racism. And it’s not unreasonable for people to make that presumption of you.
2.) you’ve consistently fudged the data, posted poor links, cherry picked correlations about wedlock births and crime rates and otherwise Attributed various causes where the data clearly and indisputably shows othewise. You’ve made false claims and statements about what the data shows, denies data points that were clearly and indisputably accurate and otherwise demonstrate a poor and biased grasp of the facts.
3.) You’re entire argument is predicated on a false premise; you repeatedly claim the left - including myself deny data - and yet have repeatedly failed to show examples: equivocate about what that claim even means, and contradict yourself when pinned down.
In addition - instead of actually defending any of those points ; which are clearly argued and laid out in detail between posts 307 and 315 of this thread - you’re just descending into a fit of childish name calling and deflection.
My arguments speak for themselves - as does your inability to respond to any of them.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
More display of the Dunning Kruger Effect on your part. Bravo.Claiming my position is intellectually bankrupt is to assert the same towards Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Brandon Tatum, Kevin Gates, John McWhorter, Candice Owens, Dr Ben Carson, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Booker T Washington, Colin Powell, Harman Cain, Clarence Thomas, so on and so forth.So, keep patting yourself on your back. I could care less about you and your delusions of grandeur.
Another Ad-hominem attack, and appeal to authority; these are meaningless.
I’ve explained in great detail why your argument is intellectually bankrupt (in the posts listed here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7780/post-links/337246 , and summarized here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7780/post-links/336921)
You are clearly unable to defend any of your arguments. You’re more than willing to spend time energy and effort continually asserting I am wrong: ye are unwilling to use that same time and energy to explain how I’m wrong; despite continuously professing how obvious my incorrectness is.
You’re fooling no one.
I asked you to provide a single example of me denying the data - which you claimed I did.
Silence.
I asked you to provide an example of any prominent leftist denying the data.
Silence.
You demand data - I give you the data
Silence
You claim data does support my position - I give you the data.
Silence.
I explain specifically how your behaviour can be interpreted as racist.
Silence
I explain how truth can be made racist with tone and value
Silence
I showed you the data you cherry picked
Silence
I showed where your data doesn’t agree with you
Silence.
Silence
Silence
And you sit here and expect us to believe that instead of putting energy into refuting even a single point I raised - the appropriate use of your time is calling me a narcissist over and over again
You are fooling no one.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
All whack jobs.
You’ll fit right in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
if you're afraid of the "crazy conspiracy nutjobs"
voting for CORPORATE OLIGARCH DEMOCRATS
instead of CORPORATE OLIGARCH REPUBLICANS
will not somehow magically make all the "crazy conspiracy nutjobs" disappear
Correct - but it will, of course, prevent them from taking over. Even if I accept the premise - the choice is not oligarchy, vs oligarchy - it’s “oligarchy” vs “oligarchy that may well deteriorate into authoritarianism”.
That aside - I will absolutely contest the idea that both sides are equal even in terms of various support for oligarchy - they aren’t.
The oligarchy is the result of decades of market capitalism in which various companies, individuals and investment groups have ended up “winning” capitalism, centralizing vast amounts of economic power; that they use to leverage into political power to maintain that economic power. Both sides professes to be against this corrupt elite - but one side is overwhelmingly and comprehensively worse. Their name starts with R and ends with Epublicans.
Let’s not kid ourself : the policy and the individual voters on the right - broadly support an approach that if we should take away all the restrictions on the oligarchy, allow them to keep more of their money, disempower the only legal institutions that exist which could potentially keep them in check - disempower normal individuals ability to push back collectively - then the oligarchy will magically disappear because plucky start ups that will now - somehow - have an easier time competing against multi-billion dollar investment conglomerates once those conglomerates have reduced oversight, more money, fewer restrictions, less transparency, and more control over the individuals in their work force - and totally won’t simply produce other oligarchies. You have idiots spending all their time railing upon the corrupt elite in abstract terms - and yet support top to bottom every conceivable policy that empowers them.
And worse - if anyone dares to suggest anything that actually harms the interests of that elite - wealth tax, corporate tax, more oversight, patent reform, breaking up too successful companies, empowering unions to bolster individuals economic power, reduce military spending. The right, and all their supporters - all suddenly bat for that elite - due to the collective dependence upon them. “We must do something about the elites - except anything - we can’t do anything against the elites - that would be radical socialism - and would harm the economy”
I mentioned this to a Trump supporter railing on Bill Gates and George Soros, and how much power they have, and how they’re destroying America - I suggested taxing their wealth to reduce their power. With a click of my fingers - this Trump supporter became the staunchest supporter of their own bogeyman’s best interests.
All of this driven by the very misinformation machines we’ve been talking about.
Compare and contrast to democrats. They are the only ones making any practical moves to reduce the power of these oligarchies. They are the only ones with policies aimed at reducing the power of these oligarchies. They are the only ones specifically trying to address social and environmental issues brought about by these oligarchies.
You are absolutely right - you have democrats who refuse to kill tax loop holes for the mega wealthy; or ones who prevent the death of coal because of business interests, you assuredly have donations from big corporations - and many rich democrats with limited blindness in their trusts and have to vote against their interests. But everything from their enacted policy, internal party factions, to their donation structure, supporters and attempted policy are all supremely more hostile to the actual economic elite than the republicans could ever be.
Even look at the actions they took. Reducing job killing regulations, and increasing competition by reducing regulations - which take the form of how many toxic chemicals coal companies can dump into rivers - or reducing enforcement of consumer protections - or lowering emissions standards - or enacting massive tax cuts that companies can use for share buybacks. That sure shows the elites!
So in that case: no it’s not choosing between oligarchy and oligarchy - it’s a choice between “explicitly support for empowering the oligarchy coupled with the risk of authoritarian government you cannot vote away” and “openly hostile, but partially beholden to the interests of the oligarchy, pulled in the opposite direction by the base - and who frequently pushes, and often pass laws and changes antithetical to the power of that oligarchies.”
These two choices are clearly and absolutely not the same.
That aside - I will absolutely contest the idea that both sides are equal even in terms of various support for oligarchy - they aren’t.
The oligarchy is the result of decades of market capitalism in which various companies, individuals and investment groups have ended up “winning” capitalism, centralizing vast amounts of economic power; that they use to leverage into political power to maintain that economic power. Both sides professes to be against this corrupt elite - but one side is overwhelmingly and comprehensively worse. Their name starts with R and ends with Epublicans.
Let’s not kid ourself : the policy and the individual voters on the right - broadly support an approach that if we should take away all the restrictions on the oligarchy, allow them to keep more of their money, disempower the only legal institutions that exist which could potentially keep them in check - disempower normal individuals ability to push back collectively - then the oligarchy will magically disappear because plucky start ups that will now - somehow - have an easier time competing against multi-billion dollar investment conglomerates once those conglomerates have reduced oversight, more money, fewer restrictions, less transparency, and more control over the individuals in their work force - and totally won’t simply produce other oligarchies. You have idiots spending all their time railing upon the corrupt elite in abstract terms - and yet support top to bottom every conceivable policy that empowers them.
And worse - if anyone dares to suggest anything that actually harms the interests of that elite - wealth tax, corporate tax, more oversight, patent reform, breaking up too successful companies, empowering unions to bolster individuals economic power, reduce military spending. The right, and all their supporters - all suddenly bat for that elite - due to the collective dependence upon them. “We must do something about the elites - except anything - we can’t do anything against the elites - that would be radical socialism - and would harm the economy”
I mentioned this to a Trump supporter railing on Bill Gates and George Soros, and how much power they have, and how they’re destroying America - I suggested taxing their wealth to reduce their power. With a click of my fingers - this Trump supporter became the staunchest supporter of their own bogeyman’s best interests.
All of this driven by the very misinformation machines we’ve been talking about.
Compare and contrast to democrats. They are the only ones making any practical moves to reduce the power of these oligarchies. They are the only ones with policies aimed at reducing the power of these oligarchies. They are the only ones specifically trying to address social and environmental issues brought about by these oligarchies.
You are absolutely right - you have democrats who refuse to kill tax loop holes for the mega wealthy; or ones who prevent the death of coal because of business interests, you assuredly have donations from big corporations - and many rich democrats with limited blindness in their trusts and have to vote against their interests. But everything from their enacted policy, internal party factions, to their donation structure, supporters and attempted policy are all supremely more hostile to the actual economic elite than the republicans could ever be.
Even look at the actions they took. Reducing job killing regulations, and increasing competition by reducing regulations - which take the form of how many toxic chemicals coal companies can dump into rivers - or reducing enforcement of consumer protections - or lowering emissions standards - or enacting massive tax cuts that companies can use for share buybacks. That sure shows the elites!
So in that case: no it’s not choosing between oligarchy and oligarchy - it’s a choice between “explicitly support for empowering the oligarchy coupled with the risk of authoritarian government you cannot vote away” and “openly hostile, but partially beholden to the interests of the oligarchy, pulled in the opposite direction by the base - and who frequently pushes, and often pass laws and changes antithetical to the power of that oligarchies.”
These two choices are clearly and absolutely not the same.
the only reason you fear the "republican establishment" more than you fear the "democrat establishment" is because the democrats are doing everything in their power to make you think that every single republican is an alex jones fanatic
The reason I am concerned about the “Republican establishment” more than I fear the “democrat Establishment” - is because of the things they do - many explicitly listed and described in the many detailed posts I’ve made above. The democrats are not becoming functionally fascist, are not overtly corporatist in either words or actions.
I am concerned about them because of the media and supporter ecosystem of misinformation that they have cultivated - that is tending more and more authoritarian. I don’t need the democrats to tell me the broad level of support in the Republican Party of election deniers, or outright crazies - I can gauge this by the things their candidates say, and the things their candidates do.
If you feel that my reasoning is because of what I’m being told by the democrat - then you absolutely and clearly have not understood a single word of any of my posts in this thread.
I am concerned about them because of the media and supporter ecosystem of misinformation that they have cultivated - that is tending more and more authoritarian. I don’t need the democrats to tell me the broad level of support in the Republican Party of election deniers, or outright crazies - I can gauge this by the things their candidates say, and the things their candidates do.
If you feel that my reasoning is because of what I’m being told by the democrat - then you absolutely and clearly have not understood a single word of any of my posts in this thread.
RCV FTW
This is exactly the problem - we shouldn’t chose between democrats or republicans - we need RCV. Your calling for RCV, and trashing parties as equivalent - but when you look at RCV - they’re not.
Where in the USA is RCV implemented? Maine: passed by democrats. It was used in multiple states in the democratic primary - and republicans are now trying to veto it.
Alaska recently passed RCV - state Republican leadership ran against it - and the organization that campaigned for it, contained a substantial number of democrats.
HR-1, which has provisions for supporting RCV, and fair representation acts all introduced by democrats and comprehensively opposed by republicans.
On a state by state levels - the states that have passed RCV at municipal levels are predominantly blue states - and most of the state level legislating supporting it - coming from democrats. https://www.fairvote.org/2021_state_legislation_advancing_ranked_choice_voting. And, unsurprisingly - the people actively opposing it are, you guessed it, republicans: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/04/29/despite-broad-popularity-gop-moves-ban-ranked-choice-voting-local-level
This is likely being driven by the fact that 73% of democrats support it (https://publicconsultation.org) as opposed to 49% of republicans. On the left - I am one of them.
So even on these grounds - this should be a clear cut reason that even if all the other stuff above is not true - if RCV is your main goal - then you should absolutely support democrats - they’re the ones that are primarily pushing it.
This is absolutely not an issue of me having binary thinking - one side is objectively better - one side is objectively worse in almost every respect, and almost every way - as it is on almost every topic and almost every subject.
If your speculating that the democrats have altering my perception of republicans (though this is not the case), let me also speculate - that you believe both sides are as bad as each other, solely because of the constant and repeated whataboutism and misinformation from the right, how they’ll right acts and reacts with equal disdain and equal fervour to everything the democrats do; and you are drawing blame based on how loudly both sides shout - rather than the details of what they’re shouting about.
Where in the USA is RCV implemented? Maine: passed by democrats. It was used in multiple states in the democratic primary - and republicans are now trying to veto it.
Alaska recently passed RCV - state Republican leadership ran against it - and the organization that campaigned for it, contained a substantial number of democrats.
HR-1, which has provisions for supporting RCV, and fair representation acts all introduced by democrats and comprehensively opposed by republicans.
On a state by state levels - the states that have passed RCV at municipal levels are predominantly blue states - and most of the state level legislating supporting it - coming from democrats. https://www.fairvote.org/2021_state_legislation_advancing_ranked_choice_voting. And, unsurprisingly - the people actively opposing it are, you guessed it, republicans: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/04/29/despite-broad-popularity-gop-moves-ban-ranked-choice-voting-local-level
This is likely being driven by the fact that 73% of democrats support it (https://publicconsultation.org) as opposed to 49% of republicans. On the left - I am one of them.
So even on these grounds - this should be a clear cut reason that even if all the other stuff above is not true - if RCV is your main goal - then you should absolutely support democrats - they’re the ones that are primarily pushing it.
This is absolutely not an issue of me having binary thinking - one side is objectively better - one side is objectively worse in almost every respect, and almost every way - as it is on almost every topic and almost every subject.
If your speculating that the democrats have altering my perception of republicans (though this is not the case), let me also speculate - that you believe both sides are as bad as each other, solely because of the constant and repeated whataboutism and misinformation from the right, how they’ll right acts and reacts with equal disdain and equal fervour to everything the democrats do; and you are drawing blame based on how loudly both sides shout - rather than the details of what they’re shouting about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
the FBI's word means nothing. In fact the FBI report said she did X
I’m confused - does the FBIs word mean nothing or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I may actually be wrong - some people are saying it may have been documents relating to nuclear weapons - that would for sure need an immediate raid and recovery - mainly to get the documents out.
I’ll wait and see - Trump has been given an opportunity to object to unsealing the warrant - it will be spiced if he does :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
even iff you "prove" one side is less-wrong than the otherthat does not make the less-wrong side "objectively good"
I feel we are talking at two different levels. Practical and theoretical. In some theoretical future with no consideration of how to get from A to B: does the party political system need to be completely overhauled, and new parties exist and share power: I have some concerns - but I largely agree. I am not talking about the theoretical in this thread, but the very immediate practical political environment we are in today.
The only way I can describe the current political environment, is that we are locked in a room that has two bombs on timers - the one on the right is filled with 50kg of TNT. The one on the left, is filled with cow sh*t. You don’t know when they will go off, maybe now, maybe later, but you think you may able to defuse them.
You don’t want to be in that room, neither do I. You don’t want to be covered in cowsh*t, neither do I.
Let’s stop arguing about how bad the cowsh*t is, whilst not mentioning that there is a bomb containing TNT in the room too - and defuse the bomb on the right containing the TNT.
strangely, i've actually been listening to FOX radio and other "conservative" talk radio stations over the past year
If you want to have a broadly accurate run down of beliefs in the right; you can look at the platforms many candidates are running on - there are open QAnon conspiracists - large number of election denying republican candidates at all level. The various larger Republican news organizations - including fox (specifically Tucker) - have shared a multitude of vaccine and election misinformation multiple times though some are worse than others. There is a robust misinformation ecosystem in social media in the forms of manufactured memes and information that often stem from them. While I know QAnon is probably not a majority or even more than a small minority of the Republican Party - the crazies in general, the ones that believe the more outlandish lies are not.
While individual radio channels being rational
Is a good thing; the idea that this is instructive of the wider media, or right wing ecosystem is belied by many of the facts on the ground.
the point here is that when people donate money to the "democrats" i'm sure they never intended that money to be funneled into the coffers of the most extreme lunatics on the "right"which is clearly amplifying their voices and in some cases, actually getting them elected
Correct - that’s absolutely an issue; it’s not the issue. The issue is the widespread existence and relatively broad support of said crazies; that they are cropping up everywhere, and whose support base is large enough to win a primary. You should also look at some of the ads - democrats are often getting several of the crazies to win primaries - by painting them as crazy - pointing at election denial, ultra conservative beliefs, support for Trump, etc.
Whilst not every case for sure - the issue is that the volume of crazies running for office, commanding large amounts of support from the base despite being crazy, and in some case because of it - is the issue that should absolutely be more concerning.
One critical thing, there is huge blow back for democrats here - internally, in the media, from supporters. It’s unethical behaviour - and the DCCC is being called on it by democrats.
If the roles were reversed, and a Republican candidate started ratf*cking, by trying to knock out the Democratic primary candidate who posed the biggest threat in the general election - republicans would be fine with it.
I know that - because in 2019 when Trump tried to get Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden to harm is electoral chances : or when he ran millions in negative ads against Biden in Iowa 4 months before the first primary votes - republicans didn't give a shit.
Again - this is yet another example of how democrats are held to an absurdly high standard compared to Republicans - who could all literally cloaca f**k the last remaining bald eagles on the planet; on the back of Humvee running donuts paved over Amazon rainforest parking lot that they just had Exxon pay for - and the front page headlines would be “scandal as AOC admits wiping with toilet paper rather than reusable hemp” and all the republicans would go on Twitter, or start threads about it here proclaiming “how dare she!”
Again - this is yet another example of how democrats are held to an absurdly high standard compared to Republicans - who could all literally cloaca f**k the last remaining bald eagles on the planet; on the back of Humvee running donuts paved over Amazon rainforest parking lot that they just had Exxon pay for - and the front page headlines would be “scandal as AOC admits wiping with toilet paper rather than reusable hemp” and all the republicans would go on Twitter, or start threads about it here proclaiming “how dare she!”
Created:
Posted in:
So will I Ramshutu, thanks for your moral grandstanding.
You’re welcome.
Created:
For what it’s worth.
People who believe in the validity of conspiracies will add their stuff to science/politics/current events. Those who don’t will post under conspiracies - we’ll have two places for the same thing - and unless mods start moving stuff based on their subjective interpretation or position - which they should not - it’s going to be a mess
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Well - yes: I don’t think was ever under contention. The hypocrisy is hilarious though - can’t wait to see all the Republican screeching to lock him up!
Anyhoo. I honestly don’t think this is about documents. I think Merrill Garland, the Judge, the FBI are all smart enough - and have all been alive since 2016 - to understand that if one is going to start a political shitstorm by raiding a former president; you probably need something more pressing and defendable to the people than “he has a box of memos he totally shouldn’t have”.
I strongly suspect - but could be wrong - that there are documents at Mara-largo is not the issue - annoying as it maybe - but that those documents demonstrate something more significant; and that something may have been about to happen to them.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
By all means explain why you think whether the law was intended to cover transgenderism, or that it was contemporaneously acceptable in 1964 - is not irrelevant if you apply textualism. You won’t - because you can’t.Already done in the OP.
This is a lie.
Your definition of textualism clearly precludes using intent; or social environment at the time - only legal text and ordinary meaning of the words. I explained this in my post here:
You violated textualism ; by citing social environment of the 1960s - you cannot defend that violation.
I can’t refute an argument that doesn’t exist. Please quote the part of your OP that explains why textualism allows you to use social environment at the time the law was written as a basis for a legal decision.
You won’t - because you can’t: your OP contains no such argument, you’re simply proclaiming the OP includes such an argument - even though you clearly know it does not - this is a clear lie.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
I have conceded NOTHING where YOU are concerned.
Because of course you don’t - By all means explain why you think whether the law was intended to cover transgenderism, or that it was contemporaneously acceptable in 1964 - is not irrelevant if you apply textualism. You won’t - because you can’t.
Your angry denials are meaningless - if someone provides an argument against your position, and you refuse or are otherwise unable to address it - that point is considered conceded. Otherwise, any idiot could come in; spout a bunch of nonsense; refuse to address the issues in his arguments ; stop replying and declare victory. That’s not how an argument works.
On that note: I away your responses to:
And
And
Which disprove your case on its entirety and appear - for some reason - to be being ignored in their entirety.
Created:
Posted in:
It just goes to show that people still exist that are not politically correct tiptoers and are on the left wing with a passion.
If someone prefers to be called he, they, she, bob, Jim, Dr, whatever - I’m going to address them like that - if someone has a difficult to pronounce name, I will try and call them by the correct pronunciation - it’s literally no effort or impact for me.
The reason for this is not because I’m politically correct as much as that I’m not a complete c*nt.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Ordinary meaning of the legal text...
HMMMM!!!! Man is a man. Woman is a woman. Pretty simple
Man dressing as a woman IS NOT a woman.
Woman dressing as a man IS NOT a man.
So you’ve dropped - and thus conceded that whether the law was intended to cover transgenderism, or that it was contemporaneously acceptable in 1964 - is irrelevant if you apply textualism. Awesome.
So - this is important - let’s say this loud and clear, and repeat it so that you understand it.
The legal justification I put forward is not that a woman is a man; or a man is a woman. At all. No where have I stated this, assumed it, my legal argument doesn’t require it. Nothing I have said implies, suggests or intimates this is the case. This argument is plainly and totally manufactured by you.
That you keep suggesting this interpretation is my argument - when it clearly and objectively isn’t - is a colossal raging straw man. Stop it.
Taking the ordinary meaning at the time: a man is a biological man, and a woman is a biological woman - then the clear and plain text of the law states almost explicitly that if you fire a biological man for something; but would not fire a woman for the exact same thing - this is by definition of the legal text - discrimination on the basis of sex.
Firing a transgender man - is firing what you call a “biological man” for doing something that is acceptable for a “biological woman”. Clear cut violation of the exact text and ordinary meaning of the law
Feel free to explain how the specific legal text allows you to fire men for doing something a woman would not be fired: or a Muslim fired for what would be okay for a Christian: or a black being fired for something a white would not.
You won’t - because you can’t - hence why you appear you have stopped even trying.
You cite BFOQ as an exception; BFOQ - as cited in the original text of the law - apply’s to cases where a specific gender or religion is genuinely required for that role in a business - which is the case in a strip club, or hooters - but clearly not the case in the funeral home.
Feel free to explain the legal / textual basis for suggesting that BFOQ applies in the case of dress codes other than “because I said so”
You won’t - because you can’t - hence why you appear to have stopped trying.
Likewise; you cite a single precedent from 1975 - an appeal to authority - which Is countered by an appeal to a higher authority.
You offer no justification as to why the reasoning of this decision is more valid than my own. Where as I have explained why the decision is faulty.
Feel free to explain why the reasoning of the decision you cite is more valid than the reasoning I have provided.
You won’t - because you can’t - hence why you appear to have stopped trying.
So - this is important - let’s say this loud and clear, and repeat it so that you understand it.
The legal justification I put forward is not that a woman is a man; or a man is a woman. At all. No where have I stated this, assumed it, my legal argument doesn’t require it. Nothing I have said implies, suggests or intimates this is the case. This argument is plainly and totally manufactured by you.
That you keep suggesting this interpretation is my argument - when it clearly and objectively isn’t - is a colossal raging straw man. Stop it.
Taking the ordinary meaning at the time: a man is a biological man, and a woman is a biological woman - then the clear and plain text of the law states almost explicitly that if you fire a biological man for something; but would not fire a woman for the exact same thing - this is by definition of the legal text - discrimination on the basis of sex.
Firing a transgender man - is firing what you call a “biological man” for doing something that is acceptable for a “biological woman”. Clear cut violation of the exact text and ordinary meaning of the law
Feel free to explain how the specific legal text allows you to fire men for doing something a woman would not be fired: or a Muslim fired for what would be okay for a Christian: or a black being fired for something a white would not.
You won’t - because you can’t - hence why you appear you have stopped even trying.
You cite BFOQ as an exception; BFOQ - as cited in the original text of the law - apply’s to cases where a specific gender or religion is genuinely required for that role in a business - which is the case in a strip club, or hooters - but clearly not the case in the funeral home.
Feel free to explain the legal / textual basis for suggesting that BFOQ applies in the case of dress codes other than “because I said so”
You won’t - because you can’t - hence why you appear to have stopped trying.
Likewise; you cite a single precedent from 1975 - an appeal to authority - which Is countered by an appeal to a higher authority.
You offer no justification as to why the reasoning of this decision is more valid than my own. Where as I have explained why the decision is faulty.
Feel free to explain why the reasoning of the decision you cite is more valid than the reasoning I have provided.
You won’t - because you can’t - hence why you appear to have stopped trying.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Wrong. I've cited detailed info & cases that prove dress codes can be different for men and women.
The details info and cases you have shared are all invalid: please refer the post above - which you ignored. This post explained why the case you cited is invalid, BFOQ doesn’t apply, and how your explanations contradict a textual interpretation of the law.
There is no circular reasoning on my part. That's on you.
I have explained use the laws text, and the textualist approach to explain why the text of the law precludes dress code discrimination.
Stating that dress code discrimination is not illegal, because it is legal - is absolutely circular. As explained in the post above that you ignored.
You must share a valid textualist or formal legal basis for why the dress code is legal ; which you haven’t really done.
Stating that dress code discrimination is not illegal, because it is legal - is absolutely circular. As explained in the post above that you ignored.
You must share a valid textualist or formal legal basis for why the dress code is legal ; which you haven’t really done.
You continue to refuse to read the OP and address the arguments Stephens made which are fallacious, as I had pointed out.
Conversing with you is like beating a dead horse, and we both know that dead horse will never get up to drink from the trough.
I'm done with you and your tunnel vision and pomposity.
Another ad-hominem.
You are arguing for textualist. I used textualism to show you how the law explicitly prohibits this discrimination. That’s a simple open and shut rebuttal of your position.
By all means, show me how that interpretation of the legal text is not correct; or how the legal text specifically allows for exceptions that you describe.
You’re not doing that, you’re just asserting that I’m wrong over and over again. You have gone out of your way to avoid actually citing the statutes you keep telling me allow for discrimination. Your inability to prove me wrong is not my concern.
I have a detailed and comprehensive summary of why my interpretation is valid and yours is not in the post above (#28) which you have completely ignored.
Perhaps when you said:
You are arguing for textualist. I used textualism to show you how the law explicitly prohibits this discrimination. That’s a simple open and shut rebuttal of your position.
By all means, show me how that interpretation of the legal text is not correct; or how the legal text specifically allows for exceptions that you describe.
You’re not doing that, you’re just asserting that I’m wrong over and over again. You have gone out of your way to avoid actually citing the statutes you keep telling me allow for discrimination. Your inability to prove me wrong is not my concern.
I have a detailed and comprehensive summary of why my interpretation is valid and yours is not in the post above (#28) which you have completely ignored.
Perhaps when you said:
Prove me wrong
You meant:
Prove me wrong: but don’t use any arguments. Or evaluate the legal text. Or use logic. Or consistently apply textualism. Or call me out for poor logic.
Because it seems you’re more than willing to argue - until the point your position is demonstrated false - then you ignore everyone and start name along.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Continue to stomp around in your mud puddle giggling away while patting yourself on the back for your delusions of grandeur. I have zero interest responding to you any further in this thread.When I've merely repeating similar positions stated by black scholars and other persons of color, well-known names like Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, John McWhorter, Dinesh D'Souza, and so on...your disagreement is sophomoric when weighed and measure against their intellect and experience(s).
This is an Ad Hominem attack - it adds nothing, has no relevance to the argument; and can be dismissed for this reason.
I have provided a pretty detailed and comprehensive set of arguments in the posts listed here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7780/post-links/337246 , and summarized here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7780/post-links/336921
You have absolutely no answer at all to any of the points I raised; and now it appears your running away.
Your position is intellectually bankrupt; and now it appears you are demonstrating that you have no ability to defend it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Logic is the rules of reason.
I would contest the idea that the sermon on the mount isn’t logical
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
But it does!When it comes to dress codes, so long as it is not sexually provocative to disparage women, it is perfectly acceptable to require men to dress as men based on societal/cultural standards and the same for women within the context of the business qualification standards.
Not according to the text of title VII - specifically given in my posts above, and the summarized in the uncontested points C1 and C2.
Your objection is also circular reasoning:
C3: asserting that having different rules for different dress codes is okay (or variations therein), in response to an argument that explains why it isn’t - is circular reasoning.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
But that would be a complete lie, given that I have provided a fairly detailed rebuttal to everything you have said to me in this thread, which as of now, remain unanswered:
#307
#308
#309
#310
#311
#312
And here:
#315
#334
For which you have absolutely no response at all.
These are pretty comprehensively rebutting your position - and I would be happy to repost them right now so that everyone can judge whether they are “an argument” or not.
#307
#308
#309
#310
#311
#312
And here:
#315
#334
For which you have absolutely no response at all.
These are pretty comprehensively rebutting your position - and I would be happy to repost them right now so that everyone can judge whether they are “an argument” or not.
Created:
Posted in:
please explain how obama was substantially "better" than bush jr
Why do you feel comparing the president from 2000-2008, and the president from 2008-2016 is an excellent approximation of two “sides” as they stand today?
If you want a specific explanation of the various reasons why one can very much assume the two sides are not the same, I’ve posted ~24,000 characters of justification on the basis of misinformation, and generalized actions in the last couple of pages. I think that pretty solidly spells out many of the clear reasons why one side is objectively far worse than the other.
But right now; we appear to have predominantly one side that includes a substantial number of unhinged crazies, that isn’t living in reality, and is becoming increasingly authoritarian and tending towards functionally fascist.which "side" are you describing here ?
The side that includes a substantial number of unhinged crazies - significant support for QAnon and various other conspiracies, including rejection of the election results. These far outweigh any equivalent faction of the left.
The side becoming increasingly authoritarian is the right - the side supporting more voting restrictions; more political interference in elections, and who have supported or championed actual efforts to overturn election results - including the encouraging of violence.
The basis upon which I can call them tending towards functionally fascist - replace “radical democrats” with Jews, and the modern Republican Party is sitting kinda around the 1926 Nazi party. With the primary exception being that the Republican Party doesn’t really have an platform of any description. The reason for tending towards that moniker, is based on similar disdain for institutions and democracy; the specific targeting and scapegoating of marginalized groups; pushing an under siege narrative; the domination of misinformation and propoganda; overt militarism, machismo, and patriotism; attempts to purge the disloyal in party, and the begging of a strategy to do the same in government, based in Florida especially - the beginnings of state mandate of acceptable thought and ideas for education.
Essentially, the overall goals, means, approach, and strategy to win and maintain power is becoming closely analogous - even though explicit ideology is not.
guess who is funneling millions of dollars into the campaigns of the lunatics ?
Yes - I understand why they are doing it; I completely disagree with it. It could easily backfire.
Let’s not lose site, however, that if these crazies win - said lunatics will have been elected by the republicans party, despite being unhinged crazies. Democrats are pushing some in the primaries not because they support or believe in the unhinged craziness - but because they believe it’s a strategy to prevent all the other crazies taking power.
Ratf*cking in this case isn’t a particular ethical strategy; but again - there’s this inherent disparity - one side can breed dozens of relatively popular unhinged crazy candidates that can command the support of a majority of republicans with the right advertising, the other side gives them primary support to maximize the chance of winning seats and keeping them out - and the latter is the one people point to as problematic.
Sure, it’s not great - I’d really prefer them not to it; but are we really not going to talk about the election denying crazies as if they’re the actual problem?
Every conversation here is framed this way - as if there is just this level of f*ckmuppetry that is simply tolerated as a normal baseline in Republicans - and yet democrats are always held to that higher standard.
Link
I would be very happy talking about the issues, who’s to blame, how to fix it - in the context of another thread.
The issue for me, however is that are many examples of a ruling elites being blamed for all the worlds ills, as the primary basis for a political movement - few of them end well for the population.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Was transgenderism a thing in 1964?Were transgenders out there in the workforce forcing their lifestyle choice upon the world in the 60s?
From your OP:
Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.
You appear to be giving consideration to non-textual sources…..
Does textualism apply, or not?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Let’s try this again: You seem to be arguing from Textualism. You even included a definition - all that matters is the ordinary meaning of the words at the time the law was written, and the legal text is all that matters - intent of the framers does not matter.
My argument is that the wording of the law precludes setting one rule for men, and another for woman. Firing a man, for doing something it is okay for a woman - is explicitly prohibited by the text of the law and common. Meaning.
C1: It is expressly illegal to fire someone of a given race/sex/religion for doing something that another race/sex/religion would not be fired for.
This has been my point from pretty much my first post, and I have responded using the explicit text of the law.
None of your replies have utilized the laws actual text to invalidate my statement. You have actually gone out of your way not to quote or reference the law in question your arguments. You’ve chopped the text out of every reply
Thus I can only conclude you concede C1. I fully expect you to protest - because of course you will - but if you cannot show how the text of the law doesn’t support the conclusion about - it’s just empty denial and your protests mean nothing.
We can also state:
C2: If a woman wore a dress she would not be fired. If a man is fired for wearing a dress - it violates C1, and is thus illegal.
You haven’t actually directly challenged this point either by explaining how it doesn’t violate the text or C1. You have made three other forms of response:
You don’t know the law.
This is just a meaningless ad-hominem. No number of insults or questioning my education shows what I am saying is false. As such it can be dismissed as irrelevant.
“There is NO disparate treatment/impact upon an employer enforcing their dress code for a biological man and biological woman based on their company dress code.”
You offer no legal or textual basis for this base assertion. There is clearly disparate treatment as a man was fired for doing the exact same thing as a woman.
One cannot subject different genders, races or religions to different rules : one cannot force blacks to use different washrooms even if those washrooms are identical. The text of Title VII does not allow for seperate but equal
Again, protest all you like; meaningless denials will be dismissed; by all means feel free to try and explain how disparate rules can be applied to different sexes according to the text of Title VII that doesn’t also legally justify segregation law.
(paraphrase) Having different rules for different sexes is okay for dress codes.
C1 and C2 - based on the text of the law, demonstrates that different rules for different sexes is illegal.
Using this argument as response, is arguing that different rules for different sexes is not illegal, because having different rules for different sexes is not illegal in this case.
C3: asserting that having different rules for different dress codes is okay (or variations therein), in response to an argument that explains why it isn’t - is circular reasoning
I have explained how the text of the law expressly prohibits it - you must now show that the text of the law expressly allows it (which you haven’t), or give textual justification for an exception
The exceptions you cited are BFOQ. The exception is, specifically:
“it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise”
The text of this section explicitly states that you may discriminate who you hire for a position based upon sex - if that persons sex is what qualifies them for something reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that business.
As a result - if the sex of the person is not something reasonably necessary to the business - then the BFOQ exception does not apply. There is no aspect of a funeral home that requires an employee working in specific roles to be a woman - and thus BFOQ - given the text of the law cannot be applied.
As a result, your BFOQ objection is invalid. To show that BFOQ applies, you must that the business is demonstrably dependent on women in a particular role (it’s not) or b.) how the text above can be used to exempt dress codes (it can’t) You may, of course, protest and foot stamp - but without showing a or b, protests are simply empty denials and mean nothing.
The only other justification you have given for why having different rules for different sexes is okay - is based on a precedent you cited.
Stating that a ruling exists that such discrimination is okay, is not a valid argument that it’s okay - after all I can cite a higher ruling by a higher court that says it isn’t - for which I can legally justify with the statute text - but you will not accept that ruling. This is a clear double standard
You claim that Gorsuch can rule incorrectly, yet argue is if I must accept as fact the ruling of another judge as prima facia valid - this is again, a clear double standard.
I would suggest that the ruling itself, which you attempted to justify, is wrong if you apply textualism. Not hiring someone for something that would be acceptable in another gender textually violates Title VII on the grounds of C1 and C2 above; which you have not managed to contest.
For these three reasons, this objection is invalid.
Let’s summarize
Having one rule for men, another for women - and firing people on that basis is explicitly illegal by the text of title VII.
No matter how much you want to reshuffle your wording, change your phraseology - having a different dress code for men, and woman, is expressly having different sets rules for men, or for woman and constitutes termination on the basis of sex - and is explicitly illegal based on the text of title VII.
What the framers intended, how you feel about it, whether you think it’s reasonable, or socially acceptable, and whether this is against how the law has been used in the past - is all irrelevant. All that matters is the text of the law, and the original meaning of the words in it.
It is up to Congress to decide, and to amend the legislation if what the law says is not what congress meant.
Now - you may object, call me names, question my credentials, strenuously protest some point or another - but that would all be completely irrelevant too.
The only relevant responses you can make are:
- Explain how the text of the law doesn’t support my conclusions.
- Explain how the text of the law supports your claims.
- Explain how the text of BFOQ offers an exception to dress codes.
- Explain how your precedent better matches the text of the statute.
Without that - all you’re doing is protesting; and protesting that someone is wrong without an argument to support it- is meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
well, what we really need is a trusted third party.As long as people think one of the TWO SIDES is "good" and the other is "bad" they're playing right into the hands of the oligarchy
The knee jerk reaction on the left is that everything the right does is bad. It’s not true. The knee jerk reaction on the right is that everything the left does is bad. It’s not true. The knee jerk of the libertarians and third parties - is that both sides are as bad as each other. It’s not true either.
It’s a relatively objective fact that one side is substantially worse than the other, presents clear and more fundamental risks to democracy, and the future of the country than the other: and the systems of misinformation constantly try and convince you that, actually, both sides are just as bad because it makes the playing field seem level.
What we really need is valid political discourse, an informed electorate, and environment of misinformation, propoganda, whataboutism and manipulative media - which is predominantly coming from the right is eliminated.
Once we have that, we can talk about the actual problems. What are the issues. What are the solutions. The left and right - and anyone else - can discuss them, vote on them and unwind the systems that centralize both political and economic power.
I am absolutely for making vote reform and redistributing non-partisan, make elections representative, and all manner of electoral voting reforms that allow third parties to gain representation and establish a record upon which to run on.
I’m all for tearing up big corporations, removing money from politics, stronger worker rights and more evenly spreading political and economic power to do that.
I’m all for bringing down the oligarchy - if we can have a valid conversation and agree on specifically who that is.
But right now; we appear to have predominantly one side that includes a substantial number of unhinged crazies, that isn’t living in reality, and is becoming increasingly authoritarian and tending towards functionally fascist.
This is the bright red elephant in the room - until they are normal again and part of a robust political conversation - instead of sitting in threads trying to drive the conversation off the rails to stop other people talking - pretending that there is no appreciable difference between the sides empowers that side and that side alone.
Created:
Posted in:
Someone is trying to partially quote and dump something to the previous page.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
The employer may use the defense that the discrimination was based on a bona fide occupational qualification. Bona fide occupational qualifications are often used for safety reasons, such as imposing a mandatory retirement age for airline pilots and bus drivers.The court may grant bona fide occupational qualification in three circumstances:
- The first circumstance is for privacy reasons. For instance, requiring at least one security hospital treatment assistant assigned to each psychiatric hospital ward to be the same gender as the ward’s patients was permissible as a bona fide occupational qualification. See: Jennings v. New York State Office of Mental Health, 977 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1992).
- The second circumstance is for authenticity in the arts: for film, theater, and television. This is because the First Amendment overrides Title VII in artistic works where the qualification is integral to the story or artistic purpose.
- Last is if the bona fide occupational qualification relates to the normal operation or essence of the business. For example, the court considered a mandatory retirement age of 62 for corporate pilots a bona fide occupational qualification for safety reasons because of how the mental and physical functions necessary for a pilot’s performance begin breaking down after the age of 60. See: Rasberg v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company, 671 F.Supp. 494 (1987).
Customer satisfaction, or lack thereof, is insufficient to justify a BFOQ defense. For instance, customer preference for female flight attendants does not make femininity a BFOQ.
You can only discriminate on the grounds of sex and dress code if you meet any of the 3 elements above - specifically it is only a BFOQ if the discrimination is essential to the business being performed.
Like discriminating in the grounds of sex females for strippers, or to serve at Hooters.
BFOQ doesn’t apply just for regular dress or business scenarios in which females needing to wear a dress is not essential to the business - which it isn’t.
Created: