Total posts: 3,383
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Every single person in this country who doesn't live in a self-sufficient cabin in the woods is culpable for murder, rape, theft on a colossal scale.
you think that's true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Every single person in this country who doesn't live in a self-sufficient cabin in the woods is culpable for murder, rape, theft on a colossal scale.
Well stated.
seriously? you believe that?
they he says something about not doing something about it.....Trump was elected, he said he'd get us out of other countries and stop the wars etc, unfortunately the sheeple and lemmings want free stuff, which is never free, and government handouts, they want to government to take care of them. That's not every single person, that's not me.
"divides its citizenry in order to enrich a tiny, stratospherically wealthy caste of disloyal and amoral 'global citizens'.
this is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
yeah you are right, forgot about those movies. People weren't as easily offended back then, context mattered too. While I hope Northam quits, if I were to be honest it shouldn't be about what he may have done back then, though it seems he's trying to cover it up with lies. If I were to ever be punished for the things I did at a much younger age, things I would never ever do now, I'd be doomed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
you make some excellent points, we can't really control the thoughts that enter our minds, but we can control our actions, or should attempt to anyway. The riots and violent "protests" show a worrisome lack of this control. Perhaps this is how he could put his story to beneficial use. It's difficult to tell if the intolerance of differing opinions is getting better, worse or staying the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
I graduated high school in 1985 so I know a little about that time period, and no it was not a thing you joked about, everyone knew it was offensive. Even growing up in an all white town, we knew that. Tbh there is no acceptable excuse other than we went to an prestigious school and they all felt entitled. Rich, spoiled, moral-less p.o.s.s doing whatever they want with no fear of consequences. To claim ignorance is just b.s. given those facts and ones already stated.
Yes social media huge, huge problem, they way it's used and believed, great point, same with the idea of utopia.
I wonder what Neeson's motivation is for the confession.
Created:
Wall seems better than the almost nothing that has been done the last 20+ years. If you don't fix the problem yourself and leave it for someone else to fix who is really to blame? And what right do you have to complain.
Have you never been threatened as a child if you didn't pick up your toys your parent would and throw them away? same thing really. If you don't like the way I do it, do it yourself. The picture should be crystal clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
I agree with you. The one ups-manship is the problem, trying to appear morally superior is also why so much of this happens now. Remember some think it's better to be morally right than to be factually correct ect. It's a whole new and warped mentality. It's difficult to say when it really started but fmpov Clinton's impeachment was one instance that accelerated us on the course things are headed now. There is no one side to blame totally and no one side can fix it and right the ship. Be that as it may there's a lot of truth in these words
To better understand the why you have to look at the what. What is the perceived or actual things someone like Northam has done or is doing? You mentioned the abortion thing for one, he/they(democrats) have really been getting into people's lives. Trying to dictate what they can and can't say and own. I would LOVE to see Northam quit because of the things he stands for and his want of more government influence and control in my life. Anyway it's all circling the toilet, it's just a matter of time.
the difference between Northam and Neeson is Neeson didn't actually do anything, he thought about it. But the right set of circumstances he was looking for never materialized, even if they had no one knows if he would have actually done anything. We all imagine these scenarios for revenge or to right wrongs and never act on them in anyway. At age 25 a man who has much more education than many, probably top 20%, maybe 10%? Doesn't or didn't know what he did was wrong at the time he did it? really? anyone who believes that, I have a bridge for sale.
look, bottom line is you only have 2 choices realistically, the left or right, I'm pro constitution and freedom, i want minimal government in my life, which side do I chose? no choice really.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't like the assumption of guilt or the inability to forgive, what happened to Kavanaugh should have taught us something.
Created:
Posted in:
though I have watched a few in the past, i see no real reason to, and I didn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Personally I think all drugs should be legal and no one should be helped if ODed. But that is me.
I am also fine with this. So long as the "legality" comes with a full lawful definition that the user and user alone are responsible for anything and everything if you choose to use.
I'd want to know what's the dosage? How do you know the concentration? what interactions with other medications does it have? any?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Wingnuts/rednecks demand the right to abuse, humiliate, threaten anybody but go pure snow flake when the opposition demands the same right. It's understandable given the prodigious quantity of stupid they present for name calling and humiliation.
rofl such a troll, name calling, yeah the left doesn't do that ever LOL you are a special kind of stupid.
Created:
-->
@linate
i have too much faith in the american economy to think masses of people would be relegated to unemployment permanently. why is it when there are inefficiencies elsewhere conservatives are quick to want to do away with them and figure out the rest later? also, if we kept medicare as it is, insurance wouldn't even be outlawed, so they would just adapt to different dynamics. there might be some downsizing, but like i said, the economy will adapt to a higher priority and more efficient outcome.
such as?
the power of the government to regulate, control and negotiate will kill the private industry, how do you think a private company could compete against a government monopoly?
if you made the health insurance lean and streamline, you don't think that would put a lot of people out of work? What about the degrees people get to work in the industry? you think they will all become government workers?
Created:
this would end private non government healthcare and all the employees there of, which now will add I don't even know how many unemployed people to the tax burden, taxes will have to go up to cover these newly unemployed people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
lol guess you replied to the wrong person, it's cool
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
v is for vagina!!! I think, he's a bot, troll at best, you'll soon see what I mean lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I didn't know about that organization actually. What I wanted to bring up, see what people thought etc is, if something like that is in place either already existing or created, an adoption waiting list, then why would it be better to kill the baby then to do the immediate adoption like I mentioned.
Given the lack of specificity, confusion etc over these proposed laws I would think they should be more specific and clear so the misinformation and panic is kept at a minimum. The lawmakers and those who are making proposals are inept which isn't surprising but this sinks to the level of malpractice if they could be held to such a thing or maybe they are truly stupid, it's so hard to tell. With something like this, if you do it in such a way that the average person's imagination can run wild, it really is their own fault. I think it's pretty obvious just reading posts on here, now imagine it large scale.
there really doesn't seem to be much in the way of specifics for us to analyze since so much is left to interpretation, which isn't always a good thing.
We could discuss Northman's words and why I think he's a total scum bag or maybe just really dumb? is that possible? can a pediatric neuro surgeon be dumb? maybe he was trying to be political which really is the same as being dumb imo.
but really we need to start at the beginning and eat this elephant one bite at a time, which hasn't been done yet imo
Was it a hypothetical? It sounded more like a non sequitur.
does a woman have the option to have her baby killed or taken for immediate adoption? I don't believe so, hence it's hypothetical since it doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Has there been a single person anywhere in this discussion who has proposed such a thing?
does there have to be, to propose a hypothetical?
your personal opinions really get in the way of reading the plain words before you, some self reflection may help.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
428,000 orphans in the United States are currently in foster care awaiting immediate adoption.
irrelevant, children old enough for foster care =/= a new born, sad attempt there bucko.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You are making a false appeal to popularity by proxy.Your argument is basically, "all pro-choicers love killing babies".
b.s. I am doing no such thing, read what is written and stop trying to interpret motive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
the real question imo is why kill the baby vs immediately have it adopted? There's a system for those who need organs, organ transplant lists. Wouldn't be too difficult to do similar adoption list.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
people like him would love to be protected by law, too bad he didn't wait long enough, though I'm sure there's a few that will come out of the shadows now they can to it legally and out in the open.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
just look at the posts and structure, he's the same or was on ddo and is the same on debateisland, whatever translation software he's trying to use is a little bit better than it was, but not much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
you only have yourself to blame for engaging him lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
sure. that doesn’t mean that you can’t criminalize certain medical practices
you mean like
female genital mutilation
lobotomies ( in 1949, the man who invented the procedure, Portuguese neurologist António Egas Moniz, won the Nobel Prize for Medicine.)
Bloodletting
electroshock therapy
various medications
yep we should blindly trust doctors and politicians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is difficult to fabricate any sort of protest whatsoever against such a narrow statute without de facto defending obviously mean-spirited behavior.
perhaps for you it's difficult, but not for me as I understand the agreed upon definition of harassment and that there are laws against it already. The challenge to this law is pretty easy. I believe you even admitted it was redundant, thus already existed and not needed. So we set that aside.
harassment= behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them
you say everyone should be treated equally and yet this law doesn't do that and you are fine with it. Giving anyone special treatment in the law is not treating everyone equally is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I like to discuss legal issues, challenge and debate them and that is all. That is one of a few states I would never live in for a variety of reasons, so to think it would affect me in anyway is also wrong. Any frustration I may have exhibited is the need for me to repeat myself almost verbatim to finally get my point understood and acknowledged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We're talking about identity and the right of any individual to decide what terms they would like to be referred to as, in face-to-face interactions.
actually we are not talking about identity, nor is the law, "willfully and repeatedly" refer to actions.
the Actions are harassing, not the words.
yes they have the right to decide, but no one has the right to compel speech under penalty of law in this context.
You said many times and I agree that misgendering accidentally is not harassment and it has to be willful or on purpose and repeatedly which could/would be considered harassment meeting the part of the definition I provided and we agree upon " behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them"
notice the operative word behavior which I don't have to tell you, is an action.
forcing someone to use terms you want is compelled speech and I think it violates the first amendment. So to avoid potential harassment and maintain the 1a, pronouns shouldn't be used, pretty simple. But I digress.
Harassment laws have already provided the protections this law is claiming to fix for all the reasons I have given. This law gives extra protections and punishments to a select group with specific characteristics, you don't deny this. Laws are suppose to apply to all and apply equally, this law fails to meet those standards imo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Apparently the harassment laws were not preventing employees of retirement homes from engaging in this particular practice.pecially and or remarkably inequitable.
I fail to see why "willfully and repeatedly" would apply to every word and action, except misgendering, can you explain that for me please?
Once again, while I agree with you that people should be treated equally under the law, however, when compared to an overwhelming number of inequitable laws currently on the books, I have trouble understanding why you or anyone else would consider this particular law especially and or remarkably inequitable.
I've said this a few times now, because it offers a special protection and extra punishment for behavior already covered by law for a group of people with specific characteristics. That's not equality under the law is it?
Since nobody seems to care about common courtesy or historical norms anymore, the only way to get people's attention is to tell them they might go to jail.
common courtesy and historical norms are very important to me and it's sad society has turned it's back on those generally speaking, however I don't think morality should be dictated by law.
the law itself might not be harmful but the prescient is, you may have more liberal views on government, it's role and the power or limit it should be under, but that's more of a tangent.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
that's a great point, though I've seen men interviewed who have like 14 kids by several different women and no job, but yeah if one of the non biological parents is the main care taker of the child, that would get very messy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
read what I said again lol are we to believe if the baby boy is part of her body then her body has magically grown a penis, male chromosomes etc, I'm just pointing out how absurd the argument that a baby boy with a penis and male chromosomes are also considered her body. While the baby may be attached to her body that's not the same thing as calling it her body imo.
Created:
divorces are messy enough, imagine adding more people to the mess lol
this should have been fixed long ago, when you get married it should be clear if you get divorced this is how it's going to go and everyone must agree before entering into the contract, then the number of people isn't relevant. this would be a nightmare for the different types of insurances and probably some other things I can't think of atm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
if the mother is carrying a boy child does that mean she how has a penis and male chromosomes? I mean if it's her body and all.....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
really? when asked about supporting abortion while the woman is dilated at around the 45 second mark he doesn't say no, but rather it's a decision between the mother and her doctor? how should we interpret that? he did pull the slimy politician tactic in that he qualified his statement a little, but not definitively. 1:08 maybe deformity, non viable fetus, did the proposed law place similar or any restrictions? not that I have heard, but I'll wait to see if there are any. He only brings this up much later in the interview, seems like an after thought but we shall see. Also once the baby is delivered it's no longer an abortion, what he's talking about is deciding if the now delivered baby should be a D.N.R. If anything he is playing politics with what an abortion actually is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Just explain your personal outrage and or any logical objection to the actual law.
what more could I possibly say? if you don't or won't understand what I have already said, I'm at a loss.
harassment already covers the issue this new law is suppose to address, this law singles out and is aimed at a specific group in an attempt to give them more protection and punishments for the offenders all because of a specific characteristic.
how does this new law protect this group of people that the harassment laws which have already existed don't?
having laws that treat certain people with certain characteristics differently is a huge problem for me, as it should be for anyone who believes in Constitution.
this is purely political
I don't see how you are not understanding this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
there are already anti-harassment laws right? so this law isn't needed because it's already law.
The law implies that healthcare workers engage in this kind of behavior often enough that a special and unique law is needed to protect those people. Employers don't educate or discipline employees adequately and consistently so this law is needed.
Respect and dignity are real issues in l.t.c. facilities but rather than focus on that and include everyone they decided to pander to a very small select group. Don't you wonder why? should be as plain as the nose on your face.
If this truly is a problem then there are much bigger issues in California. Maybe California has a disproportionate number of sickos that would engage in this kind of behavior, I'd believe that.
But let's be real here, they don't really care about protecting patients otherwise they would protect them all equally and to the best the law will allow. Working with employers, encouraging, supporting and enabling them to provide the best care possible for everyone in their facilities.
my stance is everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, period. No one group should be treated better, have special rights, attention, whatever because that is NOT treating everyone the same.
If someone is "willfully and repeatedly" uses words that a person in a l.t.c. facility finds harassing the Employer should deal with it to make it stop, if that fails then the state should step in and look at the individual situation and remedy it. Anonymous reporting has been a thing in the states I have lived/worked in since I can remember (and I'm old). If these remedies are not available in California there are much bigger issues going on there wouldn't you say?
why shouldn't all patients in l.t.c. facilities enjoy the same protections?
with the numerous people I have address over many, many years, even those with gender issues, not once have I ever referred to them face to face by a pronoun, language just doesn't work that way, nor has this ever happened to me.
Can you give me an example of how a conversation like that would take place? Hello she/he/it, how may I help you? yeah that just doesn't happen.
The E.M.R. I use has the ability to add preferred names. But when you first identify/verify the person it must be with the legal name. Any medication, specimens whatever must also be labeled with the legal name for obvious reasons. In casual conversation you can use their preferred name though the instances for that occurrence is extremely rare. It should be obvious that some tests and procedures are sex specific and must be that way.
What's interesting imo and never thought much about it but I've seen P.O.C. on tv refer to others as male/female, it makes a lot of sense and we should just do that, problem solved.
In the real world, the employee who harasses their wards will be fired before they are ever charged with violation of this particular law.
in the real world people are fired before the law would even apply. so firing isn't enough for you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Conversion therapy and other ways to make gay people straight are legal in most states. The left wants to ban it nationwide. The right wants to keep them legal for gays who want to change.
ah ok, people should be able to peruse this if they want, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to, their mind, their body, their right oh wait guess that only applies to one thing lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
did I not give a definition of harassment? post #101
the law giving certain people extra protections (or extra penalties) when those protections already exist is ok with you? do you like to be pandered to? do you believe in equal justice under law?
how about harassing people with disabilities do we need specific laws for that? no one seemed to care too much when that douche on snl made fun of the wounded vet who lost an eye? Can I do the same to the people of this law and say it's ok because I'm being funny? how do we draw these lines?
How many times qualify as “repeatedly” how do you prove "willfully" have you ever made the same mistake more than once? twice? what's the number?
one of the huge issues I have with all of this is the inconsistency with enforcement and application, so if you factor that in with everything i said it should be pretty plain I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
the right to conversion therapy
I'm not really sure what that even means, the right to seek it? I mean why don't people have that right currently?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I thought it was clear my opinion is this law is stupid, unconstitutional, not needed and just political pandering. Everything I have said should reflect that, I meant it to reflect that anyway.
Just because I wouldn't conduct myself in the examples given doesn't mean the government has the right and authority to force compliance by force. Free speech is need to protect speech you don't like. If protecting free speech means protecting that with which I don't agree or even like, that is a price we should all be willing to pay.
but getting back to the point, with the examples, laws etc I've given do you think I'm wrong that this law was never needed because laws already cover the described situations and much more? I guess you do as you never challenged or acknowledged what I have said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm not suggesting "someone" is being killed, but rather the act of abortion is killing, whether you consider it a bunch of cells or non person, the act does kill in that sense. I was just drawing a distinction is all. If a woman is having a miscarriage sometimes there are things they can to do prevent it, but she can refuse and let nature take its course, which is the same as gramma fmpov. Hope that makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
Neo-Liberalism? huh?
that's funny as I generally view liberal in the political sense as a pejorative. should I be insulted?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
gramma doesn't have something injected into her heart to stop it, in other words letting someone die, nature taking it's course, isn't the same as killing something/someone.
life support is an intervention to prevent death, removing it puts the person back in the position they were in before the intervention
abortion in this context is the planned and willful killing of fetus/baby/nonperson however you wish to define it.
but I think that is all in another thread.
I really don't have any strong feelings on the subject but it's an interesting conundrum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
let's say a worker in a l.c.f. “willfully and repeatedly” calls a normal person Flo and asks if they can same him money on car insurance.
From what I know, that person would be fired and or reported to the state if they were licenced.
But we'll pretend this is a unicorn event and that the reporting/firing never happens for some mystical reason. Now you have a my word vs yours situation, going to take it to trial?
Or is it not harassment because it doesn't meet the criteria of the law we are discussing?
why would harassment laws already in place not also include not using someone's preferred name, pronoun "“willfully and repeatedly”?
why wouldn't this also apply to children at school? why does it only apply "special people" people in l.t.c. facilities?
if I “willfully and repeatedly” asked if you are pregnant would that be harassment? would it make any difference if you were male or female? do we need a specific law for that as well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
so is it the words or the actions that constitute harassment?
you don't see the stupidity and complete absurdity of this law?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
you used the term disruptive in post #88 I would refer you back to your own words in that post, so I addressed that because you asked me to.
Do you know what profanity is? Do you possess the human quality commonly known as "self-control"?
are those things limited or required by the constitution and the b.o.r.?
are we(you) talking about the law or are you trying to analyze and discuss me?
Do you enjoy harassing the elderly? Why would anyone do that? Is such an action a defensible contribution to a peaceful society? Is such a confrontation necessitated by your religion?
this is for the society section I think.
If I called someone by the wrong name, or mispronounced their name and they notified me, I would make an effort to avoid using the incorrect name or pronunciation.
but if you chose not to, is it or should it be a crime?
Are you suggesting that you have never called someone by the wrong name or mispronounced their name,
is that what the law refers to? I thought it was pronouns? was I mistaken?
If you identify as "Aaron", even though that is not on your drivers license or birth certificate and you want to be referred to as such, how would that work?
I dunno, if a cop pulls you over or you have to i.d. yourself for a legal reason, how would that work? If someone wasn't to be referred to as whatever, that's a request right? Is there a law that says I have to honor that request if I don't want to?
I'm really not seeing why you (or anyone else) would prefer to use the term or title that you were specifically requested to not use (face-to-face), repeatedly and in an aggressive manner.
you are making this way too personal, this about the legitimacy of the law. aggressive manner? what if i did it calmly and in a low voice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
LOL you don't think speeches by M.L.K. weren't seen as disruptive by some? How about protests? Lots of those seem pretty disruptive but where they criminal acts? Is being disruptive a crime? Doesn't seem it is, a call to action and actual violence is, actual immediate threats are, generally.
If I'm in one of these "no profanity" zones and I say I think you are an effing moron (but use the real word) do I have freedom of speech to express my opinion as I want without being free of morality laws?
If I say to a tranny "you still look like a man to me" and we get into a back and forth because he is trying to convince me otherwise, could I be convicted under this law if we are in a ltc facility?
when was the last time you called or someone called you he/she/it etc to your face rather than addressing you by your name or not using any kind of pronoun at all?
In all the conversations you've had here how often has that happened? ever?
if you identify as an attack helicopter and want to be referred as such, how would that work? would I have to use that term every time I addressed you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I thought this was a discussion forum and that is what we were doing, you are very confusing. Or is it you don't have an answer for the links and quotes and this is your way of giving up.Do you believe people should be polite in public places? What, if any limitations do you believe the law should place on disruptive behavior (including disruptive speech) in public places?
how are my views on what is polite relevant?
disruptive behavior seems subjective or is there a hard and fast definition that applies to law?
many civil rights leaders gave very disruptive speeches. If I saw some kind of point to your questions about the topic, I would have answered them.
Created:
Posted in:
do we believe that state and federal taxes are being managed the best they can be? What if we cut waste and wasteful programs such that people can keep more of their own money? Wouldn't having more of what you earn be far better than raising minimum wages, which will increase costs and automate productions like it has in states that have already done it? Why is the answer to never hold government accountable when it comes to wasting our tax dollars?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Seems fair legally. It's too bad there is no legal language saying late term abortion should be used as a last resort after live birth is ruled out.
I was wondering that myself. If the baby has to be removed because of health reasons of the mother, why does it have to be killed? A baby that is far enough along that it has to be removed either by induced labor or c-section could potentially be developed enough to survive and be normal. So why does it have to be killed?
I could understand legally allowing a baby to be removed from the woman's body because of risks to the woman and if that if the baby is at a developmental age where it can't survive that's one thing. But there doesn't seem to be exceptions if the baby is or could be viable, unless I'm missing something which is definitely possible.
Created: