Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

@Helgoland:A lot of men sit, too.

And lots more stand. My argument is a quantitative one.

In the hypothetical of a unisex with urinals, there still would need to be doors, because children, so...Really, how time-consuming is a toilet seat?

Why would the urinals need doors? Little boys are doing fine right now despite their absence. And yeah, toilet seats are time-consuming, and less hygienic to boot - using a urinal I can complete my bathroom visit without ever having touched anything besides my dick and the running water.

Also what Baffler said.

[smjjames]

What are we arguing about exactly again? lol.

I love this forum and the derails we get into sometimes.

Really though, the conservatives aren't going to accept unisex bathrooms like that anyway because 'male predators', so, to them, that solution is a no-go.

[smirk]

Would you rather use a stall that's been used by dozens of people as a urinal, or a stall that's only been used like it's supposed to?

That is also a valid counter-argument; things can get splashy. As far as efficiency, I'm really not sure which type of restroom would in fact be the most efficient. There would at least need to be fewer urinals than stalls, I'm thinking. At this point it's pretty much down to ...bathroom engineers? I guess? ...to crunch some numbers relating to average urinal-use times as compared to stall-use times, the average gender balance of the given venue, the available bathroom space, etc.

ppe: ninja'd, I think. posting anyway.

[Orange Wizard]

Guys maybe we should just keep bathrooms the way they are

[KingofstarrySkies]

NO
CHANGE

[smirk]

Good heavens, wizard, where's your sense of accomplishment? Reach out with both hands and seize the gold-plated urinal of the future!

xxxxxxxxxx

Not to interrupt the bathroom discussion, but I want to throw in a reminder to all 'Murrican folks here that voting in November is important even if you don't bother with the presidential portion of the ballot: This article is about a law headed to the governor's desk in Oklahoma that would effectively end abortion there. Not wanting to start an abortion debate; the bit I personally want to highlight is the very last sentence in said article:

"If we take care of morality,” bill supporter David Brumbaugh, a Republican, said during deliberations, "God will take care of the economy."

That right there is a specific mix of religious fervor and legislative incompetence that should never have gotten into office. Low-level politicians very often matter more to your everyday life than whoever sleeps in the White House, folks. Vote.

[Reelya]

That quote is the most Republican thing I think I've ever read. Legislate morality and leave economics up to God.

[Helgoland]

On post-primary reconciliation.

[smjjames]

Um yeah, I guess if we pray heavily to god and rip our hearts out, the economy will be super-fantastic. /sarcasm

You guys can probably tell or already know that I'm aetheist. Though I DO think that Jesus as a person actually did exist, just as much as Confucus or Buhdda.

Anyway, I'm in California, not Oklahoma. I looked at the Ballotpedia thing and I didn't see it in there: https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_2016_ballot_measures . I notice legalization of marjuana could be up for a vote in November.

Looked at California's though, https://ballotpedia.org/California_2016_ballot_propositions and nothing particularily controversial. There is an initiative for the Adult Entertainment industry, but uh, Adult Entertainment industry and all. I'm just gonna ignore that one when it cones time to vote.

Anyway, yeah, theres lots of other stuff to be voted for besides the presidential

[Frumple]

... y'all had a ban on bilingual teaching in cali? Like, are we talking no teaching of foreign languages or no teaching in not!english?

[Reelya]

That ban on disposable bags is a good one to support.

The reason is that a study was done looking at externalities - the costs that industries pass onto other people (e.g. pollution, cleaning up after them etc, reduced value of land and resources). When you factor that it, there's virtually no such thing as a "profitable industry". When you consider that the state of California spends almost $375 million per year in dealing with plastic litter, you start to see how all that "profit" is actually passing costs of operations onto the public.

http://www.earthresource.org/campaigns/capp/capp-economics.html

[smjjames]

... y'all had a ban on bilingual teaching in cali? Like, are we talking no teaching of foreign languages or no teaching in not!english?

Seems to have been more of a misguided attempt to help kids learn english rather than banning the teaching of foriegn languages or anything like that https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_227,_the_%22English_in_Public_Schools%22_Initiative_%281998%29

I like this one from Washington state: https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Restoring_the_Voice_of_We_the_People_Initiative_%282016%29 Although it's a VERY long road to become an amendment.

[Shadowlord]

Imo it's worth researching each one, at least when there's only a dozen or less, because something that might sound obviously bad (I read somewhere about towns giving away all their future tobacco settlement money in exchange for short term bonds, I think! Banning towns from financing things with bonds sounds good!) turns out not to be what you think at all (wait, so this is actually like world war II war bonds? Oh...) And if you don't care, that stuff will all change the lawwww* if it passes. And it may have unanticipated consequences. Especially if you make no effort to anticipate them. :p

(Those were literally my reactions for one of them, and I hadn't even left the website you linked)

* or state constitution

[Orange Wizard]

"If we take care of morality,” bill supporter David Brumbaugh, a Republican, said during deliberations, "God will take care of the economy."

I actually lol'd

[Cruxador]

... y'all had a ban on bilingual teaching in cali? Like, are we talking no teaching of foreign languages or no teaching in not!english?

It only applies to "normal" teaching, as in multi-subject K-12. Teaching of foreign languages is fine, as is special classes. It's a bill that limits the legally available pedagogy for the educating of non-English speakers in English. It is generally considered a bad law by teachers for two reasons: It is not actually supported by the research, and teachers can be sued and held personally liable if they don't teach the "preponderance" of their class in English. That latter problem has never actually happened, but the law provides for it.

The law is currently still in effect, but nobody who liked it really cares any more, so people involved in ESL education just go about getting around it or ignoring it as much as possible.