Print

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

[Vector]

There are Women, probably into the hundreds that get raped by buisnessmen and don't get a case in court, yet there are THOUSANDS MORE who would gladly lie to get a settlement.

It makes me so mad.

And you're pissing me off.

[ggamer]

how so, madam vector?

[alway]

I'm gonna go with Poe's Law on this one.

[Burnt Pies]

At a guess, the whole 'Women will lie for money' thing, along with upholding the rights of corporations to screw over women by denying them legal recourse when raped.

That seems pretty damn maddening to me.

[G-Flex]

The sentiment that there are people who would lie for personal gain and that it's bad: Valid.

Pulling figures out of your ass, like that the number of people who would do that is significantly greater than the number of people who get sexually assaulted without justice, with a really vague sense of how it's relevant, singling out women in the process, and having no fucking clue what the law is actually about: Not valid.


Yes, people can make spurious allegations. Why is that an argument against allowing people to actually get prosecuted for crimes? Should we just give up on trying sexual assault cases at all, just because some people might falsely accuse people? I really don't understand your reasoning. Yeah, there are always going to be people who falsely accuse others, but that's never an excuse to stop trying the legitimate cases.

[scriver]

Could somebody explain in simple English what this legislation means? I gather that it is supposed to make people able to bring their bosses to court, but that just makes me wonder how that can't be possible to begin with? And what does this law do to change that?

I would be most thankful.

[Aqizzar]

Essentially, the original case was that the an employee signed a contract that stated that if a crime was committed upon her (namely the story in question) by other employees of the company, she would have to settle the matter in private legal arbitration rather than open court, or would have no other choice but to walk away from her job with no case at all.  The bill amended the military's continuing budget resolution such that the United States and its departments could pay no money to an outside company whose employee contracts included such a "mandatory arbitration" clause.

[ggamer]

I'm gonna go with Poe's Law on this one.

What has society come to when a conservative comment immediately gets flagged as poes law?

Now that I think about it, what is the bill about? I was more arguing against the concept.

[G-Flex]

Could somebody explain in simple English what this legislation means? I gather that it is supposed to make people able to bring their bosses to court, but that just makes me wonder how that can't be possible to begin with? And what does this law do to change that?

I would be most thankful.

It's not possible to begin with in cases where a company forces you, as an employee, to sign a contract stating in part that in cases of sexual assault within the company, the case must be resolved through private arbitration instead of you bringing it to court. In other words, contracts specifically disallowing you from bringing your case to court.

I'm gonna go with Poe's Law on this one.

What has society come to when a conservative comment immediately gets flagged as poes law?

Now that I think about it, what is the bill about? I was more arguing against the concept.

Arguing against the concept of what? And if you would pay any attention or care to read the thread, you'd know what it's about. Go back a page or two and find out.

I don't think anybody railed against you because of something as vague as being "conservative". There were more specific and reasonable reasons than that, which you aren't address.

[ggamer]

touche.

I guess i'll lurk for a while until I get pissed about another topic, and people can discredit my arguments based on my beliefs.

[G-Flex]

Pop into a thread, say some fairly offensive and ill-explained stuff without understanding what the conversation is about, refuse to back anything up or humor discussion when people question it, and then bail out. Classy.

[ggamer]

I made a mistake. I was talking about a bill I hadn't read.

I'm like Nanci Pelosi now.

Hell of a re-entrance.

sorry.

[Truean]

Conservatives have an overwhelming, irrational hatred of government.

I love how they say they love this country but they absolutely refuse to pay for it.

YOu know what that's called? GENERALIZATION.

How about I say all liberals are basically the same as communists? They're on the same side of the political spectrum. It would be just as fair as saying some arbitrary fucking statement like "Conservatives hate America".

I enjoyed your attempt to put words in my mouth but yeah.... By the way, your Caps Lock seems to be sticking every once in a while....

What I said wasn't a generalization because it simply wasn't general. It was specific. Conservatives don't like the idea of government doing things; they like corporations. They don't like the idea of paying taxes and want them lowered almost, if not absolutely, always. You know what that's called, overwhelmingly true. Groups share characteristics, which is why people belong to that group. Conservative: wants lower taxes as a rule, wants less government, thinks the government is terrible at everything, wants more corporate power because they can do it better. I pointed out these characteristics and none of them were overly defamatory, I didn't say conservatives hate America. I said they hate paying for it and they hate the government.

The only remotely negative thing I said about them was that: "I love how they say they love this country, but they absolutely refuse to pay for it." How, given what is going on in Congress right now can you look at me with a straight face and say that isn't true? They're seriously considering letting this country default for the first time ever on its debt, which would cause a depression the likes of which you can't imagine.... http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/12/borger.gop.debt.ceiling/index.html They know it isn't possible to balance the budget by just spending cuts. It just isn't and if it were they'd have happily done so by now, but they are so stubborn that they are willing to put the country in jeopardy and play chicken with a deadline to disaster.... The worst part: the conservative base is totally pissed off about any sort of compromise with the debt ceiling: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/can-the-tea-party-survive-a-debt-ceiling-deal.php?ref=fpa
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-jim-demint-warns-republicans-debt-ceiling-vote/story?id=13916811
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_145/boehner_tricky_needle_thread_debt_limit-206798-1.html?pos=hme

These politicians campaigned on lowering taxes; raising them would be political suicide: See Former President George H. Bush.

Privatization: (because the government sucks at everything).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization
http://socialsecurity.procon.org/
http://privatizationofprisons.com/
http://www.conservativeedge.com/want-to-increase-government-revenue-lower-taxes-on-the-wealthy/

Do you even want to argue that conservatives like taxes?
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2011/06/29/cnns-acosta-derides-conservative-debt-ceiling-pledge-extreme

Again, quit with the pop in, throw offensive stuff around, and leave routine.... It's just getting old is all.

[G-Flex]

Truean: The problem is that terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are extremely loaded. You're still only referring to one definition of "conservative", there. The concept of social conservatism is still very distinct from that, and "conservative" doesn't always have to mean "people in the US who identify politically as 'conservative' within the past 40 years or so". Libertarians, for example, are very conservative by some definitions and very liberal by some others.

[Truean]

Truean: The problem is that terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are extremely loaded. You're still only referring to one definition of "conservative", there. The concept of social conservatism is still very distinct from that, and "conservative" doesn't always have to mean "people in the US who identify politically as 'conservative' within the past 40 years or so". Libertarians, for example, are very conservative by some definitions and very liberal by some others.

Hum, well, rationally speaking "conservative" has some element(s) that the person has to meet to be a conservative, right? Whatever it means, it has to mean something. I thought that meant:

1.) Doesn't like taxes.
2.) Doesn't like public sector (government).
3.) Likes private sector (corporations)

I more or less thought that was pretty basic. No? Aren't those characteristics that conservatives share? I've never seen a conservative who was campaigning for taxes or for "big government."

Where is the difference between "Generalization" v. Defining?"

I'm aware there are different types of "conservative" but don't they all seem to adhere to these common elements? As for Libertarians, those are a whole different bag and they really want to dismantle government almost entirely..... They really really favor private ... almost everything really?

How would you define it? (Honest question).