Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 721 722 [723] 724 725 ... 852

Author Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread  (Read 870310 times)

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10830 on: February 07, 2012, 11:14:39 am »

Look at the comments section....
Why would you say that True? Why? I didn't need to start my day off with a rolling circlejerk of poe's law.

This one was particularly hilarious/frakked up
Quote
Why does every argument descend into left/right food fight?  Can’t there be some facts that all can agree on?

What are the facts of this matter -- the fact is that this women is a Zionist Jew
There's some kind of logical fallacy there I've forgotten the name of, I think. Take an obvious premise and then going to something completely off the wall. There's a name for that, iirc.

--

As for the first link, I love how blatantly deceptive that was. Completely misrepresenting what's actually happening; namely that the federal government is refusing to fund (in this case allowing ACA regulated insurance, I guess) organizations (of the sort in question) that refuse to provide contraception (and abortion, though that's a different case). There's no regulation or law that's preventing these anti-contraception groups from not providing contraception and still providing health care, they just can't do it and expect federal funding.

Which is kinda' the point; the gov's not supposed to be pissing money into the wind when it can avoid it (nevermind the reality). Contraception and abortion access have been full-stop proven to improve the general health situation of the areas it's provided. It'd be pretty damn stupid to continue funding organizations that try to push through practices that are (trivially easy to be) proven ineffective.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10831 on: February 07, 2012, 12:00:50 pm »

Look at the comments section....
Why would you say that True? Why? I didn't need to start my day off with a rolling circlejerk of poe's law.

This one was particularly hilarious/frakked up
Quote
Why does every argument descend into left/right food fight?  Can’t there be some facts that all can agree on?

What are the facts of this matter -- the fact is that this women is a Zionist Jew
There's some kind of logical fallacy there I've forgotten the name of, I think. Take an obvious premise and then going to something completely off the wall. There's a name for that, iirc.

--

Yeah, sorry about that. I meant it sarcastically and perhaps should've been clearer about that. I have the unfortunate tendency to be believable, even when I'm trying not to be. The other day I said something like "Because clearly yelling at people is the best way," entirely sarcastic and thinking I was being obvious about this fact. Seems my listener did not get or I did not convey the sarcasm properly. Had to fix that.... :)

As for the first link, I love how blatantly deceptive that was. Completely misrepresenting what's actually happening; namely that the federal government is refusing to fund (in this case allowing ACA regulated insurance, I guess) organizations (of the sort in question) that refuse to provide contraception (and abortion, though that's a different case). There's no regulation or law that's preventing these anti-contraception groups from not providing contraception and still providing health care, they just can't do it and expect federal funding.

Which is kinda' the point; the gov's not supposed to be pissing money into the wind when it can avoid it (nevermind the reality). Contraception and abortion access have been full-stop proven to improve the general health situation of the areas it's provided. It'd be pretty damn stupid to continue funding organizations that try to push through practices that are (trivially easy to be) proven ineffective.

Yups. Basically people are going to have sex and it's just a losing battle to fight against that by screaming not to until you're married. It doesn't work. That said, we need to limit the number of people we've got to something manageable. Murder is clearly fun, but in no sense civilized. So if not having sex doesn't work and killing people off isn't viable, then how's about the birth control? :P

In related news, I see the change.org people helped to get her fired http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-komen-exec-quits-funding-flap-155421251.html
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 12:07:57 pm by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

Nadaka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nadaka.us
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10832 on: February 07, 2012, 12:15:27 pm »

It was probably a lot easier to keep people from getting it on until marriage when marriages occurred around age 13.
Logged
Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back...
I don't care cause I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

I turned myself into a monster, to fight against the monsters of the world.

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10833 on: February 07, 2012, 01:18:38 pm »

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/07/breaking-same-sex-marriage-is-now-legal-in-california/

:) We'll see how long this lasts, but hopefully it'll hold up.

Might be an en banc review, might be SCOTUS.
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

palsch

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10834 on: February 07, 2012, 03:14:23 pm »

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/07/breaking-same-sex-marriage-is-now-legal-in-california/

:) We'll see how long this lasts, but hopefully it'll hold up.

Might be an en banc review, might be SCOTUS.
I did a quick analysis on another forum based on a first reading of the opinion. Short version; strong ruling but pretty narrow. Explicitly wouldn't make gay marriage legal outside California but a strong chance of being upheld by the Supreme Court.

Long version;
Spoiler: Majority (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Dissent (click to show/hide)
Considering this I'd now predict a 5-4 decision striking down Prop. 8 on the narrow basis in this ruling, possibly with a concurrence from one or more of the more liberal justices agreeing with the broader basis of the original trial decision (eg, gay marriage must be legal) while the conservative dissent goes even further than this dissent in stating that such bans are entirely justified and legal.

My reasoning here; I always saw this as a 4-4 with Kennedy as the swing vote. Only exception would be in if Kagan recused herself which is hugely unlikely (and she can't be forced short of impeachment). Kennedy was directly targeted by the judge's opinion with an argument based on his own opinions and basically extrapolating his own arguments.

The problem is I wasn't sure how that would make him jump. It was a fairly strong case and designed specifically to convince the one man who needed convincing, but it was a very broad case as well. It essentially would have made Kennedy the man who legalised gay marriage in the entire USA. I always saw that as a very remote chance. There just isn't the stomach for it there.

The new opinion offers a far narrower ruling, leaving the broader question open for future cases, while still giving some space for Kennedy to show his independence. I'd expect him to write a narrow majority while someone (probably Breyer) makes the broader case in a concurrence.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 04:21:47 pm by palsch »
Logged

scriver

  • Bay Watcher
  • City streets ain't got much pity
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10835 on: February 07, 2012, 04:22:30 pm »

Started watching a documentary on the international model business. Didn't last ten minutes before going into RAEG mode.
Logged
Love, scriver~

Telgin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Professional Programmer
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10836 on: February 07, 2012, 04:34:48 pm »

Why the hell does it seem religious stuff gets hung up on all the insignificant parts of belief?

Wish I knew the answer to this, because it bugs me to no end.

The only thing I can figure is that for the most part, people like to argue and fight.  And for the most part, we agree on big things like not stealing or killing each other.  Have to find something else to argue over, right?  Got to prove you're the most pure and close to the rules follower of religion X, right?  Find all of the little things and nitpick to death.

Seriously, if any god (trying to be religion agnostic here) holds us accountable to some of the trivialities that I've witnessed personally, everyone is doomed.
Logged
Through pain, I find wisdom.

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10837 on: February 07, 2012, 06:27:08 pm »


Seriously, can we get rid of the word 'rational' here? It's being abused pretty heavily.

Nopes. That's the entire issue and the standard by which everything is judged for now, on point.

This is actually a really good example of what I mean by "categorical thinking is an occupational hazard" for me.

Strict Scrutiny: Kicks in with Fundamental Rights (first ten amendments, some others), or Protected classes (race)
Intermediate Scrutiny: Kicks in with Intermediate Rights and "Semi Protected classes" (gender)
[Separate but equal is fine ~ Example: bathrooms]
Rational Basis: Everything else.

Strict Scrutiny requires a compelling government interest, with means narrowly tailored to achieving it.
Intermediate Scrutiny requires an important government interest, with means substantially tailored to achieving it.
Rational Basis requires a legitimate government interest with means rationally related to achieving it.

You see how it's very categorical? You could make a little excel spreadsheet file about it.... See how the stuff just goes down in categories both in terms of the things that kick off use of the standard and the test to see if the standard is met.  See, we gays don't really fit into the qualifiers for strict scrutiny right now, nor do we fit in for intermediate scrutiny. Because nothing kicks off those two, we default to rational basis.

Everything in the opinion is quite literally trying to argue for or against the law meeting the rational basis test in some way or another. It's a rather low bar overall. The standard of review, Strict, Intermediate, or Rational Basis, often determines the outcome of the case. That's why it is so important for gay rights advocates to increase the scrutiny level applied to laws/state action against gays.

And this has been what they have been doing, arguing if certain things are "rational" or not and comparing the facts in this case to facts in old cases to determine what's what. That way it provides some level of consistency. This is what I do all day and what people don't get. "Legal research" which people are astonished and pissed to see on a billing statement is reading craploads of old cases and then trying to figure out how to use them to say, it is or it isn't for us in the present case. I say this to most people and they just.... I dunno. They don't get it or don't wanna get it or something. The test being consistent and standardized is actually the law working as it should. Now, if it's misapplied is a whole 'nother matter. It's even better when it's a case of first impression where there is no precedent. [shivers]
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 06:35:37 pm by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

Tellemurius

  • Bay Watcher
  • Positively insane Tech Thaumaturgist
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10838 on: February 07, 2012, 06:48:17 pm »

You all remember SOPA right?
Meet mister Lamar Smith's HR 1981 bill.
Requires ISPs to record all their customers private data flying through the net for 18 months. So now that padlock you see on secured websites is bullshit now.

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10839 on: February 07, 2012, 06:53:16 pm »

You all remember SOPA right?
Meet mister Lamar Smith's HR 1981 bill.
Requires ISPs to record all their customers private data flying through the net for 18 months. So now that padlock you see on secured websites is bullshit now.

Please tell me they aren't dumb enough to not include an exception for sites exchanging financial data like banks or other secure sites?

I know guys who do bill collection who totally want that information and will pay for it. Never mind the ID thieves.
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10840 on: February 07, 2012, 06:57:02 pm »

Mm... no, when I read over the thing (There's a full text of it available on one of th'gov's sites, iirc), there weren't exceptions mentioned for anyone. Everyone gets tracked by the ISP. Supposedly the only ones that can request the information is government agencies, but...

Ha. Ahahaha. Yeah.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

RedKing

  • Bay Watcher
  • hoo hoo motherfucker
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10841 on: February 07, 2012, 06:59:44 pm »

More to the point, where are they gonna store all that? If I were an ISP, I'd be howling about an unfunded mandate.
Logged

Remember, knowledge is power. The power to make other people feel stupid.
Quote from: Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you.

Tellemurius

  • Bay Watcher
  • Positively insane Tech Thaumaturgist
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10842 on: February 07, 2012, 07:01:48 pm »

You all remember SOPA right?
Meet mister Lamar Smith's HR 1981 bill.
Requires ISPs to record all their customers private data flying through the net for 18 months. So now that padlock you see on secured websites is bullshit now.

Please tell me they aren't dumb enough to not include an exception for sites exchanging financial data like banks or other secure sites?

I know guys who do bill collection who totally want that information and will pay for it. Never mind the ID thieves.
I dunno its a bitch to find stuff on my phone but from what I know they will even keep records of temp IPs.......

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10843 on: February 07, 2012, 07:15:21 pm »

This bill is so plainly ridiculous that I could see someone suing before it gets voted on, much less if it becomes law.

Watching Lamar Smith's entire career crash and burn is going to be fun this election cycle. He'll be anathema after all of this.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

RedKing

  • Bay Watcher
  • hoo hoo motherfucker
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #10844 on: February 07, 2012, 07:23:59 pm »

This bill is so plainly ridiculous that I could see someone suing before it gets voted on, much less if it becomes law.

Watching Lamar Smith's entire career crash and burn is going to be fun this election cycle. He'll be anathema after all of this.

Problem being, he's in one of the reddest congressional districts in the country. (Despite encompassing a fair chunk of Austin and the University of Texas). He's never pulled below 60% in an election.
Logged

Remember, knowledge is power. The power to make other people feel stupid.
Quote from: Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you.
Pages: 1 ... 721 722 [723] 724 725 ... 852