Originally posted by cdtm
The problem is these kids don respect authority. They need to be taught some respect!Me, I always respected authority, as I do to this day. Most kids are libertarian dipshits until they meet the rod, and that straightens them right out. Which is why we have all these wanna be anarchists existing today, thank you Boomer gen for sparing the rod and ending up with a generation of namby pamby processional victims.
Honestly you're all over the place.
Originally posted by Smurph
But that idea doesn't appear in that quote. Your "main problem" is a strawman.
This right here:
According to the conventional legal understanding, discriminating “on the basis of sex” involves treating women and men differently. Clearly, the male professor who has sexual relationships only with women students does just this. Bisexuality poses a problem for this understanding of sex discrimination. (Can it be sex discrimination if a boss hits on both his female and his male subordinates?)
That's calling for treating men hitting on wonan differently than man hitting on man. I mean why ELSE even ask the question, if not to promote the idea a double standard needs to exist?
Originally posted by cdtmNo. The quote is just grappling with the meaning of discrimination on the basis of sex. It's saying that if a normal definition of sex discrimination falls apart where the perpetrator is bisexual, meaning he subjects both men and women to the same behaviour, then the normal definition needs to be reworked.
This right here:That's calling for treating men hitting on wonan differently than man hitting on man. I mean why ELSE even ask the question, if not to promote the idea a double standard needs to exist?
You and the author actually agree. Read it again, maybe you'll get it.
Originally posted by cdtm
How so?
Just one example is how you were saying there should be no age of consent laws. Then posted about the "We're here. We're queer, We're coming for your children" instance you criticized. If age of consent laws are bullshit, why are you criticizing them?
Or the thing on bookstores I mentioned before. Which....your response while wrong also contradicts yourself. You said there should be no limits to free speech but then when responding to me, talked about being against bookstores having inappropriate content for kids.
But the inappropriate books wasn't what I was referring to. You said you're a "Big L" libertarian but then said the government should get involved in bookstores, not over content regulation but price regulation.
I'm sure if I dug around I could find more, as I've had that impression other tines but it wasn't memorable enough outside, "He's contradicting himself."
Still good luck on the colonoscopy. I was genuinely saying I hope they don't find anything, the WAY I said it was the joke though, if you thought I was sarcastic.
Not ignoring you, I just have to get this out first; (Note if Smurph replied I have not read past Delta's post)
So I may have misread the quote I posted. The writer isn't calling for double standards between men and women at all. She is taking about applying Title IX to a case where both sexes are the same, and therefore would not be applicable to Title IX.
In fact nothing in the article is really calling for a change of law at all.
Of course, I still disagree with much of this persons philosophy wholesale. When you muse in all seriousness that consent between a woman and a man may be impossible because social engineering, and if you second guess every decision perfectly happy people think they're making, you are flirting with a highly neurotic life. I won't ask Smurph what he thinks of the overall philosophy of the article, I'll assume he's a more common sense eglaterian and not the sort to obsess over the minuta of at what point consent is consent, regardless of what the actors say.
So ctdm.....
Originally posted by Delta1938
Honestly you're all over the place.
Originally posted by cdtm
How so?
Originally posted by Delta1938
Just one example is how you were saying there should be no age of consent laws. Then posted about the "We're here. We're queer, We're coming for your children" instance you criticized. If age of consent laws are bullshit, why are you criticizing them?Or the thing on bookstores I mentioned before. Which....your response while wrong also contradicts yourself. You said there should be no limits to free speech but then when responding to me, talked about being against bookstores having inappropriate content for kids.
But the inappropriate books wasn't what I was referring to. You said you're a "Big L" libertarian but then said the government should get involved in bookstores, not over content regulation but price regulation.
I'm sure if I dug around I could find more, as I've had that impression other tines but it wasn't memorable enough outside, "He's contradicting himself."
Still good luck on the colonoscopy. I was genuinely saying I hope they don't find anything, the WAY I said it was the joke though, if you thought I was sarcastic.
My mind is on another problem.
I spilled hot tea on my chest last night. It hurt a lot. Water was from a keurig machine, 2.0 version, I assume those are heat controlled compared to a kettle or microwaving.
But a big blister still formed. Directly over my chest, between where my boobs would be if a woman
So am now stressing the second degree burn becomes infected and the tissue expands into my heart and I win a Darwin Award.
Originally posted by cdtm
Want pictures? As proof I mean.Most of it is ok, but there's one fairly large blister on my chest bone. Looks like some chest hairs are embedded.
It's convenient this is enough of a problem for you to not respond to what I said, but not stop you from posting about what happened. Like if it's such a problem, why aren't you going to the hospital if you're so worried? This is very carter like of you for excuses.
Originally posted by Delta1938
It's convenient this is enough of a problem for you to not respond to what I said, but not stop you from posting about what happened. Like if it's such a problem, why aren't you going to the hospital if you're so worried? This is very carter like of you for excuses.
Is.. is this a hospital situation? Should I be in a burn ward?
Originally posted by cdtm
The ER costs a lot of money. For a 3000 dollar bill I'll wait and see.I'd see my doctor but she is off today and tomorrow.
So it seems like you can type just fine and can respond to what I put earlier about why you're all over the place. 🙂
Originally posted by Delta1938
Just one example is how you were saying there should be no age of consent laws. Then posted about the "We're here. We're queer, We're coming for your children" instance you criticized. If age of consent laws are bullshit, why are you criticizing them?Or the thing on bookstores I mentioned before. Which....your response while wrong also contradicts yourself. You said there should be no limits to free speech but then when responding to me, talked about being against bookstores having inappropriate content for kids.
But the inappropriate books wasn't what I was referring to. You said you're a "Big L" libertarian but then said the government should get involved in bookstores, not over content regulation but price regulation.
I'm sure if I dug around I could find more, as I've had that impression other tines but it wasn't memorable enough outside, "He's contradicting himself."
Still good luck on the colonoscopy. I was genuinely saying I hope they don't find anything, the WAY I said it was the joke though, if you thought I was sarcastic.
So you think Guardians of Justice will ever get another season?
The way it ended, I don't. Speed was killed off, Night Owl achieved near total victory without anyone left to stop him, and the only thing left is to wait for Cosmic Krang to eat Earth or not.
You can't really have more show without introducing new characters and radically shaking up the status quo.
Anyways, was Night Owl right?
Seriously, has anybody heard from Bentley, or know how to contact him?