|
Coohoolin posted:Who put the limit in place and why to specifically stop one county from legalising prostitution? Las Vegas doesn't want to have prostitution for marketing reasons, and they also don't want to have prostitution legal just over the city line in the rest of Clark County, again for marketing reasons. And since Las Vegas has 21% of the state population in itself alone, and with the whole county you're looking at 69% of the entire state's population - they hold major sway. Plus, much of the state's legislature from the rest of the state like the idea of keeping prostitution out of Vegas and Clark since it encourages "tourism" to the rest of the state for brothels.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
on the left posted:Putting aside the "Do muslims believe X?" argument, do you think people who believe people with beliefs that are incompatible with western values should be allowed to move to a country? If I were a person who believed that Israel should be wiped off the map and that gays should be executed, do you want lots of people like me coming to your country and creating changes to your country's culture? What are western values?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
on the left posted:Stuff like having homosexuality not punishable by death. But westerners introduced that in Uganda (and Uganda repealed it too).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:At this point, he seems completely alien and incomprehensible to me. If you told me he also openly advocates the eating of babies, that wouldn't surprise me anymore than if you told me he openly advocates hiring more female CEOs. Jeez of course he doesn't advocate eating babies. He simply advocates a free market in babies, where they may be used as slaves, rendered down to create soap, or eaten, as well as being adopted or even educated!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:To me it doesn't feel as if these arguments are truly intended to convince libertarians. Are they intended to convince anyone - maybe signaling solidarity within non-libertarians? What is the goal here? I'm not acting cute here, I honestly don't see what's the intention. No one makes an honest attempt to convince monkeys either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Actually, speaking as a linguist here, you're wrong. Chimps are apes, Mr.  Linguist
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I find it extremely frustrating to talk to you because I feel you never engage with what I actually say, or what Nozick actually says, or libertarianism, or whatever; you're just trying to poo poo on libertarianism, point out its obvious injustices and incoherence and so on. And hey, I can kind of understand you wanting to do that, consider how awful Ayn Rand and Ron Paul and Paul Ryan and so on obviously are. I know how you feel man, noone ever wants to engage with me about the Gangster Computer God Worldwide Secret Containment Policy. You know, it's made possible solely by Worldwide Computer God Frankenstein Controls. Especially lifelong constant-threshold Brainwash Radio. Quiet and motionless, I can slightly hear it. Repeatedly this has saved my life on the streets.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Does anyone have a good deconstruction of the whole "SJW" idea? About 5 years ago it was what a few people who actually cared about other people called those who didn't seem to care but instead just wanted to yell at people (they were also the people who would rarely help out in running support organizations, refused to donate to things etc). It meant people were both belligerent and frankly insincere in beliefs. Now it's about "literally anyone I don't like if I have a conservative viewpoint on something". And everyone who used it originally has stopped using it because of that. See for example the claim that GBS has ever been "full of sjws" because you weren't allowed to type racial slurs. You don't need to go further than that. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Some sites have rules prohibiting posting identifying information. Those sites can go to hell, people publicly stuck their names on there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:"They sell those food stamps to someone else." This has been impossible for years due to cards. The guy you're arguing with is quite simply a moron.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
robotsinmyhead posted:I need some help with this Indiana SB101 - Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) Here's the thing: the state already has essentially no state wide protections for LGBT people at all. There is a ban on orientation and gender identity discrimination in government employment statewide, but this bill does not affects that. There is also protections for non-public employment in two counties, but again the bill doesn't affect that. All the things of like, "stores can now refuse to serve gay customers", well that's already legal, as there's never been a law against it in Indiana. In essence the law just reaffirms something that's already 100% legal and therefore does nothing other than make the state look bad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not aware of the policies of the various municipalities in Indiana, but it's conceivable that at least one offers protections for gay customers, which could be challenged. None do. The closest proposed was LGBT housing protections in Indianapolis which don't seem to have gone through
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:There any good anti-MRA resources like those global warming resources? This other forum I'm on has a couple of crazy weirdos who can't shut up about it ever. Feminism. It's that simple.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
site posted:So I'm just getting around to reading about Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism concept and I was wondering if anyone could give me a rundown (or at least provide a link to one) of why it's full of poo poo. I've seen it criticized here on the boards in passing before so I guess there's problems with it. It's not full of poo poo, people who decided to deploy it as a striking insight on 500 topics a day are full of poo poo. You can think of it like how people think the constitution says we should do %some random thing that ain't even mentioned%.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Anyway, after a brief conversation on politics with her father, he made amazing claims like: "the first amendment was written with the intention that money = speech" This is true though, you need to remember that they didn't care about some random farmer having free speech, they cared about their printer buddies being able to publish (and get paid for) whatever. And well, everyone involved with writing everything there was fairly rich. Even more so then today (because at least today you could call a bunch of people up for not much or post online) you really needed to have money to have free political speech in a way that mattered. If you don't believe this then you should remember that one of the things they were totally down with was requiring men to hold substantial assets to be eligible to even vote, i.e. money or land, or often both. Many other countries illustrate this better, because it becomes specifically "Freedom of the press" which is of course people with money, and people that the people with money will allow to "speak" through their media. And of course, most of the founders at the very least were ok with slavery going on for a while. Point is, what they thought ain't necessarily something you'd find moral today.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:I guess the problem I've always had with this (and the nuclear industry, but that's a wholly separate argument) is that I really don't trust companies to put safety above profit like, ever. Total result of negligence in all commercial owned nuclear power since it started: 4 dead people tops. Like 1 guy directly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Scoring these things based on "people killed" is a bit disingenuous, especially since radiation can take decades to kill and the best example of a "commercial" accident we have is only 4 years old at this point. Everyone was evacuated from the area well in advance of the nuclear problem due to the massive earthquake and tsunami, therefore there aren't going to be any further deaths from it. Parallel Paraplegic posted:But even that "young" accident managed to dislocate hundreds of thousands of people for over a year and make hundreds of square miles of productive fisheries completely worthless. No, that was primarily done by the loving earthquake and tsunami, and most of it isn't even dangerous, the Japanese are just over-the-top cautious just in case (the no go area has already shrunk many times). There weren't even a full 50,000 people in the exclusion zone before the incident! The biggest nearby, and still ongoing, population dislocation is the formerly ~75,000 population a ways out that got mostly destroyed by the tsunami.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Where did you get that 50,000 number? I'm genuinely curious because everything I'm finding, even for the initial evacuations before the exclusion zone was expanded, is greater than 100,000. Anyway, the WHO estimates a small but statistically significant increase in cancer rates in the surrounding area, especially among infants (0.5-1%), so it's not like it had zero effect on the population. I mean if you want we can argue about the linear no-threshold model being dumb but right now it's still the standard. The general area was already being evacuated as a result of the tsunami and earthquake, and the much larger 30 km zone only lasted for under a month. Currently the exclusion zone is ~20 km and here's the population centers within it:  Also, uh, yeah, the ocean readily dissipates radioactivity.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:I guess that's a good enough answer, I just don't see why nuclear power wouldn't wind up the same way fossil fuels did if everyone agreed to build tons more of them and they became "commonplace" in the public eye like coal is now, with companies and congressmen outright denying dangers and externalities like they do global warming. But I suppose this is a conversation we should have had like 70 years ago instead of right now when we're teetering on the brink of climate disaster so whatever. Dude, France is majority nuclear power and well, nothing bad's happened with that. Also the dangers and externalities are actually as low as companies and congressmen pretend they are with coal.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's more that they may not know what radiation is. We didn't know until about a hundred years ago. And one of the first things we did upon discovering that it existed was to start mainlining it and painting everything with it and shoving it up our arses to make us gently caress better. Because obviously anything emitting such a miraculous energy must be good for you. Or things like people building villages unknowingly downstream of some major dam that finally breaks due to lack of maintenance for 200 years and they all die when a reservoir hits them. And so on. Also as far as actual facilities, I mean, something like Yucca mountain is going to be barely noticeable on the surface, even if you did trek way out into the (incidentally still radioactive) deserts around it. It's going to take one of a hell change for that area or anywhere nearby to be hospitable to mass humanity to have the manpower to actually find it and break in, ya know?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
It's also worth noting that although hydro is cheap, most of the good places are either already taken, or we're deliberately refusing to build in because of vast risks of ecosystem damage much like happened to a lot of the places we did build.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 23:40
|
|