Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive15

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 16 July 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

"Too handsome to live in Saudi Arabia"[edit]

Perhaps they should have been supplied with some veils? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bloody BBC[edit]

and bloody me for not double checking Scherben (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Most news organizations got duped. There is something seriously wrong with CNN these days. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Aaaaand...they're white[edit]

Looks like Slate got their wish. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 22:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

To be specific, one white, one tanned. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not so sure. One is clearly somewhat darkish skinned, and the other could be a lighter skinned Arab. You really can't tell. Wouldn't make a call either way right now. Also, as of now they're only suspects. DickTurpis (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Is "tanned" an ethnicity now? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm talking skin colour. What do you want me to say, Mediterranean? Semitic? Arab? Dear God, ethnic labels are dumb. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
If they were freckled green-eyed redheads they'd be "Muslim" - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
One of them is wearing brown pants. I know for a fact that LOTS of muslims wear brown pants. QED. VOXHUMANA 03:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Rejecting background checks[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong...it's not that the Senate rejected background checks, but they rejected voting on a bill on background checks, right? --Seth Peck (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong. Getting the bill to the floor for a vote happened last week, when a gallery full of folks from Newtown shamed the alleged human beings in the Senate into dropping their plan to block the vote from happening. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 22:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ireland's constitutional convention - some notes on the debates that happened[edit]

So I was livestreaming most of yesterday's shenanigans, all yesterday's clips are archived here, with the first clip at the bottom and progressing as you go up, which is annoying. I was watching it (EDIT: today's events, I mean, this had yesterday and this morning dedicated to it) just now an hour behind real time and my flash player crashed so now I'm waiting on the results being released 35 minutes from now, so I'll give some thoughts on what I saw.

As background this is about making a change to the constitution to allow for same-sex civil marriage, based on a panel of 66 citizens and 33 parliamentarians representative of the general population who have Q&A with (mostly) impartial experts, hear from advocacy groups, have private round table discussions, inter-table discussions, the ballot is drafted, then vote at the end of 2 days. If they vote no, then it's a no. If they vote yes, it's put to a public referendum, and they can either vote for a 'permissive' option whereby the government can put it off until they wish, or one where they're obliged to do it within a certain timeframe.

I decided to go shopping during the plenary to get some beer and came back in time for the advocacy panels, and make the anti-gay side's argument into a drinking game. Sip for 'changing definition', slug for connecting gays to pedoophiles, finish drink for mentioning STDs, chug everything at AIDS...and none of that happened.

It kinda made me realise how much I've been plugged into US media that I forgot the nuance in the situation on my own doorstep. There were a -few- people talking about how allowing same-sex civil marriage was an infringement on religious freedom (somehow), but there were no assertions of Ireland as a Catholic country, and many said something similar - allow same-sex civil marriage in the constitution but give a clause protecting faith schools et al their freedom to espouse what they believe marriage (outside of the state's definition) is. There were a lot of arguments around children, but it wasn't all 'no babby formed' and there was a lot of considering going ahead with same sex civil marriage and looking at adoption and surrogacy reform separately for heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals alike. There was only ONE toothless old git who tried to be a smart-arse arguing by definition.

Thing is...people were actually talking. People on opposite sides were finding middle ground together, reaching compromises, suggesting that the ballot paper be not just "yes" or "no" but having more possible viewpoints, even discussing the whole democratic process and if it was a problem with the constitution or just legislation. People were thinking and discussing and asking questions and trying to understand one another.

Compare that to speeches I've heard outside SCOTUS and NOM pamphlets and other open floor debates (e.g. the one in Lincoln, Nebraska not long ago regarding non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity) and...it's just shocking. If so many on the 'anti' side in the U.S. moved past arguments like "they're icky", "no children", "fags eat shit", "AIDS" then they can actually come up with...not good arguments, but cogent ones at least and more importantly actually have discourse and find alternatives and greater understanding.

I don't want to make it sound like it was all sunshine and (snerk) rainbows because there was some bullshit going on such as what the bishops were saying (boiled down to "We're not homophobic but...") and some prick from the Iona Institute (infamous here for this video) regurgitating the same child-based "logic" (before being throttled by a man from Amnesty), but damn, it...watching it just felt good. I remember only a year ago learning a civil partnership wasn't the same as a civil marriage in so many ways, and thinking that this wouldn't happen until I was 25 or so. Then I heard about the Constitutional Convention, and figured "Okay, wait until January 2014 to hear something, then 2016 for a referendum" and now this is actually happening, right now, with 20 minutes until this first hurdle might be over with. It's surreal. </blog> Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 11:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a yes at 79%, with 78% voting for a Directive legislation! It's happening and no can-kicking and pussy-footing! Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 11:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, and WIGO'd with a source, and now they're starting to archive today's clips (going for their channel first), starting with the announcement of the results. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 12:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
What I don't really understand is why such a lengthy procedure is necessary? In the Netherlands a simple majority in both houses of the States-General was enough and a referendum was not necessary. -Strangelove (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
In this case the Irish Constitution explicitly requires a referendum in order to amend it. I don't like written constitutions, but the Republic is a young country and that's what they chose to do when they set it up. The Irish Constitution, like every written constitution more than a few years old, reads to us today like a mix of sound fundamentals and total lunacy. So it recognises the existence of private property, and it forbids gender discrimination in the electoral process. But it also says abortion is to be prohibited and so is blasphemy. It used to specifically say that the Catholic church was better than the others, and prohibit divorce, but the Irish fixed that. And now they're going to fix gay marriage. One day they'll get to abortion. Some day maybe it'll stop saying everybody should worship God (no really - it doesn't require them to, it just says they should) Tialaramex (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
If abortion is going to be done via constitutional convention at all then it'll be on 30 Nov and 1 Dec under 'other'. Blasphemy is set for 19th and 20th October. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 17:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"We don't really give a fuck about those people"[edit]

That's uncalled for. It's natural that, in the face of multiple tragedies, we're more concerned for those who are closer to us, who we are more familiar with. Shortly after the World Trade Center attacks, there was an industrial accident in Toulouse with a death toll of 29. My family in France was far more upset with this than they were with events in New York. Why? Because New York was far away to them. Distant. Not as real as Toulouse, where they owned property, where they knew people. The media and the US population, in the absence of turmoil on the homefront, has paid plenty of concern for terror attacks in Iraq. But right now people are more worried about the nation they know.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"The media and the US population, in the absence of turmoil on the homefront, has paid plenty of concern for terror attacks in Iraq." So where were the Facebook cries of anguish and the Saloon Bar gnashing of teeth for the 31 Iraqis who got blowed up some 12 hours before the Boston incident? Where are the WIGOs for the dozens of similar events over the last year? It's like what Michael Moore once said about people who ask him about Roger and Me-- they ask about the woman selling rabbits to be used as food, and if she's still doing that. Nobody in twenty years asked about the black guy who got shot by the cops, because that's what black guys are supposed to do --get shot by cops. Nothing unusual there. Iraqis are supposed to get blown up in suicide bombings, and the fact that this story will be off the front page of the BBC website, before I see another sunrise, while Boston will still be there, proves our indifference. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 21:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget, people in these regions (MIddle East and Pakistan, Afghanistan etc.) are just drone fodder for that twat Obama Scherben (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
PowderSmokeAndLeather: You're giving people shit for basic human nature. If everyone gave a shit about all the brutality in the world, all the violence we literally could not cope or function. We have groups with whom we identify and have stronger feelings for. Is the bombing in Iraq tragic? Certainly, but most of us don't have family living in Iraq, don't know people who might have been Iraq at the time of bombing (well, save for military), or have any relations to Iraq outside of US foreign policy. It's true some of us give a shit and some of us care. But simple evolutionary processes mean we have stronger feelings for things that are perceived to happen to people with whom we feel more affiliated, even if those connection are our own invention (i.e. nationality). Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 01:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
CaptainSwing - you've expressed your opposition, but I think the deeply sarcastic intent behind PSL's comment is obvious, and I have no problem with his snark. OK, you don't like it - that's fine. But so far you're the only one who has objected. If a consensus emerges for your view then no problem, but until then this edit warring is not helpful. VOXHUMANA 03:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hardly snark given PowderSmoke's comments, but fine, I will bow to popular opinion. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 03:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
No need - we operate on consensus. You're certainly entitled to your view, and to present your arguments. Most people here are rational, which means they are willing to hear reason and even to be persuaded. As far as the topic at hand, I tend to agree with PSLs view, even while acknowledging I am as guilty as the next person about not really caring about the fate of Iraqis (something I am not proud of). PSL is pointing out our hypocrisy, and even though I don't like it, I can't deny it in good conscience. VOXHUMANA 03:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
A fair point, but it just seems like an unecessary expression of cynicism. We don't mention that we lose, on average, 40,000 people every day to starvation or the rampant violence in places like Mauritania or the Central African Republic. Shouldn't we point out we don't give a shit about them either? I dunno, it just seems strange to point out 29 Iraqis as a singular example of moral failings when there are so many worse things going on. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 03:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Look, perhaps PSLs point doesn't sting as much for me because I live in Australia, so I don't feel the impact of Boston as painfully as Americans might. Still our media is giving blanket coverage on Boston and Iraq never got a mention as far as I can tell, so the hypocrisy is pretty apparent from where I stand. Anyway, Revolverman and Brx seem to also find PSLs comment bothersome, so a contrary consensus may yet emerge. (Granted, having Brx in your camp may not be helpful). VOXHUMANA 03:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I realize the hypocrisy and can appreciate someone pointing it out. It just seems so rather arbitrary to pluck this one instance of us turning a blind eye to brutality when there are a sea of choices and then say "This is our hypocrisy." We're human beings, we function through Dunbar's Number and hypocrisy. Perhaps the fact that its our own foreign policy makes it more relevant, and yes it needs attention. Human beings died, that's always a tragedy. Just seems so damn arbitrary say "Yeah, this is the thing, this right here, that proves we don't give a fuck." Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 03:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't speak for PS, but I'm guessing that Iraq was used as a representative example of the many similar events that have occurred in just the last week that have been poorly reported or not at all. Peter mqzp 03:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, and I'm probably over-reacting seeing as how I have personal connections...sorry about that. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 04:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
No apology needed. This shit be real. VOXHUMANA 04:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────PSL is ordinarily a bright guy, and does a lot of useful stuff around the wiki. That said, the way it is worded, this WIGO is a steaming unpolishable turd. Too easy to take it any number of wrong ways, and hence lame, by my standards of public communication. I am pretty sure I know how he meant it, and I agree that hypocrisy of that sort needs exposure, but the language is aimed at such a limited set of understanding readers that it smells like circle jerk. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And look, while I agree with the point PSL is trying to make, the fact that this is hitting a raw nerve for a few RW editors has swayed me in the other direction. There will be plenty of time to make points about public hypocrisy in the future, so I think we can survive without this one for the time being. VOXHUMANA 04:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The OP weighs in[edit]

I stand by the WIGO as written, but if people waht to whine about it being there, fine, take down the offending passage (even though the voting indicates that more of you agree than disagree with the message). VoxHumana has basically made most of my argument for me--I could have picked any number of events that happened around the same time that had death tolls way higher than the Marathon and which generated way less publicity, or none at all. The fact remains that we are selective about whom we mourn, and "proximity" isn't necessarily the key. I didn't see many Saloon Bar posts or WIGOs about young African-American males being gunned down all last year in Chicago, for example. The disparity between the coverage of Boston and that of Iraq reminds me how, for a number of reasons--structural racism for sure, but perhaps more importantly, the fact of America's complete isolation from the realities faced by the rest of the world (realities which the US plays a huge role in creating)-- the death of three Americans is worth more time, emotion and effort on the part not only of Americans, but people all around the world, than is the death of dozens, or hundreds of people in most of the rest of the planet. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 13:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You said it unassailably well: "America's complete isolation from the realities faced by the rest of the world (realities which the US plays a huge role in creating)".
I remember thinking, when the Washington sniper was active, that the US was getting a taste of what we have been dishing out gleefully in many other parts of the world. Not much more I can say about that without getting heated and incoherent. The emotions can run high in matters like this, and it takes careful focus to keep things in a constructive vein. I will save the sermon on empathy and responsibility for later. Dude, be well! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
After giving it some thought and consideration, I would be willing to see the item re-inserted. My own personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant, and "touching a raw nerve" is no reason to try and censor someone else's point of view. PSL's point, though I disagree with the presentation, it is indeed quite valid. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 16:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Knew we were coming to this[edit]

But it still doesn't make it any less palatable. American citizen, no proven ties to foreign powers, domestic violence on domestic soil, and arrest made by police. The fact that enemy combatant status is even being considered is bad enough, but he's only being denied Miranda Rights? This is a horrible precedent. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 17:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What a sick joke. Fuck governments and cops Scherben (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The public safety exemption on Miranda rights is nothing to do with enemy combatants. It is for cases where a suspect has been caught but law enforcement believes a credible danger to the public still exists - eg. a bomb or an armed accomplice is still located somewhere. A failure to read someone their Miranda rights does not mean they lose those rights, it just means that any evidence obtained this way is still valid in court (as long as the court deems the "public safety" aspect to be credible). I don't however see how it applies in this circumstance. (Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, I'm a guitar player). VOXHUMANA 03:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I find this a bit puzzling. If the actual rights covered in the Miranda statement are not being denied, why try to conceal them from the suspect? It's not like he won't know he's being questioned by police, and everybody who's ever watched a cop show/movie would know the gist of what the rights are anyway. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit like not putting "Contents may be hot" on a coffee-cup and being able to evade any liability for the numb-nuts who scald themselves. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 16:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The ultimate point of the Miranda Rights is that they have to be read if they want to use the interrogation as evidence in a court of law. If they intend to use the interrogation for the court, which is unlikely considering the significant body of evidence present being likely to convict him already, then they would have to state the Miranda Rights if the public safety exemption is not active. The suspect has Miranda Rights, even if law enforcement has no intentions of using the interrogation as evidence; the police just do not have to remind the suspect about it if so. Even so, Fox News got into a big freak-out because they thought the guy would simply not talk if told hid Miranda Rights, which is not true as the case of the Central Park Five proved how it still was not enough to prevent people from confessing to crimes, even when they did not commit them and were informed of their Miranda Rights.Crow7878 (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Today we learned that the FBI has no fucking idea what a WMD is."[edit]

The FBI doesn't charge people with crimes. That's the job of federal prosecutors. Didn't you ever watch the opening of Law & Order? If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Is a drone a WMD? Arrest Obama Scherben (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Neither a Hellfire-armed drone nor a cordite/shrapnel explosive is a WMD. --Seth Peck (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Is the argument here that the FBI/prosecutors "have no fucking idea" because they are applying the criminal law definition of WMDWikipedia rather than the military one? Because there's rather an obvious flaw in that argument. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I concur that argument. A quick search revealed that US Criminal Law has had this definition of WMD ever since 1994 in contrast to the popular definition of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons. Calling it stupid to use a legal definition instead of a popular definition is rather hypocritical considering the general abuse of the word "theory" by the public at large despite its strict definition. Crow7878 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Using the legal definition rather makes the invasion of Iraq look extremely flimsy as I would imagine pretty much every country in the world (except, maybe, the Vatican or some teensy island states) has something of greater destructive power than a pressure cooker bomb. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 08:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Applying the criminal law definition in a military context would be about as silly as applying the military definition in a criminal law context. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain why there are two separate definitions of WMD in the first place? Osaka Sun (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Because different standards apply to what weapons a government can own and what weapons a private individual can? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Because one is a term used by lawyers in a criminal setting to describe particular illegal weapons; the other was a term that was largely made popular by politicians to cow people into supporting a war. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 12:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Context and audience make all the difference. (At first I mentally joined in the general what-the-fuckery, thinking the basic gpvernment issue fragmentation grenade/Mills bomb qualifies as a WMD, and there are plenty of those piled up here and there all over the place. Not my place, I hasten to add.) Sooner or later, some moonbat may use this equivocation to try and score some kind of points. Awaiting reports of such sightings, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
From what I understand, there are two (three if you count the FBI's extremely closely related definition to criminal law's definition) definitions of WMD used in US Law. WMD is not a term used in international treaties or international law, its usage as a technical term being exclusive to the US government. In the US Code applying to the military, a WMD is basically a NBC weapon. Criminal law's definition does include the traditional NBC weapons associated with WMDs but has one more category in the form of "any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title". Destructive device is defined there as "any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas". This definition having been around ever since 1994, it is actually older than the current popular usage of WMD, the current parlance having been popularized after the 2001 anthrax attacks that expanded the definition beyond nuclear weapons to include biological and chemical weapons. Crow7878 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually not. The use of WMD to refer to NBC weapons goes back to at least 1950 and probably earlier.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 16:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

ADE 651 maker convicted[edit]

Here on the BBC. In my opinion he should be up for murder, or at least manslaughter, for selling the ADE-651, a useless toy that he sold to gullible authorities, as a result of which innocent people were blown to pieces or had their lives ruined at best. Tombo1bo (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I presume you know the police said they didn't have solid evidence to prove that anyone had died as a result of a bomb not detected by these 'things'? I agree with you, btw Scherben (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I can understand their logic from the grounds of "Reasonable doubt". Unless there's a case where one of those bombs went off as soon as someone using a ADE-651 said there were no bombs, they could say in court that the bomb was placed there after an inspection. --Revolverman (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
That still leaves the possibility of a private prosecution. SophieWilder 08:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean a civil suit? --Revolverman (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
No, a private prosecution. In England-and-Wales (not sure about Scotland), a private citizen can bring a criminal prosecution to court (though this is rare). The Crown Prosecution Service does, however, have discretion to take over a privately brought prosecution (and to drop the charges having done so). Hydrogen and Time (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I've never heard of that before now. Learn something new everyday. --Revolverman (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
They're very rare. Most of them are by entities that the average person doesn't even understand to be private organisations rather than government bodies, for example some animal cruelty cases are prosecuted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is technically just a charity but intentionally gives off the aura of an official body. The CPS "discretion" mentioned by Hydrogen is a legal dodge. In practice the CPS operates under a rule that says it applies the same tests to your private prosecution that it would apply to cases forwarded by the police or other agencies, it seizes control of the process and your evidence and it can then choose to give the evidence to the police to conduct their own investigation, discontinuing the prosecution, or bringing it in-house as a regular public prosecution. But the Supreme Court found that this dodge is enough, people still have the legal right to bring a private prosecution, it's just that unless the CPS would have prosecuted anyway there's no point because it'll never see court. So your legal rights aren't being infringed, they're just worthless now, a subtle distinction. Tialaramex (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Domestic violence evictions[edit]

Wankers, from the cops to the council Scherben (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this the endgame for al-Assad?[edit]

If it does come back that he did gas civilians that is. Do you think the US will make good with the threat, and would you think it would be justified if they did? --Revolverman (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As usual, it's another grey area. But, seriously, another fucking war? Fuck war Scherben (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but if US intervention ended the currently 2 year civil war, wouldn't that be better then letting it go for an unknown amount of years with WMDs being used? --Revolverman (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Depends who ends up in power, doesn't it? If the alternative is another theocratic regime, like the ones who've taken over in Iraq, Egypt and Libya, then arguably a bit of gas can be forgiven easily enough.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 15:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I think its a bit of a stretch to call Libya a Theocratic state. --Revolverman (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing Libya Part 2. If it's confirmed, it will be difficult for Russia and China to veto another UNSC resolution again. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Not impossible though, especially as they won't want Nato sticking its beak in the region again Scherben (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
There is absolutely zero chance of a substantial international military intervention in a country that borders Iraq, Israel and Lebanon (...especially as long as such country is supported by Iran). Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 15:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The only way of doing it is if Turkey leads, NATO provides "support", Russia and China smile and nod, and Israel twiddles its thumbs. Due to hearing some things which aren't in the press (possibly due to being married to a Turkish diplomat), I believe some efforts are being made in this direction. VOXHUMANA
With 300,000 refugees and the threat of more, Turkey can make a case along the lines of Indian intervention in Bangladesh in 1971 (though the scale is totally different...) Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 23:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That 'reparative therapy camp' story.[edit]

Seems the killer has serious previous. You wonder why he wasn't stopped 6 years ago really don't you? Oldusgitus (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a little strong on the FUCK YOU CORNWALL!!! point?[edit]

I am well aware the guy is a supreme scumbag but he got 335 votes all in all, which is hardly representative of cornish people, least of all the ones where I live (i.e. the same place he made those comments). Maybe a change of wording to aim it at those who support him rather than the entire county? Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 21:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It was a Cornish electorate who voted him in, so it stays Scherben (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It was also an English electorate & a British one. If you're going to direct a FUCK YOU to the whole of Cornwall based on the election result in one of its 123 council wards, then why not widen it to the whole country too? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I took the "fuck off" to be aimed at the people that didn't vote, seeing as if just 5-ish more people of a centrist bent had bothered then this hater might not be in. But such a grade-one twat is probably going to say something dumb again and so hopefully he'll be out again soon. BTW, anyone else see UKIP as Tories without a PR budget? 94.76.252.237 (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
"Fucking pricks vote in fucking scumbag Cornwall electorate, fuck off" Is... sort of a shitty headline, overuse of the word fuck doesn't get the point across an y better. --MikallakiM 10:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Well at lot of Cornish claim they're not English. Bevo74 (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
And Jonathon Swift once proposed eating babies. Do people not understand rhetorical points anymore? The moment someone says anything that could be perceived as insensitive we are all required to jump up and down and yell and scream and shake with horror at the mere thought that someone could say something offensive? And then when the seemingly able councillor gets re-elected we are required to condemn all of a county? What a bunch of fucking baloney. DamoHi 12:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
So the bloke's a satirist in the class of Swift's ridiculing of the English Aristocracy? Is he fuck. He's a grade A twat who the tories had the decency (for once) to expel. Mostly valid points from people, but I'm apologising for nowt Scherben (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a spectrum of possibilities between being a great satirist and being someone who genuinely thinks disabled people should be put down. It is amusing watching people who enjoy being offended though - some people don't quite feel alive unless they are indignant about something. DamoHi 22:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
See also this Daily Fail article, which seems to have happily missed off the point at the end of that routine where Stewart Lee says "I don't actually think this, I'm using rhetoric to demonstrate how people viewing politically incorrect jokes as 'funny' are wrong. I'm sorry I have to break character to explain this, but I don't want someone in the Daily Mail taking this out of context". Scarlet A.pngpostate 09:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Could be I'm one of them. Anyway, on reflection, I do apologise to the people of Cornwall who think the bloke's a twat; that'll be most of 'em, then Scherben (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Got to have something to keep the mind alive I guess. Personally I follow sport, but moral indignation is, no doubt, a worthy substitute. DamoHi 22:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Here are another couple of examples of people getting kicks from being intentionally offended [1] [2]. I wonder what it would be like to go through life getting riled up by this sort of stuff? --DamoHi 00:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
There's a slight difference between "I'm offended" and "it's offensive". Scarlet A.pngpostate 09:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"I knew something was wrong when a pretty little white girl run into a black man's arms."[edit]

That guy made my day. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 13:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Comparing LGBTQ to Slavers[edit]

"Molasses to Rum"... to Daiquiris? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 21:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Effing alliums[edit]

The "Not The Onion" meme is incredibly hackneyed and guarantees a down vote from me. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 18:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Besides, I personally almost never use it, but this one felt like it was justified as it was being reported by the BBC. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 18:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree, I think it's terrible how many topics and WIGOs contain "not the onion." No shit it's not the Onion. Just because a headline is odd or unexpected doesn't mean it's the Onion. There should be an edit filter that filters out "not the Onion." Also, if anybdoy wants to know, allium is the genus for onions. I had to look that up.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The Onion is stupid anyhow, I've never cracked a smile at anything there. Using to it as a benchmark of some kind of inanity is rather silly. Scream!! (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Not even this? Osaka Sun (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Pear-shaped nuclei[edit]

Writing like that makes me want to upvote something for the puns alone. Wehpudicabok (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the downvoters are downvoting the story or my terrible fruit puns. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 14:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh sure. Do you really think RW lurkers are massive apes going "RARR! ME NO UNDER STAN SYENCE! SMASH! RARR!!"? Scarlet A.pngnarchist 14:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
A "the latter, idiot" would've sufficed. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 15:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
True, but I like this way better.Lady Corvex (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Lady Corvex

Riflemen in DC[edit]

If I was possessed with a sick mind, I'd hid a number of remote-controlled devices on the march route. They'd play a recording of a rifleshot at about the correct volume. If there were no police around, I'd trigger one as the group passed, and then the others at random. I wonder if I could get a 500-person Mexican stand-off? CS Miller (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're possessed with a sick mind to have come up with that. Congratulations! Scarlet A.pngbomination 13:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Why, thank you! typos in OP fixed CS Miller (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
"This will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it violent." These people do not understand what civil disobedience is. If this march happens, I expect that innocents will be killed. Crow7878 (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Arguably, a large crowd of armed men walking down the street is, in itself, an instance of violence, even if not a shot is fired. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 18:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling prophecies, here at Rationalwiki! --Revolverman (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


I think the police should give the Active Denial System a shot. Might not work, but hey, at least it would mean there's a chance of this not ending in a blood bath. ShadowFan-X (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone here is aware that this is not illegal, and your still ask for the police to unleash the riot control weapons on them? Weren't you all criticizing Wingnuts who call for that on the OWS protesters? --Revolverman (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Aren't firearms illegal in DC?--"Shut up, Brx." 21:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
It's called "hypocrisy" dear Revolverman. The same things that lets CP work are basically the same thing that lets RW work.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The last time I checked, Occupy Wall Street was not required to break laws from its inception. The criteria for OWS allowed for the protests to be done without breaking laws since OWS did not have criminal acts as a key part of its criteria. The criteria for this open carry march requires the protestors to open-carry in a district where it is illegal to do so. Regardless of whether you agree with OWS's politics or not, the criteria were such that protestors could do their protesting without committing felonies. Crow7878 (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
So? Many protests ARE illegal because THATS THE POINT! Just because YOU disagree with the point of the protest doesn't mean it should be shut down. Thats the point I'm making. --Revolverman (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
If your intention is specifically to violate the law (even to "make a point") that's civil disobedience. It is reasonable to expect that you will be arrested and potentially imprisoned and that law enforcement will try to prevent you from "protesting" in this way. That is indeed the entire point of civil disobedience. The idea is that the general public sympathise with your plight. Obviously if your act of civil disobedience just makes people think you're a crazy person (e.g. you march around carrying a fucking gun in a place where guns are prohibited) then this won't work but I shouldn't need to explain that to anyone who actually believes in civil disobedience, it would really only come up if some entitled asshats think they have a "right" to do whatever they want and people ought to respect them for breaking the law in principle.
For those watching at home, if you see somebody get arrested and they plead innocent, or try to invoke some ridiculous tax-protester logic like the courts don't have jurisdiction over them, they aren't involved in civil disobedience, they're just asshats. Civil disobedience is unapologetic, which means you'd plead guilty and take your 40 years hard labour or whatever the tariff is. Tialaramex (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
This does seem very ironic to me. I can see that they are trying to do civil disobedience trying to imitate MLK Jr., but the people whose idea of protesting involved open-carry were the Black Panthers. In particular, the proposed Mulford Act, which banned the open carry of loaded weapons in the state of California, was protested by the Black Panthers by the open carry of loaded weapons. I wonder why many people love Martin Luther King Jr.'s idea of protesting while being highly respectful and unintimidating and decidedly lacking firearms versus why people are made uncomfortable by the sight of Black Panthers with their numerous guns and the mentions of revolution? I am not sure if this is related, but the Mulford Act quickly passed when Black Panthers showed-up open-carrying loaded rifles at the state capitol. Could the historical knowledge of people who think guns would have stopped the Holocaust be insufficient? Crow7878 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Tesla car ban sale[edit]

The WIGO is misleading; the ban isn't on the sale of Tesla cars in general, it's on the sale of Tesla cars without going through a third party dealership. There are tons of places that ban the sale of cars directly by the manufacturer, in order to protect the independent dealer (which is a crock, but that's a whole other thing). A lot of the hubbub around the Tesla bugs me because a lot of people think it's because the Tesla is an electric car and it's getting fucked over by oil companies and whatnot. That may be true to some extent, but the real reason there's been all kinds of restrictions and complaints about them is because Tesla sells direct to the consumer and cuts out the independent dealership, which is an incredibly powerful lobbying force since they comprise nearly 100% of automobile sales in the US. Basically they're freaking out because people might start wondering why all manufacturers don't do this. X Stickman (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You cannot sell a Tesla in a showroom in Texas? Huh. And here I thought Texas was the Land of Do-as-you-Please. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Once again, it is blatantly obvious that conservatives aren't about "small government" or "freedom". Every single time it boils down to corporate interests. It reminds me of the NRA's response to that 3D-printed "Liberator" gun. The NRA claims it's all about the 2nd Amendment and freedom and gun rights and blah blah. They should LOVE the "Liberator", right? Wrong. The NRA always was and always will be a lobby for major gun manufacturers, and they HATE the idea of consumer-produced guns. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
FOX cannot make up its mind about Tesla --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

3D printer and world hunger[edit]

I don't see how 3D printers will help world hunger in any way. Unless you can turn sand to bread or broadcast a sandwich with it, a 3D printer is a useless middleman. I'm unimpressed with 3D printers period. I first saw them on the Colbert Report, where I thought, "what, because I need to make a wax bust of Stephen Colbert more than once in my lifetime?" Sure, you can make the odd knickknack with one, but it's little more than a resource intensive novelty. It's not a universal assembler. It's not even close, and it's not even a precursor (assuming such a machine would even be possible)--"Shut up, Brx." 23:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The article mentions that the use of powders would expand the number of nutrient-sources out of which it is possible to synthesize edible food (so you wouldn't need to rely on raising cattle for protein, rather than, say, a mosquito trap). That said, as I understand it, world hunger right now isn't being caused by a lack of food, but by how unevenly it's distributed, and this technology alone would do little to solve that.Lady Corvex (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Lady Corvex
...world hunger right now isn't being caused by a lack of food, but by how unevenly it's distributed, and this technology alone would do little to solve that. True, but it's so much easier to pretend that these disparities don't exist and prattle on about how quick techno-fixes and the free market fairy will fix everything at some unspecified point in the future. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, since you hate 3-D printers so much, you've never done any sort of prototyping. Anybody whose ever had to design something or invent something or test something for prototype would tell you that, sometimes, being able to create scale models of things (in this case, with a 3-D printer) is invaluable. Especially when you're talking about projects where you might have to invest millions (or, even, billion) of dollars in revenue, only to find out it doesn't work as well as you'd hoped. In those circumstances, being able to print out small, plastic test models with an initial investment of a few thousand dollars is worth it. Don't believe me? I've seen real life uses of 3-D printers in various design engineering environments. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright, then 3d printers are useful for creating scale models for the purpose of prototyping.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, well, well. Look who's eating their hat--"Shut up, Brx." 03:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

E.W. Jackson on the three-fifths doctrine[edit]

He explained it very poorly, but he is right: the purpose of the three-fifths compromise was to limit the legislative power of slave-holding states. Here's the deal: A state's representation within the House of Representatives is directly proportional to the number of people it has. For census purposes, the South wanted to count slaves as people, so that their population numbers would be higher and they would have more representation. The North, in contrast, said it was hypocritical for the South to count slaves as people when they had none of the benefits of legal personhood. The Three-Fifths Compromise was the end result of this. It was a way of reducing the extent the slave-holding states could increase their legislative clout just from possessing more slaves (since slaves had no representation). Apokalyps2547 (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Judge Roach, lesbians, and divorce agreements[edit]

The article in question is selectively-edited, and omits a key part of the father's lawyer's statement(found here):

"I see how this creates a situation where [Carolyn] can't marry Page, while [Joshua] could marry a girlfriend," lawyer Paul Key told the Huffington Post. "But that's not why we're doing it. We would have done the same thing if it were some guy that had moved in."

In other words, if the mother had a boyfriend who wasn't planning on marrying her, this wouldn't even be news. Similarly (and probably more importantly), if gay marriage was legal in Texas (or across the USA), this would also not be news (because they would have just gotten married and the clause would be moot). --Seth Peck (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay
1) 'This would not be news' - a century ago, yeah, but last time I checked, people cohabit, even after marriage;
2) this is a morality clause being invoked after the divorce had been finalised, there is no fucking chance that it would be considered constitutional if it was interfering with a heterosexual relationship that wasn't harming the children and any two-bit lawyer would know that - the clause was only put into the final decree because there was a gay relationship, and has only been invoked because it is a gay relationship;
and 3) it's the father's lawyer saying, "But's that's not why we're doing it. We would have done the same thing if it were some guy that had moved in." Really? I mean, REALLY? Let's see him produce a case where he's successfully done exactly that, after the divorce has gone through, because I'm kind of guessing he hasn't. And that 'kind of guessing' bit, that was sarcasm, because see above re:unconstitutional.--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 19:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Just like with the story of the 18-year-old supposedly being a rapist for having sex with a 15-year-old, the case is stupid and outrageous even without the homophobia angle. 'Morality clause'? Really?

According to the women's lawyer, the morality clause technically makes it illegal for Carolyn to have anyone she is dating or intimate with at her home with her two children anytime after 9 p.m.

What a load of bullshit. (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 19:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
What legal consequences could a divorce agreement even do? Could she seriously be put in prison for a breech? --Revolverman (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Presumably it relates to the child custody/access, i.e. civil law rather than criminal. The ex-husband is pushing for this clause to be enforced, so most likely he would push for the children's mother to lose custody if she breaches it. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Ahh. Ok. What a fucking scumbag, willing to hurt the kid to punish his ex. Prick. --Revolverman (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Turns out I was wrong: breach of divorce terms is deemed contempt of court (a criminal offence) & is legally punishable as such if the judge chose to take that tack. In fact, that's what the ex-husband in this case was pushing for: "The motion cited 181 dates between Sept. 15 and April 4 that the clause has been violated because Price, his ex-wife’s “female paramour,” had spent the night while his children were there. Joshua Compton’s motion asked that his ex-wife be held in contempt, jailed and fined for each violation." Fucking scumbag indeed. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Since no one else seems to get it: the point is that it might not have anything to do with the gender of the person living with the ex. Look at it from the father's point of view: he doesn't know who this person is who's living with his children (or may not know them well enough), and if HE had a girlfriend living with him (who he wasn't married to) then his ex would be able to sue him for custody rights based on the divorce agreement. Divorces involving kids are almost always sticky, touchy arrangements; the fact that the mother is in breach of her part of the agreement overrides any relevance over the gender of the person living with her while she has the kids. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't like people having that much power over their exes. Agreements that include things like 'morality clauses' should be private arrangements and not be treated as law -- the court should determine whether the woman sleeping with her girlfriend is harmful to the kids if the exhusband has a problem with it. (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 19:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
From what's being reported, it seems a lot like the ex-husband is using the court system vindictively & the judge is playing along, most likely because of the same-sex relationship. The morality clause is standard in parts of Texas & some other states but very rarely enforced when divorcees are cohabiting in a hetero relationship, while it is enforced arbitrarily against same-sex households. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Mandatory sentencing piece[edit]

Do we have a more recent citation than 2007 for that one? Hydrogen and Time (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we need WWGO. Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Roman Polanski[edit]

Disgusting pervert makes me puke. Lock the cunt up Scherben (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

baghdad bombings[edit]

Its on the front page of the beeb now and has been for a few days. How many Internet's does that get me? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's Monday now, and the bombings happened on Monday.-- how has something that happened on Monday been reported for a few days? Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 00:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
my mistake. I was sure i have seen reports of bombings in Iraq over the last few days. I have a very poor sense of timeAMassiveGay (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Kinda my point. Bombings there all blend together because nobody really gives a toss about those people. But three Americans die in a relatively insignificant terrorist attack and the world grinds to a halt for a week. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 03:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The old saw is that "Dog Bites Man" isn't news, but "Man Bites Dog" is. The tragic, horrific fact is that mass casualty bombings in Iraq simply aren't unusual, although even by Iraqi standards, the bombings on Monday were awful. There was plenty of coverage in Western, including American, media on Monday, but little since then. There also haven't been any particular developments in the story since then.
A mass casualty bombing in an American city, by contrast, is extremely unusual. So American media was dominated by an unusual and horrific event in America. English language media in other countries also gave more coverage to an unusual and horrific event in an English-speaking country than to a horrific but horrifically common event in an Arabic-speaking country. That's not terribly surprising. By the way, I checked the BBC's, al-Ahram's and al-Jazeera's Arabic language websites, and they weren't giving the Baghdad bombings front page coverage, either. al-Jazeera did give them coverage on the front page of the Middle East section, in the middle of the second-tier stories. So the comparative lack of coverage doesn't seem to be a uniquely Western perspective.
And just one more note. In 2005 I was stationed in the Gulf, and part of my job was monitoring Open Source Intelligence, i.e. the news media, on events in the region. If three were Americans killed and dozens seriously wounded, many with amputations, by IEDs, we called it "Tuesday." Other than some perfunctory reporting on the latest casualty figures released by the Pentagon, there was rarely any coverage, at all, in the American media on these events. To be sure, there was a lot of coverage on the Iraq war in general, but mass Iraqi civilian casualties got more coverage in the American media that I saw, and for that matter in the classified intelligence reporting that I saw, than American combat casualties.209.188.42.183 (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

someone might want to WIGO this up somewhere...[edit]

[3] my brain hurts too much to write things up at the moment. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know...[edit]

Someone's fucked up with the vote numbers. There's two with the same number there... --Certified Sick Bastard 12:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm no evolutionary biologist[edit]

But I can't wait to hear Ken Ham and good old AIG explain this one away. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Bus driver fired[edit]

Why do gradeschoolers, let alone elementary kids, need to pay for the shit they get at lunch anyways? And i like the school's blatant admission that they fired him because he dared to say something that put them in a bad light. Way to go. — (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 05:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Prostitution, Rape, Murder, Theft in Texas discussion[edit]

Why should taking $150 and not having sex when you are a prostitute, or taking money and not giving drugs you sold, not be considered theft? The fact that the act is illegal does not make taking money for a purported illegal act not theft. (I've discussed this issue generally with lawyers and police officers in regards to hypothetical drug sales gone bad.)

So this woman, who decided to engage in purported prostitution, got what was coming to her. She is not a victim; she is a nighttime thief. She did not have to choose to steal people's money under the pretense of prostitution, but she did and now she's dead. The law allowing deadly force for nighttime thefts has been the law for many years, and was applied appropriately. Maybe you could charge the defendant with attempt to solicit prostitution, but that is it. She should have given back the $150 she stole back.

(I didn't discuss rape here, but if you want any honest discussion of prostitution, you have to discuss rape. The feminists want to legalize prostitution - not all, but a sizable amount - but those people seem to rarely discuss the negative consequences that come with prostitution.) Peace (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

So the way I see this you have several issues here, which allowed for this defense:

  1. . Is stealing in an illegal transaction stealing? Texas law has always said yes.
  2. . If you said yes to 1, should there be a special exception for prostitution (as opposed to drugs)?
  3. . Should deadly force be able to be used for a nighttime theft in general in Texas?

I don't see how any of these questions, aside from possibly 3, relate to gun availability in Texas, although the defendant did have a semiautomatic gun. Peace (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

She "got what was coming to her" - yep, that's the way it is in Texas. If you steal after dark the person you steal from can blow you away. And you don't think that has anything to do with the gun culture that is so pervasive? OK. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
According to the story, the $150 was a driver's fee. Any sex would have been extra. She may have been guilty of false advertising, but I see no theft. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 13:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I doubt the driver fee was ever advertised on Craigslist. You don't get to make up fees off the top of your head and then call that an agreed transaction. Not saying that she should have been justified to be shot, but she did break the law on theft. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
"I doubt the driver fee was ever advertised on Craigslist." Right. Like I said, false advertising. Anyone who thinks that you can get a woman driven to your apartment and that said woman will then have sex with you, all for 150 bucks, has a pretty skewed idea of how the world works. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 15:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The issue is not that she didn't have sex. The issue is that she attempted to run away with the $150. That is theft. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The $150 that the John owed for the driver's fee. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 15:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see the argument that this is not a feminist issue or gun rights issue per se, but the defense in 9.41 in the Texas Penal Code needs to be modified to prevent a defense when the fleeing after theft solely consists of an uncompleted transaction of illegal activity (including a drug deal gone bad, not just prostitution). I will lobby for this change, especially when that exception exists in the Castle Doctrine (the state is considering a rewrite of the Penal Code. I believe this is bad verbiage of law, not intended policy. While this woman did commit an illegal act, be it theft or prostitution, self defense is not meant to be used as a defense in illegal transactions. This does open a much broader discussion here, but I believe this should be uncontroversial, regardless of your views on drugs/prostitution/gun legalization.) ConservapediaEditor (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

And still, from this Brit's point of view, it's the fact that he shot her at all. The guy quite clearly took the law into his own hands. By comparison, see this example from Britain. OK, so that's the way it is in Texas. I'm just glad I don't live there. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
We need to change the law, and the easiest way to do so is to say the theft defense does not apply when the theft solely consists of taking payment intended to commit a crime (I'm not a lawyer so pardon the phrasing). ConservapediaEditor (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you ought to change to law to say that the theft defense does not apply under any circumstances - especially when everyone is packing. From WP English law permits one person to kill another in self-defence only if the person defending him or herself uses no more than "reasonable force" - personally that suits me fine. But if that's the way you like it.... Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not very clear (what preview!) - In British law the only reason one person may kill another is self defense with reasonable force. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
So, what — if you sell your Wii and some games to your buddy for 150$ during the night and ey takes it but refuses to pay according to you, you can kill em? — (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 16:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Amazing. Only in America do they try and justify shooting somebody for "stealing" $150. Money spent on an illegal transaction. Maybe they should just go back to hanging people for stealing a loaf of bread. I wonder if he would have walked free if he'd shot a drug dealer who'd taken his money and given him a bag of talcum powder? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 16:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There's too much being made about the fact that this alleged theft took place in the context of an "illegal transaction", as if the killing would be OK otherwise. I would still find it objectionable if it was a shoplifter who was shot, or a grifter. Killing or maiming somebody to get your money or goods back has nothing to do with self-defence. Any law that condones this kind of retaliation is rotten, as far as I'm concerned. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Peace, you are a dick Scherben (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Texas, as so often, has things upside down, unwilling to prohibit gun violence but busy legislating people's sex lives. Prostitution is illegal in Texas (not just pimping, or streetwalkers, or solicitation or trafficking, any transaction in which a person offers sex for money is a crime in Texas). But you can shoot (and thus likely kill) anyone who steals from you and you won't even have to face trial. Brilliant.
And yes, Peace is being a dick about prostitution. Tialaramex (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Peace said: "The feminists want to legalize prostitution - not all, but a sizable amount - but those people seem to rarely discuss the negative consequences that come with prostitution." Well this is blatant straw man that we have here. All right, you don't like feminists (don't deny it). What make you think that feminists have the exact same opinion about prostitution and that they don't know what's negative in it? Let's go check there to have some knowledge about it. This is bloody ridiculous.--Sultan Rahi (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Gay propaganda[edit]

For context, in the UK (where the editor for that Russian story is based) the not so very different Clause 28 (aka Section 28, aka Section 2A, isn't bureaucracy wonderful?) was only repealed this century.

When I say not so very different: Clause 28 was also targeted at government-funded schools. It too pretended to be about protecting children from falsehoods about an "alternative lifestyle" when it was clearly anti-homosexual in nature. It too was a reaction to decriminalisation (if you can't ban gay sex, at least tell kids it's wrong) and it too was driven largely by an older conservative demographic, twenty-five years later enough of them are dead that the same UK party is pushing through Gay Marriage under Cameron without that much fuss.

I'm actually a little surprised this wasn't a bigger deal in the US. Were your schools too busy arguing over whether to teach the classical elements or the periodic table of elements? Whether the Great Flood story is current affairs or history? Somehow you've gone from homosexuality notionally being prohibited in your country to gay marriage debates without that brief "It's legal but it's naughty so don't tell children" period in the middle, or have you? Tialaramex (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

We're having both going on right now actually. There's the "Don't Say Gay" bill that keeps coming up in Tennessee and there have been other similar efforts around the country. It has been quite brief, really. 2005 wasn't that long ago. I'm not sure why we've seen such a fast change. I've pondered on it but can't see any clear answer. Ayzmo (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Change isn't a smooth, evenly-spaced linear progression. It's often discontinuous and happens rapidly -- witness the depth to which the Internet is an element of everyday life for hundreds of millions of people these days, and compare it to the world of 1998. I think (entirely PIDOOMA) that the slow introduction of gay characters into entertainment, and the increasingly common depiction of them as ordinary humans that happen to have different bedroom proclivities, as opposed to flamboyant lisping stereotypes, has combined with the meritocratizing effect of the Internet on speech to slowly turn the tide on the cultural groupthink around homophobia. The narrative successfully shifted (enough) away from gay pedophile predators and leather daddies and drag queens squicking out the Moral Majority crowd and into equality issues, for which logic has a much stronger hold.
The popular image of the "average" homosexual has shifted from "kinky freak of nature" to "neighbour" for a significant portion of the population, and so equality comes down to a basic denial of certain rights against someone who is basically indistinguishable from the population. Justifying treating people as second-class citizens is easier when they can be called out as disgusting freaks that don't function with proper society. When the silent majority starts to drift away from this bigoted position, they can be sudden and decisive in expressing their will.
As mentioned above, this is a big bag of PIDOOMA, and it's certainly not true everywhere, but I'm hoping that this is a primary factor behind the cultural shift we're seeing, because it'll continue forward. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 00:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)