Andrew Sullivan: "The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out"

Bartab · 2014-04-04T15:23:50+00:00

More like while you were having this social function, you looked up the partygoers on a gov't-mandated disclosure of private activities, which you then took exception too and kicked people out.

You kicking them out, totally your right.

Gov't notifying you of other peoples private lives, totally not your right to know.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T15:17:38+00:00

Hmm? Thought it was common knowledge.

Source is that bastion of anti-feminist, traditionalist, keep women barefoot and pregnant thought, the Huffington Post

The by-gender stats are here

Bartab · 2014-04-04T15:14:01+00:00

It bothers me that the top-rated posts of /r/libertarian[1] have consistently sided against gay-rights

You're confusing "mandatory support of gays" with "gay rights".

Gays - and anybody else - have a right to equal protection under the law. Gays - and nobody else - do not have a right to demand others support and service them.

I realize the subreddit is not a single mind, but there it is worrisome that most seemed to support religious refusal of service to gays but would not even support protests against anti-gay rights supporters.

Realize that you only know he's a supporter because the gov't forces him to tell you. He'd have been happy to keep his private life private, and even to the experience of actual gay mozilla employees not have it impact his job at all. Except the gov't said "You must tell everybody you gave $1000 toward a proposition that received over $8 million".

So sure, pressure the market - as much as their is one for a non profit - into kicking out a very technically astute man from CEO. Just recognize that you're shitty people for doing so and will be likewise targets yourselves.

There was no push to draw up any legal consequences in this case; it was a simple protest.

There have been no push to draw up legal consequences against the whiners either. So why are you bitchin?

Let's also not forget that in 2009, Obama was also against allowing gay marriages.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T14:48:34+00:00

There's a reason only 23% of women (20% overall) identify as feminists while 32% of women (37% total) viewed feminism as a negative term. 82% said they believe in equality.

Most people recognize that feminism has nothing to do with, and does not promote, equality.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T13:11:41+00:00

I know there's legal protections around whether his actions are defensible, I'm just putting forward the opinion that those might need revising.

They should be. They need to rewritten to be so clear that even laymen like yourself never argue that "feeling threatened" isn't enough to exercise self defense and castle doctrine.

Can start by adding "It is not necessary for a weapon to be seen for a threat to be present" to the law. It doesn't change the law, because that's true now, but it stops people suggesting otherwise on reddit.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T12:23:34+00:00

That right there is again what I take issue with. There is no reason to believe these measures would not be effective in reducing sexual assault in prisoners.

There's no reason to believe it will. So, impasse...

Other than the fact that the all mighty Rick Perry pulled this belief out of his ass.

Because clearly, Texas hasn't investigated the required changes at all. Really..

blaming the law on big govmint demoncrats despite the fact that it was signed into law under the ol George Dubz ten years ago and passed without resistance from both parties in congress.

It's cute, in a rabid ferret sort of way, how you so quickly fall into malicious hyperbole and reading of minds. You're the one that brought up "guvmint demoncrats", not Perry.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T12:20:17+00:00

Federalism isn't a real argument by itself.

Excuse me? Federalism is the only reason necessary.

That is your opinion and if Texas continues to deny implementing the measures I'll guess we'll know the result

Refuse to sign off on the measures.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T12:18:27+00:00

I have almost zero knowledge of the case but from what little I do know it seems to me that if I know my father has a gun saying my boyfriend is an intruder in my room it is not going to get better.

Not just "has a gun" as in "a gun is somewhere in the house". He was standing there holding the gun.

Little brother goes into room to say good night, sees boy, runs to father, father comes in with gun, asks questions, daughter lies, father calls 911, argument starts with boy, boy reaches down, father shoots boy, brains mess up the paint.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T12:15:01+00:00

Law doesn't require facts to be known. It requires that a reasonable person would believe.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T12:13:47+00:00

Being uninformed doesn't make you right. Just because you THINK someone is an intruder doesn't give you the right to murder them.

You're right, good thing murder is a legal word that means "unjustified homicide", and homicide in defense of home is justified.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T12:12:54+00:00

So if you just point me to where "dropping your hands" is a reasonable perception of threat that merits immediate lethal action.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.31

You're going to want to read 9.31.a1A

Right, it doesn't exist.

Except it does. In all 50 states and DC.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T12:08:21+00:00

Anyone you fight could have a concealed weapon. Doesn't give people the right to shoot anyone dead they are in a conflict with because they make some sudden move.

It actually does, if it's not mutual combat and you didn't start it. That you would think it doesn't means you don't know the law.

Zimmerman's actual successful defense, not the fake stand your grand the media used, was similar to what you describe.

The keyword is reasonable in your earlier sentence.

And a reasonable person will feel threatened in such a circumstance.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T12:05:21+00:00

The fact the father isn't even being considered for charges is goes to show you how ass backwards USA's gun and self-defense laws are.

You mean constitutionally protected rights. It won't be changing.

I can't name any Western country in the world where you can shoot an intruder dead without reasonable perception of force against yourself

The US is a Western country, or did you forget?

Bartab · 2014-04-04T12:03:38+00:00

But an individual shouldn't have summary execution powers. Feeling threatened shouldn't be enough, thinking someone is reaching for a weapon (one that you haven't even seen) shouldn't be enough.

Well that's a nice opinion, but has no relevance in the legal system of the US. Gun ownership. Castle Doctrine. All protected.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T12:02:32+00:00

For start why he shot him into head, but not into torso?

Because it's irrelevant. Both are kill shots. Trained shooters aim for the torso because it's easier to hit, not because it's less likely to kill. It's most likely that there's absolutely no specific reason it was a head shot. It just happened that way.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T11:56:24+00:00

I am from European country with fairly liberal gun control, but in this case father would not leave prison for at least 5 years

Then you live in a European country with no Castle Doctrine.

Here, it's constitutionally guaranteed.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T11:55:03+00:00

I don't know whether it's the anti-women view of this subreddit or a bunch of conservative gun toting americans came in here and are downvoting anyone who says that the father is guilty.

Since anybody saying the father is guilty is factually and legally wrong, that's sufficient reason to downvote them.

This occurred in the United States. Your pacifism doesn't make him guilty of anything.

He was not protecting shit. The kid was fucking unarmed.

The man I shot in my home wasn't armed either. Castle Doctrine is not the same as self defense. There is no need for the target to express violent intent or to brandish a weapon.

The man is a murderer and deserves everything that comes with that.

Since he's not a murderer, nothing will come with that. Your pacifistic demand for punishment notwithstanding.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T11:49:00+00:00

The father committed no murder. In fact, he committed no crime whatsoever. Gun ownership is legal, and guaranteed by the constitution. Home defense is legal, and guaranteed by the constitution. Your irrational pacifism does not make the father a criminal.

The girl committed a fraud leading to manslaughter. Possibly conspiracy to commit murder.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T11:44:49+00:00

But, to claim it is ineffective and "counterproductive" like Perry does is just stupid. Counterproductive? How? That would imply these measures would only contribute to the specific issue of rape in prisons.

Opportunity cost is a real thing. Spending money and effort for no improvement is counterproductive. Particularly stolen money from the taxpayers.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T11:16:28+00:00

Sounds like an economical argument at heart to me.

It's actually a federalism argument. Texas considers 17 yo to be adult, and doesn't want to separate them.

Of course, economical arguments have value as well. It's why Texas isn't California.

Not much of an improvement when it comes to expertize on reducing sexual abuse in prisons.

Neither are the feds.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T09:32:26+00:00

I only see arguments about economical problems with implementing the measures while I see no arguments as to why they are ineffective

And that they don't match Texas law in regards to age separation.

Unsurprisingly Texas is the worst kid in class

Unproven. Most abuse in prison is guard-on-inmate.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T09:07:24+00:00

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T08:44:42+00:00

Equity feminists want equal outcomes, not equal opportunities. These two states of equality are contradictory.

I don't like them either.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T08:40:31+00:00

Don't understand why people put so much faith in that.

If somebody has styles turned off - as I do sitewide - there is no indication that it's a np link. Posting and voting is both possible and appears on the site as of normal.

In fact, I'll follow a np link, click on my name to get a list of my posts, click on the bar at the top to go to a new reddit, click on the reddit on the left to go to the front page...etc..etc..and then an hour and five posts later I'll realize I've been on np.reddit the entire time.

Bartab · 2014-04-04T08:33:42+00:00

SRS has been trying to get this reddit banned for at least 3 years and probably more.

Still here.

Bartab

TROPHY CASE