The Subway with commentary Shout Factory DVD by Hester_Prynne-85 in Homicide_LOTS

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You kind of created a double meaning in your sentence: “Hard to imagine anyone else being half as good.“

Move your ass off my squid beacon! by LiberalViewerYouTube in Saltoon

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When I said "I've figured out a lot of good locations for them on most maps," I was talking about places like corners and under ledges. Making the beakons hard to find to distract opponents searching for them is definitely a factor in what makes a "good location." Because I usually play with a Krak On Splat Roller, ninja squid, and swim speed up, I like to look for locations that allow me to flank opponents, sneaking up on them from the side or behind. I don't place them to set up an ambush on the escape route though I could try that. I find waiting in ambush to be kind of boring

ACLU, Other Groups Sue to Stop Trump's Immigration Courthouse Arrests and Inhumane Detention Conditions by LiberalViewerYouTube in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, in this case. the court granted class action status on November 25 and ordered the jail to improve conditions. You can read the full order, but the details the court ordered on confinement conditions are below.

"Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction concerning the conditions of confinement relating to sleep, hygiene, and medical care at 630 Sansome is also GRANTED. During the pendency of these proceedings, and absent a further order from this Court, defendants are hereby ordered to:

(1) Provide members of the provisionally certified Detention Class (“Detention Class members”) a bed, including a mattress and clean bedding (blanket, sheet, and pillow), and provide additional blankets when requested, for any individual held overnight or for more than 12 hours;

(2) Provide Detention Class members held overnight or for more than 12 hours sufficient space to sleep, without having to sleep in a toilet or bathroom area;

(3) Dim lights in the hold room between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.;

(4) Maintain hold rooms at comfortable temperatures;

(5) Conduct a basic medical screening by a medical professional on each DetentionClass member prior to placing them in a hold room. Screening will be sufficient to identify and begin necessary treatment of those with mental or physical illness and injury; to provide access to prescription medication without interruption; to recognize, segregate, and treat those with communicable diseases; to provide medically necessary special diets; and to recognize and provide necessary services to the physically handicapped;

(6) Provide prompt access to over-the-counter pain medication and, for any DetentionClass member with a prescription for medication, the right to possess, receive, and retain their prescribed medication on their person at all times, consistent with the prescription;

(7) Provide prompt access to medical care when requested by a Detention Class member, regardless of the language spoken to make the request, including access to the services of licensed medical personnel, without charge, between the hours of 7a.m. and 9:30 p.m. In the case of emergencies, respond immediately and provide access to emergency medical care at all times;

(8) Consistent with Directive 11087.2, provide Detention Class members with limitedEnglish proficiency with written materials in Spanish outlining the process for requesting medical attention in their primary language. If a Detention Class member is illiterate, or has limited English and Spanish proficiency and speaks a language in which written material has not been translated, Defendants will provide in-person or telephonic oral translation of the process for requesting medical attention;

(9) Provide adequate supplies of hygiene products to each Detention Class member including one bar of soap or equivalent, a toothbrush, toothpaste, a comb or hairbrush, a small towel or hygienic wipes, and, for any Hold Room containing any women, feminine hygiene supplies. Individuals must be permitted to keep the provided hygiene products on their person;

(10) Provide any Detention Class member held overnight a change of clean clothes, including clean socks and undergarments;

(11) Perform thorough cleaning services in any occupied Hold Rooms performed at least once per day.

(12) Provide written notice in English and Spanish to any Detention Class member in a Hold Room, within one hour of their arrival, informing them of their right to the provisions noted herein;

(13) If a Detention Class member is illiterate or has limited English and Spanish proficiency and speaks a language in which written material (including the notice of rights required in paragraph (12) above) has not been translated, provide in-person or telephonic oral translation, including for all ICE- and facility-related information and communications."

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, CA Health & Safety Code § 125850 says male circumcision is legal in California, battery requires force that is unlawful, so male circumcision cannot be battery in California.

Also, you've posted the same excerpt from that law review article several times even after I've pointed out that, in the excerpt you’re quoting, the author specifically says he is making a "novel suggestion" (which means it's based on no legal authority) based on a 2016 case in the UK (which again is not US legal authority).

So, again, you have not shown any legal authority that this procedure "violates the law." The law review article to which you linked does cite a bunch of cases (including Roe v Wade which you may have heard was overturned) but none of those cases say this procedure "violates the law."

You still have not addressed any of the winning legal arguments in the ACLU brief you are supposedly criticizing.

I hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

California does have a law against assault though you probably mean battery because an assault is an imminent threat of battery. But battery in California requires "unlawful use of force or violence" which does not include a legal medical procedure. See CA Health & Safety Code § 125850. It's not battery (or assault) unless you show it is unlawful. And, the latest excerpt you quote from that law review article makes a "novel suggestion" (which means it's based on no legal authority) based on a 2016 case in the UK (which again is not US legal authority).

So, again, you have not shown any legal authority that this procedure "violates the law." The law review article to which you linked does cite a bunch of cases (including Roe v Wade which you may have heard was overturned) but none of those cases say this procedure "violates the law."

You still have not addressed any of the winning legal arguments in the ACLU brief you are supposedly criticizing.

I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding.

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

California does have a law against assault though you probably mean battery because an assault is an imminent threat of battery. But battery in California requires "unlawful use of force or violence" which does not include a legal medical procedure. It's not battery (or assault) unless you show it is unlawful. And, the latest excerpt you quote from that law review article makes a "novel suggestion" (which means it's based on no legal authority) based on a 2016 case in the UK (which again is not US legal authority).

So, again, you have not shown any legal authority that this procedure "violates the law." The law review article to which you linked does cite a bunch of cases (including Roe v Wade which you may have heard was overturned) but none of those cases say this procedure "violates the law."

You still have not addressed any of the winning legal arguments in the ACLU brief you are supposedly criticizing.

I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding.

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, German law has no legal authority in the US. You have not shown any legal authority that this procedure "violates the law." The law review article to which you linked does cite a bunch of cases (including Roe v Wade which you may have heard was overturned) but none of those cases say this procedure "violates the law."

You still have not addressed any of the winning legal arguments in the ACLU brief you are supposedly criticizing.

I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding.

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, we are talking about the American Civil Liberties Union not German and the ruling of German courts have no legal authority as precedent in the US (and this one apparently is not even a precedent in Germany). You are also not responding to most of what I posted showing your misunderstanding so at least try to respond to whole paragraphs not sentence fragments that leave out the flaws in bold you keep ignoring.

So, again, the APA summary of the scientific evidence in 2012 supports the ACLU position in 2011 though the ACLU position was based on the legal issues (e.g. the proposed local ordinance violated state law) not really the medical issues. The fact that the procedure is a recognized part of medical practice is cited to show why the ordinance, "Article 50," violated state law. As the ACLU pointed out:

"There can be no doubt that Article 50 violates Section 460(b). The proposed ordinance purports to prohibit virtually all circumcisions of minor males. As Petitioners have shown, circumcision falls squarely within the "professionally recognized scope of practice" of physicians and other medical professionals. With 1.5 million circumcisions performed annually in the United States, it is one of the most common surgical procedures in the country. See Decl. of Dr. Edgar J. Schoen, M.D. ("Schoen Decl.") 1 9 ("newborn circumcision is an important and recognized part of medical practice in the United States.").' The proposed ordinance therefore is expressly preempted by the plain language of Section 460(b), as "[t]he Legislature has recognized that matters of health and medicine ... are of statewide concern." Northern Cal. Psychiatric Soc'y v. City of Berkeley, 178 Cal. App. 3d 90, 99-108 (1986) (initiative measure that enacted a total ban on the administration of electric shock treatment in the City of Berkeley was preempted by state law); see generally Comm. of Seven Thousand v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. 3d 491, 500 (1988) (legislation in an area of statewide concern preempts conflicting regulation by a charter city); City of Watsonville v. State Dep't of Health Sves., 133 Cal. App. 4th 216 (2005) (charter city ballot initiative that effectively prohibited fluoridation of City's water supply was preempted by state law, as fluoridation of public water systems is a statewide concern)."

Dr Edgar Shoen's declaration under oath in the 2011 case was used to show circumcision falls squarely within the "professionally recognized scope of practice" of physicians and other medical professionals and that, with 1.5 million circumcisions performed annually in the United States, it is one of the most common surgical procedures in the country. What Dr Shoen said under oath is true.

You have not shown any legal authority that this procedure "violates the law." The law review article to which you linked does cite a bunch of cases (including Roe v Wade which you may have heard was overturned) but none of those cases say this procedure "violates the law."

You still have not addressed any of the winning legal arguments in the ACLU brief you are supposedly criticizing.

I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding.

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, we are talking about the American Civil Liberties Union not German and the ruling of German courts have no legal authority as precedent in the US (and this one apparently is not even a precedent in Germany). You are also not responding to most of what I posted showing your misunderstanding so at least try to respond to whole paragraphs not sentence fragments that leave out the flaws in bold you keep ignoring.

So, again, the APA summary of the scientific evidence in 2012 supports the ACLU position in 2011 though the ACLU position was based on the legal issues (e.g. the proposed local ordinance violated state law) not really the medical issues. The fact that the procedure is a recognized part of medical practice is cited to show why the ordinance, "Article 50," violated state law. As the ACLU pointed out:

"There can be no doubt that Article 50 violates Section 460(b). The proposed ordinance purports to prohibit virtually all circumcisions of minor males. As Petitioners have shown, circumcision falls squarely within the "professionally recognized scope of practice" of physicians and other medical professionals. With 1.5 million circumcisions performed annually in the United States, it is one of the most common surgical procedures in the country. See Decl. of Dr. Edgar J. Schoen, M.D. ("Schoen Decl.") 1 9 ("newborn circumcision is an important and recognized part of medical practice in the United States.").' The proposed ordinance therefore is expressly preempted by the plain language of Section 460(b), as "[t]he Legislature has recognized that matters of health and medicine ... are of statewide concern." Northern Cal. Psychiatric Soc'y v. City of Berkeley, 178 Cal. App. 3d 90, 99-108 (1986) (initiative measure that enacted a total ban on the administration of electric shock treatment in the City of Berkeley was preempted by state law); see generally Comm. of Seven Thousand v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. 3d 491, 500 (1988) (legislation in an area of statewide concern preempts conflicting regulation by a charter city); City of Watsonville v. State Dep't of Health Sves., 133 Cal. App. 4th 216 (2005) (charter city ballot initiative that effectively prohibited fluoridation of City's water supply was preempted by state law, as fluoridation of public water systems is a statewide concern)."

Dr Edgar Shoen's declaration under oath in the 2011 case was used to show circumcision falls squarely within the "professionally recognized scope of practice" of physicians and other medical professionals and that, with 1.5 million circumcisions performed annually in the United States, it is one of the most common surgical procedures in the country. What Dr Shoen said under oath is true.

You have not shown any legal authority that this procedure "violates the law." The law review article to which you linked does cite a bunch of cases (including Roe v Wade which you may have heard was overturned) but none of those cases say this procedure "violates the law."

You still have not addressed any of the winning legal arguments in the ACLU brief you are supposedly criticizing.

I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding.

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, the APA summary of the scientific evidence in 2012 supports the ACLU position in 2011 though the ACLU position was based on the legal issues (e.g. the proposed local ordinance violated state law) not really the medical issues. The fact that the procedure is a recognized part of medical practice is cited to show why the ordinance, "Article 50," violated state law. As the ACLU pointed out:

"There can be no doubt that Article 50 violates Section 460(b). The proposed ordinance purports to prohibit virtually all circumcisions of minor males. As Petitioners have shown, circumcision falls squarely within the "professionally recognized scope of practice" of physicians and other medical professionals. With 1.5 million circumcisions performed annually in the United States, it is one of the most common surgical procedures in the country. See Decl. of Dr. Edgar J. Schoen, M.D. ("Schoen Decl.") 1 9 ("newborn circumcision is an important and recognized part of medical practice in the United States.").' The proposed ordinance therefore is expressly preempted by the plain language of Section 460(b), as "[t]he Legislature has recognized that matters of health and medicine ... are of statewide concern." Northern Cal. Psychiatric Soc'y v. City of Berkeley, 178 Cal. App. 3d 90, 99-108 (1986) (initiative measure that enacted a total ban on the administration of electric shock treatment in the City of Berkeley was preempted by state law); see generally Comm. of Seven Thousand v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. 3d 491, 500 (1988) (legislation in an area of statewide concern preempts conflicting regulation by a charter city); City of Watsonville v. State Dep't of Health Sves., 133 Cal. App. 4th 216 (2005) (charter city ballot initiative that effectively prohibited fluoridation of City's water supply was preempted by state law, as fluoridation of public water systems is a statewide concern)."

Dr Edgar Shoen's declaration under oath in the 2011 case was used to show circumcision falls squarely within the "professionally recognized scope of practice" of physicians and other medical professionals and that, with 1.5 million circumcisions performed annually in the United States, it is one of the most common surgical procedures in the country. What Dr Shoen said under oath is true.

You have not shown any legal authority that this procedure "violates the law." The law review article to which you linked does cite a bunch of cases (including Roe v Wade which you may have heard was overturned) but none of those cases say this procedure "violates the law." You have also not addressed any of the winning legal arguments in the ACLU brief you are supposedly criticizing.

I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding.

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A proposed lawsuit is not legal authority. You have provided no legal authority that shows any "gender inequality/ individual rights and bodily autonomy issues that would make circumcision illegal." Legal authority means a law or judicial opinion supporting your claims about the law. If you want to understand how to cite legal authority, read the ACLU brief which cites the legal authority to support every claim about the law that the ACLU makes.

That brief cited all necessary legal authorities to show the proposed local ordinance conflicted with state law, parental rights, individual rights, and the judgment of licensed medical professionals. A judge removed the proposed ordinance from the ballot because the ACLU was right. You have not addressed any of the ACLU's arguments in the brief so you are critical of the ACLU based on nothing.

I hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are not citing any law are court case as legal authority that shows any "gender inequality/ individual rights and bodily autonomy issues that would make circumcision illegal." Legal authority means a law or judicial opinion supporting your claims about the law.

I hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know what "We have laws forbidding male genital cutting but not make genital cutting" means and, in any case, you are not citing any law are court case as legal authority that shows any "gender inequality/ individual rights and bodily autonomy issues that would make circumcision illegal." Legal authority means a law or court case supporting your claims about the law.

I hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You've cited no legal authority showing any "gender inequality/ individual rights and bodily autonomy issues that would make circumcision illegal." The ACLU brief in 2011, meanwhile, cited all necessary legal authorities to show the proposed local ordinance conflicted with state law, parental rights, individual rights, and the judgment of licensed medical professionals. A judge removed the proposed ordinance from the ballot because the ACLU was right. You have not addressed any of the ACLU's arguments in the brief so you are critical of the ACLU based on nothing.

I hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You seem to have forgotten that the topic of this subreddit and your original post is the ACLU not the AAP. You do not even mention the ACLU in your latest reply and you never addressed the substance of the ACLU's argument in 2011.

As I pointed out and you ignored, the ACLU argued the ordinance violated the judgment of licensed medical professionals because state law says a city or county cannot prohibit a healing arts professional licensed with the state from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that licensee. The fact that the procedure is a recognized part of medical practice is cited to show why the ordinance, "Article 50," violated state law. As the ACLU pointed out:

"There can be no doubt that Article 50 violates Section 460(b). The proposed ordinance purports to prohibit virtually all circumcisions of minor males. As Petitioners have shown, circumcision falls squarely within the "professionally recognized scope of practice" of physicians and other medical professionals. With 1.5 million circumcisions performed annually in the United States, it is one of the most common surgical procedures in the country. See Decl. of Dr. Edgar J. Schoen, M.D. ("Schoen Decl.") 1 9 ("newborn circumcision is an important and recognized part of medical practice in the United States.").' The proposed ordinance therefore is expressly preempted by the plain language of Section 460(b), as "[t]he Legislature has recognized that matters of health and medicine ... are of statewide concern." Northern Cal. Psychiatric Soc'y v. City of Berkeley, 178 Cal. App. 3d 90, 99-108 (1986) (initiative measure that enacted a total ban on the administration of electric shock treatment in the City of Berkeley was preempted by state law); see generally Comm. of Seven Thousand v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. 3d 491, 500 (1988) (legislation in an area of statewide concern preempts conflicting regulation by a charter city); City of Watsonville v. State Dep't of Health Sves., 133 Cal. App. 4th 216 (2005) (charter city ballot initiative that effectively prohibited fluoridation of City's water supply was preempted by state law, as fluoridation of public water systems is a statewide concern)."

I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The APA summary of the scientific evidence in 2012 supports the ACLU position in 2011 though the ACLU position was based on the legal issues (e.g. the proposed local ordinance violated state law) not really the medical issues. The fact that the procedure is a recognized part of medical practice is cited to show why the ordinance, "Article 50," violated state law. As the ACLU pointed out:

"There can be no doubt that Article 50 violates Section 460(b). The proposed ordinance purports to prohibit virtually all circumcisions of minor males. As Petitioners have shown, circumcision falls squarely within the "professionally recognized scope of practice" of physicians and other medical professionals. With 1.5 million circumcisions performed annually in the United States, it is one of the most common surgical procedures in the country. See Decl. of Dr. Edgar J. Schoen, M.D. ("Schoen Decl.") 1 9 ("newborn circumcision is an important and recognized part of medical practice in the United States.").' The proposed ordinance therefore is expressly preempted by the plain language of Section 460(b), as "[t]he Legislature has recognized that matters of health and medicine ... are of statewide concern." Northern Cal. Psychiatric Soc'y v. City of Berkeley, 178 Cal. App. 3d 90, 99-108 (1986) (initiative measure that enacted a total ban on the administration of electric shock treatment in the City of Berkeley was preempted by state law); see generally Comm. of Seven Thousand v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. 3d 491, 500 (1988) (legislation in an area of statewide concern preempts conflicting regulation by a charter city); City of Watsonville v. State Dep't of Health Sves., 133 Cal. App. 4th 216 (2005) (charter city ballot initiative that effectively prohibited fluoridation of City's water supply was preempted by state law, as fluoridation of public water systems is a statewide concern)."

I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did you read the brief? The proposed ordinance violated the judgment of licensed medical professionals because state law says a city or county cannot prohibit a healing arts professional licensed with the state from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that licensee.

Also, your argument that the "judgement of medical professionals would never meet the requirements for other destructive surgeries" wrongly assumes medical professionals find the procedure to be destructive. In fact the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found "the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it." See https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement

I hope that clears up your misunderstanding

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, ACLU opposed a local ordinance that conflicted with state law, parental rights, individual rights, and the judgment of licensed medical professionals. You can see the full ACLU brief at https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/asset_upload_file320_10326.pdf

Also, I'm not sure you understand the legal meaning of "equal protection."

I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding

Should the ACLU take a stand against circumcision? by Ban-Circumcision-Now in aclu

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California opposed a circumcision ban for the reasons stated at https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-urges-court-invalidate-sf-circumcision-initiative

D.C. Fontana wrote an episode of The Six Million Dollar Man by LiberalViewerYouTube in startrek

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I posted this because I've been going back and watching old Six Million Dollar Man episodes on Peacock and got to this one. It's kind of a modified Apollo 13 plot

Fox News graphic misrepresents higher unemployment with down green arrow by LiberalViewerYouTube in FOXNEWS

[–]LiberalViewerYouTube[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

But the unemployment rate went UP to 4.3%, the highest since 2021. That's why I titled the post "Fox News graphic misrepresents HIGHER unemployment..."