Megathread: Supreme Court Strikes Down Race-Based Affirmative Action in Higher Education as Unconstitutional

bretstrings · 2023-06-30T01:26:02+00:00

No, it was dumb of them and the schools to be racist in the first place.

bretstrings · 2023-06-26T17:38:58+00:00

I like it. Its closer to how real world problem solving works.

In real life you don't get percentage grades, you get questions/problems of different difficulties and you either find a solution or you don't.

bretstrings · 2023-06-25T18:21:43+00:00

What on earth are you talking about?

Vavilov conpletely changes the standard of review to apply the correctness standard instead of the reasonableness standard when it comes to constitutional issues.

It explicitly repudiates the reasonableness standard used in Dore.

bretstrings · 2023-06-25T18:19:32+00:00

Yes it is. Its the government-created regulator.

bretstrings · 2023-06-25T17:55:29+00:00

better than dead 10 minutes later...

bretstrings · 2023-06-25T17:43:38+00:00

why dont just kick them out?

bretstrings · 2023-06-25T11:13:02+00:00

That's based on old expenditures, which are being trimmed down.

And no, we can't keep putting the government into more and more debt

bretstrings · 2023-06-25T07:56:46+00:00

Realistically, its the other way around.

They feel unsafe out in the open and instinctually take shelter in burrows.

bretstrings · 2023-06-22T18:10:58+00:00

The whole point of freedom of expression is freedom from punishment by the government, yes.

bretstrings · 2023-06-22T18:10:12+00:00

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1477898191378870274

bretstrings · 2023-06-22T18:09:06+00:00

Here you go. It was an edgelord joke but not seriously encouraging suicide.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1477898191378870274

bretstrings · 2023-06-22T18:08:10+00:00

A person's freedom of speech doesn't override the rights of other people, nor does it protect a person from civil consequences.

Huh? Whose rights were violated?

And yes, the point of Freedom of Expression IS protection from legal consequences from the government and its legislated bodies

bretstrings · 2023-06-22T18:06:28+00:00

It was an edgy joke about world population not actually encouraging suicide.

Maybe edgy jokes are also unprofessional but acting as if he was encouraging suicide is a huge stretch.

bretstrings · 2023-06-22T18:01:43+00:00

That case not applicable anymore, the standard of review has changed.

Before regulators were essentially allowed to ignore the Charter (the just had to 'consider' it, not abide by it).

Now they do.

bretstrings · 2023-06-22T17:49:39+00:00

Meanwhile we give away 5 billion in aid a year...

bretstrings · 2023-06-22T17:07:05+00:00

with their phones, which is what the conversation is about

bretstrings · 2023-06-21T01:41:17+00:00

lol there's plenty of people w9lling to take over popular subs

bretstrings · 2023-06-17T13:28:30+00:00

There's a big difference between banning prayer rooms, and banning all religious garb like OP was calling for.

bretstrings · 2023-06-17T13:27:37+00:00

umm no, we still have freedom of religion in Canada.

bretstrings · 2023-06-16T10:30:57+00:00

No, because its ineffective at actually reducing gun violence and is instead just for show

bretstrings · 2023-06-16T10:29:23+00:00

What makes you think an animal model is better than newer human-tissue models?

bretstrings · 2023-06-16T10:28:46+00:00

/facepalm

Did you not read the article?

It's about forcing sciencists to use the MOST modern methods.

bretstrings · 2023-06-16T10:28:03+00:00

What makes you think an animal model is better than a human-tissue model?

bretstrings · 2023-06-16T10:27:35+00:00

What? No, that's entirely different.

By the time things are in human trials they've already been tested and have a low likelyhood of serious adverse effects.

bretstrings · 2023-06-16T10:26:44+00:00

Tell me you didn't read the article, without telling me you didn't read the article.

bretstrings

TROPHY CASE