Messages

51

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Is it fair for Transgenders to compete in sports as who they think they are? No

« on: June 20, 2023, 12:00:23 PM »

So fair to say you think Brown v. Board of Education was incorrectly decided?

Not sure I actually need the clarification but if that’s your position I think we’ve established we’re too far apart to have a real debate here. We can set aside whether you think folks like Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey would have even a fraction of their current business power if they had been prevented from going into business with white people.

I don't know that I would say the outcome of Brown v Board was incorrectly decided. I don't know that I would agree with the reasoning in the decision and would perhaps be in line with Thomas Sowell's arguments. I'd have to do a lot more reading into it, though, before stating a certain opinion.

I also wouldn't support a law that restricted who people can go into business with. However, I don't think the courts should strike it down on 14th amendment grounds. If they are going to strike it down, I think it should be on 1st amendment grounds.

52

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Is it fair for Transgenders to compete in sports as who they think they are? No

« on: June 19, 2023, 01:16:37 PM »

Mixed race partnerships?

I knew this would be the next question. I would not call this discrimination. I also would not call a law prohibiting business partnerships between close family members discriminatory.

Well I appreciate you keeping with a logically consistent point and also confirming you have no idea what discrimination means lmao.

What do you think discrimination means?

It's quite possible that I just have a much narrower definition than you do. I'm also not limited by what courts may have previously ruled in forming my personal opinions.

I’m actually curious what your definition is, cause you appear to be stuck in the “separate but equal” zone where there’s no discrimination so long as some form of bathroom/water fountain is available to each race.

To advance the ball here, my definition of discrimination (for purposes of this discussion) is any limit placed on someone’s full enjoyment of a right or privilege based on an immutable characteristic.

So for example in the case of mixed race businesses, I find it laughable that someone who does not strike me as a complete idiot comes in here with a straight face saying it would not be discriminatory to prohibit a black (or female) person from going into business with Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or any number of other billionaires in the US who are overwhelmingly white males.

It would also prevent a white person from going into business with Robert F. Smith, Oprah Winfrey or Michael Jordan. The last 14 words of your post are immaterial to me.

My definition of discrimination is if somebody else is allowed to do the behavior specified in the policy. If there was a law that said white people may not go into business with other races, that would be discriminatory.

Like I mentioned earlier, if I was a Supreme Court justice, I may very well find a law prohibiting mixed race business partnerships unconstitutional, but I would do so on First Amendment grounds rather than discrimination or Equal Protection Clause grounds.

53

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: CoronaBro Meltdown/SARS-Covid-19 Spitballing Thread

« on: June 19, 2023, 10:15:13 AM »

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Flossing is actually a really poor example for what you're trying to get across.

Stay away from that flouride cire

I don't know about fluoride, but what evidence is there that flossing is beneficial or worth the time? It's basically something dentists have just said for years and there is no conclusive evidence that there are any benefits. It's just a conventional wisdom kind of thing very much like how football coaches are incredibly conservative on fourth downs.

54

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: CoronaBro Meltdown/SARS-Covid-19 Spitballing Thread

« on: June 19, 2023, 09:16:37 AM »

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Flossing is actually a really poor example for what you're trying to get across.

55

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Is it fair for Transgenders to compete in sports as who they think they are? No

« on: June 18, 2023, 06:01:15 PM »

Mixed race partnerships?

I knew this would be the next question. I would not call this discrimination. I also would not call a law prohibiting business partnerships between close family members discriminatory.

Well I appreciate you keeping with a logically consistent point and also confirming you have no idea what discrimination means lmao.

What do you think discrimination means?

It's quite possible that I just have a much narrower definition than you do. I'm also not limited by what courts may have previously ruled in forming my personal opinions.

56

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Is it fair for Transgenders to compete in sports as who they think they are? No

« on: June 18, 2023, 05:59:15 PM »

I do not think a law banning same-sex business partnerships is discriminatory.

Do you think such a law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest?

I do not think such a law would further an important government interest. However, I don't think it's the kind of thing a court should find  the law invalid on discrimination grounds; perhaps on freedom of association grounds.

Well, you've just admitted it would violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which addresses discrimination, so ...

I think it's more of a 1st Amendment thing than an Equal Protection thing.

57

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Is it fair for Transgenders to compete in sports as who they think they are? No

« on: June 18, 2023, 04:03:31 PM »

Mixed race partnerships?

I knew this would be the next question. I would not call this discrimination. I also would not call a law prohibiting business partnerships between close family members discriminatory.

58

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Is it fair for Transgenders to compete in sports as who they think they are? No

« on: June 18, 2023, 04:01:18 PM »

I do not think a law banning same-sex business partnerships is discriminatory.

Do you think such a law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest?

I do not think such a law would further an important government interest. However, I don't think it's the kind of thing a court should find  the law invalid on discrimination grounds; perhaps on freedom of association grounds.

59

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Is it fair for Transgenders to compete in sports as who they think they are? No

« on: June 18, 2023, 12:23:37 PM »

I do not think a law banning same-sex business partnerships is discriminatory.

60

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Is it fair for Transgenders to compete in sports as who they think they are? No

« on: June 17, 2023, 09:06:06 PM »

I used to adhere to the maxim “you can’t legislate morality” but ultimately that’s how we make all laws…bc it is unacceptable for that behavior to be tolerated, as spracs articulated far more eloquently than I can. I think the nuance is when a thing is only illegal for some. Like with murder it doesn’t matter who you are, you are not allowed to murder anyone. But like, marriage, or sexual congress…oh well that’s fine because you’re a man and a woman, but 2 dudes? Absolutely not, illegal.
But echoing what chongs posted a couple pages back, the cause for concern is laws that allow for selective discrimination, which is kind of like, the gop’s whole thing, the last few years.

In your mind, if same-sex marriage was made illegal, what groups of people would be allowed to participate in same-sex marriages since you seem to think this would be only be illegal for some?

61

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: May 30, 2023, 06:33:15 AM »

Maybe assessment wasn't the best choice of word. You just need to test your students periodically when homeschooling. I've always just taken this to mean giving them an exam. The requirements for homeschooling in Kansas are listed here:

https://hslda.org/post/how-to-comply-with-kansas-homeschool-law.

In terms of oversight, there is basically none in my experience. We've been homeschooling for nine years and have never dealt with anyone from the state. If we were doing something crazy or not teaching our kids anything, maybe someone would report it and we would get a visit.

62

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: May 29, 2023, 12:00:30 AM »

a quick google search showed Kansas has no curriculum or diploma requirements, just instruction time requirements. But I'm guessing if the kids want to go to college they'd need a GED. Also I imagine justwin is an expert on the subject but he wasn't very polite about it.

https://www.ksde.org/portals/0/ecsets/factsheets/factsheet-homeschool.pdf

In what way was I not polite? My point was primarily that if you know the homeschooling laws in your state, there is a very good chance that you don't know the laws in other states.

You are also required to assess in Kansas. This does not mean taking standardized tests, only that the students are being assessed on what they are supposed to be learning.

Another factoid for education in Kansas is that a kid is not required to attend school (or be homeschooled) until his/her 7th birthday.

In terms of going to college, a GED is not necessarily required. A homeschooled student is effectively going to be presenting a diploma from an unaccredited school in Kansas (that's what all homeschools are). You will need to be able to convince whoever (or whatever college) that this diploma is worth something. You can do that with a GED perhaps. It's also possible to present the work a student did as evidence of how they were educated. I also imagine that if you scored a pretty highly on the ACT or SAT, that would be convincing as well.

63

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: May 27, 2023, 08:44:45 PM »

I get you don’t agree with them (I don’t either) but saying “I’m going to teach your child xyz whether you like it or not” is a parental rights issue. “I’m not going to tell you things about your child that you want to know” also implicates parental rights.  “Your child must be vaccinated to do xyz.” Same deal.

These things also implicate a host of other issues (education/general interest/public health/child privacy rights, etc).  It also bears pointing out that “parental rights” take a back seat in like a ton of different situations (see child protection laws!). But in the cultural debate on these issues the right has been the one waving the “parental rights” - which is why LSOC’s comment threw me off.  I didn’t know what else he was referring to.

Are you intentionally being obtuse? Literally education is all about "teaching your child xyz whether you like it or not," and that's true for public and private school. Every state in America has educational standards, things that have to be taught, this is the case even if you home school. Education in America isn't something that individual parents get to dictate, for obvious reasons. The only subjects under attack are ones that could possibly involve LTGBQ or race. These bills that state you can't discuss or teach gender before x grade is also a sham, because they're still discussing gender, unless they're also removing books that have any cisgender mentions, which we know isn't happening.

If you want to make this a parental rights issue then the proposed laws need to be giving the parents the ability to home school without state standards instead of targeting two subsets of a potential subjects and nothing else.

I'm not sure you're familiar with homeschooling laws in all states. What am I required to teach my kids in Kansas when they are homeschooled?

64

Kansas State Football / Re: Coaching contracts

« on: May 10, 2023, 08:54:34 AM »

Yeah you're right, it's just the homeschool thing is definitely a trigger for me because of how the education system is being used to fight culture wars.

Anyway, back to football, yay sports!

The homeschool thing triggers you because people are taking their kids out of schools and not fighting culture wars in them?

65

Essentially Flyertalk / Re: Favorite J in a PB&J

« on: May 03, 2023, 10:44:12 AM »

Bonne Maman Four Fruit Preserves is tops.

There are only four ingredients in it: fruit, brown cane sugar, lemon juice and pectin.

66

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: clarence thomas

« on: April 28, 2023, 08:35:37 AM »

I guess in my world, you're either fit for office or you're not fit for office.

i guess in my world pulling a trigger is either good or bad, but it sounds like you think it depends on whether it sends the bullet crashing through the soft gelatinous cranium of a newborn babe.

We definitely do not agree that pulling a trigger is categorically good or bad.

67

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: clarence thomas

« on: April 27, 2023, 05:05:55 PM »

So it's ok for Feinstein to be absent if there's a Democratic president, but if a Republican was president, then it would be a problem? Assuming a Republican would not veto the bill.

i would probably still prefer feinstein not resign if there was a republican president, but yes, of course the actual impact of her absence matters.

I guess in my world, you're either fit for office or you're not fit for office.

68

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: clarence thomas

« on: April 27, 2023, 04:55:41 PM »

sen stabenow did a pretty decent job of pushing back, although i wish she'd have pointed the three month backlog of judges already out of committee and the fact that while it might not be exactly what dems' little partisan hearts desire, some republicans have been happy to provide bipartisan support for more moderate judges.

i did like that she points out how many of the voices participating in the anti-feinstein whisper campaign have a rooting interest in who will become california's next senator.  and right on cue, ro khanna obliges with this inane tweet blaming feinstein's absence for overturning an epa rule.  except, of course, biden is president and will veto the bill, rendering feinstein's missing vote meaningless.

so why is khanna tweeting such nonsense?  probably not because he has yet to learn of the presidential veto power.  more likely because he's endorsed barbara lee's senate candidacy.  and unlike porter and schiff, neither of whom have a chance at being selected to replace feinstein if she resigns, lee appears to have a considerably better chance of being appointed to feinstein's seat than she does of being elected to it.


https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/1651571775031980032

So it's ok for Feinstein to be absent if there's a Democratic president, but if a Republican was president, then it would be a problem? Assuming a Republican would not veto the bill.

69

Other Sports (Tiger's Back) / Re: CHIEFS

« on: April 27, 2023, 08:59:48 AM »

I don't really disagree with this sentiment.

https://twitter.com/TrumanChief/status/1651566942791122944

70

Other Sports (Tiger's Back) / Re: CHIEFS

« on: April 25, 2023, 04:52:02 PM »

In a world with endless time I would write a thesis posturing that wideouts are the new running backs.  A healthy passing game is a product of qb and offensive line play, you shouldn’t spend first round picks trying to find the next j’marr chase or justin jefferson that you’ll eventually have to pay through the nose for, all while paying your franchise qb 50 million per year.  It’s just a bad strategy overall.

i think you're generally right here. with a brain genius coach and $50M qb, you can make it work without an elite WR. and you can absolutely find serviceable WR's who are able to get open outside of the 1st round.

I would say this is really only true when you have an elite receiving TE like Kelce. If you take Kelce off the team, you probably need an elite WR.

71

Other Sports (Tiger's Back) / Re: CHIEFS

« on: April 25, 2023, 04:50:51 PM »

I'm hoping Toney can stay healthy and Moore can take the next step in his progression and WR isn't as big of a concern as it appears it might be. I think TDs by both in the Super Bowl should have them going into the season full of self-confidence. Anything other than an OT, Edge or CB in the first will be disappointing.

There's probably more of a need at DT than EDGE.

72

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Will this election process take down FOX news? OANN, Newsmax, etc. Thread

« on: April 24, 2023, 11:10:01 AM »

Well, he did cost them almost $1 billion.

They can write off the settlement and reduce their taxes. They also will likely get a fair bit of the settlement amount covered by insurance.

73

Essentially Flyertalk / Re: The Real Estate Investing Thread

« on: April 22, 2023, 08:40:20 AM »

We aren't building enough housing where it's needed (where people want/need to live). As to the definition of a crisis, we could quibble about the meaning of that. If you want to call it a "major housing problem" for mollification purposes, I'm alright with that, too. It's a major problem in big(ger) cities.

The inability to build more housing seems like the #1 factor in the affordability crisis we're seeing in major cities. It also seems like being a NIMBY is the most broadly bipartisan position held by Americans. Yes, it varies by city. But about a third of all Americans live in metros with major affordability problems. “Major affordability” problems meaning the median income is nowhere close to enough to own a home in the city. Places like LA, NY, SF, but also Seattle, Austin, Denver, San Diego, Miami, etc.

So first world crisis?

anglo world crisis.  it doesn't seem to happen much in non-english speaking countries.

I remember listening to someone who I believe was an aid worker and they said that Port-au-Prince had some of the highest housing prices in the world. I don't know if that is still the case today.

74

Other Sports (Tiger's Back) / Re: The Royals

« on: April 19, 2023, 09:12:06 AM »

The Royals are on pace for 32 wins.  I might wait for at least one of those 18 game pods to pass before completely dismissing the season.

Welp

The pace has been upped to 36 wins.

75

Other Sports (Tiger's Back) / Re: European Club Soccer Thread! (EPL, Champions League, Europa, etc... :D )

« on: April 02, 2023, 06:21:12 PM »

Watching Man U lose was fun/funny but I think this is funnier because of how much money they spent. I feel legit bad for Felix and Kante though. They don’t deserve this.

You choose to go to Chelsea, especially Kante taking money from Abramovich, you deserve everything you get.

Aren’t you an Arsenal fan?

I got confused and thought they were owned by gulf oil. Fair enough, I think saying some billionaires are more ethical than others is like bragging about which circle of hell you are in.

I'm not going to defend billionaires, but I do think there is a difference between people like Clark Hunt and Stan Kroenke and those like Roman Abramovich. Saying there is no difference is like saying all heads of state are the same and there is no difference between Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron.

1) I do think there is a difference
2) I don’t think chelsea ownership now is any worse than arsenal but I concede your point about Kante, I just think there are very few players that even consider that and patting yourself on the back for any of it is a little silly.

Ownership at Chelsea right now is no worse than most any other billionaire sports, no doubt. I'm not patting myself on the back about it, but choosing to play for Chelsea right now is a very interesting decision. The club is rudderless and has no direction. They tried to assemble a team by just throwing money around with no thought to how the pieces will fit together. They threw the money around in a way clearly intended to skirt FFP rules. If you are Joao Felix, or let's say Mykhailo Mudryk, these things were very apparent in January when those transfers were agreed. If you don't like the results which were very predictable, then you should have thought twice about what you were signing onto.

And yes my thoughts on this are very strongly influenced by my intense dislike for Chelsea.

Do players that go out on loan have much say in where they go? Genuinely don’t know.

Probably technically not, but in reality I'm sure they do. Felix, for example, facilitated the loan to Chelsea by extending his contract with Atletico Madrid.