Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
From the article:
Are you saying that the Moral Guardians don't think low-cut shirts are for arousing or gratifying sexual desire?
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianThis is a basic EU sovereignty issue. Tell the U.S. to fry ice.
@Fighteer: Your position lacks the right of individuals to create false identities, which I would actually allow, as long as they were obligated to maintain one "real" profile that was accurate to themselves, and as long as any false identities did not imitate people who actually exist nor grant any purchasing powers or rights. We have the right to lie to advertisers, which includes decoys in case the master file database is compromised.
re: Rolling Jubilee: man I hope that's successful, especially if they target people with medical issues and debts related to that.
edited 15th Feb '13 12:50:20 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Public "decency" laws are a thorny subject. On the one hand, you have the argument that there is nothing indecent about the human body, and on the other you have the Moral Guardians. Frankly, a man offended to see a naked breast in public might want to have his sexual preference examined, in my opinion.
I do not agree that there is any right, whether explicit or implied, to a false identity. You may wish to be anonymous, which is a different matter, but lying about your identity is a felony almost everywhere. Why should online be any different?
edited 15th Feb '13 12:50:16 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The big deal is that wearing shirts which show breasts at all is now a crime. The big deal is that it has enshrined in law the idea that a part of someone's body is sexual simply because it belongs to a woman and will then criminalize that sexuality which women never asked for.
Also, it's meant to quash rallies which show people that simply having the body of a woman does not make someone a sexual object and help make women equal to men, as the amendment is directly meant to outlaw topless rallies.
EDIT: Fighteer, I love you like a wise and knowledgable friend, but what you just said is kind of exactly why people hold topless rallies, as breasts are considered mostly in a sexual setting rather than as a part of a body as they are with male breasts, and people who participate in these rallies seem not to want to be sexualized like that. Absolutely no offence intended, I simply wanted to point that out and explain that.
edited 15th Feb '13 12:56:54 PM by Enkufka
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryAlso, this. It's like you have some grumpy old men sitting around in the legislature going, "Hrm, breasts... don't wanna see 'em. At all. Get 'em away from me. Grumble grumble. Now where's my mistress?"
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Of course, another way that governments responsible for the storage of this database can achieve that would be by creating millions of virtual citizens - they have no real money or identity, but engage in such transactions on a large scale. The incentive to gather data for advertising purposes suddenly diminishes when there's a 1 in 2 chance that you're trying to sell stuff to someone who doesn't really exist.
EDIT: re: boobies: I am adamantly against any bill that treats women's body parts as objects to be regulated, as that necessarily entails treating women as objects to be regulated.
edited 15th Feb '13 12:56:43 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.It also would make it very hard for busty women in general. If you're above a C cup it's very hard to have all parts of your breasts covered at all times when you're doing things like swimming, or even just going out in hot weather. I've never found a swimsuit I don't have some cleavage in. This would ban busty women from going out in public.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dickedited 15th Feb '13 12:59:52 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Only if they think that cleavage can be arousing.
Christina Hendricks, in jail, for making guys get the hots. Yeah. Not a good bill.
edited 15th Feb '13 1:08:32 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianCleavage is illegal in many places, especially the Middle East. Dunno if that law would have the same effect (partially because I do not care about breasts enough to know the meaning of "cleavage")
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanYeah. "The female breast" would be on the same level as seeing a testicle, considering the way they worded it.
So where does the chest end and the breast begin? Because you'll be able to show the chest and not the breast.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryIs the Chick-Fil-A CEO speaking out against the bill?
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Or we can just make all women in the U.S. wear a burqa. That would do the trick. Legislate clothing for one gender. Yaaaaaay!
@Radical Taoist: Companies already store your personal information. The EU law that is being considered would have the same exact enforcement issues as my idea — how do you compel companies to erase their data and verify that it happened?
If you enshrine the right for individuals to sue for misuse of data, you can help make a dent in that problem. Another way is to cut off a business' access to the global data system for misuse. If they have no other way to generate payment transactions, the threat alone would be enough to keep them in line, because then it would be cash or nothing.
As to how you get them to use the system, you make the per-transaction fee lower than the current system. This is easy thanks to economies of scale. Then you make it illegal for any payment transactor to use anything other than the new system. You declare that the existing credit networks will be shut down on X date, and that's that. Obviously you'd subsidize adoption of the new system for smaller businesses; that would help a lot.
edited 15th Feb '13 1:18:00 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

No more low cut shirts, for one.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian