Say Something Completely Random And Off Topic

@irwin posted:

Here is a link to something from the NY Times which "explains" the textbook dustup in Florida.  I must say, I do not understand this at all.  Except, I see that the textbooks extol cooperation, which is to a tyrant, a bad thing.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/loo...ected-115847845.html

One of the examples in a banned math book at the 9-12th level was a legitimate poll on race.

As someone who works in the field of stats for a career, these are things that should be taught in 9-12.  These are real world examples that we should be using to teach the kids with actual outcomes that one can use to explain a real world issue using math.

I've always hated when some of the non math oriented folks say 'I've never needed to use algebra in my life" then complain about how they should teach kids how finance and mortgages work.  (and btw, everyone uses algebra in their life)

Makes you wonder who's really the snowflake here.

@billhike posted:

For sure, but this guy seems especially intent on stifling/insulting/hurting anyone that disagrees with him.

We in Canada are well familiar with this phenomenon.  Especially over the last 7 years or so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA

a fun youtube video!

Even though the old dinosaurs of Rock tour with recorded backing tracks and lip sync it doesn't mean that Måneskin have resurrected rock.

Well this Roe decision is interesting.   Can't say that I am overly for either side...but anything that gets democrats this upset I'm all in for.    This is like the Holy Grail for them....besides Trump.  The only thing that would make them explode more would be to have Trump re-elected.   Interesting day.

@napacat posted:

Well this Roe decision is interesting.   Can't say that I am overly for either side...but anything that gets democrats this upset I'm all in for.    This is like the Holy Grail for them....besides Trump.  The only thing that would make them explode more would be to have Trump re-elected.   Interesting day.

Not just Democrats.  The majority of women and independents are enraged as well.   As is anyone who respects women.

I respect women for sure.  Funny how nobody cared about government infringement when they were mandating vaccines though right?

@napacat posted:

I respect women for sure.  Funny how nobody cared about government infringement when they were mandating vaccines though right?

Completely false equivalency.  But Dr. T has done a good job explaining why vaccines are necessary in the public interest so no need for me to rehash that.

And if you don't respect a women's right to do as she pleases with her own body, you don't respect women.  Full stop.

Don’t

Feed

The

Troll

@billhike posted:

Don’t

Feed

The

Troll

But he seems so hungry!

The constitution has always been about weighing the rights of individual vs the interests of the public at large.

If one is so stupid as to think that an ignorant persons right is more important than the rest of society is anywhere near equivalent to an individual families right to their own decisions that doesnt affect the public at large, is honestly way more obtuse than I can ever imagine

1) I favor the idea that women, in consultation with their physicians, should have the right to have an abortion or not, as they choose.

2) The constitution, in reality, says nothing about abortions, contraception, same-sex marriage, or interracial marriage.  So the originalists say that if a state wants to prohibit abortions, same-sex marriage, etc., that is not violative of the constitution.  States can permit these things also.

3) Of course, at the time of the enactment of the Constitution, there were no telephones, radios, internet, cars, and so forth.  So, suppose a state passes a law saying that you cannot use your telephone to harass others by calling them at all hours of the night and so forth.   In fact, it is a crime to do this.  The defendant claims that the first amendment gives him the right  to "free speech" and he has the right to make these offensive phone calls.  I don't think that defense would be successful.  As Justice Holmes said (and I paraphrase), "You cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre."  In other words, there are constitutional limits to free speech.

4) I am not offended by having limits on other things.  For example, the 2nd Amendment protects the "right to bear arms."  It is clear that a statute forbidding the sale of machine guns and howitzers to private persons is a permissible law and does not run afoul of the 2nd amendment.

5) One could argue that under Jewish law, an abortion is required to be performed if the life of the mother is in danger.  Not just permitted, but required.  If a Jewish woman finds herself in that terrible situation, would the free exercise clause of the Constitution render a statute forbidding abortion unenforceable for her?

@irwin posted:

3) Of course, at the time of the enactment of the Constitution, there were no telephones, radios, internet, cars, and so forth.  So, suppose a state passes a law saying that you cannot use your telephone to harass others by calling them at all hours of the night and so forth.   In fact, it is a crime to do this.  The defendant claims that the first amendment gives him the right  to "free speech" and he has the right to make these offensive phone calls.  I don't think that defense would be successful.  As Justice Holmes said (and I paraphrase), "You cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre."  In other words, there are constitutional limits to free speech.

wouldn't I be successful in arguing 1st amendment rights if I were to call a government official in such capacity?

Meet the most gullible person in the world.

@mneeley490 posted:

Meet the most gullible person in the world.

unfortunately not.

she's known a life that pays her very well and with a retirement and health care for life.

She's selling her house in Bangor, and can retire financially set with not a care in the world about her constituents

@irwin posted:

2) The constitution, in reality, says nothing about abortions, contraception, same-sex marriage, or interracial marriage.  So the originalists say that if a state wants to prohibit abortions, same-sex marriage, etc., that is not violative of the constitution.  States can permit these things also.

One also has to love how Originalists gloss over the 9th amendment.  (still part of our bill of rights)

Today is my lucky day! I finally got my hearing aids. I had so many troubles with different stores and finally, I found this hearing aid store and today I received my order. They are lifesavers for me!

@mneeley490 posted:

Meet the most gullible person in the world.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me three times, I’m Susan Collins.

Yesterday's testimony confirms what we already new about 1/6;  surely no one can back 45 after hearing that, correct? 

@patespo1 posted:

Yesterday's testimony confirms what we already new about 1/6;  surely no one can back 45 after hearing that, correct? 

You’re kidding, right? His fuctard followers will dig in and make themselves believe that like the election results, everything being told is a lie. Give a listen to conservative media for a few minutes. They have their own “alternative facts”, as always.