On 05/05/2010 11:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 05 May 2010 23:01:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> You all know that this thread has a time limit. After tomorrow
>> (Thursday) the election is over, I hope.<g>
>
> It seems lots of people hope so, but what are the real odds of a hung
> parliament?
>
> Jim

“Real odds” how would I know? But at the end of last month they were 8 
to 13, so said the bookies. Today it was 4 to 7 for a hung parliament.
I think that our parliament should be hung ;-)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> You seemed to support that law or at least didn't condemn it.
> 
>   I think that's the core issue in this whole thread.
> 
>   It was not my intention to support that law. What I was really objecting
> to was (what I perceive to be) the hypersensitivity many people have with
> anything which deals with "race". In other words, my question was whether
> people are objecting to the law purely because they have an automatic
> aversion to anything that makes a distinction between races, or whether
> there are *logical* reasons to oppose the law. (No need to answer that
> for the umpteenth time. I am explaining here, not asking.)
> 

Ah, I wondered what was carrying this thread out for so long.

Alright, the reason is that race is not a good distinction. It looks
like it, on the surface. Maybe 90% of illegals are Mexican, I don't know
the exact numbers. But I would be willing to guess that around 80 to 90%
of the legal population would be of Mexican decent as well. So, race is
not the determining factor. There is also, as pointed out elsewhere in a
recent branch, the fact that you can not look at a person and say 'ahh,
they are this race'. The most you can say is 'they show features of
decent from this race.'

In an area that is already as racially charged and biased. where there
are people with strong prejudices in positions of power, allowing
discrimination based on race is akin to handing them a law saying 'we
know you were right all along, run those folks out of town.

>   There are people (but not anybody here, as far as I can tell) who are
> *so* hypersensitive about "racism" and racial issues that they are
> promoting outright banning the entire concept of "race", and are saying
> that *anything at all* which makes any kind of distinction between "races"
> is extremely bad and should be banned. Naturally even any kind of honest
> police work which does anything at all that distinguishes between racial
> features, is also automatically bad, even if there is absolutely nothing
> in that police work that could be considered discriminatory or racist.
> 

My personal opinion is that race is becoming meaningless as people allow
it to. I admit that I can not look at a person and tell the race of
their grandparents. If I can not look at someone and tell, and I suspect
that the average police officer can not simply look at someone and know
their race, why should race be a basis for anything?

Discussing racial issues and racism is fine, to me. Allowing racism to
bleed over into how the government interacts with citizens, in manners
were race is of no use at all is bad.

If you want to suppose that race can be determined, then I propose a
government wide challenge. Any official, acting, sitting, whatever, who
needs to be able to identify a person as being one race or another,
should be able to identify, and categorize, from picture peoples of the
following decent: Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, Thai,
Vietnamese, Maori, Malaysian, Native Austrialian; Indian, Saudi, Iraqi,
Egyptian; Nigerian, South Afriacan, Brazilian, Mexican, American,
British . . . and so on. Any misses would show that the traits they are
making decisions based on are either not indicative of a certain race or
it would show they are incapable of applying race as a means of
separating the correct people for what ever it is the law allows them to
separate people for.

>   My personal opinion is that *if* in some contexts crime could be more
> efficiently stopped by making the distinction, then it would make sense
> to do so. Race shouldn't be something to be so hypersensitive about. It's
> just another human trait as anything else.
> 

For the reason above, it isn't. A white shop owner says he was robbed by
'some Mexican gangster kids. you know, like those kids talking funny on
the corner.' near a Cuban neighborhood. Should the police focus on
Mexicans, or Cuban, or gang members? Maybe with a bit better
description, eye color, hair, height, skin color, they can narrow it
down. Could make things worse, and say it is a Brazilian neighborhood.
1000 mile difference geographically, a different language that sounds
similar, some shared facial traits in general. Similar cooking, if you
pick and choose carefully.

The average person is just unequipped to distinguish races, even if they
themselves think that they are. Because of that, why should the law,
which is enforced by the average person, allow them to make distinctions
based on their perception of race?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 May 2010 18:33:46 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> > On the other hand, the ideological reasons many have for keeping it are
> > as bad, or worse. There was even some clown a while back teaching
> > "diversity" at colleges, who had the gall to claim that you couldn't
> > expect Black people to be on time, because there was something inherent
> > in the "race" that made them always late, so you had to "work around"
> > this issue, if you wanted to properly deal with and implement
> > "diversity". He was a) also black, and b) completely serious about it,
> > and had a whole host of other "traits" he tried to claim other people
> > have, based on their race, and you had to adjust schedules, rules,
> > policies, etc., not to be inclusive of different ideas (what most people
> > call "diversity" in businesses, and which can sometimes be just as
> > stupid), but different "races".
> > 
> > As far as I know, the bozo is still wandering around the country side
> > babbling this BS at colleges.

> It sounds like this bozo may be projecting cultural norms on an ethnic 
> group.  For example, I note that often when I schedule an appointment 
> with people in some countries in Africa (I have no idea what the person's 
> race is because I don't speak on the phone with them, see them, or 
> communicate in any way other than e-mail and chat typically), they may 
> arrive at the online session as much as an hour late.  But I think that 
> is largely a cultural thing, due to poor transportation infrastructure or 
> other similar reasons that are environmental.

> I guess what I may be trying to say is that this bozo has reasons for 
> thinking what he does, but he's applying poor logic and attributing 
> racial reasons rather than cultural or other environmental factors.

  It often seems that when someone claims some "race" (eg. "blacks") to
be in some way inferior to another (in practice exclusively "whites"),
it always causes huge controversy, but when it happens the other way
around, people seldom even notice, and if they do, they usually don't
care much, even though technically there's no difference.

  For example some years ago there was, I think, some kind of
multiculturalism / tolerance / anti-racism theme in some school here
in Finland (I think it was a secondary school, or the likes). One
task given to students was to write an essay on the subject. The best
essays were published on the website of the school.

  One of the essays had a rather peculiar sentence in it. Otherwise it
was typical text on this subject that you can expect from a person in
his early teens or such, and in fact this one sentence was likewise as
well. However, the contents of the sentence were rather peculiar in that
it stated how black people are generally better at sports than white people
(and this was written explicitly as an argument of why racist people are
so wrong in claiming that black people are inferior to white people).

  Apparently this didn't catch anybody's eye, as it was published in the
website as one of the best exemplars of student essays. The teacher who
read and evaluated the essay didn't seem to think anything special about it.

  Now, imagine that the sentence would have been reversed, in other words,
claiming that white people are in some thing better than black people.
Imagine the commotion and controversy.

  I think this example is rather telling. And it certainly isn't the only
example of such things.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 
> If you want to suppose that race can be determined, then I propose a
> government wide challenge. Any official, acting, sitting, whatever, who
> needs to be able to identify a person as being one race or another,
> should be able to identify, and categorize, from picture peoples of the
> following decent: Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, Thai,
> Vietnamese, Maori, Malaysian, Native Austrialian; Indian, Saudi, Iraqi,
> Egyptian; Nigerian, South Afriacan, Brazilian, Mexican, American,
> British . . . and so on. Any misses would show that the traits they are
> making decisions based on are either not indicative of a certain race or
> it would show they are incapable of applying race as a means of
> separating the correct people for what ever it is the law allows them to
> separate people for.

I propose a challenge.

Let's take 50 Arizona police officers, follow them for a day, and see 
how accurately they identify illegal aliens. One side or the other would 
have to STFU about the quality of the officer's profiling methods.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I think this example is rather telling. And it certainly isn't the only
> example of such things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B9QGrpdu5Y

And yes, there are controversies over that. California keeps flip-flopping 
between "affirmative action" and not. (AA being where you make it easier for 
minorities to (say) get into college simply because they're a minority.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And yes, there are controversies over that. California keeps flip-flopping 
> between "affirmative action" and not. (AA being where you make it easier for 
> minorities to (say) get into college simply because they're a minority.)

  One of the most hilarious terms that some people use is "reverse racism".

  That term just doesn't make any sense. What is "reverse racism"? What
people *mean* by that, and I'm not kidding a bit here, is when a white
person is the victim and a non-white person is the perpretrator. As if
regular plain "racism" was only when a white person is prejudiced or
discriminates a non-white person due to his ethnicity. Just the existence
of that term and the meaning it's used with is even more telling, IMO.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I think that our parliament should be hung ;-)

I think you mean 'hanged'. :-)
See you tomorrow @ 7.
BTW don't forget that you are now on record as saying that you're buying ;-)
> I’ll tell you something. This Friday I get Dr John so drunk that he will regret
starting this thread. 


John
-- 
Cogito sum,|| wbu### [at] tznvypbz (rot'ed) || GPG Key Fingerprint:
ergo sum,  ||   These opinions are mine alone,   || 0D9BCF4CF1B71CA2F5F7
cogito     ||     others can find their own      || BFBBCBC34EDEAEFCE453

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 May 2010 08:51:31 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   I think this example is rather telling. And it certainly isn't the
>   only
> example of such things.

It is - applied here in the US to decision making, we call it "reverse 
discrimination" (which in some ways I think is kinda a stupid term, 
because it's still discrimination, though I understand what's meant by 
it).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:03:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 05/05/2010 11:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 May 2010 23:01:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> You all know that this thread has a time limit. After tomorrow
>>> (Thursday) the election is over, I hope.<g>
>>
>> It seems lots of people hope so, but what are the real odds of a hung
>> parliament?
>>
>> Jim
> 
> “Real odds” how would I know? But at the end of last month they were 8
> to 13, so said the bookies. Today it was 4 to 7 for a hung parliament. I
> think that our parliament should be hung ;-)

LOL

The projections I've seen show nobody with a majority (ie greater than, 
what is it, 326?), but with the conservatives with the largest number of 
MPs.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> It is - applied here in the US to decision making, we call it "reverse 
> discrimination" (which in some ways I think is kinda a stupid term, 
> because it's still discrimination, though I understand what's meant by 
> it).

  I think "reverse discrimination" is the idea that two wrongs can make
a right. Which I think is a bad idea in the long run. Do enough "reverse
discrimination" and you will only cause more animosity between people,
as some people will feel that others are getting privileges, not to talk
about the hypocrisy ("all people are equal and should have equal rights
and privileges, but we are giving this group of people extra privileges").

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I think "reverse discrimination" is the idea that two wrongs can make
> a right. 

The proponents claim that it's making up for past wrongs. Since economics 
(amongst other things) has a high level of hysteresis in families and 
cultures, by (for example) giving money to people for education who have 
families that traditionally have been unable to pay for education because of 
lack of education caused by earlier racial discrimination, you can get 
people back on par with the rest of the culture.

> about the hypocrisy ("all people are equal and should have equal rights
> and privileges, but we are giving this group of people extra privileges").

It's not hypocrisy any more than making the thief give back the stolen money 
is stealing.

I'm not saying I agree, mind, but I can see the rationale.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 May 2010 15:08:48 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> It is - applied here in the US to decision making, we call it "reverse
>> discrimination" (which in some ways I think is kinda a stupid term,
>> because it's still discrimination, though I understand what's meant by
>> it).
> 
>   I think "reverse discrimination" is the idea that two wrongs can make
> a right. Which I think is a bad idea in the long run. 

I agree with this. A better approach is to get rid of the reverse 
discrimination.

> Do enough "reverse
> discrimination" and you will only cause more animosity between people,
> as some people will feel that others are getting privileges, not to talk
> about the hypocrisy ("all people are equal and should have equal rights
> and privileges, but we are giving this group of people extra
> privileges").

Yep.  When I was in high school, I worked for a guy who was put in the 
position of having to work *by himself* until his staff was done with 
classes (this was a retail store setting).  He started at 8:00 in the 
morning and had to work straight through until about 4:00 when we showed 
up; he had to close the store (which was not seen as a good thing) to 
take lunch and to do the mandatory trip to the bank with the deposit.

Why?

Because his boss (the regional director) had told him the next staff he 
hired *must* be a minority of some sort - woman, racial minority, didn't 
matter, but he couldn't hire another white male.

Except that he was the *only* senior staff in the store - no assistant 
manager at all.  I was the senior sales clerk (so usually was "the boss" 
in the evenings).  No other sales staff.

Needless to say, he was found to be ineffective because nobody who met 
this arbitrary criteria set down by the sales director was applying for 
the jobs.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/05/2010 6:25 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I think that our parliament should be hung ;-)
>
> I think you mean 'hanged'. :-)

You sure know how to spoil a joke ;-)

> See you tomorrow @ 7.

> BTW don't forget that you are now on record as saying that you're buying ;-)

ONE!

>> I’ll tell you something. This Friday I get Dr John so drunk that he will regret
starting this thread.

OK two :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 06/05/2010 6:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:03:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 05/05/2010 11:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 May 2010 23:01:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> You all know that this thread has a time limit. After tomorrow
>>>> (Thursday) the election is over, I hope.<g>
>>>
>>> It seems lots of people hope so, but what are the real odds of a hung
>>> parliament?
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> “Real odds” how would I know? But at the end of last month they were 8
>> to 13, so said the bookies. Today it was 4 to 7 for a hung parliament. I
>> think that our parliament should be hung ;-)
>
> LOL
>
> The projections I've seen show nobody with a majority (ie greater than,
> what is it, 326?), but with the conservatives with the largest number of
> MPs.

Play with this and put the 3 main parties at 33.3%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/6/2010 9:29 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> And yes, there are controversies over that. California keeps flip-flopping
>> between "affirmative action" and not. (AA being where you make it easier for
>> minorities to (say) get into college simply because they're a minority.)
>
>    One of the most hilarious terms that some people use is "reverse racism".
>
>    That term just doesn't make any sense. What is "reverse racism"? What
> people *mean* by that, and I'm not kidding a bit here, is when a white
> person is the victim and a non-white person is the perpretrator. As if
> regular plain "racism" was only when a white person is prejudiced or
> discriminates a non-white person due to his ethnicity. Just the existence
> of that term and the meaning it's used with is even more telling, IMO.
>
Not quite that simplistic, but sort of correct. It refers to the 
tendency of groups to automatically assume racism in one group, and thus 
victimize them, preemptively. Its completely stupid, but just as real as 
'normal' racism.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 5/6/2010 12:25 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> I think "reverse discrimination" is the idea that two wrongs can make
>> a right.
>
> The proponents claim that it's making up for past wrongs. Since
> economics (amongst other things) has a high level of hysteresis in
> families and cultures, by (for example) giving money to people for
> education who have families that traditionally have been unable to pay
> for education because of lack of education caused by earlier racial
> discrimination, you can get people back on par with the rest of the
> culture.
>
Unfortunately, it doesn't work, since the people involve are often *not* 
interested in the help. Taking it is often even considered a betrayal of 
their ideals, in some cases. There was a discussion on this a while back 
on some MSNBC program, where the non-white brought in to talk about it 
said, "We don't mind help, but we need to solve the problems ourselves, 
and no one else can do it, so you don't want hand outs." It was clear as 
mud as to what the hell she thought "help" would be, in such context, or 
how you provide it, especially when the people involved flat out are 
*not* solving the problems themselves.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 06/05/2010 5:29 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> And yes, there are controversies over that. California keeps flip-flopping
>> between "affirmative action" and not. (AA being where you make it easier for
>> minorities to (say) get into college simply because they're a minority.)
>
>    One of the most hilarious terms that some people use is "reverse racism".
>
>    That term just doesn't make any sense. What is "reverse racism"? What
> people *mean* by that, and I'm not kidding a bit here, is when a white
> person is the victim and a non-white person is the perpretrator. As if
> regular plain "racism" was only when a white person is prejudiced or
> discriminates a non-white person due to his ethnicity. Just the existence
> of that term and the meaning it's used with is even more telling, IMO.
>

In the UK it is called “positive discrimination”.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> In the UK it is called ???positive discrimination???.

  Which is an even worse oxymoron than "free speech zone"... :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/05/2010 10:34 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> In the UK it is called ???positive discrimination???.
>
>    Which is an even worse oxymoron than "free speech zone"... :P
>

No I don’t agree, “positive” describes the type of discrimination. You 
may not agree that it is correct to do so. And what makes "free speech 
zone" an oxymoron?

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> And what makes "free speech zone" an oxymoron?

  Free speech is the notion that you have the right to express your opinion
without restrictions, wherever you want and whenever you want. A "free
speech zone" in the US is a restriction put to certain protest events.
The restriction is that the protest must be performed within a well-defined
zone. Exercising your right to free speech out of that zone is illegal.
Which kind of makes the whole point of "free speech" quite moot.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/05/2010 12:07 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> And what makes "free speech zone" an oxymoron?
>
>    Free speech is the notion that you have the right to express your opinion
> without restrictions, wherever you want and whenever you want. A "free
> speech zone" in the US is a restriction put to certain protest events.
> The restriction is that the protest must be performed within a well-defined
> zone. Exercising your right to free speech out of that zone is illegal.
> Which kind of makes the whole point of "free speech" quite moot.
>

My understanding of the phrase is it is a zone of free speech. “Zone” is 
the subject and “free speech” is an adjectival phrase

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> My understanding of the phrase is it is a zone of free speech. ?Zone? is 
> the subject and ?free speech? is an adjectival phrase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

  It's not a phrase. It's an actual legal term. And the whole notion is so
hypocritical that it baffles the mind.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/05/2010 3:38 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> My understanding of the phrase is it is a zone of free speech. ?Zone? is
>> the subject and ?free speech? is an adjectival phrase
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
>
>    It's not a phrase. It's an actual legal term. And the whole notion is so
> hypocritical that it baffles the mind.
>

OK then.
My understanding of the term is that it is a "zone" of "free speech".

As for it being hypocritical I'll leave that up to an American to answer.

BTW in the UK there is no such thing as free speech except in our houses 
of parliament.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> As for it being hypocritical I'll leave that up to an American to answer.

Yes, it's hypocritical to a large extent, along with the "free speech 
permits" some places try to enforce.

However, I wouldn't say "free speech is whatever you want to say wherever." 
You don't have free speech during a movie in a theater, and you don't get to 
stand outside my house with a bull horn shouting that all sinners are going 
to hell at all hours of the night, and you don't get to exercise your right 
to free speech standing in the middle of the freeway (altho people have done 
that too).

The "free" part is the content.  You don't get to stand outside my house 
with a bull horn telling everyone how nice I am at all hours of the night 
either.

It really only became a problem recently because the concept is getting 
abused now, because the government currently sucks so bad.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> However, I wouldn't say "free speech is whatever you want to say wherever." 

  When I said that, I was not referring to the physical act of making sounds
with your mouth. What I meant is that freedom of speech means that you can
express your *opinion*, very especially about things like politics (eg. to
criticize the government), without impediments. It doesn't mean that it
gives you the right to eg. trespass private property: It means that wherever
you are allowed normally to talk and express your opinions, you are allowed
to express *any* opinions, including critique.

  The "free speech zone" contradicts this notion because it limits
demonstrations of critical opinions to only certain areas, while in the
rest of public areas you can present any non-critical view you want, even
visible ones (such as waving flags for support/cheering, etc.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> It means that wherever
> you are allowed normally to talk and express your opinions, you are allowed
> to express *any* opinions, including critique.

Right. I was clarifying.

>   The "free speech zone" contradicts this notion because it limits
> demonstrations of critical opinions to only certain areas, while in the
> rest of public areas you can present any non-critical view you want, even
> visible ones (such as waving flags for support/cheering, etc.)

Yes.  Again, it was originally for safety of people, like having a line of 
police between two opposing groups of protesters or keeping protesters from 
blocking the streets. It was only in the last decade or so that it was used 
to actually keep people out of places.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:55:59 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> Play with this and put the 3 main parties at 33.3%
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm

Interesting - thanks for that pointer. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5/7/2010 8:04 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/05/2010 3:38 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>>> My understanding of the phrase is it is a zone of free speech. ?Zone? is
>>> the subject and ?free speech? is an adjectival phrase
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
>>
>> It's not a phrase. It's an actual legal term. And the whole notion is so
>> hypocritical that it baffles the mind.
>>
>
> OK then.
> My understanding of the term is that it is a "zone" of "free speech".
>
> As for it being hypocritical I'll leave that up to an American to answer.
>
> BTW in the UK there is no such thing as free speech except in our houses
> of parliament.
>
Its used at some colleges to supposedly, "Allow group of assholes X to 
freely express themselves 'safely'.", when in fact having no function 
other than to prevent anyone presenting apposing views at the venue. The 
theory being that if you, I don't know.. think Obama is a Nazi and hate 
fags, you can spew gibberish, lies and paranoia today, at your 
"sanctioned" zone, but the people presenting the opposite view (or just 
a more sane one) have to do it at the other end of campus, can't *cross 
the line* and argue with the wackos, and/or have to host their, "No he 
isn't, and there is nothing wrong with being gay.", presentation on some 
other day.

Instead of an open exchange of ideas, you get the equivalent of lunatics 
on soup boxes, being guarded by campus police, to *allow them* to say 
any damn thing they like, and actually pointing out they are wrong, 
correcting their facts, or worse, merely holding a different opinion, 
can get you arrested and/or thrown off the campus. In other words, a 
"free speech zone" is a public echo chamber, where the only people 
allowed to participate are those willing to accept, or already 
believing, the premises presented. Facts, other ideas, or even 
discussion of specifics, if it seems like the later might derail their 
"speech", is not allowed *ever*.

Its not just hypocritical, its poisonous to community cohesion, the 
ability of anyone to find compromises, or anyone to get *any* point 
across, to anyone not already predisposed to believe it, whether its a 
factual and logical position or complete insanity. You might as well 
pick three random sites, say.. conservapedia, wikipedia, and what ever 
the "super liberal, altie med, everything that isn't new age is wrong", 
version of those are, then claim that the first and last one's choices 
to delete anything *not insane*, makes them "free speech zones", and not 
signs of mental illness. How do you expect to make policy, reach 
conclusions, or actually have an exchange of ideas, when only one side 
is *allowed* to say anything? And, the usual gibberish reason for it is 
something like, "The hate mongering, neo-nazis, are either a) afraid 
they will be physically attacked (unlikely), or b) *did* physically 
attack some other group last week (very likely), so its 'safer' to 
create a 'zone' in which either the perpetrator, or the victims (which 
ever one you imagine them to be), can say what they want, without threat 
of violence." The idea that preventing the violence, while *still* 
allowing alternate views to be expressed, seems to go way over some 
people's heads...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 7-5-2010 16:38, Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> My understanding of the phrase is it is a zone of free speech. ?Zone? is 
>> the subject and ?free speech? is an adjectival phrase
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
> 
>   It's not a phrase. It's an actual legal term. And the whole notion is so
> hypocritical that it baffles the mind.

If it is American, I would have assumed that it is a zone where is is 
free as in free beer.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>
>> If you want to suppose that race can be determined, then I propose a
>> government wide challenge. Any official, acting, sitting, whatever, who
>> needs to be able to identify a person as being one race or another,
>> should be able to identify, and categorize, from picture peoples of the
>> following decent: Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, Thai,
>> Vietnamese, Maori, Malaysian, Native Austrialian; Indian, Saudi, Iraqi,
>> Egyptian; Nigerian, South Afriacan, Brazilian, Mexican, American,
>> British . . . and so on. Any misses would show that the traits they are
>> making decisions based on are either not indicative of a certain race or
>> it would show they are incapable of applying race as a means of
>> separating the correct people for what ever it is the law allows them to
>> separate people for.
> 
> I propose a challenge.
> 
> Let's take 50 Arizona police officers, follow them for a day, and see
> how accurately they identify illegal aliens. One side or the other would
> have to STFU about the quality of the officer's profiling methods.
> 
>  -Shay

We would have to agree to an acceptable success rate. If we could do
that, we could solve a few other problems.

Post a reply to this message

On 07/05/2010 6:05 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:55:59 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Play with this and put the 3 main parties at 33.3%
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm
>
> Interesting - thanks for that pointer. :-)
>
> Jim

My pleasure.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

BTW did we already congratulate you on your new government?
And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form a 
government.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/05/2010 10:08 AM, andrel wrote:
> BTW did we already congratulate you on your new government?

Thanks but I don’t know if congratulations are in order. ;-)

> And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form a
> government.

But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government, so the 
politicians say. :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13-5-2010 12:33, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/05/2010 10:08 AM, andrel wrote:
>> BTW did we already congratulate you on your new government?
> 
> Thanks but I don’t know if congratulations are in order. ;-)
> 
>> And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form a
>> government.
> 
> But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government, so the 
> politicians say. :-P
> 
Our government fell feb 20th, having a partial government without full 
power since then. Elections will be june 9th. I am not expecting a new 
government before October. As long as you (or germany) provide a 
government, you will turn the earth for us, I guess.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> BTW did we already congratulate you on your new government?
> And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form a 
> government.

  Wait, this thread was about the British elections?-o

  ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 13-5-2010 13:19, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> BTW did we already congratulate you on your new government?
>> And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form a 
>> government.
> 
>   Wait, this thread was about the British elections?-o
> 
>   ;)
> 
Did you have a new one too?

Post a reply to this message

On 13/05/2010 12:06 PM, andrel wrote:
>> But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government, so the
>> politicians say. :-P
>>
> Our government fell feb 20th, having a partial government without full
> power since then. Elections will be june 9th. I am not expecting a new
> government before October. As long as you (or germany) provide a
> government, you will turn the earth for us, I guess.

It is our press that does it. They have a 10th Dan in creating Media 
Panic. ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:33:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/05/2010 10:08 AM, andrel wrote:
>> BTW did we already congratulate you on your new government?
> 
> Thanks but I don’t know if congratulations are in order. ;-)

Well, think of it this way - with Cameron as PM, he's got to make several 
unpopular decisions, and according to at least one pundit (I forget who), 
those decisions could well exclude that party from being in power for 
more than 5 years. (The article my wife read suggested that the winner 
wouldn't be in power for a generation after they got done).

So if you're not a fan of the Tories, this is a really good thing.

>> And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form a
>> government.
> 
> But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government, so the
> politicians say. :-P

Certainly their world will stop turning. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government, 
so the 
> politicians say. :-P

As opposed to California, where we have lots and lots of government, and 

they still manage to deadlock each other so much that the governator wind
s 
up giving out IOUs instead of paychecks to the employees.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/05/2010 5:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:33:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 13/05/2010 10:08 AM, andrel wrote:
>>> BTW did we already congratulate you on your new government?
>>
>> Thanks but I don’t know if congratulations are in order. ;-)
>
> Well, think of it this way - with Cameron as PM, he's got to make several
> unpopular decisions, and according to at least one pundit (I forget who),
> those decisions could well exclude that party from being in power for
> more than 5 years. (The article my wife read suggested that the winner
> wouldn't be in power for a generation after they got done).
>

I think that that was Mervyn King the Governor of the Bank of England. 
And your wife is correct about being out of power for a generation.

> So if you're not a fan of the Tories, this is a really good thing.
>

The 1st Duke of Wellington and the 2nd Earl Grey will be turning in 
their graves at the thought of the Whigs and Tories in coalition.

>>> And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form a
>>> government.
>>
>> But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government, so the
>> politicians say. :-P
>
> Certainly their world will stop turning. ;-)
>

Especially if no one noticed.



-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13/05/2010 5:31 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government, so the
>> politicians say. :-P
>
> As opposed to California, where we have lots and lots of government, and
> they still manage to deadlock each other so much that the governator
> winds up giving out IOUs instead of paychecks to the employees.
>

Wasn’t California in danger of becoming bankrupt recently?


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:56:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/05/2010 5:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:33:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/05/2010 10:08 AM, andrel wrote:
>>>> BTW did we already congratulate you on your new government?
>>>
>>> Thanks but I don’t know if congratulations are in order. ;-)
>>
>> Well, think of it this way - with Cameron as PM, he's got to make
>> several unpopular decisions, and according to at least one pundit (I
>> forget who), those decisions could well exclude that party from being
>> in power for more than 5 years. (The article my wife read suggested
>> that the winner wouldn't be in power for a generation after they got
>> done).
>>
>>
> I think that that was Mervyn King the Governor of the Bank of England.
> And your wife is correct about being out of power for a generation.

Could be, that sounds familiar (I'd ask her, but she's off at a class at 
the moment).

So there is a silver lining. :-)

>> So if you're not a fan of the Tories, this is a really good thing.
>>
>>
> The 1st Duke of Wellington and the 2nd Earl Grey will be turning in
> their graves at the thought of the Whigs and Tories in coalition.

Well, yeah - I found *that* to be quite surprising, the Lib Dems and 
Labor are a much more natural pairing (though that didn't make for a 
majority either).  I think the Lib Dems have played this quite well, 20 
cabinet seats and a fair amount of deniability for policies the Tories 
put in place.

But I know that many in Scotland are apoplectic over the coalition.  That 
can only help the SNP, right?  (I don't know enough about the SNP to know 
if that's a good thing or not, but it *sounds* like it is).

>>>> And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form
>>>> a government.
>>>
>>> But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government, so the
>>> politicians say. :-P
>>
>> Certainly their world will stop turning. ;-)
>>
>>
> Especially if no one noticed.

LOL, too true.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Wasn’t California in danger of becoming bankrupt recently?

Everyone is already bankrupt. That's the nature of government and debt-ba
sed 
money.

The danger (and what came to pass) is that they got *so* bankrupt they 
couldn't meet their obligations even *with* the ability to print money 
and/or take it from someone else by force.  But it's kind of complicated 

because the feds take huge amounts of money, then give it back in differe
nt 
allocations to the states, so the state being bankrupt was at least as mu
ch 
the fault of the federal government as anyone here.  The thieves were 
stealing from each other too hard.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/05/2010 6:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I think that that was Mervyn King the Governor of the Bank of England.
>> >  And your wife is correct about being out of power for a generation.
> Could be, that sounds familiar (I'd ask her, but she's off at a class at
> the moment).
>

I looked it up. :-)

> So there is a silver lining.:-)
>

Maybe, We had 18 years of Tories then 13 years of Tories (New Labour) 
and the Lib Dems turn out to be Tories now :-(

>>> >>  So if you're not a fan of the Tories, this is a really good thing.
>>> >>

I'm not a happy bunny ATM

>>> >>
>> >  The 1st Duke of Wellington and the 2nd Earl Grey will be turning in
>> >  their graves at the thought of the Whigs and Tories in coalition.
> Well, yeah - I found*that*  to be quite surprising, the Lib Dems and
> Labor are a much more natural pairing (though that didn't make for a
> majority either).

True.

>I think the Lib Dems have played this quite well, 20
> cabinet seats and a fair amount of deniability for policies the Tories
> put in place.

Yeah politicians, not a principle between them.

>
> But I know that many in Scotland are apoplectic over the coalition.  That
> can only help the SNP, right?  (I don't know enough about the SNP to know
> if that's a good thing or not, but it*sounds*  like it is).
>

Tartan Tories!

OK that is what they were 40 years ago but it still riles them. :-D

>>>>> >>>>  And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form
>>>>> >>>>  a government.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>  But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government, so the
>>>> >>>  politicians say.:-P
>>> >>
>>> >>  Certainly their world will stop turning.;-)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>> >  Especially if no one noticed.
> LOL, too true.
>

Oh! Yes :-D

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13/05/2010 6:20 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Wasn’t California in danger of becoming bankrupt recently?
>
> Everyone is already bankrupt. That's the nature of government and
> debt-based money.
>
> The danger (and what came to pass) is that they got *so* bankrupt they
> couldn't meet their obligations even *with* the ability to print money
> and/or take it from someone else by force. But it's kind of complicated
> because the feds take huge amounts of money, then give it back in
> different allocations to the states, so the state being bankrupt was at
> least as much the fault of the federal government as anyone here. The
> thieves were stealing from each other too hard.
>

Thanks, I think that I'll go back down the bunker now. :-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:26:17 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/05/2010 6:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I think that that was Mervyn King the Governor of the Bank of England.
>>> >  And your wife is correct about being out of power for a generation.
>> Could be, that sounds familiar (I'd ask her, but she's off at a class
>> at the moment).
>>
> I looked it up. :-)

:-P

>> So there is a silver lining.:-)
>>
>>
> Maybe, We had 18 years of Tories then 13 years of Tories (New Labour)
> and the Lib Dems turn out to be Tories now :-(

Hehehehe, well, point.  Though I think the Lib Dems probably are being 
opportunistic on this (OK, no "probably" about it, they are).

>>>> >>  So if you're not a fan of the Tories, this is a really good
>>>> >>  thing.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
> I'm not a happy bunny ATM

Well, sure, for the short term it sucks.  Time for a game of wobbling 
bunnies. ;-)

>>I think the Lib Dems have played this quite well, 20
>> cabinet seats and a fair amount of deniability for policies the Tories
>> put in place.
> 
> Yeah politicians, not a principle between them.

Absolutely.  Well, there's one principle:  Get re-elected.

>> But I know that many in Scotland are apoplectic over the coalition. 
>> That can only help the SNP, right?  (I don't know enough about the SNP
>> to know if that's a good thing or not, but it*sounds*  like it is).
>>
>>
> Tartan Tories!

LOL

> OK that is what they were 40 years ago but it still riles them. :-D

I'll have to keep that in mind, especially if/when we move to Edinburgh.  
That'll help me wind my friend Tim up. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 13/05/2010 6:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:26:17 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I'm not a happy bunny ATM
>
> Well, sure, for the short term it sucks.  Time for a game of wobbling
> bunnies. ;-)
>

OK but I don't have the time, so it is postponed.
It's Wabbit season.
Shoot a politician for Ascension Day.

>>> I think the Lib Dems have played this quite well, 20
>>> cabinet seats and a fair amount of deniability for policies the Tories
>>> put in place.
>>
>> Yeah politicians, not a principle between them.
>
> Absolutely.  Well, there's one principle:  Get re-elected.
>

That’s not a principle that’s religion. :-)

>
>> OK that is what they were 40 years ago but it still riles them. :-D
>
> I'll have to keep that in mind, especially if/when we move to Edinburgh.
> That'll help me wind my friend Tim up. ;-)
>

My pleasure :-D

And it’s when not if. Dr John was just saying to me last Friday that he 
would even travel up to Edinburg for an Anglo-American Povcon.


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:47:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/05/2010 6:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:26:17 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not a happy bunny ATM
>>
>> Well, sure, for the short term it sucks.  Time for a game of wobbling
>> bunnies. ;-)
>>
>>
> OK but I don't have the time, so it is postponed. It's Wabbit season.

Duck season! ;-)

> Shoot a politician for Ascension Day.

LOL

>>>> I think the Lib Dems have played this quite well, 20 cabinet seats
>>>> and a fair amount of deniability for policies the Tories put in
>>>> place.
>>>
>>> Yeah politicians, not a principle between them.
>>
>> Absolutely.  Well, there's one principle:  Get re-elected.
>>
>>
> That’s not a principle that’s religion. :-)

Well, for some people it is, I guess. ;-)

>>> OK that is what they were 40 years ago but it still riles them. :-D
>>
>> I'll have to keep that in mind, especially if/when we move to
>> Edinburgh. That'll help me wind my friend Tim up. ;-)
>>
>>
> My pleasure :-D
> 
> And it’s when not if. Dr John was just saying to me last Friday that he
> would even travel up to Edinburg for an Anglo-American Povcon.

That's good to know, even if we just make a trip over.  We were thinking 
later this summer, but airfare is pretty pricey. :-(

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:47:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>> OK but I don't have the time, so it is postponed. It's Wabbit season.
> 
> Duck season! ;-)

Wabbit season!

>> Shoot a politician for Ascension Day.
> 
> LOL

I approve.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:32:21 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

>> Duck season! ;-)
> 
> Wabbit season!

Duck season!

Post a reply to this message