A place for Canadians.

ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ
report this user
Oct 17 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Why We're Voting "YES" on Gun Control Initiative 594, and Why You Should Too.
@77: >implying that laws against robbery and assault and murder don't prevent SOME potential crimes

Oh look, it's that tired nonsensical argument against EVERY SINGLE LAW ON THE BOOKS.
Oct 17 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Black Man Doing Time Is Now as Natural as Sunshine.
@47: Just to reiterate:
According to you, that which is a chosen lifestyle should be grounds for legal discrimination, and only that which is immutable should be protected by law from discrimination. HOWEVER, there are some lifestyle elements which are INTRINSIC to immutable identities; homosexuals engage in romantic relationships of people of their own gender, Catholics wear crucifixes, Jews wear kippot, Sikhs wear turbans, and southpaws use their left hand for delicate tasks.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES agrees that discriminating against homosexual conduct (romantic and/or sexual relationships with people of the same sex as one's self) is equivalent to discriminating against homosexual identity. I QUOTE:
This case itself is instructive in this regard. CLS contends that it does not exclude individuals because of sexual orientation, but rather "on the basis of a conjunction of conduct and the belief that the conduct is not wrong." Brief for Petitioner 35-36 (emphasis deleted). Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 575 (2003) ("When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination." (emphasis added)); id., at 583 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment) ("While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, [the] law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class."); cf. Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 270 (1993) ("A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.").
(bolding mine, Source)

Seattleblues, time and time again you make claims regarding our legal system that are DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED by our highest judicial authority. You are objectively and unrepentantly wrong on many of these questions and yet you insist that your opinions trump all else. Where do you get these notions?
More...
Oct 17 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Black Man Doing Time Is Now as Natural as Sunshine.
Ooh, Seattleblues is calling me "boy". I must have struck a nerve.

Seattleblues, the point is that you said that it's reasonable to expect citizens to obey the law, and yet you proudly flout laws that you disagree with. The law CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATES that refusing to renew a lease to a tenant based on their protected status constitutes illegal housing discrimination. THAT IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE. You seem to think that there is no distinction between "it's not the law" and "I think it shouldn't be the law". THANKFULLY, God in His transcendent wisdom and all-encompassing grace has not seen fit to make the law subject to your whims, Seattleblues.



@43: "I get to decide who lives in them. Not you. Not the government. I."

Um, Congress, the President of the United States, and the Supreme Court of the United States all disagree with you. You're actually and objectively wrong here; every year people try to "decide" that for their properties and end up paying hefty fines for their troubles.



@47: So you admit that government DOES have the right to ban discrimination in businesses serving the public. Where YOU and STATE LAW differ is in what constitutes a "protected category" on which discrimination may not legally be based. I really hate to break it to you (lying through my teeth here, I love to break it to you), but the laws of Washington State have a little more sway than your opinions.
More...
Oct 15 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Why We're Voting "YES" on Gun Control Initiative 594, and Why You Should Too.
GOD DAMN, people are incapable of or unwilling to read. I refer to people insisting that the law criminalizes lending a gun to a buddy at the range, or to a spouse.
Oct 15 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Indigenous Peoples Day Is Not an Assault on Italian-American Heritage.
@76: Top kek.

You said that pre-Columbian peoples in the Americas didn't do anything useful, anything significant to our history, so I corrected you. Now you're walking that back, saying basically:

"Oh, this historically-significant stuff they did doesn't count! European Americans were involved with it too!"

If you want to know what historically-significant stuff Native Americans did that didn't involve Europeans, you might consider the thousands of years of history between pre-Columbian peoples. They have their own history, full of migrations and alliances and vendettas; history doesn't only happen when white people are around to write it down.



It's also super-cute that you're JUSTIFYING colonial persecution of Native Americans by pointing out slavery et cetera in their history. If we brought such civilized customs to the continent, you'd think we as a nation would have been able to resist the urge to war against a tribe, pressure them into a disadvantageous treaty, and then violate the terms of the treaty anyway. It's on par with the antebellum attitude of "those poor Negroes should be thankful that we're taking them here to Christianize them".



Top fucking kek.
More...
Oct 15 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on What Would Happen to Our Democracy If We Replaced Voting With a Lottery?.
A lottery would work fine for local government but would fail miserably at the national level. Like it or not, we need trained and qualified leaders to manage something as big as the USA.



@3: You're no better. I'll refer vaguely to the list of your repeated lies because I CBA to write it all out.
Oct 14 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on How Chain Gangs Built Seattle.
@1: Except that when you chain a bunch of prisoners together, one of them slipping can cause half the line to be jerked to the ground. Restraints have been improved since, but the heavy chains used back in the day were constant threats of ulceration, bruising, and even gangrene. There's a reason the 8th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment"; the purpose of our justice system is no longer to retaliate against offenders but to rehabilitate them.
You should read Discipline and Punish by Foucault sometime.
Oct 14 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Mark Zuckerberg Just Gave $25 Million to Fight Ebola, but He Owes Us a Whole Lot More Than That.
@19: So you complain about the tax code allowing poor people to pay no net income tax, but when the tax code allows a rich corporation to pay no net income tax it's all fine and good. Why should a rich corporation get to pay no income tax, but not poor people? Explain this seeming contradiction please, you hypocrite.
Oct 14 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Mark Zuckerberg Just Gave $25 Million to Fight Ebola, but He Owes Us a Whole Lot More Than That.
@21: Who's more foolish? The fool, or the fool who misquotes him? (With all apologies to Sir Alec Guinness.) Mr. Constant never said that "Republicans caused Ebola", but rather that Republicans bear responsibility for the scale of this latest outbreak. This is quite true; Republican-mandated cuts to federally-funded research have dramatically reduced our ability to combat diseases that the private sector won't touch due to lack of market. Who knows but that we might very well have had a working and reliable vaccine against Ebolaviruses if our scientists hadn't been forced to scrape for every dollar!
 
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy