Mar 8
Morosoph commented on Did This Florist Break the Law by Refusing Service to a Gay Wedding?.
@78 - hmm, this would likely qualify as "offering different terms and conditions of service". It does seem to me like that qualifier could take us all to some uncomfortable places, but I guess there is a case here after all.
Mar 8
Morosoph commented on Did This Florist Break the Law by Refusing Service to a Gay Wedding?.
Ehhhhh ... I don't know about this one. Maybe I'm wrong, but it was my impression that the anti-discrimination statute applied to discriminating against people, not services. This is why the 1960's Deep South lunch counter argument might not apply: that was a refusal to serve a specific group under any circumstances, while this is a refusal to perform a specific type of service (e.g. provide flowers for a gay wedding.) For example, if the florist would sell flowers to gay customers for a birthday party, but not for their wedding, they're off the hook.
Do I have the law wrong? Because it seems like the florist should be in the clear here - legally, at least, if not morally.
Do I have the law wrong? Because it seems like the florist should be in the clear here - legally, at least, if not morally.
Feb 28
Morosoph commented on Wait, That's GMO, Too?.
@40 - Kosher labeling is done VOLUNTARILY. Companies choose to have their food certified "kosher" to cater to a specific demographic; they aren't required to under penalty of law.
And guess what? There's already an analogous voluntary means for companies to label their products GMO-free in the same way: organic certification. The mandatory "Contains GMOs" label this bill proposes, by contrast, makes all taxpayers pay for its enforcement.
Don't like GMOs? Then you're excessively paranoid, as far as I'm concerned, but that's totally your business. Just buy organic, and don't make me pay to support your unsubstantiated fears.
And guess what? There's already an analogous voluntary means for companies to label their products GMO-free in the same way: organic certification. The mandatory "Contains GMOs" label this bill proposes, by contrast, makes all taxpayers pay for its enforcement.
Don't like GMOs? Then you're excessively paranoid, as far as I'm concerned, but that's totally your business. Just buy organic, and don't make me pay to support your unsubstantiated fears.
Feb 28
Morosoph commented on Wait, That's GMO, Too?.
@34 - "If GMOs aren't evil, then there shouldn't be an argument about labeling. Just label the shit."
Why stop there?
I believe that foods farmed in US states beginning with a vowel could be potentially toxic. There's not a lot of empirical evidence, but who cares? I think the government accommodate my belief and add "RAISED IN A US STATE BEGINNING WITH A VOWEL". If Idaho and Alabama farmers have nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind the extra regulation, right?
Why stop there?
I believe that foods farmed in US states beginning with a vowel could be potentially toxic. There's not a lot of empirical evidence, but who cares? I think the government accommodate my belief and add "RAISED IN A US STATE BEGINNING WITH A VOWEL". If Idaho and Alabama farmers have nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind the extra regulation, right?
Feb 28
Morosoph commented on Wait, That's GMO, Too?.
The science just doesn't support any argument for total avoidance of GMOs as a category of food. But if you are a consumer who wants to blindly avoid GMOs for some reason anyway, then just buy organic! That label provides you all the information you need. I'm still waiting for a convincing explanation as to why mandatory labeling is superior.
Feb 13
Morosoph commented on To Avoid Rape, "Try not to show fear.".
Whatever may be said for "changing the culture that encourages that behavior", it still seems pretty unrealistic to declare fixing that the Seattle PD's job.
Feb 1
Morosoph commented on State Sends Initiative to Label Genetically Modified Foods to the Fall Ballot.
@24 - okay, what if there _was_ a strain of corn spliced with poison ivy? Do you think such a thing would not be tested before going to market? If not, it would be fair to demand more testing. A "Contains GMOs" label would do very little to further that effort.
Moreover, what is to be gained from taking your poison-ivy corn, lumping it into a category with loads of other strains of corn generally accepted as benign after extensive study, and demanding we label them all with the same meaningless phrase? It just doesn't tell you anything that matters.
Moreover, what is to be gained from taking your poison-ivy corn, lumping it into a category with loads of other strains of corn generally accepted as benign after extensive study, and demanding we label them all with the same meaningless phrase? It just doesn't tell you anything that matters.
Feb 1
Morosoph commented on State Sends Initiative to Label Genetically Modified Foods to the Fall Ballot.
@17 - You would be providing "additional information" to consumers by labeling every product with the phase of the moon when it was packaged. That doesn't consumers are better off in any real way when you require it under the law.
"Contains GMOs" is a fundamentally meaningless label.
"Contains GMOs" is a fundamentally meaningless label.
Feb 1
Morosoph commented on State Sends Initiative to Label Genetically Modified Foods to the Fall Ballot.
Please do explain exactly what valuable information a GMO label is supposed to communicate to me. It's simply too broad a category to make any meaningful scientific claims about.
Is it about people being able to make the informed choice to avoid GMOs? Because the evil corporate food processors are actually right, you know: if you want to avoid GMOs, you already can with the organic label.
We already voted on a measure like this in CA. It failed because Monsanto shoved lots of money at it to defeat it. I think Monsanto is obnoxious and sues too many people and often acts against consumers' interests. And you know what? They were still right on this anyways. Stop forcing me to be on their side with these misdirected attempts at legislation. I really hate that.
Is it about people being able to make the informed choice to avoid GMOs? Because the evil corporate food processors are actually right, you know: if you want to avoid GMOs, you already can with the organic label.
We already voted on a measure like this in CA. It failed because Monsanto shoved lots of money at it to defeat it. I think Monsanto is obnoxious and sues too many people and often acts against consumers' interests. And you know what? They were still right on this anyways. Stop forcing me to be on their side with these misdirected attempts at legislation. I really hate that.
Jan 22
Morosoph commented on "Lena Dunham Is a Liar".
I don't think Lena Dunham is that attractive physically, but I have no doubt she gets plenty of attention.
I might be wrong, but I suspect the IA writer is a woman, and that she's either young or just immature. Perhaps someday she'll discover that being interesting and fun to be around takes one much further than she appreciates - with women as well as men.
I might be wrong, but I suspect the IA writer is a woman, and that she's either young or just immature. Perhaps someday she'll discover that being interesting and fun to be around takes one much further than she appreciates - with women as well as men.
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
