< 1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

Any Requests For Two Thousand Fifteen?

 
James Clovispoint
 
Avatar
 
 
James Clovispoint
Total Posts:  77
Joined  25-07-2011
 
 
 
05 January 2015 12:02
 

Then you will continue to be exploited by real “persons”.

 
James Clovispoint
 
Avatar
 
 
James Clovispoint
Total Posts:  77
Joined  25-07-2011
 
 
 
05 January 2015 13:06
 

P.S.:

I am sure that you have heard of the Suffragette Movement. “Suffragettte”, how ridiculous? Why bother with these women things? How can they “suffer”?

A little history:
Although single women were legally as independent as men, it was contrary to accepted form for them to manage their own business affairs. What women were unaccustomed to do the world believed them incapable of doing, and they had in consequence neither confidence in themselves nor public encouragement to attempt ventures of independence. Very few occupations were open to women and these were monopolized by the poor. It was accounted a family disgrace for women of the middle or upper classes to earn money. The unmarried woman of such classes, dubbed “old maid,” forbidden by public opinion to support herself, even were work and wages available, became a dependent in the home of her nearest male relative. Pitied because she had never “had a chance,” regarded with contempt as one of the world’s derelicts, she was condemned to a life of involuntary service, and the fact that she legally possessed property enough to insure her independence did not greatly alter her status.

In the church, then a far greater power in the making of opinion than now, women with few exceptions were not allowed to preach, sing, pray, testify or vote. During church services women were seated upon one side and men upon the other in order that “men might commend themselves to God without interruption.”

It was “indelicate” for a woman to appear upon a business street without a male escort or to go to a bank to transact business, and any woman seen unattended upon the street after dark was regarded with suspicion. No college in the world admitted women, and there were no high schools for girls. It was the universal belief that Greek and higher mathematics, then the two chief corner stones of the collegiate curriculum, were utterly beyond the capacity of women. Convents and boarding schools wherein girls of wealth were educated taught nothing more than the rudiments of learning, with so-called “accomplishments.” The daughters of the poor received no education at all.

Still ridiculous?

 
Smote
 
Avatar
 
 
Smote
Total Posts:  362
Joined  12-11-2014
 
 
 
05 January 2015 14:52
 

Women are people therefore ecosystems are people? Yes, still ridiculous.

Why not declare chairs people? They serve us just like we thought women used to. Shouldn’t the same argument apply to chairs? Chairs need rights too, don’t they?

[ Edited: 05 January 2015 15:21 by Smote]
 
James Clovispoint
 
Avatar
 
 
James Clovispoint
Total Posts:  77
Joined  25-07-2011
 
 
 
06 January 2015 01:00
 

If you had some knowledge of the judicial system and judicial terms you wouldn’t be so stubborn about the semantics here.

If a chair needed rights and the constitution called chairs persons (legal term) then one would have to call them persons too obtain those rights.
May I remind you that I have already explained that I used the term “people” by mistake instead of “persons”, so stop playing on words yourself.

If you will not even take the time to inform yourself on the subject of Environments/ecosystems necessarily considered “person”, not for their own good but for the people who live in them, then it is irrelevant that I continue to discuss this with you.

 
Smote
 
Avatar
 
 
Smote
Total Posts:  362
Joined  12-11-2014
 
 
 
06 January 2015 04:52
 

Names are important. People easily conflate “legal persons” with “people.” Accepting ecosystems as abstract people with rights will make it harder to remove this status from corporations. I think ecosystems should be protected. I just don’t want ecosystems to have rights. I don’t know why this is so important to you. It just makes our legal system even more ridiculous. I’d prefer to remove corporations as abstract people, not add environments as abstract people as well.

Our legal system should be consistent in what a “person” is - something that is fairly close to the usual notion of a person (a single human life). A collection of plants and animals (an ecosystem) should not be a person.

I agree, you won’t convince me of this point. It is not worth it to continue arguing. No amount of judicial system or ecosystem knowledge could convince me that an ecosystem should be called a person.

 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
06 January 2015 11:14
 

Hey, Smote and James—I hope you guys are aware of Mario’s roast, here:

TheBrotherMario - 05 January 2015 08:37 PM

We’re roasting.
http://www.project-reason.org/forum/viewthread/28814/P5085/#371595

I hear that Susie Essman is furiously taking notes on the dais. Well, maybe not quite furiously, so early in the morning.

 
 
James Clovispoint
 
Avatar
 
 
James Clovispoint
Total Posts:  77
Joined  25-07-2011
 
 
 
06 January 2015 23:02
 

I like a good roast, especially when it is well done. No pun intended.

Roasts can be fun and funny if those roasting have the right humor and the qualities of eloquence required. Otherwise a roast can backfire and make the roasters bath in their own juice.
We’ll see.
Thanks for the info envyme.

 
Smote
 
Avatar
 
 
Smote
Total Posts:  362
Joined  12-11-2014
 
 
 
07 January 2015 21:05
 

I don’t like ‘roasts’ on the internet. They’re too easily misinterpreted.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3424
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
07 January 2015 21:41
 
Smote - 07 January 2015 08:05 PM

I don’t like ‘roasts’ on the internet. They’re too easily misinterpreted.

Good point.  Maybe you’d feel more comfortable heading over to the What Are You Drinking Now thread for a beverage.  Go ahead and put it on my tab.  Try not to spill any in your vagina.

 
 
Smote
 
Avatar
 
 
Smote
Total Posts:  362
Joined  12-11-2014
 
 
 
07 January 2015 21:46
 
LadyJane - 07 January 2015 08:41 PM
Smote - 07 January 2015 08:05 PM

I don’t like ‘roasts’ on the internet. They’re too easily misinterpreted.

Good point.  Maybe you’d feel more comfortable heading over to the What Are You Drinking Now thread for a beverage.  Go ahead and put it on my tab.  Try not to spill any in your vagina.

LOL

 
James Clovispoint
 
Avatar
 
 
James Clovispoint
Total Posts:  77
Joined  25-07-2011
 
 
 
08 January 2015 03:27
 

Roasts on the internet?!

They will be read by fewer than 200 people at best. Just like what we right on the Forum. We are not going to change the world (over 7.5 billion people) with our little remarks.
Besides, we don’t even know each other really.  So, who really cares?

 
Smote
 
Avatar
 
 
Smote
Total Posts:  362
Joined  12-11-2014
 
 
 
08 January 2015 03:29
 

It depends on the person getting roasted. Some people will feel bullied. It’s basically rephrasing personal attacks as a good thing, which I won’t support.

 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
08 January 2015 12:11
 
Smote - 08 January 2015 02:29 AM

It depends on the person getting roasted. Some people will feel bullied. It’s basically rephrasing personal attacks as a good thing, which I won’t support.

Most people in general don’t support the idea of sitting on the dais. It may be that it takes a thick skin but even more than that, it takes someone who’s a fan of comedy/humor writing. If you lack such an ability, by all means don’t attend the one at Mario’s dump thread. Strangely enough though, that thread historically has been a dump for nastiness far beyond what the mini-roast brought with it.

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3424
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
08 January 2015 12:38
 

When it comes to roasting everyone should know it’s meant to be harmless.  Those without the particular brand of humour it requires may easily refrain from the festivities and that respect is readily allotted.  What we shouldn’t allow is a separate set of rules for people who wish to say anything they like while remaining immune from criticism crying “hurt feelings” when met with even the slightest opposition.  After all this is supposed to be a place for critical thinking.  That should be ridiculed.  The same set of rules should apply to all patrons.  In light of the recent events in Paris we need to be more deliberate in exercising our freedom of speech.  We need to be relentless in our resolve.  Laughter weakens oppressors.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6849
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
08 January 2015 15:05
 
Smote - 07 January 2015 08:46 PM
LadyJane - 07 January 2015 08:41 PM
Smote - 07 January 2015 08:05 PM

I don’t like ‘roasts’ on the internet. They’re too easily misinterpreted.

Good point.  Maybe you’d feel more comfortable heading over to the What Are You Drinking Now thread for a beverage.  Go ahead and put it on my tab.  Try not to spill any in your vagina.

LOL

Har har. If you can’t laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?

 
 
 < 1 2 3 >