@raphjd said in California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles:
@bi4smooth
Ah, so it's fascist when I do it, despite you constantly doing it.
Comrade, here you are again with using the wrong words in English! You see, this is how we KNOW you are Russian, and not Chinese or N Korean: you are so sloppy! Chinese agents have a much better grasp of American English!
Just because some cunt did 1 good thing, doesn't mean everything else is worthy of ridicule.
My dear Comrade, YOU are the one who authored the thread - saying right in the headline: Gov VETOed Cal Grant bill... I am not the confused individual here...
Also, not to belabor the point Comrade, but your ACTUAL sentence there actually says the opposite of what you MEANT for it to say... You really must study harder in your English classes!
You just make up shit and argue that. That's classic straw man.
Comrade: making up facts is not creating a "straw man" - making up BELIEFS and/or ACTIONS and attributing them to someone who doesn't exist is a "straw man".
- Arguing that people with red hair and blue freckles are pedophiles and practice human sacrifices is a "straw man" argument - because there are no people with red hair and blue freckles!
- Arguing that my Nazi forefathers were secretly Jews and betrayed their race is a "straw man" argument because you already know that my forefathers were not Nazis, and that I am not even Jewish... all of those "attributes" you made to me didn't apply, so it was a "straw man".
- Arguing that the Gov of California is a liberal who does terrible and awful (liberal) things is NOT a "straw man" argument - he really is a liberal, and you are just voicing your opinion about him.
Making an argument about non-existent people, though, DOES let you proclaim your disdain for things - especially things that don't really exist at all! (Pink elephants are queer haters!)
Perhaps NOW you will understand what I mean when I say "I am not the Straw Man you are looking for" - it means you are attributing things (beliefs, statements, or actions, for exmaple) to me that you already know are untrue, usually just so that you have an example of something - something that may not actually even exist at all - that you want to talk about. (In your case, it's virtually always something you want to complain about. Yet ANOTHER example of your Russian-ness coming through... Chinese and N. Koreans seldom, if ever, complain! Russians complain a LOT - especially about their vodka!)
I don't give a fuck as much about the make-believe "human rights" of businesses, but I do care about the very real human rights of actual people. You are the complete opposite. You have admitted that you do not believe that people have human rights when you don't want them to have them, but you cry like a bitch over some stupid shit about toy aisles.
Oh my, Comrade, here you go again - this must be the 5th time you have pasted the same drivel. You must re-learn your computer skills too. But start with the English lessons, first. You really MUST improve your English vocabulary!
Businesses in the west do not have special rights, they have freedoms. I think the Russian word for those 2 concepts must be the same, because you get them confused a lot.
Practice, practice, practice! You'll be able to pass as a westerner yet, if you just get enough practice! Keep working at it! You have a long way to go, but there is an old English proverb (stolen, like most things English, in this case from the Chinese & translated): A journey of 1000 miles starts with the first steps.
You, Comrade, have taken a few baby-steps towards being able to pass as a knowledgeable, reasonable, western-educated adult... but you have MUCH work to do! Your Russian-ness still shines VERY BRIGHTLY!
Yeah, I forgot that you get your "news" from leftist outlets and they don't talk about stuff like Sen Sinema.
I would imagine, Comrade, that your Russian media is very fond of Sen. Sinema - as she is helping to stop the Biden Administration's legislative agenda. Without her vote(s), he will possibly go down in history as one of the most INEFFECTIVE US Presidents ever!
On this, Comrade, we can agree - this would be a good thing! For America, and for Mother Russia. However, do not mistake my admiration for Sen. Sinema's blockage of Pres. Biden's agenda as a desire for the return of your nasty bitch Trump. That was a mistake - for you, and for us!
You are a complete dipshit. In general, you have no right to privacy in public, but there are places, such as bathrooms where you do. That is according to the US Supreme Court. I know, I know, you don't give a fuck about the human and legal rights of actual people.
Comrade... you have no explicit "right to privacy" in the United States.
- You DID have this right guaranteed to you when you lived in the EU (Convention 108+). Whether you do or not now that the UK has left the EU, I do not know.
- You DID have this right guaranteed to you when you lived in Mother Russia (Article 45).
- There are a few other countries (150, as counted by the UN) that have an explicit "right to privacy" in their government's highest documents
But, alas, not in the United States of America! While there are some States within the United States who have passed some laws ATTEMPTING to create a right to privacy (California's CCPA, for instance), there is no guaranteed right to privacy in the US Constitution or in US Law. There have been attempts to pass them, but those are usually fought AGAINST by US law enforcement (who rely heavily on surveillance and have invested heavily in those technologies) and the far Right (esp. religious fundamentalists - see below).
For example, there are 3 classes of US States with respect to recording of phone conversations:
- States where it is legal - period (no right to privacy)
- States where is is legal so long as one of the parties has consented to being recorded (limited privacy rights)
- States where is is only legal if both (all) parties consent to being recorded (stronger privacy rights)
This is precisely because there is no US Constitutional right to privacy - only some Supreme Court decisions that imply or deny privacy rights, depending on the "mood of the country" at the time.
The early founders of the US considered privacy rights, (1890 Law Review article by original Justices Warren and Brandeis)... but it has never been codified into the US Constitution. Instead, US courts have - over the past 240+ years - implied (to a varying degree) that there is (or is not) a right to privacy using the other documents written by the founders, and using a legal principle called penumbras - meaning it is implied from a combination of other parts.
There was some SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENT towards GETTING a fundamental right to privacy in the US back in the 1960's and 1970's. (1965: Griswold v Connecticut & especially 1973: Roe v Wade), but prior to then, it was generally held that NO right to privacy existed in the Constitution.
Because privacy rights are only implicit (and not explicit) in the US Constitution, there has always been an argument (legal argument) that it was NOT INTENDED to be an important right - important enough to be protected - by our founders! US "fundamentalist" and "originalist" jurists often point to the fact that privacy rights were NOT overlooked by the founding fathers - in fact, historical records show precisely the OPPOSITE! They were ACTIVELY DISCUSSED! Therefore, the act of omitting privacy rights from the Constitution MUST have been intentional.
However, PROPONENTS of a right to privacy got a little more ammo to work with in the form of the 1st clause of the 14th Amendment - the due process clause. Nevertheless, it is still an IMPLIED right, which means that judicial arguments about the validity of that right continue to this day!
The CURRENT DAY finding that there IS a fundamental right to privacy stems from a series of US Supreme Court decisions in the 1960's and 1970's... decisions that were controversial then, and remain so to this day. Overturning that legal finding could have drastic legal repercussions:
- 1973: Roe v. Wade (ruled that a woman's privacy rights protected her right to an abortion, so long as it was within certain limits - which introduced the term trimester!). Overturning Roe might result in many of these other rulings also being overturned. Creating an explicit right of privacy might enshrine Roe forever!
- 2003: Lawrence v. Texas (ruled that sodomy laws were a violation of people's individual privacy rights). Do we want the return of sodomy laws?
- 1967: Katz v United Stated (ruled that warrantless wiretapping was a privacy violation). Interestingly, that ruling reversed 1928: Olmstead v. United States that had held that no right to privacy was in the Constitution and allowed wire taps to be entered into evidence, regardless of whether they were approved or not. (It also had 4th & 5th Amendment issues).
- 2015: Obergefell v. Hodges (ruled that the Government infringed upon people's privacy rights when they attempted to limit, unreasonably, whom they could and could not marry. Overturn Roe, and you likely will soon overturn Gay Marriage on the same legal principals.)
BUT, dear Comrade - as much as you clearly wish there were a clearly defined US Constitutional right to privacy, were there to be one - say, a 28th Amendment? There would be some fundamental changes:
The entire country would come under something akin to, but not exactly like the CCPC (California's Privacy Act).
- You would have a right to know what personal data is collected about you (EU citizens have this right, but we US Citizens to not)
- You would have a right to know if your personal data was bought, sold, or disclosed (on purpose, by accident, or by breach) and to whom (you learn of this currently ONLY when there are breaches or companies are sued and notification is part of the settlement)
- You would have the right to prohibit the sale or disclosure of your personal data (you ONLY have this right about your HEALTH data today - HIPAA laws)
- You would have the right to examine any personal data that anyone might have about you - including the Government, businesses, or individuals.
- You would have the right to request that a business delete any personal information (with some limits) collected from a consumer
- You could not be discriminated against for exercising your privacy rights.
Additionally, a great deal of the surveillance that we, as Americans, endure would have to cease. You would have to consent to, or at least be notified about, any time you were being recorded - video or audio - outside of "general public locations" (think: security cameras, etc).
So, Comrade - once again, you have tipped your hand. You incorrectly assumed that Americans had more rights - rights of all kinds - than you had in Mother Russia. As you can see, this is not the case. You should report back to your handlers that future agents should be made aware of this. Improve their training and indoctrination!
