Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:So is everyone still upset over a bill that wasn't even passed (just went out of committee) to ask a question that isn't required to be answered of people using government funded services? The title of the thread is extraordinarily misleading but and I can't help but wonder if that wasn't intentional.

Apparently it violates some sort of right that nobody can identify, for reasons nobody can explain.

Polonius wrote:

Ahtman wrote:So is everyone still upset over a bill that wasn't even passed (just went out of committee) to ask a question that isn't required to be answered of people using government funded services? The title of the thread is extraordinarily misleading but and I can't help but wonder if that wasn't intentional.

Apparently it violates some sort of right that nobody can identify, for reasons nobody can explain.

If it was mandatory I could see it violating one's right to privacy.

If it's optional, who cares?

The Green Git wrote:This is also at odds with the views of the founders of our country, who simply recognized that God had granted men the right to life, liberty, property and privacy. They merely acknowledge that right.

They also believed that the State must infringe upon those rights in certain circumstances, which is why they wrote the Constitution to provide for the rule of law.

The Green Git wrote:
Eh... last time I checked we lived in a Republic. Y'know, that thing that protects the rights of the few against the will of the masses by restrictions of law?

Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive terms. Just as Democracy and Monarchy are not mutually exclusive terms. A Republic is any state that lacks a hereditary sovereign. A Democracy is any state in which the majority of people are provided with the franchise.

Goldwater, more or less.

Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I've heard from "people that would know" that claim it's easier to get homosexual sex at a Texas truck stop than a San Francisco bathhouse. That's probably hyperbole, but it does explain the biggest mystery to me: why social conservatives get so riled up about queer issues. At least racism had an economic and political upside, but homophobia really seems to come from a more personal place.

Tell me when you quit slandering entire groups and portions of the country, yet you live in Ohio?

Frazzled wrote:

Goldwater, more or less.

Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I've heard from "people that would know" that claim it's easier to get homosexual sex at a Texas truck stop than a San Francisco bathhouse. That's probably hyperbole, but it does explain the biggest mystery to me: why social conservatives get so riled up about queer issues. At least racism had an economic and political upside, but homophobia really seems to come from a more personal place.

Tell me when you quit slandering entire groups and portions of the country, yet you live in Ohio?

What was slander? And what does Ohio have to do with it?

Are you really that pathetic that you need to imagine personal insults?

Nurglitch wrote:Ahtman:

Of course it's intentional. Trolling is what Frazzled does when he's not being a moderator.

Worst Mod Evah! I'm tired of you turkeys forgetting that. Bans for everyone!

You'll note I didn't tweek the title. My issue was about government intrusion not the gay/ not gay thing. I could care less.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Goldwater, more or less.

Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I've heard from "people that would know" that claim it's easier to get homosexual sex at a Texas truck stop than a San Francisco bathhouse. That's probably hyperbole, but it does explain the biggest mystery to me: why social conservatives get so riled up about queer issues. At least racism had an economic and political upside, but homophobia really seems to come from a more personal place.

Tell me when you quit slandering entire groups and portions of the country, yet you live in Ohio?

What was slander? And what does Ohio have to do with it?

Are you really that pathetic that you need to imagine personal insults?

This is where you start getting into trouble, I think. Just some friendly advice. I think you have a lot of intelligent things to say, just try not to get so mad about stuff.

That said: I think painting all conservatives as homophobes was what Fraz was referring to.

Because posting a link to a highly partisan news source, and then putting the misleading title of the article as the thread title is completely indistinguishable from trolling.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Goldwater, more or less.

Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I've heard from "people that would know" that claim it's easier to get homosexual sex at a Texas truck stop than a San Francisco bathhouse. That's probably hyperbole, but it does explain the biggest mystery to me: why social conservatives get so riled up about queer issues. At least racism had an economic and political upside, but homophobia really seems to come from a more personal place.

Tell me when you quit slandering entire groups and portions of the country, yet you live in Ohio?

What was slander? And what does Ohio have to do with it?

Are you really that pathetic that you need to imagine personal insults?

You consistently make comments about social conservatives or Southerners.

I do make comments. Are any of them not true?

And, btw, the easy joke was that it's easy to get sex on the downlow at a Texas Truck stop because all the truckers are from Jersey or California.

And I'm still not sure what Ohio had to do with anything.

Nurglitch wrote:Ahtman:

Of course it's intentional. Trolling is what Frazzled does while he's being a moderator.

Fix'd.

Where's the slander, though?

Social conservatives get riled up about homosexuality, that's simply a true statement. The statement regarding the ease soliciting sex may or not be true, but is only slanderous if you think that easy access to sex is a bad quality for a given location to have. I guess you could take issue with the racism comment, but its not as though Polonius actually called social conservatives racists. In fact he insinuated only that its a significant issue for them as a group, which is also true.

I was talking to Polonius at a truck stop not too long ago and he seemed pretty reasonable. I think the internet just obscures presentation.

It seems pretty simple to say that it would be wrong to require adults to answer, but that it isn't wrong to merely ask them (assuming it's clear that they can decline to answer).

With children it's not necessarily as straightforward, since it's generally accepted that children cannot choose to fully alienate their own privacy (hence child pornography laws, and such). However, in this case I think it would be fine to collect such data on children at least 16-17 years old if the data wasn't anonymous, and data on children at least 14-15 years if it is (which, it seems, would be the case in this instance). When young children start getting asked such questions by a state agency there may be more room for objection (I think there would, at least, need to be a specific reason to do so. Not just because it may be "useful" in some unspecified manner).

Orkeosaurus wrote:With children it's not necessarily as straightforward, since it's generally accepted that children cannot choose to fully alienate their own privacy (hence child pornography laws, and such). However, in this case I think it would be fine to collect such data on children at least 16-17 years old if the data wasn't anonymous, and data on children at least 14-15 years if it is (which, it seems, would be the case in this instance). When young children start getting asked such questions by a state agency there may be more room for objection (I think there would, at least, need to be a specific reason to do so. Not just because it may be "useful" in some unspecified manner).

It's probably fair to say that they won't be asking prepubescent children their sexuality, considering their libidos haven't kicked in yet. Mind you, gender identification is typically determined at a far earlier age, and it seems reasonable to inquire about it (anonymously, of course).

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I was "talking" to Polonius at a truck stop not too long ago and he seemed pretty reasonable.

Polonius wrote:I've heard from "people that would know" that claim it's easier to get homosexual sex at a Texas truck stop than a San Francisco bathhouse.

Laughing Man wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:With children it's not necessarily as straightforward, since it's generally accepted that children cannot choose to fully alienate their own privacy (hence child pornography laws, and such). However, in this case I think it would be fine to collect such data on children at least 16-17 years old if the data wasn't anonymous, and data on children at least 14-15 years if it is (which, it seems, would be the case in this instance). When young children start getting asked such questions by a state agency there may be more room for objection (I think there would, at least, need to be a specific reason to do so. Not just because it may be "useful" in some unspecified manner).

It's probably fair to say that they won't be asking prepubescent children their sexuality, considering their libidos haven't kicked in yet. Mind you, gender identification is typically determined at a far earlier age, and it seems reasonable to inquire about it (anonymously, of course).

Why is it reasonable to inquire about it?

Off-Topic: Frazzled, what were those three Gallery Votes you actually did make before becoming a more "useful" member of the community by bunking down in the Off Topic forum?

so, I'm not going to get any sort of answer on what exactly you meant by accusing me of living in Ohio, huh?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Laughing Man wrote:It's probably fair to say that they won't be asking prepubescent children their sexuality, considering their libidos haven't kicked in yet.

That would seem most likely, especially as it would be quite a bit more likely to raise objections from parents and such.

Mind you, gender identification is typically determined at a far earlier age, and it seems reasonable to inquire about it (anonymously, of course).

Accuracy wouldn't be my primary concern here; privacy would be. (Although accuracy would have to be taken into account too, for the data to be used meaningfully.)

House Democrats didn't pass anything - "House Democrats" means all the members of the house of representatives, not some subset in a committee. It hasn't been voted on anywhere important. Why are you writing a title that implies that it was passed by the House, as opposed to just passed out of committee?

Why does the title just say "to ask school children about sexual preference" when the reality is "to ask all users of HHS services about sexual preference" (in the already existing entirely voluntary questionaire)?

I can understand if you want to say that the government shouldn't even ask people questions, and that may be an interesting discussion...but instead it's just sensationalist bullcrap.

Here's the bill if anyone cares

http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100915/H.R.6109_I.pdf

and the one passed amendment stating that no information can be collected on children without parent or guardian's consent

http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100916/health/h6109r_01_xml.pdf

Frazzled wrote:
At the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing last Thursday, Democrats passed a bill to require federal health officials to question anyone seeking services from Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) community health centers or other programs about their sexual orientation and “gender identity.”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39076

seems like a reasonable bill to me.
AF

WarOne wrote:Off-Topic: Frazzled, what were those three Gallery Votes you actually did make before becoming a more "useful" member of the community by bunking down in the Off Topic forum?

Pictures of converted JgdTigers to Vanquisher tanks.

what points did you gave them?

lambadomy wrote:and the one passed amendment stating that no information can be collected on children without parent or guardian's consent

http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100916/health/h6109r_01_xml.pdf

Ah; that resolves that issue pretty well, in the context of this bill at any rate.

Polonius wrote:so, I'm not going to get any sort of answer on what exactly you meant by accusing me of living in Ohio, huh?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Dude, its Ohio. Thou shalt not be doing the superior dance...from Ohio.

You're assuming I don't want casual gay sex at truck stops. Maybe I'm jealous.

Don't assume I share your prejudices.

Devastator wrote:what points did you gave them?

No they were Vanqs. King Tiner body, with some tweeks and imperial bits (including an IG driver's head sticking out of the driver's hatch) and Forgeworld Vanq turrent. They were quite good.

Polonius wrote:You're assuming I don't want casual gay sex at truck stops.

Not at all!

Polonius wrote:You're assuming I don't want casual gay sex at truck stops. Maybe I'm jealous.

Don't assume I share your prejudices.

I admit it. I am biased against truck stops.