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.
whembly wrote: Not sure advocating someone who wants a sex change operation, while thinking it's a justified punishment for their crime meets the transphobic definition(let's be honest, it obviously doesn't fit the crime for unwilling participant) .
He's saying that in getting their sex change, they'd become a eunuch. That transgender surgery is nothing more than castration.
It's pretty obviously an attack at transgender people.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Nah... when you get on a plane, you are literally putting your life in that pilot's hand. You are, by explicit consent, accepting the the pilot's experience and crendential.
That's what, imo, the cartoon represent and why comparing it to politics is a wee bit much.
Generally it's a good idea for people to be qualified for the job they're applying for.
It's unfortunate that the required qualifications for the job of US President do not include any sort of political experience or knowledge, but I gather that the possibility for any American to become President if elected is a very important and necessary part of the system, so I don't think there's anything that can really be done to prevent someone like Trump from being elected President if the voters choose to put him into that office.
It's important to keep in mind a very famous historical quote, "Democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all the others." Democracy is not a good system, as it relies nearly exclusively on some form of popularity contest. However, the alternatives to democracy are all even worse, so democracy is simply the least-awful option we have available. It's odd, then, to hear people espousing the supposed virtues of democracy and insist it is the best system of government possible, when no, it's not, it's simply the least awful option available. It should be considered a necessary evil, not the pinnacle of human society.
whembly wrote: Not sure advocating someone who wants a sex change operation, while thinking it's a justified punishment for their crime meets the transphobic definition(let's be honest, it obviously doesn't fit the crime for unwilling participant) .
He's saying that in getting their sex change, they'd become a eunuch. That transgender surgery is nothing more than castration.
It's pretty obviously an attack at transgender people.
Someone should suggest that he actually look things up at some point, because transitioning involves a hell of a lot of time, effort and money, and simply going in for surgery isn't going to cut it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/12 04:30:41
Pouncey wrote: I think maybe Trump isn't the real problem. Trump likely never expected to win the election and probably planned to use the publicity of running for office to build his brand. I think Trump is just the symptom of a much, much more serious problem brewing.
The fact that he won the election suggests a very, very serious problem that's probably going to get a lot worse before it gets better. If you listen to the absurd things Trump says at rallies and debates, keep listening after he's done talking. Listen to the crowd's reaction. They love what they're hearing from him.
Having spent a lot of time online around Americans, I've noticed that while most of them are very reasonable, sane individuals who keep things in perspective, there are a growing number of Americans who believe things that seem very unAmerican. They treat the concept of tolerating differences as an evil concept that should be demonized. They believe that the concept of political correctness, which is an attempt to avoid causing unnecessary conflicts by choosing terminology that does not cause offense, is abhorrent. They do not believe that persecuted minorities deserve protection under the law. They do not believe that bigotry is something to be ashamed of, but instead that it should be embraced. They approve of banning entire religions from being practiced within American borders.
America is supposed to be a melting pot. A melting pot does not use assimilation to make everyone like the locals. A melting pot openly embraces as many differences and varieties of people as possible, because having a variety of things strengthens the overall whole by reducing the number of weak points. America's legal system is designed around this idea.
And yet, there is a very large, and growing number of Americans, who view the concepts of "progressiveness" "tolerance" "acceptance" and "equality" as being contrary to America's fundamentals. They are growing in influence, and there is a very real possibility that if left unchecked, America may find itself becoming a theocracy that enforces Christian values upon its citizens regardless of the Constitution. These people are especially intolerant of Islam, and I can easily see that if they get their way, America's powerful military will be used to launch a new holy war against countries with large numbers of Muslims in them.
I think there's always been reactionaries, and there always will be. What strikes me as different is that in the past is that such reactionary desires are no longer tempered by any sense of decency. Trump mocks a disabled reporter publicly then denies having done so despite it being clearly recorded on film. Trump doesn't seem to not only survive things like that, he actually gains support from them. His tendency to lie shamelessly isn't a detriment, it's actually the cornerstone of his popularity, it is the basis of his whole coward/bully persona.
It appears that the common sense of decency that would have once pushed someone like Trump from the public as soon as he appeared has gone. That's more than a bit scary, because that shared sense of decency is the absolute foundation of public debate and democracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AndrewC wrote: Didn't the BBC just identify the author? Sure I caught it on the news. Christopher Steele is the name currently being bandied about as the author. And as the old saying goes 'mud sticks' Whether they are true or not, Trump isn't controlling the situation well at all.
Cheers
Andrew
Thanks for the heads up on the identified author. But it seems the rest of it, the anonymous sources, are the bigger issue.
And yeah, mud sticks. It's LBJ's pig fether theory - it doesn't matter whether its true or even if anyone believes it, the point is to get Trump denying it. That doesn't make it okay, of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Nah... when you get on a plane, you are literally putting your life in that pilot's hand. You are, by explicit consent, accepting the the pilot's experience and crendential.
That's what, imo, the cartoon represent and why comparing it to politics is a wee bit much.
Yes, and you accept that the person flying the plane should be an expert. But then when it comes to politics we don't just want a choice between different experts, we also (apparently) want to elect people with no expertise at all. That's all the comic is saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: Someone should suggest that he actually look things up at some point, because transitioning involves a hell of a lot of time, effort and money, and simply going in for surgery isn't going to cut it.
Not much point suggesting that. People don't just accidentally miss the reading it would take to learn about other people's struggles. They choose to ignore any such information, because that makes it easier for them to be dismissive and cruel to those people.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/12 04:46:57
Pouncey wrote: Someone should suggest that he actually look things up at some point, because transitioning involves a hell of a lot of time, effort and money, and simply going in for surgery isn't going to cut it.
My understanding is that Manning has been "in transition" for some time now and I believe ACLU lawyers are fighting to get the surgery approved.
whembly wrote: Not sure advocating someone who wants a sex change operation, while thinking it's a justified punishment for their crime meets the transphobic definition(let's be honest, it obviously doesn't fit the crime for unwilling participant) .
He's saying that in getting their sex change, they'd become a eunuch.
It is a byproduct of the surgery.
sebster wrote: That transgender surgery is nothing more than castration.
This is an interpretation of my statement that you provided, not what I actually said anywhere at any time. The surgery is obviously far more involved as includes reconstruction to simulate female genitalia. Nonetheless, castration is a byproduct of the procedure.
sebster wrote: It's pretty obviously an attack at transgender people.
It's an attack on Manning. Saying it is anything else is simply you applying a false filter to my statement so it becomes what you want it to be. I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself to whom and within what scope my comments are directed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/12 05:56:01
Pouncey wrote: I think maybe Trump isn't the real problem. Trump likely never expected to win the election and probably planned to use the publicity of running for office to build his brand. I think Trump is just the symptom of a much, much more serious problem brewing.
The fact that he won the election suggests a very, very serious problem that's probably going to get a lot worse before it gets better. If you listen to the absurd things Trump says at rallies and debates, keep listening after he's done talking. Listen to the crowd's reaction. They love what they're hearing from him.
Having spent a lot of time online around Americans, I've noticed that while most of them are very reasonable, sane individuals who keep things in perspective, there are a growing number of Americans who believe things that seem very unAmerican. They treat the concept of tolerating differences as an evil concept that should be demonized. They believe that the concept of political correctness, which is an attempt to avoid causing unnecessary conflicts by choosing terminology that does not cause offense, is abhorrent. They do not believe that persecuted minorities deserve protection under the law. They do not believe that bigotry is something to be ashamed of, but instead that it should be embraced. They approve of banning entire religions from being practiced within American borders.
America is supposed to be a melting pot. A melting pot does not use assimilation to make everyone like the locals. A melting pot openly embraces as many differences and varieties of people as possible, because having a variety of things strengthens the overall whole by reducing the number of weak points. America's legal system is designed around this idea.
And yet, there is a very large, and growing number of Americans, who view the concepts of "progressiveness" "tolerance" "acceptance" and "equality" as being contrary to America's fundamentals. They are growing in influence, and there is a very real possibility that if left unchecked, America may find itself becoming a theocracy that enforces Christian values upon its citizens regardless of the Constitution. These people are especially intolerant of Islam, and I can easily see that if they get their way, America's powerful military will be used to launch a new holy war against countries with large numbers of Muslims in them.
I think there's always been reactionaries, and there always will be. What strikes me as different is that in the past is that such reactionary desires are no longer tempered by any sense of decency. Trump mocks a disabled reporter publicly then denies having done so despite it being clearly recorded on film. Trump doesn't seem to not only survive things like that, he actually gains support from them. His tendency to lie shamelessly isn't a detriment, it's actually the cornerstone of his popularity, it is the basis of his whole coward/bully persona.
It appears that the common sense of decency that would have once pushed someone like Trump from the public as soon as he appeared has gone. That's more than a bit scary, because that shared sense of decency is the absolute foundation of public debate and democracy.
There's a song I used to listen to, written during the Bush Jr. years, with a couple of lyrics describing the world's reaction to things Bush was saying. At first, the world laughed at Bush's silliness and said, "What did he say?" because it was so far out there it was hard to take seriously. Later in the song, the lyric is used again, only now the world is not amused when they hear him speak, they are scared and angry.
I'm a Canadian, and it well describes Trump's campaign to the Presidency. At first, it seemed like a funny joke, because obviously no one would take things like that seriously. In recent months, I have grown scared, and occasionally angry, about things Trump has said, because it's not a funny joke anymore when it becomes reality. There was a particular comment he made that evoked a strong reaction, I can't remember exactly what he said, but I interpreted it as him stating outright that he intended to start expanding American territory. Given the current geography of Earth, the only way to do that is by invading and taking over other countries.
You know the curse, "May you live in interesting times"? We live in interesting times. And sometimes I really want to ask my dad what he thinks about what's going on in the USA right now. Other times, as horrible as it sounds, I'm glad he didn't live to see this day, and I think maybe he got a bit lucky.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/12 06:00:22
Breotan wrote: It's an attack on Manning. Saying it is anything else is simply you applying a false filter to my statement so it becomes what you want it to be. I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself to whom and within what scope my comments are directed.
It's absolutely an attack on transgender people in general. Remember your "I don't play the pronoun game" bit, and deliberately misgendering her? That's a statement to other transgender people that you don't think their identities are valid or worth acknowledging.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Pouncey wrote: Other times, as horrible as it sounds, I'm glad he didn't live to see this day, and I think maybe he got a bit lucky.
Canada is and will continue to be Canada. Daily life in the USA and Eruope won't actually change much for 99% of us. We've had bad Presidents before and we'll eventually have outstanding Presidents in the future. At worst Trump will be wind up lost in the ash heap of history. But who knows, he might actually wind up being competent. We'll just have to see how it plays out. Either way, I think the situation is not as dire as you make it out to be.
Breotan wrote: It's an attack on Manning. Saying it is anything else is simply you applying a false filter to my statement so it becomes what you want it to be.
If the surgery was to turn Manning in to a eunuch, then it would turn all people who undertake that surgery in to eunuchs. Is that what you believe? Or do you believe that there is some magical component to the surgery that means while all other operations will produce people of their preferred sex, when that surgery is applied to people in prison for exposing government secrets then they become eunuchs.
I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself to whom and within what scope my comments are directed.
Apparently not, as you appear to lack the ability to apply your Manning specific argument to all people who would undertake that surgery. Without such logic, it is impossible for you to understand the scope of your words.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Pouncey wrote: Other times, as horrible as it sounds, I'm glad he didn't live to see this day, and I think maybe he got a bit lucky.
Canada is and will continue to be Canada. Daily life in the USA and Eruope won't actually change much for 99% of us. We've had bad Presidents before and we'll eventually have outstanding Presidents in the future. At worst Trump will be wind up lost in the ash heap of history. But who knows, he might actually wind up being competent. We'll just have to see how it plays out. Either way, I think the situation is not as dire as you make it out to be.
Like I said, I think Trump's election is just a symptom of a very serious problem.
Breotan wrote: It's an attack on Manning. Saying it is anything else is simply you applying a false filter to my statement so it becomes what you want it to be.
If the surgery was to turn Manning in to a eunuch, then it would turn all people who undertake that surgery in to eunuchs. Is that what you believe? Or do you believe that there is some magical component to the surgery that means while all other operations will produce people of their preferred sex, when that surgery is applied to people in prison for exposing government secrets then they become eunuchs.
I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself to whom and within what scope my comments are directed.
Apparently not, as you appear to lack the ability to apply your Manning specific argument to all people who would undertake that surgery. Without such logic, it is impossible for you to understand the scope of your words.
New question.
Who is Manning, and why does anyone care about his or her private medical issues to the point we're discussing it in a politics thread?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/12 06:21:14
Could really give a gak about the requested surgery.
Manning was convicted via court-marshal in releasing over 700,000 classified documents which wikileak published, that put America, military and our allies at risks.
The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Hell of a whiplash after this election when some are admonishing wikileak in trying to weaken the Hillary Clinton campaign (by publishing the DNC / Podesta email hack)... but, yet the Obama administration apparently thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning.
EDIT: Obama has every right to pardon Manning. There's nothing stopping him... but, I'd argue it'd be another gak stain on his legacy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/12 06:34:45
Could really give a gak about the requested surgery.
Manning was convicted via court-marshal in releasing over 700,000 classified documents which wikileak published, that put America, military and our allies at risks.
The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Hell of a whiplash after this election when some are admonishing wikileak in trying to weaken the Hillary Clinton campaign (by publishing the DNC / Podesta email hack)... but, yet the Obama administration apparently thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning.
EDIT: Obama has every right to pardon Manning. There's nothing stopping him... but, I'd argue it'd be another gak stain on his legacy.
What makes you draw the conclusion that Obama "...thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning."? Just because a request for pardon was put in, by Snowden I believe, to the administration doesn't mean said administration is a fan of the request, much less will do anything about it. Or did I miss something?
Could really give a gak about the requested surgery.
Manning was convicted via court-marshal in releasing over 700,000 classified documents which wikileak published, that put America, military and our allies at risks.
The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Hell of a whiplash after this election when some are admonishing wikileak in trying to weaken the Hillary Clinton campaign (by publishing the DNC / Podesta email hack)... but, yet the Obama administration apparently thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning.
Pardoning convicted criminals is one of the powers that the US President has. However, I don't think that releasing Manning from prison is likely to result in any more security breaches, because after releasing classified documents to the Internet, the odds of getting any sort of relevant security clearance again is zero, regardless of whether she is pardoned or not.
And I've never been a fan of using the criminal justice system as a form of punishment. To me, incarceration is a way to prevent dangerous individuals from harming society. There is no harm she could cause if released. Her crimes were non-violent, and no one will ever trust her with classified information again, so keeping her in prison will not prevent any further leaks from occurring.
whembly wrote: The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Commuting her sentence, not pardoning. And the reason is because her sentence and subsequent treatment in prison was vastly disproportionate compared to similar offenses, and because the primary "crime" was embarrassing the US by publishing some of our dirty laundry rather than any quantifiable harm (like, for example, selling nuclear secrets to Russia). It's pretty blatantly a case of "you made us look bad, now we're going to make an example of you", not justice. The punishment she has already received is more than sufficient.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: What makes you draw the conclusion that Obama "...thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning."? Just because a request for pardon was put in, by Snowden I believe, to the administration doesn't mean said administration is a fan of the request, much less will do anything about it. Or did I miss something?
Recent news is she's on the "short list" for consideration, Snowden's statement was in support of this decision.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/12 06:45:11
Could really give a gak about the requested surgery.
Manning was convicted via court-marshal in releasing over 700,000 classified documents which wikileak published, that put America, military and our allies at risks.
The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Hell of a whiplash after this election when some are admonishing wikileak in trying to weaken the Hillary Clinton campaign (by publishing the DNC / Podesta email hack)... but, yet the Obama administration apparently thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning.
EDIT: Obama has every right to pardon Manning. There's nothing stopping him... but, I'd argue it'd be another gak stain on his legacy.
What makes you draw the conclusion that Obama "...thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning."? Just because a request for pardon was put in, by Snowden I believe, to the administration doesn't mean said administration is a fan of the request, much less will do anything about it. Or did I miss something?
I imagine both Manning and Snowden (not to mention various human rights and privacy activists) requested for their own clemency... I know I would.
It sure looks like a trial balloon by this administration.
Breotan wrote: It's an attack on Manning. Saying it is anything else is simply you applying a false filter to my statement so it becomes what you want it to be.
If the surgery was to turn Manning in to a eunuch, then it would turn all people who undertake that surgery in to eunuchs. Is that what you believe? Or do you believe that there is some magical component to the surgery that means while all other operations will produce people of their preferred sex, when that surgery is applied to people in prison for exposing government secrets then they become eunuchs.
Sexual reassignment surgery is a process where an individual's genitalia are surgically altered to resemble that of the other gender. In the case of a man undergoing the procedure to become a woman, it involves removal of the testes. The remaining gonads are then used to create a facsimile of a vagina. At no time is a uterus or ovaries provided to the person undergoing the surgery and thus that person never actually becomes a biological woman. This means that in every case of a man undergoing a surgery to become a woman, that man is castrated and by definition is an eunuch - "a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals". Your wanting it to be something more than that does not change reality.
I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself to whom and within what scope my comments are directed.
Apparently not, as you appear to lack the ability to apply your Manning specific argument to all people who would undertake that surgery. Without such logic, it is impossible for you to understand the scope of your words.
That's a pretty arrogant statement and it is also completely wrong. If you dislike what I say and wish to argue against my position, that's fine. Do not put words in my mouth or suggest that what I said means anything other than what I said. If I misspeak, I will make the effort to correct myself. You do not get that privilege.
whembly wrote: The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Commuting her sentence, not pardoning. And the reason is because her sentence and subsequent treatment in prison was vastly disproportionate compared to similar offenses, and because the primary "crime" was embarrassing the US by publishing some of our dirty laundry rather than any quantifiable harm (like, for example, selling nuclear secrets to Russia). It's pretty blatantly a case of "you made us look bad, now we're going to make an example of you", not justice. The punishment she has already received is more than sufficient.
Two things.
First, it's pretty disgraceful that the US justice system does crap like that to prisoners.
Second... I don't think Russia needs America's nuclear secrets. They're pretty good at making their own nuclear weaponry with their own scientists and engineers, and thanks to their satellites they probably have a pretty good idea of where to aim their nuclear arsenal if they ever need to participate in the willful annihilation of all computers on Earth and the subsequent destruction of human civilization.
Could really give a gak about the requested surgery.
Manning was convicted via court-marshal in releasing over 700,000 classified documents which wikileak published, that put America, military and our allies at risks.
The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Hell of a whiplash after this election when some are admonishing wikileak in trying to weaken the Hillary Clinton campaign (by publishing the DNC / Podesta email hack)... but, yet the Obama administration apparently thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning.
EDIT: Obama has every right to pardon Manning. There's nothing stopping him... but, I'd argue it'd be another gak stain on his legacy.
What makes you draw the conclusion that Obama "...thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning."? Just because a request for pardon was put in, by Snowden I believe, to the administration doesn't mean said administration is a fan of the request, much less will do anything about it. Or did I miss something?
I imagine both Manning and Snowden (not to mention various human rights and privacy activists) requested for their own clemency... I know I would.
It sure looks like a trial balloon by this administration.
It all looks like out-the-door pardon speculation hype to me. I'd give 0% chance of Snowden getting anything from Obama and I'd give 35% chance of Manning getting clemency in the form of a reduced sentence and 0% chance for a pardon. Frankly, in this charged political environment with regards to anything re: leaks, etc., I think 35% might be too high.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/12 07:01:31
Breotan wrote: It's an attack on Manning. Saying it is anything else is simply you applying a false filter to my statement so it becomes what you want it to be.
If the surgery was to turn Manning in to a eunuch, then it would turn all people who undertake that surgery in to eunuchs. Is that what you believe? Or do you believe that there is some magical component to the surgery that means while all other operations will produce people of their preferred sex, when that surgery is applied to people in prison for exposing government secrets then they become eunuchs.
Sexual reassignment surgery is a process where an individual's genitalia are surgically altered to resemble that of the other gender. In the case of a man undergoing the procedure to become a woman, it involves removal of the testes. The remaining gonads are then used to create a facsimile of a vagina. At no time is a uterus or ovaries provided to the person undergoing the surgery and thus that person never actually becomes a biological woman. This means that in every case of a man undergoing a surgery to become a woman, that man is castrated and by definition is an eunuch - "a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals". Your wanting it to be something more than that does not change reality.
You're missing the entire point of transitioning. Reproduction does not have anything to do with it, and the lack of a functional reproductive system due to not having the proper organs is simply a necessary price to pay. Besides, if you ever want kids, you could always adopt.
Also, it involves years of taking massive doses of hormone supplements to change the rest of the body, lifestyle changes to adopt the clothing styles of the proper sex, and years of therapy before anything gets started.
They'd avoid doing it entirely if the patient's brain could be convinced to accept the body it was born with, but having reached the point where you decide to transition means that the brain simply cannot be convinced by any current methods, and thus the only solution is to physically alter the body to suit the brain, because the amount of suffering caused by your brain insisting your body is incorrect is immense enough that it simply cannot be allowed to continue.
Breotan wrote: It's an attack on Manning. Saying it is anything else is simply you applying a false filter to my statement so it becomes what you want it to be.
If the surgery was to turn Manning in to a eunuch, then it would turn all people who undertake that surgery in to eunuchs. Is that what you believe? Or do you believe that there is some magical component to the surgery that means while all other operations will produce people of their preferred sex, when that surgery is applied to people in prison for exposing government secrets then they become eunuchs.
Sexual reassignment surgery is a process where an individual's genitalia are surgically altered to resemble that of the other gender. In the case of a man undergoing the procedure to become a woman, it involves removal of the testes. The remaining gonads are then used to create a facsimile of a vagina. At no time is a uterus or ovaries provided to the person undergoing the surgery and thus that person never actually becomes a biological woman. This means that in every case of a man undergoing a surgery to become a woman, that man is castrated and by definition is an eunuch - "a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals". Your wanting it to be something more than that does not change reality.
I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself to whom and within what scope my comments are directed.
Apparently not, as you appear to lack the ability to apply your Manning specific argument to all people who would undertake that surgery. Without such logic, it is impossible for you to understand the scope of your words.
That's a pretty arrogant statement and it is also completely wrong. If you dislike what I say and wish to argue against my position, that's fine. Do not put words in my mouth or suggest that what I said means anything other than what I said. If I misspeak, I will make the effort to correct myself. You do not get that privilege.
Your dictionary definition of "eunuch" is, of course, correct. However, I think the disconnect and flak you're receiving on this has to do with the not insignificant fact that the trans individual receiving said operation does not identify as "a man or boy..." and hence, is accordingly disqualified from being categorized as a eunuch. At least that's what I'm picking up.
BigWaaagh wrote: It all looks like out-the-door pardon speculation hype to me. I'd give 0% chance of Snowden getting anything from Obama and I'd give 35% chance of Manning getting clemency in the form of a reduced sentence and 0% chance for a pardon.
I'm very interested in hearing what numbers you crunched to come up with those odds.
BigWaaagh wrote: It all looks like out-the-door pardon speculation hype to me. I'd give 0% chance of Snowden getting anything from Obama and I'd give 35% chance of Manning getting clemency in the form of a reduced sentence and 0% chance for a pardon.
I'm very interested in hearing what numbers you crunched to come up with those odds.
To badly paraphrase Han Solo: "Never ask me how I got the odds!"
whembly wrote: The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Commuting her sentence, not pardoning. And the reason is because her sentence and subsequent treatment in prison was vastly disproportionate compared to similar offenses, and because the primary "crime" was embarrassing the US by publishing some of our dirty laundry rather than any quantifiable harm (like, for example, selling nuclear secrets to Russia). It's pretty blatantly a case of "you made us look bad, now we're going to make an example of you", not justice.
She very clearly intentionally broke the law and leaked information that was damaging. The investigators found records of searches which Manning performed on government workstations with keywords that included “WikiLeaks,” “Julian Assange” and “Guantanamo Bay detainee assessments.” (rule of darwinism: don't do that on government devices)
The content of those documents shouldn't factor in the prosecution nor sentencing. She very clearly broke several laws and was justifiably convicted.
The punishment she has already received is more than sufficient.
She's what, 4 years in? I disagree... but really, that's up to Obama now.
Could really give a gak about the requested surgery.
Manning was convicted via court-marshal in releasing over 700,000 classified documents which wikileak published, that put America, military and our allies at risks.
The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Hell of a whiplash after this election when some are admonishing wikileak in trying to weaken the Hillary Clinton campaign (by publishing the DNC / Podesta email hack)... but, yet the Obama administration apparently thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning.
EDIT: Obama has every right to pardon Manning. There's nothing stopping him... but, I'd argue it'd be another gak stain on his legacy.
What makes you draw the conclusion that Obama "...thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning."? Just because a request for pardon was put in, by Snowden I believe, to the administration doesn't mean said administration is a fan of the request, much less will do anything about it. Or did I miss something?
I imagine both Manning and Snowden (not to mention various human rights and privacy activists) requested for their own clemency... I know I would.
It sure looks like a trial balloon by this administration.
It all looks like out-the-door pardon speculation hype to me. I'd give 0% chance of Snowden getting anything from Obama and I'd give 35% chance of Manning getting clemency in the form of a reduced sentence and 0% chance for a pardon. Frankly, in this charged political environment with regards to anything re: leaks, etc., I think 35% might be too high.
I actually give it a better that 50% odd that Obama will commute Manning's sentence... she has alot...ALOT of supporters.
As for Snowden? No clue...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/12 07:12:02
whembly wrote: The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Commuting her sentence, not pardoning. And the reason is because her sentence and subsequent treatment in prison was vastly disproportionate compared to similar offenses, and because the primary "crime" was embarrassing the US by publishing some of our dirty laundry rather than any quantifiable harm (like, for example, selling nuclear secrets to Russia). It's pretty blatantly a case of "you made us look bad, now we're going to make an example of you", not justice. The punishment she has already received is more than sufficient.
Two things.
First, it's pretty disgraceful that the US justice system does crap like that to prisoners.
Second... I don't think Russia needs America's nuclear secrets. They're pretty good at making their own nuclear weaponry with their own scientists and engineers, and thanks to their satellites they probably have a pretty good idea of where to aim their nuclear arsenal if they ever need to participate in the willful annihilation of all computers on Earth and the subsequent destruction of human civilization.
Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.
BigWaaagh wrote: It all looks like out-the-door pardon speculation hype to me. I'd give 0% chance of Snowden getting anything from Obama and I'd give 35% chance of Manning getting clemency in the form of a reduced sentence and 0% chance for a pardon.
I'm very interested in hearing what numbers you crunched to come up with those odds.
To badly paraphrase Han Solo: "Never ask me how I got the odds!"
I am well aware that there is no way to actually calculate those odds.
I am more interested in the amusing excuse that will be created to explain the process of pulling numbers out of one's butt. Should be funny.
Breotan wrote: Sexual reassignment surgery is a process where an individual's genitalia are surgically altered to resemble that of the other gender. In the case of a man undergoing the procedure to become a woman, it involves removal of the testes. The remaining gonads are then used to create a facsimile of a vagina. At no time is a uterus or ovaries provided to the person undergoing the surgery and thus that person never actually becomes a biological woman. This means that in every case of a man undergoing a surgery to become a woman, that man is castrated and by definition is an eunuch - "a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals". Your wanting it to be something more than that does not change reality.
What I want is for people to be decent, and choose their words carefully when talking about people going through a very difficult thing. You obviously don't give a gak about that, as you chose to mock one person wanting such a change, and thereby mocked everyone going through that change.
That's a pretty arrogant statement and it is also completely wrong. If you dislike what I say and wish to argue against my position, that's fine. Do not put words in my mouth or suggest that what I said means anything other than what I said. If I misspeak, I will make the effort to correct myself. You do not get that privilege.
You are still trying to live in a world where the process Manning wants is somehow different to the process undertaken by other people undertaking gender change surgery. Here in the real world, when you mock Manning for that surgery, you mock everyone who has or wants that surgery.
You don't get to pretend that basic logic stops existing because you don't want it to.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.
Generally it's pretty contradictory for America to consider treason to be a heinous offense. Treason is how that country was founded, it's just that the traitors happened to win the civil war they started.
BigWaaagh wrote: Your dictionary definition of "eunuch" is, of course, correct. However, I think the disconnect and flak you're receiving on this has to do with the not insignificant fact that the trans individual receiving said operation does not identify as "a man or boy..." and hence, is accordingly disqualified from being categorized as a eunuch. At least that's what I'm picking up.
I'm fully aware of this. What someone decides to call themselves is their own business. That does not mean I am under any obligation to participate.
sebster wrote: ... and thereby mocked everyone going through that change. <snip> Here in the real world, when you mock Manning for that surgery, you mock everyone who has or wants that surgery.
Nope. As I said previously, do not put words in my mouth or suggest that what I said means anything other than what I actually said. You do not get to do that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/12 07:30:19
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.
Generally it's pretty contradictory for America to consider treason to be a heinous offense. Treason is how that country was founded, it's just that the traitors happened to win the civil war they started.
Yeah, we decided to shed the UK yoke earlier rather than later. For some countries it was much, much later. Ahem, *cough*...
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.
Generally it's pretty contradictory for America to consider treason to be a heinous offense. Treason is how that country was founded, it's just that the traitors happened to win the civil war they started.
Yeah, we decided to shed the UK yoke earlier rather than later. For some countries it was much, much later. Ahem, *cough*...
Canada decided to negotiate politically for independence. It was granted without bloodshed.
This year we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Canada's founding as an independent country.
BigWaaagh wrote: Your dictionary definition of "eunuch" is, of course, correct. However, I think the disconnect and flak you're receiving on this has to do with the not insignificant fact that the trans individual receiving said operation does not identify as "a man or boy..." and hence, is accordingly disqualified from being categorized as a eunuch. At least that's what I'm picking up.
I'm fully aware of this. What someone decides to call themselves is their own business. That does not mean I am under any obligation to participate.
Cool.
Is it fine if I refuse to consider you a human being then?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/12 07:38:47
