Wabash82

Who'd have thunk that there were only 120 million women in the world who needed birth control? This level of critical thinking is why the robots can't get here soon enough.

Are you equating the words supreme and privileged (which wouldn't make muchh sense), or asking two different questions? Assuming you are trying to make sense, the answers to your two questions are: 1) yes, it would be racist for someone to consider you supreme -- i.e., a better person, of a higher quality in some inherent way -- compared to other people only because you are a white person, and (b) no, it would not be racist for someone to acknowledge the fact that simply being (perceived as) a white person provides a person with certain advantages (privileges) in our society that are not granted to most people of color.

I think you told someone you'd stick with Forbes, so I'll just leave this here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/robbmandelbaum/2017/02/24/no-obamacare-hasnt-jacked-up-your-companys-insurance-rates/amp/ Caveat Emptor is a great plan of protection so long as you are lucky enough to always be the guy standing second in line to get a drink from the arsenic polluted water fountain....

Irishman, you give me a pain in the heart, lad. A shamrock has three leaves, not four! Finding a four leaf clover may be a sign of luck, but it is not a symbol of Ireland.

Did this study provide an estimate of the likely cost associated with not having all the regulations they imagined away in order to come up with their $38 trillion of "prohibited" GDP? Because a "benefit" number is kind of meaningless without knowing what it will cost to achieve it. Setting aside the dollar costs: If you did away with all the auto/airplane/transportation safety regs, all food and drug safety regs, workplace safety laws, environmental protection laws, etc., etc. enacted since 1949, how many lives would have been lost as a result by 2011?

As you noted, if you own the vehicle you'd presumably want to have comprehensive insurance coverage for physical damage, like you do with your car now. How liability for damage resulting from vehicle collisions/accidents will depend quite a bit on how this level 5 technology and related driving laws actually works in practice (e.g., will the srlf-driving systems be overridable? Will the law require that there be a human "driver" responsible on each trip to monitor the vehicle's self-driving and to take control if necessary? Etc., etc.) From what I have read, many "futurists" believe that the widespread adoption of these self-driving cars will largely eliminate private ownership of autos, anyway -- they see a world with ubiquitous Uber-like or taxi-like companies blanketing areas with fleets of self-driving vehicles. In that future, you won't need personal auto insurance, anymore than you need it now for an Uber or taxi ride.

I think you are trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. It sounds like you are trying to say that the shooter (per his manifesto) put the spotlight on New Zealand's immigration policies that let in so many Muslims as the reason for attack, and so "pointing the finger in any other direction" is wrong. That sure likes you are saying, again, that New Zealand is responsible (to blame) -- if it hadn't let so many Muslims in, the guy wouldn't have had to go kill so many of them.

Uh, did you not see the part of your quote that I highlighted? You referenced "backlash" to New Zealand's immigration policies, and then said that New Zealand is looking to place the blame (for that backlash) on anyone but "themselves." That seems pretty darn obvious to me: New Zealand's immigration policies drew this backlash -- the massacre of 50 Muslims-- and New Zealand shouldn't have been surprised by it, and thus deserves some of the blame. If you are claiming that is not what you meant by that statement, will you please explain what you did mean?

You would acknowledge that there are likeeise lots and lots of folks who have huge financial stakes in denying man made causes for climate change -- like the coal and oil industries? Because Al Gore sensationlizes some aspects of global climate change, all the climate scientist whose research supports its existence therefore can be ignored? I'd be happy to compare lists of scientists with you. I think mine's bigger.

so the "blame" is on New Zealand for letting Muslims into their country. Wow. And ISIS attacks? I thought we "defeated" ISIS and the troops were coming home for a victory parade....

The scientific research indicating that the cause of the current warming is human activity, and that it is not just cyclical warming, is well established. It is disappointing when people imply that Al Gore or other "celebrities" who talk about this issue came up with the evidence themselves. The concern over human-caused global warming is a concern driven by climate scientist. Research establishing human "fingerprints" on current climate change.

Again, the logical stupidity of this argument is breath-taking. So because there are natural causes for forest fires (lightning strikes), we don't need to be worried that humans might be able to cause forest fires. Brilliant!

She sounds like a Kucinich or a Steve King, who are representative of a solid bloc of voters in their own specific districts, but their extreme views are not ever going to catch on with any sizeable chunk of the mainstream audience. The Dems today face a bit of the same issue they faced back in the late '60s and early '70s, when a lot of energized but not very practical younger members of the party sapped support and votes from the mainstream candidates that the "older" party members supported. It gave us Nixon twice, and then Jimmy Carter. Not exactly the country's shiniest moments.

As I said before, you and Gonzo are defining the word differently. But again, you are focused on trying to draw some false equivalency that has nothing to do with the real world problems of racism in this country.

I hope you have a pleasant time.

Your hypothetical requires us to know the specific language of the possibly-applicable "hate crime" statute. Typically, these statutes say something like, "If in committing the underlying crime [in this case, the murder of dear old SF, may he rest in peace], the perpetrator was motivated by prejudice against the victim based on the victim's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability, then a sentencing enhancement of "x" years will be added on." So if your hypothetical perpetrator made it clear in connection with killing you that he was motivated by prejudice against you because you were white, then he could be charged with a hate crime. But none of that addresses the point Gonzo has made that form a functional definition perspective, "black racism" is a non-issue in this country.

I don't know. I would imagine that they have been around long enough in some States to allow that question to he studied. Sounds like a good research project for you this weekend.

Depends on how close in relation the family member is -- I don't think transfers between cousins are exempt, for example. I don't recall having heard it said that the guns in Chicago are being purchased at "gun shows" per se. That is certainly part of the problem, because Illinois currently requires a background check even for private sales by non-dealers. Indiana does not, so a Chicago gang's affiliates in Indiana who cannot pass a background check can still buy guns for their comrades in Illinois at gun shows here. But the problem arises where neighboring States like Indiana have less stringent laws than exist in Illinois/Chicago even when it comes to buying from a licensed dealer. So, for example, to buy a gun in Illinois, a person must have an Illinois gun owner's ID from the State Police, but there is no similar requirement in Indiana. The fact that straw men purchases go on despite it being illegal does not mean that the laws don't deter the activity to some degree. While there are always going to be people who are willing to engage in illegal activity, it is impossible to know exactly how many people elected NOT to engage in that activity because it was illegal -- you can't tally up things that didn't happen. The standard can't be 100% deterrent effect, because if it was, there literally are no effective laws. In order to believe that this proposed law would not have prevented the shooting in Utah, you have to make the assumption that the friend who loaned the killer the gun is not a law abiding person. Because if he was, and if this law had been in effect, he would have said, "Sure, you can borrow my gun this weekend. Let's get in the car and go down to Joe's Gunnery and I'll give it to Joe to run the required background check on you, so you can take it on Saturday." And that would have stopped the killer from getting that gun. Just like at the gun show, where the non-licensed guy who sells occasionally is a law abiding fellow, and if this law were in force, he'd do something similar.

Proof of the benefit of deterring speeding? Or proof that increasing the cost of doing a certain thing generally results in less of that thing happening (i.e., deters it from happening as frequently)?

From what little I have seen of her so far, it doesn't look that way. She strikes me as being very similar in her communication style to the current President, which is a style I don't like. (Maybe I'm just biased against New Yorkers?) But 2024 is a ways off, so perhaps she will grow on me.

Yes, that's one likely benefit. It is axiomatic that increasing the negative consequences of some action can be a deterrent to someone taking that action if he was on the fence or slightly leaning toward doing it. $200 fines for speeding don't stop all speeding, but they certainly do deter more potential speeders than $5 fines do.

I voted for Mrs. Clinton. But that was simply because she came in (barely) second in a dramatic race to the bottom of the barrel. I have not looked at the declared Dem candidates close enough yet to opine intelligently on which of them I'd consider good candidates.

You were correct in your earlier post: you don't understand. You asked for an example of a law that benefited our society by extending protections to a specific "class" of people, so I gave you an example. (14th Amendment specifically singles out the class known as "citizens" in the privileges and immunities clause, as distinguished from broader "persons" entitled to protection under equal protection and due process clause.) I am not sure how you wound that back to your comment above about hate crimes.

If "qualifications" were all that mattered, she'd have been elected in 2016. A "good" candidate means one whose positive qualifications are not overridden by negative traits or "baggage."

Sure: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."