Do people not remember how exhausting he was?

They’ve sat on their hands while tens of millions are forced to work 2-3 jobs to survive, and even that only covers the bare minimum needed to live in most areas of the country. Most people can’t even think of going to a doctor or obtaining higher education now, because both are cost-prohibitive.

We both can look out on society and agree that the way things are can and should be better, but I find it funny that you’re ostensibly arguing for progressive policy reform using logic that parallels the logic used by proponents of school choice. Stay with me, and I’ll explain how.

I think we can both agree that in order for schools to function and be effective, they need some level of financial support to operate. It’s no secret that for decades, financial support for education has been slashed across the board.

Proponents of school choice typically argue that if public schools will not or cannot perform at satisfactory levels, the students should be able to go to another school, and some level of pro rata funding should follow them to that new school. This effectively punishes schools that have been long-underfunded with financial support, which plays a factor in that under-performing, and then takes away even more financial support.

Assuming you’re familiar with the procedural aspects of how governing works, you understand that to enact legislation and policies you’re in favor of takes a threshold level of support to accomplish that. Because of gerrymandering, antiquated frameworks for distribution representation, and the the Electoral College, Democrats have hardly been in a position to enact progressive legislation that isn’t obstructed by a president, one of the legislative chambers — or even once it is passed, that isn’t overturned by a Supreme Court detached from precedent and reason.

In both cases, the support necessary to operate a sufficiently resourced school, or to get a piece of legislation across the finish line, is clearly lacking. The solution to that problem is more support, not less. Schools need more financial support to reach their goals, and Democrats need more support in Congress to pass legislation. The position you’re defending right now is now is effectively expecting schools/Democrats to do more with less.

One tip I heard was asking “how” questions as follow-ups, rather than “what” questions? It tends to encourage people to think through how the conspiracies might actually work, rather than just jumping from point A to point B.

Look, I’m not going to get into a back-and-forth with you about this because it’s not my area of expertise, but a cursory glance at the Wikipedia article, which was “supplemental reading” for the question of what people thought about the idea, suggests that the underlying legal mechanisms (admittedly, I’m analyzing this from jurisprudence of the United States so terminology and precedents may differ) have to do with granting standing to individuals and communities that otherwise might not have a direct enough connection to assert an injury. Some references, like to the Ponca, suggest that the goal is accomplished by enacting new criminal statutes; others by granting private citizens the right to sue those that harm nature.

The legal mechanisms are not rooted in granting “personhood,” but rather providing means of protecting nature, which is a completely different legal approach. Nevertheless, the “personhood” approach was an interesting one, and because this is Beehaw, I thought entering the conversation could be productive and thought-provoking exercise.

Again, I’m not going to spend anymore time researching source materials, but you have conflated “personhood” with environmental protection laws, which I was not addressing, and you have come off as rather condescending. If we had been talking about conventional environmental protection laws, I would have agreed with you that the law doesn’t associate legal liabilities with nature, but instead, you hijacked the conversation and changed the discussion. You suggested that the statement I made before you changed it was addressed to your new conversation, and suddenly what I said was “absurd.”

If we are actually talking about the premise of legal personhood rather than just ways to protect the environment, then the parallels to considering that a concept, like a corporation, could have legal rights and liabilities associated with agency are actually really analogous, and in the litigious society we live in, would become a matter for a court to decide.

Woah, you’re coming in a little bit hot, there. The post asked for community thoughts on granting “personhood” to natural entities, and that’s all I did.

Also, the parallel I was making wasn’t to say that natural disasters would gain personhood, but rather natural disasters could be considered tortious conduct by a natural entity, which this post contemplated as gaining personhood. The point I was making was simply to suggest there are some thought exercises about tort law that are worth considering before moving forward. It isn’t absurd to suggest the possible parallels between a legal entity (I.e., corporation) being proximally related to tortious conduct and a natural entity, like a mountain, being between proximally related to what might be considered tortious conduct (e.g., a mudslide) under the proposed legal regime.

I admit this analysis is off the cuff.

I think it could be helpful as a form of defense and protecting nature, but there’s the other side to the coin, which is, how do you then “hold nature accountable” for its “actions?” By that I mean natural disasters. For instance, if a mudslide occurs, how do you hold that mountain accountable? Do the victims of the mudslide then have the right to seek damages from that mountain? Could compensation come in the form of granting the victims the right to cut down all the trees on the other side of the mountain so that the timber can be harvested to compensate the victims for that natural disaster?

I think granting personhood is going to create issues from a legal standpoint and coming up with consistent precedents around agency and action. I’m not sure that this avenue of approach necessarily solves the problem at hand, which seems to be that we’re trying to prevent human beings from destroying the Earth. In that sense, it seems like the most effective and more direct response is to restrict the actions of humans rather than granting personhood to something else.

As well-intended as this article might have ascribed, it felt like it was all over the place.

… the cruelty is the point.

Look, this is politics and all, but blatant false equivalencies in a world of disinformation is dangerous, unenlightening, and unproductive. I’ll leave it for now, but try to be more thoughtful in the future.

It’s not about refusing to adopt a “race ideology” that suggests racism; it’s the refusal to acknowledge statistical evidence, the refusal to investigate the law and history of this country, the refusal to recognize cause and effect, and the refusal to appreciate that some times, empathy simply is not possible. It’s the refusal to recognize that history has an impact on the present, and to make the future better than the present, we must make the present better than the past. What suggests racism is being presented with all of that information, and take a stand against making things better.

To be fair, “liberal” was in the title when I posted the article, but I, like you, thought that was misleading, so I left it off.

Thank you! The surfacing part was actually done mostly by hand because if a chicken and egg situation of making the inside components and adding the hinge, without throwing things off balance on the lathe. But after four prototypes, I definitely learned a lot!

Thank you!

I turned a ring “box” on a lathe and my fiancée said “yes!”

Depending on the timeline, it isn’t unreasonable to expect an amended complaint based on allegations in the indictment that was released by Jack Smith yesterday.

That was shortly before we had a Civil War, so I don’t think that’s an era we should hope to recreate nowadays.

Look, my take is that you are trying to combat fascism on philosophical terms, while I’m saying there is an even more pressing violence threatening people on a real level by taking steps that we know — at this moment in time — make it more likely to ending up with Republicans having power.

We don’t seem to be seeing things eye-to-eye, and you don’t seem to be able to hold this conversation without ad hominem attacks, so I’m going to check out.

Final note: I’m going to go back to my day, and forget about your condescension and nastiness because… well, I can. But if I see you talking this way to anyone else here (and I don’t just mean heated discussion), there will be consequences.

Have a nice day, and please be(e) respectful of everyone here.

Don’t give a shit if this is what you call it, or how you’ve been told to think. The only wasted vote is one more voice for the continued monopoly of capital, and that’s obviously exactly what you do every single election.

You’re prioritizing economic systems over people. That’s my problem with voting for third parties in light of fascism echoing the 1920s and 30s.

HIPAA only applies to a small subset of people/entities. It requires that subset to be careful with healthcare data. So if a doctor gives you a diagnosis, HIPAA requires the doctor treat that information carefully. If you share that same exact information with your electrician, and then the electrician shares that same exact information with her seamstress, your electrician has not violated HIPAA because you disclosed it to someone that isn’t considered a “covered entity.” HIPAA is far more about regulating who or where the disclosure comes from, than it is about the substance of the information.

Having worked in somewhat proximity to her, I can say that everyone already knew she was working for the Republicans, so it really wasn’t a surprise. In all likelihood, this is a gambit because she knew she would be primaried if she ran as a Democrat again (her positions were that obtuse).

Edit: Changes made to be more in line with Be(e)ing respectful of everyone.