Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Peregrinus

FA Hayek wrote: »

These fact check websites are can just in peddling falsehoods.

"These Trump apologists are can just in peddling falsehoods."

(I'm not even sure I know what that means but, hey, if they can make assertions without either evidence or argument, so can I.)

silverharp

common sense prevails!


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/gender-theory-banned-in-nsw-classrooms/news-story/eeb40f3264394798ebe67260fa2f5782

Gender theory banned in NSW classrooms

NSW public school teachers have been banned from teaching gender theory in the classroom after an independent review into the state’s sex and health education resources.

Students will no longer be taught that gender is a “social construct”, or that sexuality is “non-binary”, occurring on a ­continuum and “constantly changing”.

An edict encouraging teachers to “de-gender” their language will also likely be scrapped, along with sexually explicit case studies and teaching aids such as the “Genderbread Person”, which promotes the idea that there are “infinite possibilities” of gender identity.

Announced in September, the review by professor Bill Louden followed reports in The Australian that a sex education resource, the Teacher Toolbox for delivering content related to diversity of sex, sexuality and gender, was promoting Safe Schools materials, possibly in contravention of federal guidelines.

Further revelations about Crossroads, the state’s compulsory sex education program for Years 11 and 12, also pushing gender theory, prompted the then education minister Adrian Piccoli to order a review into the research base and scientific underpinning of the material. An update on the review has been provided to teachers, detailing a list of resources that should not be used.

Mark Hamill

pH wrote: »

I did read it, the main (only?) argument i could see was that Trump didn't have something on his website about it. Every other argument stated in that summary showed that in terms of pay equality and the legislation protecting it, Trump is in favour of it. Clinton gets half true on the basis of something not found on Trump's website!

It's bending over backwards to find any evidence (or indeed lack of!) for 'their' side.

That wasn't really the main argument though, was it? Try reading the bit I quoted, again:

Clinton said Trump "doesn't believe in equal pay."

Trump’s campaign website does not have a stipulated stance on equal pay for men and women, but his campaign says he supports "equal pay for equal work." Trump has said men and women doing the same job should get the same pay, but it’s hard to determine what’s "the same job," and that if everybody gets equal pay, "you get away from capitalism in a sense."

Trump has also said pay should be based on performance, not gender -- so he does appear to favor uniform payment if performance is alike.

Clinton’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True.

Trump says he believes in equal pay for equal work (a good thing itself sure), but essentially weasels out of any official commitment to equal pay for by not actually having it in writing anywhere on his campaign website and by saying "it’s hard to determine what’s "the same job," and that if everybody gets equal pay, "you get away from capitalism in a sense".
So at the very least, he doesn't seem to believe in any government intervention to ensure equal pay, which is what makes Clinton's statement only half true.

Do you want to try again? Maybe with the other half of your original claim, that they they mislabel something Trump said as false?

pH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Trump says he believes in equal pay for equal work (a good thing itself sure), but essentially weasels out of any official commitment to equal pay for by not actually having it in writing anywhere on his campaign website and by saying "it’s hard to determine what’s "the same job," and that if everybody gets equal pay, "you get away from capitalism in a sense".
So at the very least, he doesn't seem to believe in any government intervention to ensure equal pay, which is what makes Clinton's statement only half true.

Do you want to try again? Maybe with the other half of your original claim, that they they mislabel something Trump said as false?

You see you'd have to try really hard to come to that conclusion, so no I won't 'try again'. Trump is clearly saying that he doesn't believe everyone should get equal pay, and barring some extreme forms of socialism that's a statement that pretty much everyone agrees with.

So when asked about pay equality, Trump was clear that he supports people doing the same work getting the same pay (regardless of gender/race etc), then clarified it further (added nuance if you like) that if you mean pay equality for everyone - ie everyone from a brain surgeon to an office cleaner should be paid the same then he disagrees with that.

So no he's not weaselling out of anything.

He also added nuance about determining what's actually equal work, which has needed to be thrashed out so the current provision in US federal law is "employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment."

So yes, Trump's statement, "It’s hard to determine what’s 'the same job'" seems to be reflected in current US law (as I guess EU law too)

So no he's not weaselling out of anything.

Mark Hamill

pH wrote: »

You see you'd have to try really hard to come to that conclusion, so no I won't 'try again'. Trump is clearly saying that he doesn't believe everyone should get equal pay, and barring some extreme forms of socialism that's a statement that pretty much everyone agrees with.

So when asked about pay equality, Trump was clear that he supports people doing the same work getting the same pay (regardless of gender/race etc), then clarified it further (added nuance if you like) that if you mean pay equality for everyone - ie everyone from a brain surgeon to an office cleaner should be paid the same then he disagrees with that.

So no he's not weaselling out of anything.

He also added nuance about determining what's actually equal work, which has needed to be thrashed out so the current provision in US federal law is "employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment."

So yes, Trump's statement, "It’s hard to determine what’s 'the same job'" seems to be reflected in current US law (as I guess EU law too)

So no he's not weaselling out of anything.

You are describing the weaselling!
He was asked if he supports equal pay regardless of gender, a simple direct question. Instead of just answering the question directly, and in writing on his campaign site, he goes off on some unrelated nonsense about being against doctors being paid the same as cleaners. No-one every suggested that there should be equal pay for totally different jobs, a complete strawman that has nothing to do with what was aksed? You even show up the "what is "equal work" anyway" nonsense for what it is by pointing out that US federal law has already defined it.

If he believes in equal pay regardless of gender/race etc, why is it not on his campaign site? It's an important issue that concerns a lot of people. It's all very well to say he mentioned it in passing in one of his rambling pieces, but I'm reminded of how he claimed, in one of the live debates with Clinton, that not paying taxes made him smart and then immediately after the debate claimed he never said that. You can't take anything he says in speeches as being representative of what he believes as he contradicts himself so much.

silverharp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are describing the weaselling!
He was asked if he supports equal pay regardless of gender, a simple direct question. Instead of just answering the question directly, and in writing on his campaign site, he goes off on some unrelated nonsense about being against doctors being paid the same as cleaners. No-one every suggested that there should be equal pay for totally different jobs, a complete strawman that has nothing to do with what was aksed? You even show up the "what is "equal work" anyway" nonsense for what it is by pointing out that US federal law has already defined it.

If he believes in equal pay regardless of gender/race etc, why is it not on his campaign site? It's an important issue that concerns a lot of people. It's all very well to say he mentioned it in passing in one of his rambling pieces, but I'm reminded of how he claimed, in one of the live debates with Clinton, that not paying taxes made him smart and then immediately after the debate claimed he never said that. You can't take anything he says in speeches as being representative of what he believes as he contradicts himself so much.

Im not following this line by line but "equal pay" is a very loaded question/expression because from the way people express themselves they indicate that they are upset that collectively all the men earn more than all the women if you were to tot it up. Even the Hillary vid I posted seemed to be meaning it that way. It needs qualification

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

No I am a he, I wont ask but I thought my constant poking fun of feminists and sjw's and vegan cookies would be more a male pastime? :pac:

Not at all - I'd like to think that women and men are equally good at noticing bad thinking and pointing it out when they see it.

silverharp wrote: »

but yeah have the best interests of his country at heart which would be more adverse to expending resources abroad and instead focus on domestic policies. In the first year I'd expect the administration make it easier to do business in the US and begin to see a reversal of outsourcing. Maybe see lowering of business taxes so that US companies don't have to headquarter themselves outside the US for example.

Does that mean that you're broadly a protectionist - that is, you support policies such as the rolling out of import tariffs to protect domestic producers?

silverharp wrote: »

Otherwise I believe it would be in the US interests to not view Russia in cold war terms so any progress there would be great.

I'd certainly like to see an improvement here, but so long as Putin remains in power, he'll continue to run the country like a mafia fiefdom at home while playing military hardball elsewhere. DJT could appear to improve relations with VVP, but at the likely cost of greater regional, and possibly international, destabilization - there's already been a significant uptick in violence in East Ukraine since DJT and VVP spoke - not to mention the ongoing power struggle amongst Russian and Russian-supported fighters there, noting that quite a few have met exceedingly sticky ends.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

Does that mean that you're broadly a protectionist - that is, you support policies such as the rolling out of import tariffs to protect domestic producers?

Interesting question, not in a lazy Dev 1940's way because that would just create an inefficient economy or the basket case that is Venezuela. Tariffs exist already right, the EU has them etc? I'd prefer deregulation and simpler and lower taxes so that a company isn't forced to relocate its operations out of its home country and the reasoning has nothing to do with servicing the end export customer.

robindch wrote: »

I'd certainly like to see an improvement here, but so long as Putin remains in power, he'll continue to run the country like a mafia fiefdom at home while playing military hardball elsewhere. DJT could appear to improve relations with VVP, but at the likely cost of greater regional, and possibly international, destabilization - there's already been a significant uptick in violence in East Ukraine since DJT and VVP spoke - not to mention the ongoing power struggle amongst Russian and Russian-supported fighters there, noting that quite a few have met exceedingly sticky ends.

at the same time the US shouldn't have a military presence in countries bordering Russia anymore than a Russian presence in Cuba or em Mexico might not go down well. Russia has the same GDP as Italy , it cant even build blue water ships anymore, it punches above its economic weight for sure but its not a country in expansionary mode. As Russia has some influence over countries like Iran and Syria, it should be seen as a potential ally or at least some kind of partner for mutual cooperation.

Hotblack Desiato

silverharp wrote: »

Russia has the same GDP as Italy , it cant even build blue water ships anymore, it punches above its economic weight for sure but its not a country in expansionary mode.

Tell that to the Georgians, the Crimeans and the Ukrainians. FFS.

silverharp

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Tell that to the Georgians, the Crimeans and the Ukrainians. FFS.

I mean its not exactly 1914 where one power trying to usurp the existing powers. I certainly wouldn't be of a mind to trigger ww3 over some legacy issues of the USSR. There should not be any US forces in a country bordering Russia.

pH

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Tell that to the Georgians, the Crimeans and the Ukrainians. FFS.

So we live in a country that spends a pittance on its military (0.3% GDP?), thinks our past and current neutrality is one of our greatest achievements, isn't part of NATO and would fight tooth and nail against a European army and we of all people want to moan about Putin's expansionist plans?


What's wrong with this picture?


The hypocrisy of this is outstanding. Irish people being outraged that Trump isn't gung-ho to spend billions of dollars of US money, and send thousands of its young men and women to be slaughtered in a war with Russia to defend other countries, while we sit on the sidelines and tut-tutting and condemning Trump for doing what we have done for 100 years? And if Trump did get involved we'd scream blue murder at every civilian killed, every building damaged and march against Trumps fascist expansionist plans.

Until we're willing to do our share in terms of money and lost children's lives then we of all people have no right to criticise other countries polices.

recedite

Ireland, Switzerland and Sweden feature as neutral countries in that picture, just as they were neutral in 1939 when they avoided the ravages of WW2, unlike their neighbours who suffered terribly.
Just saying.....

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

Ireland, Switzerland and Sweden feature as neutral countries in that picture, just as they were neutral in 1939 when they avoided the ravages of WW2, unlike their neighbours who suffered terribly.
Just saying.....

also noting that Denmark was neutral, it just didnt get long to exercise it....

recedite

Denmark still got off lightly. The Danes sent their Jews to Sweden, then fired off a few shots as the Germans arrived on the train. After that they surrendered and everyone got along, and the pubs were extremely busy for the rest of the war.

Hotblack Desiato

silverharp wrote: »

There should not be any US forces in a country bordering Russia.

Why not? Are Russia's neighbours destined to remain under her heel forever? Are they independent countries with the right to decide their own fate, or not?

The Baltic states in particular have large ethnic Russian minorities and are only one manufactured grievance and a couple of hours of tank driving time away from obliviion.

These are liberal democracies and EU members. We should absolutely stand beside them.

pH wrote: »

The hypocrisy of this is outstanding. Irish people being outraged that Trump isn't gung-ho to spend billions of dollars of US money, and send thousands of its young men and women to be slaughtered in a war with Russia to defend other countries, while we sit on the sidelines and tut-tutting and condemning Trump for doing what we have done for 100 years? And if Trump did get involved we'd scream blue murder at every civilian killed, every building damaged and march against Trumps fascist expansionist plans.

Why are you ranting about Trump in a response to a post which had nothing to do with Trump?

I agree our refusal to explicitly stand in solidarity with the defence of our fellow EU members is shameful. We were not truly neutral in WWII, we were decidedly not neutral in the cold war and we're not neutral today. We just refuse to help to defend our shared interests and values.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Denmark still got off lightly.

I am reminded of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5i1cJIwE7M

If occupation by the Nazis is getting off lightly, well... you may as well say that every country except Poland and the former Soviet Union got off lightly, as those are the only ones where the Nazis attempted to exterminate the population.

FA Hayek

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I am reminded of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5i1cJIwE7M

If occupation by the Nazis is getting off lightly, well... you may as well say that every country except Poland and the former Soviet Union got off lightly, as those are the only ones where the Nazis attempted to exterminate the population.

Clearly he meant by that standard of Nazi occupation the Danes got off lightly. Of course it better not to be occupied at all but if a country was to be occupied by the Nazi's I am sure they would have preferred the Danish treatment over the Polish treatment any day of the week. It is called nuance.

The Black Oil

Finally.

ACLU decides to call bollocks on speech codes on US college campuses.

Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate.

Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.

Qs

Good response from the ACLU, measured and correct.

looksee

While I agree with the thrust of the article, I wonder what the following has to do with anything:

In Great Britain, for example, a Racial Relations Act was adopted in 1965 to outlaw racist defamation. But throughout its existence, the Act has largely been used to persecute activists of color, trade unionists and anti-nuclear protesters, while the racists -- often white members of Parliament -- have gone unpunished.

First, its the Race Relations Act (which has now been replaced by the Equality Act 2010) and I would like to see some examples of how the act was used for the purposes listed. (Anti nuclear protesters? Really?)

recedite

looksee wrote: »

First, its the Race Relations Act (which has now been replaced by the Equality Act 2010) and I would like to see some examples of how the act was used for the purposes listed. (Anti nuclear protesters? Really?)

A quick google gives a different picture alright.

robindch

"Sexual consent classes" run by the UCD students' union are being cancelled as the student population of 30,000 produced only around 20 students who wanted to take them.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/sexual-consent-classes-at-ucd-cancelled-due-to-lack-of-interest-1.2978032

#NotAskingForIt indeed.

recedite

The people who needed to go to classes wouldn’t have gone.

So true.
In Germany they make these classes compulsory for the incoming migrants, as part of an integration program. Presumably the natives get the equivalent program at an early age in school.

mcmoustache

recedite wrote: »

So true.
In Germany they make these classes compulsory for the incoming migrants, as part of an integration program. Presumably the natives get the equivalent program at an early age in school.

It makes a lot of sense there though. Different cultures tend to have different ideas about what's acceptable in terms of interacting with women. Norway does something similar, as far as I remember. Consent classes for natives, on the other hand, are about as useful as "Punching a Person in the Face is Wrong" class.

Peregrinus

mcmoustache wrote: »

It makes a lot of sense there though. Different cultures tend to have different ideas about what's acceptable in terms of interacting with women. Norway does something similar, as far as I remember. Consent classes for natives, on the other hand, are about as useful as "Punching a Person in the Face is Wrong" class.

As rec points out, we do have "consent classes" for natives; we just call them sex education or relationship education, and we deliver them at an earlier age.

The course for adult immigrants don't focus especially on sexual consent (though a certain amount of the tabloid coverage does). It covers a broad range of social cultural norms and practices, the basics of German law and introduction to the German language. The main focus of the course is on language acquisition and employment-seeking skills; the object is to accelerate progress towards permanent resident status (which, unless you're an EU national, requires you to be proficient in German, and economically self-supporting). The course is "compulsory" in the sense that attending the course is a condition of entitlement to certain welfare benefits.

mcmoustache

Fair enough, Peregrinus. I took the comment above mine at face value without verifying it first.

Qs

Peregrinus wrote: »

As rec points out, we do have "consent classes" for natives; we just call them sex education or relationship education, and we deliver them at an earlier age.

Does all or at least most sex education in this country now involve serious discussions about what constitutes consent? They didn't when I was in school but admittedly that was a long time ago. I did see just yesterday though that Accord are even being brought in to give sex education talks in some ET schools. Do accord cover consent and if so how well do they cover it? Has anyone experience of these courses that can clarify?

silverharp

not sure , Accord do my kids school which is a multidenominational school but its light enough being only primary. once they don't start showing Laci Green vidoes :pac:

Peregrinus

So far as I know, in primary school in so far as the topic of consent is touched on the focus is on your own consent - recognising when you are feeling uncomfortable, understanding that you can assert your own boundaries and say "no". It's not "sex education" any more; it's "sex and relationship education" or something of the kind, so much of this is delivered in context that don't simply discuss sex but also bullying, loneliness and other situations that, to primary school children are going to be a lot more meaningful and relevant. They cover not just recognising discomfort in yourself but recognising it in others and responding appropriately to it, but that's largely or exclusively discussed in terms of social situations, not sexual/romantic situations.

In secondary school there's more of a focus on understanding what your friend/partner is feeling in the context of a romantic relationship, and accepting responsibility for respecting that.

recedite

Sex change operations at the taxpayers expense.
Lefty lunacy, or necessary lifesaving operations?

Based on pricing data provided by the HSE, the cost for the 28 people in the process of transitioning last year, to complete treatment, would be €845,600, excluding travel expenses and postoperative care...

Recent research found up to 40 per cent of transgender people in the State had considered or attempted suicide in the previous 12 months. “So treatment is not a luxury. It’s not a lifestyle choice. It’s quite literally lifesaving,”

I'm inclined to think there is not enough acceptance in society of people for what they are. Either by the people themselves, or by other people. Not only on this issue, but also in terms of general cosmetic surgery, orthodontic treatment etc...

If you said to gay man nowadays that they should undergo hormone treatment to make themselves more masculine, they would rightly be offended. They are mostly happy enough with themselves. Perhaps the suicide thing is more to do with the prevailing attitudes in society than with a lack of medical treatments being available?