No problem. It's interesting to see quite a few people in this thread were unaware this is relatively common. I think unions are fantastic. They managed to get people the right of freedom of association. A right we have thanks to the early unions and gives individuals the right to get together and to collectively pursue an objective. Without unions we wouldn't have HS&E laws in the workplace either. They're an important countervailing power against corporate and monied power that love externalising costs unto their employees.

I get most countries don't really understand socialism and welfare and this might sound really wild but in the Netherlands every union has money saved up for strikes to enable them to pay strikers, which is funded by union member contributions. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakingskas

Trump only denounces it when he vacillated or equivocated before.

Maybe he considers both points valid. I don't think there's a right and wrong here. Except for @javi2541997, who's just wrong.

Because leaving his bullshit uncontested on a public forum could raise the idea with casual visitors it's a valid position. That's the only reason I ever reply to him.

Doesn't the union provide income during the strike?

I think the intent on the outcome will be another difficult issue to prove since it's not a general intent crime.

yawn Are you starting to cry? You're blaming me for what you're actually doing. I don't have a horse in this race so accusing me of partisanship just underlines your myopic worldview.

We've seen a lot about proving things to you. No one can prove anything to you, which you do not want proven. But anything which you want proven, you readily prove it to yourself. — Metaphysician Undercover

The subject being that you're totally partisan on anything to deal with US politics, which was an entirely accurate assessment by MU and which you then whine about as bullying tactics. And like any Trumpster, instead of reflecting on your own behaviour you double-down, by insisting a clear paraphrase is a misquote.

So I was on message and you're just trying to deflect.

There's a quote function for quoting, which I didn't use, and posts are right below each other. I know reading and thinking are difficult for you but I have a higher standard for people's average reading abilities than that.

Wait, what? So as a healthy man I'm capable of rape (I just don't because morals), how would that excuse an actual rapist? I'm confused...

It's called paraphrasing. You qualified MU's comment as "bullying tactics" but of course will now insist you didn't judge it "bullying" because you were just being descriptive. You seem to have problems understanding how your mother tongue actually works.

Bullshit called out. "You're bullying." :rofl:

Just on a basic level, laws against public defecation or laws against exhibitionist public sexual acts are, by definition, restrictions on that sort of thing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's not a limitation of physical integrity. It merely tells you where not to do it. Just find a place where you can do it. We can prohibit people from eating on the train but we cannot deny them eating tout court.

For larger stories, I start with world building wondering what technology would look like in 100+ years (and I've built my fair share of worlds in the past for d&d). Based on the imagined technology I can imagine what it looks like and what the politics look like. Then I insert a simple plot and start adding layers as I write.

Edit: actually, my main problem is I don't think I have a consistent writing style yet. Even within a couple of pages and I'm wondering whether it has charm and work, just how Mozart works with his stitching of tiny pays, or if it's just annoying.

Yes, that's something else than bodily autonomy. Physical integrity doesn't preclude detainment for instance.

Yes, but I'm not sharing that. :wink: Also, it's not solid yet, some problems will have to be fixed as I progress with writing. The plot has its fair share of holes at the moment.

Guy gets set up, is thrown into a typical whodunnit while being chased by the authorities.

How long a description? The arrogant and condescending female of the species pets the little, big man. — Amity

"She pats my cheek the way a grandmother would pat her favourite, but decidedly stupidest, grandchild."

What do you think it means that Trump is made fun of by a large majority as a complete idiot and liar in the European Union when you contrast that with your own views? To what extent are your views a representation of the average Chinese person? Or is China simply too big to be really concerned with foreign counties and their politicians?

Bodily autonomy isn't something we can uphold as an absolute if we want to have a functioning justice system. If Hannibal is a serial killer cannibal who has eaten all his neighbors, then most people would agree that we have a right to decide that Hannibal can't leave his prison cell, or that we even have the right to execute Hannibal. We have also told Hannibal what he can't put into his body, namely his neighbors. So, obviously bodily autonomy has its limits. Putting people in prison at the very least determines what can go into their bodies, and executing them determines what goes into and out of their bodies. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Where did I talk about bodily autonomy?

1), I'm not sure you should be forced to save a drowning kid. It would be nice if you did, but do we want government compelling charitable acts? — RogueAI

There are plenty of states that compel a duty of care actually. The Netherlands and most continental European countries have this. Penalties are relatively mild though up to 6 months if I remember correctly. @Tobias maybe you remember more details?

Even in some States in the USA. I looked it up at some point and wrote about this before on this site. If you want to know more I can search for it.

My grand sci-fi opus

No seriously, the dictionary recognised, matronise, matron etc. but somehow turns up empty on matronisingly. I ended up hating the sound of it so opted for a more descriptive approach.

God on you! — Vera Mont

Also, I hope God is a woman because I don't swing the other way.

I don't think I can copyright that. :snicker:

So I'm working on my book again since the last literary activity got my creativity flowing again and when wife pats the protaganist on his cheek, I'm like "hell no, it's not patronisingly but, since she's a woman, it should be "matronisingly", only to discover that's not considered a word. Really? Well, now it is.

I have a totally different take nowadays. Let me know what you think! :wink:

I actually think approaching it as a person/not-a-person invites complexity as it introduces issues of potentiality and presumes only persons are worthy of moral consideration. The latter in particular doesn't sit well with me due to my preference for consistencies in moral frameworks. I think this isn't the right way to go. The environment deserves moral consideration but also works of art or information etc.

I'm pro-choice and find that in the inviolability of our physical integrity. I choose what goes in and comes out of my body. Having others tell a woman she must carry to term just sounds like a violation in itself.

The gestation limit is somewhat arbitrary but the main problem I see is people will always argue: "yes but a healthy foetus will grow into a person". My position would be more absolute; there should be no time limit. As long as the baby hasn't been born a woman should be able to decide to have it removed. However, doctors do not have the obligation to kill a viable baby. Indeed, they have the opposite duty to save it. The consequences of the choice of removing a baby late, e.g. an operation that is effectively a ceasarian, should be borne by the person making the choice. E.g., if you're too late and the baby is viable, you have to take care of it - either giving it up for adoption, get family involved or doing it yourself. It should also be easier to have more complex family structures to support different ways of making sure the child starts life in a safe and caring environment, preferably with a view of having the mother involved in its upbringing to the extent she wants and also allowing for her to change her mind.

The choice, even at early stages of gestation, is a tough one for women. At least that's my understanding having spoken to those that had an abortion.I doubt many of them take such choices lightly - although this might be a consequence of selection bias (the women I talk to and make friends with aren't really a good representation of society). Such a choice presumably only becomes more difficult the longer it is postponed. As a result, "late" decisions will probably be very rare and as such not a real problem.

In addition efficiency only leads to more use. So portions get bigger, for instance. Voila, obesity.

He didn't say "contextomy" but "context". Here's the two definitions of that word:

noun

• the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
  
• the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

Try again.

Ah, let's not forget

• In November, a Trump supporter "punched and attempted to choke" a protester at a rally in Birmingham, Alabama (according to the Washington Post); Trump said afterward that "maybe he deserved to get roughed up."
• On March 3, two protesters at a Kentucky rally were assaulted by members of a white supremacist group.
• On March 9, John McGraw, who is white, punched Rakeem Jones, who is black, in the face while cops pulled Jones from a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Trump told the crowd that "in the good old days this didn’t use to happen, because they used to treat them very rough."
• On March 19, Air Force service member Tony Pettway, who is black, punched and kicked protester Bryan Sanders, who is white, at a rally in Tucson, Arizona.

And Trump offering to pay their legal fees.

Chicago was instigated by Trumpsters. Costa Mesa where a few stones at motorists and police were thrown. New Mexico was some property damage but no attacks on people. San Diego reports also claim rally goers wanted to fight and went out of their way to accomplish that but I'll give you that one, that protesters actually attacked rally goers.

Meanwhile, violence was condemned by Clinton.

So, Trumpsters started it, did it more often and we're encouraged by the orangutan.

I'm glad the hecklers were thrown out and mistreated as all censors need to be. — NOS4A2

Yes, we know you're no fan of civil rights unless it's guns.

Ah, yes let's pretend I need to be taken literally. Trumpsters repeatedly attacked protesters at Trump rallies and I can only find one example of protesters attacking Trump rally goers in June 2016, after protesters had been attacked at rallies several times and Trump goaded them to do so. Clearer?

That has happened but then Trumpsters did too and more often and Trump called for it several times as well.

Have you heard of "just dig it"? https://justdiggit.org/

Are there any chemists in the house?

What do you think of this (methanisation of CO2): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212982023000938?via%3Dihub

And what about industrial photosynthesis: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c06390

They look very energy intensive but I think in some areas and at certain times (over production of solar or wind) this could be interesting. Instead of carbon capturing it, we recycle CO2.

If two idiots agree, that doesn't mean they're right.

Republicans favourite news channel works that way: "some people say [insert claim accusing people]"



Some people say Trump sucked Giulani's cock.

It's a presumption in court only. We can think whatever we want.

I wonder if they truly believe it or that they just hate their own lives and Democrats so much. As we say in Dutch "a cornered cat makes weird jumps".

What does a typical hero look like in the US? Dirty Harry, any spy movie with lots of collateral damage and breaking of rules, etc. Fits right in popular fiction.

That's because he's a troll. When you've beaten one point to a pulp, he won't engage and simply come up with the next.