RowanM comments

Posted in: EU to agree Brexit delay but France pushes for conditions See in context

EU should give an extension with specific deadlines.

June 30: Last chance to ratify an EU deal. If there is no deal by this time then there will be no deal and after that the choice is binary-- remain or hard brexit.

July 31st last day to decide between stay as is or hard brexit. If UK can't make a binary decision then hard brexit is the default and cannot be changed.

August 31st. Whichever decision is implemented, regardless of if the UK makes any decision. If the UK makes no decision by July 31st then this will be the last day that the UK is part of the EU.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Virgin territory: Study shows heterosexual inexperience rising in Japan See in context

@kohakuebisu Sex is not the same thing as intimacy. You can have intimacy without sex and you can have sex without intimacy. Implying that a lack of sex is a lack of intimacy is a false dichotomy. I do think that they are often correlated but they aren't causal in either direction.

And to all of the people worried about the end of Japan because there aren't enough people having babies... immigration is a thing that exists and also "less babies" is not the same thing as "no babies" and can eventually reach a stable population. There's no need for dramatics.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Gay Taiwanese man granted special permission to remain in Japan See in context

I'm glad that this decision was made, but it's just kicking the can down the road. What this tells people is that gay people in relationships should just overstay their visas illegally, when instead Japan should make a legal framework for them.

@wtfjapan

The difference is that Japan HAS a course for straight people in relationships that want to stay in the country due to their relationship. It's called "marriage". With no gay marriage, that option exists ONLY for straight people.

@samit basu

1) Gay marriage is not legal per se in Taiwan. The constitutional court ruled that this situation is unconstitutional and it has to change by May 24th this year, but that's still in the future.

2) That Taiwan decision was in 2017, a year after this person was ordered to be deported.

3) Even if it were legal there, there are a host of other reasons that someone may not want to move to another country. No one country is perfect and solves every problem.

4) It's still unjust that it's not legal here and some people believe in fighting for what they think is right. This person has brought a lot of attention to this issue with this legal battle.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: When you were a child, how did your parents discipline you? See in context

@BertieWooster several big points

1) It's not applying one case to all. It's talking about trends and averages. Spanking every child will have significantly worse outcomes overall than not spanking any child and using other methods of teaching and discipline.

2) Even if not all people are the same and it's "water off a duck's back" for some, you have no way of knowing who may or may not be harmed by the corporal punishment. As such, you should still choose the method that will cause less harm, because "for some children spanking is really harmful" and you don't know if your kid fits into that category.

3) I was responding to specific comments asking about evidence, which is included in the links I have given. Please kindly do the same if you want to refute my points. If you don't have any evidence, you're not really contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: GOP senators defend the late McCain against Trump's attacks See in context

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell [...]deployed the H-word twice in one tweet.

"The H-word"? What? Are we avoiding the word "hero" for some reason?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: 2020 Democrats' new litmus test: Abolish Electoral College See in context

@Strangerland

The constitution has been amended 27 times, not 33. There have been 33 amendments approved by congress but only 27 have been ratified by the states.

@Bass

As far as I can tell, there is not a requirement per the constitution for ratification to happen within seven years. The most recent amendment was approved by congress in 1789 but not ratified by enough states to come into effect until 1992.

However, most modern amendment pushes do include a deadline for ratification. That's a decision made by congress at the time of writing and approval, but not a constitutional requirement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: When you were a child, how did your parents discipline you? See in context

@Bass4funk @Kapuna @Jimizo

The American Psychological Association suggests that spanking is harmful for children. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking

The American Academy of Pediatrics agrees.

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/spanking-is-still-really-common-and-still-really-bad-for-kids.html

Pretty much any reputable, scientific source is going to tell you that spanking is less effective and causes more long-term harm to children than other parenting methods. It is seen as effective by parents because it leads to immediate, short term acquiescence, but it doesn't lead to long-term improvement as effectively as other methods.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/201802/the-spanking-debate-is-over

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/health/spanking-harmful-study-pediatricians.html

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Posted in: Trump gets a U.S. Supreme Court victory on immigration detention See in context

@Dango Bong

Most of the plaintiffs in the case are legal immigrants.

@Blacklabel

It's a bit dated but https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-scotus-agreement-rates.html has a 2014 list of then-serving justices and how often they agree with each other. Conservatives also vote together a vast majority of the time. But you might be surprised to know that almost ALL of the justices often vote in a bloc. Every single justice at the time agreed with ANY other justice more often than disagreed. The most extreme examples in either direction were Ginsburg and Thomas and they still agreed literally TWICE as often as they disagreed.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Posted in: Britain in Brexit chaos as parliament crushes May's EU deal again See in context

@Joe

"Hey everyone who voted Leave: remember that? Well guess what? Your vote doesn't count now!"

Modern "democracy" in action, folks.

What? You're not seriously suggesting that "Oh hey, we have new information that might change your opinion. Let's ask the people again" is UNdemocratic? I can't think of a better way to be democratic than to say "Oh we didn't get the deal we promised you, so let's check again if this is what you really want" and have a vote.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump calls Apple CEO Tim Cook 'Tim Apple' See in context

This is the next logical step after the announcement that Doug Bowser is taking over Nintendo America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Foreign leaders lavish Trump with diplomatic gifts See in context

@qcbel

Like all of the other gifts to Trump, his wife, daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, those were turned over to the National Archives.

The article does say that they don't get to keep the gifts. I agree that the title is misleading about it, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Court rejects damages suit over death of outed gay student See in context

My best guess is that the students harassing him in LINE were also students in the section that he wanted to be moved out of, which would definitely add to the university's responsibility.

That being said, that's conjecture not directly supported by anything in the article. Based on what I see in the article, it's hard to say that the university really has any responsibility for his death.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. House passes bill rejecting Trump's border wall emergency See in context

He originally promised that Mexico would pay for it, but after Mexico refused, he asked U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for a project Democrats say is unneeded and will not be effective.

He "asked" taxpayers to foot the bill? No, he has decided that taxpayers will foot the bill. He isn't giving anyone a choice in the matter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Even if infidelity breaks down a marriage and leads to divorce, unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as the third party involved unreasonably interfering in the marriage in a bid to prompt a divorce, the third party is not liable for paying damages for the divorce. See in context

@Maria

If a business contract were broken because Company C slipped in and stole Company A from Company B with whom it had made a long-term contract (stay with me here), would Company B be able to sue?

I have no idea how a company could "steal" another company. Company A is an independent company as must have made a choice to break the contract with B (wherein company C is not responsible, only A is). The only way the this could not be the case is if we are assuming that a company has ownership of another, in which case it's not a good analogy for modern marriage in Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Even if infidelity breaks down a marriage and leads to divorce, unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as the third party involved unreasonably interfering in the marriage in a bid to prompt a divorce, the third party is not liable for paying damages for the divorce. See in context

I 100% agree with this ruling. It is only the responsibility of the people in the marriage to decide what is and is not acceptable in their marriage, and it is only the responsibility of the people in the marriage to maintain fidelity.

It is not my job to worry about your marriage. If your S/O is wandering, that is between the two of you. I guess you could seek damages from your spouse, possibly. But it's not my job to know the state of your marriage. I mean, am I responsible if I never find out that you're married? What if I'm told that they're single?

It's especially important to know who decided to get a divorce? Did he decide to divorce because she cheated (rather than try to improve their relationship?) and then sue for damages because of the "pain of the divorce"? There's a lot missing here but nothing that tells me that this other man is responsible.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Posted in: Court upholds 'sterilization' rule for gender change See in context

@Luddite

"I am really starting to wonder if it is necessary to put a sex on Birth or any other documents. If all citizens are equal under the law, what purpose does it serve?

Biology. You'd want your heathcare provider to know as it could effect your treatment.

I've never been to a doctor that didn't have me fill out forms where I could identify what the issues might be and information about myself. I pretty much always have to write out important medical information for my doctor before being seen. They don't use my sex from any document to make decisions without that additional information.

A notable exception is possibly in emergency situations. But emergency situations means that they're probably not checking your birth certificate or other documents, either.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump administration to ask Supreme Court to decide census dispute See in context

@CrazyJoe

But there's no hurry on ending the Trump shutdown.

I'm no fan of the administration or the shutdown, but these are pretty unrelated. There's no reason that one requires the other. There are many better arguments against this than "but the shutdown". Talk about how it's unnecessary for the requirements of a census and can undercut counting (as opposed to many other demographic questions which are unlikely, at this time, to cause people to underreport). The shutdown is not relevant to this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Big flex: Youngsters Tiafoe, Fritz stun seeds in Australia See in context

The lead photo of Federer and the headline of "Youngsters Stun Seeds" really mislead me. I thought that it was saying that Federer had been upset.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. House passes bills that would end government shutdown, without wall funds See in context

@theFU

the economy was doing so well.

Do you actually remember 2009 when Obama took office? TARP and the bailouts? The economy was in a terrible place for a lot of Obama's presidency. It was still an issue in the 2016 election. What flavor kool-aid did you drink!? Parts of the bailouts fall under "Obama's debt" as does the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), as does most of TARP. If the economy was doing well as you say then it was due to Obama, and the debt increase was responsible for that, not in spite of it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: U.S. to send migrants back to Mexico to wait out asylum requests See in context

@cla68 Because we can't send them to Mexico unless Mexico is also willing to take them. We can't just arbitrarily dump random people in another country as official policy.

Mexico's government said that it would accept some of those migrants 

This is the key point that makes this possible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Teacher referred to prosecutors after assaulting student at special needs school See in context

According to investigators, the teacher is suspected of physically assaulting the victim, who was a third-year high school student at the time, in November 2017,

 between April 2017 and February 2018, the suspect verbally abused several other students

So they had VIDEO of him assaulting a student and yet he was still teaching for another three months?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Kobe government worker fired for lying about having LESS education than he really does See in context

@Belrick that's probably the entire reason he got fired.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Mississippi Republican overcomes gaffes to win final 2018 Senate race See in context

@Serrano

Sneezy - Democratic challenger Mike Espy must be even worse to lose to Hyde-Smith, eh?

Worse in the minds of people who live in Mississippi, sure. But that could just mean that a majority of people in Mississippi are racist. "Worse" is subjective.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. senators clash with Republican leader over protecting Mueller See in context

If Trump decides to interfere, then there can be great harm to the US and American democracy.

So why would you choose to leave that gap open when closing it does no harm? There is potential risk in blocking the measure and no risk in allowing it.

There is only risk on the side of stopping the investigation, so why would you actively vote against it unless you want to leave that possibility open?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. senators clash with Republican leader over protecting Mueller See in context

@bass4funk

Well, he doesn't need to

That still isn't a reason to vote against protecting Mueller's investigation from Trump's influence, let alone actively blocking such a vote in the first place. If you think it's not necessary, what harm does it do?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. senators clash with Republican leader over protecting Mueller See in context

Dear Mitch,

If Trump doesn't want to shut down the investigation, then passing the legislation wouldn't cause any problems at all.

The only reason to oppose protecting Mueller from Trump/Whitaker is if you think both A) Trump/Whitaker may do something about the investigation and B) You want them to be able to do so (or at the very least you're too cowardly to explicitly oppose even the possibility of ending up on their bad side). I cannot understand why this protection measure is something worth opposing.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Posted in: Mira Sorvino urges #MeToo to do more than 'name and shame' See in context

Good on her. I'm glad she's trying to move towards future solutions!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Man at center of Nobel body scandal tests rape conviction See in context

He was acquitted of that rape because the victim said she was asleep at the time

This sentence boggles my mind.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump seeks end to Florida recount as Republicans' leads shrink See in context

ONE county in Georgia results: 

“A full 1,811 provisional ballots in Fulton County were duplicates (49 percent), and 1,556 of them (42 percent of the total provisionals) were rejected.

Three of the individuals were not citizens, 581 were not registered to vote, and 972 did not live in that county.”

one candidate got 300,000 votes in this county and one got 100,000. Can you guess which one was the Dem?

What is your point? This means that the votes in this counter were properly vetted and they found the ones that shouldn't be in there. That is the point of the entire vetting process. I don't see anything wrong with the fact that they found the votes that shouldn't be there and didn't count them towards the candidates.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Posted in: White House braces for Mueller See in context

@Serrano

That was the GOP strategy during the entire Obama administration and they ended up with Congress and the White House in 2016.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.