AngryHumanoid @ AngryHumanoid @reddthat.com

Posts

5

Comments

114

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes he played a couple smaller characters. Also: Michael*

While I generally agree with the sentiment you are expressing regarding some gun owners who absolutely have let themselves be brainwashed into fearing for their lives every time the doorbell rings, I do not think it is reasonable to apply that sentiment to all gun owners, particularly those who have legitimate safety concerns for themselves as she undoubtedly does.

https://i.imgflip.com/1a06jz.jpg

Well now I need Samuel L. Jackson as a Klingon in literally any Star Trek show.

There are 2 answers. Answer 1: remember that Worf episode where he's moving through quantum realities? That. Answer 2: fuck you.

If I spent 7 years playing my character as a boy, only to suddenly become female for the sake of a single episode where I get pregnant I'd be pissed too.

I do it every time I walk into the grocery store. AND IT WORKS.

I know it will get a lot of laughs now, but I unironically love the final song.

In this scene he's in prison on Asgard. Can you imagine what he's done just for a cup of Asgardian Battle Juice or whatever they call it?

I heard they were roommates.

No offense but I kinda feel like you know what I meant when I said "general" discrimination laws, as in "existing discrimination laws".

From some quick googling "The California law bars discrimination on the basis on ancestry. Dalit lawyers believe that caste discrimination is covered under it. Legal scholars have also argued that caste discrimination is cognizable as race discrimination, religious discrimination and national origin discrimination."

Like I said originally, I don't see why specifying caste would be an issue. This hasn't been tested in court in CA yet but clearly we can see why the argument is being made that existing laws already cover it.

Someone elsewhere in the thread pointed out the US doesn't acknowledge caste at all, so maybe that's why they don't want to codify caste discrimination as that alone could lend credence to caste even being a thing.

But as you pointed out USA doesn't acknowledge caste, so specifying caste discrimination would be bad, so making sure it can be prosecuted under the "general" discrimination laws makes more sense, doesn't it?

Like I said, I don't see the harm in spelling it out even if it is superfluous, it does make me wonder if he vetoed it for another reason and doesn't want to say.

Sure, but I'd love to hear a smart lawyer use a governor's statement while arguing before a jury.

All men are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others /sarcasm

Exactly. It would be pretty stupid for a governor to say existing laws already apply when they don't, but I don't exactly trust any politician to tell the truth unless it's politically expedient for them.

Do we know that? Is there case law?

I don't know, that's where we would need a CA lawyer to chime in. Obviously that's where this issue could go either way.

There will always be a lawyer who will use any ridiculous argument to get their client off, that is literally their function. By the same argument the opposing counsel can point to the governors statement that other laws should be applicable, can't they?