AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-06-23, 05:39   Link #521
Fipskuul
τηε πιγητ ωατςη
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: τηč λαnδ of веагз αnδ дг
Actually this case is similar to racial discrimination. It is not just how the kids will see that kid. It is also how the parents of those kids will see that kid. If the parents talk badly about that family, their kids will hesitate to have an honest interaction with the kid in question. Instead, it might be cold and distanced, and that is the best you can hope for. That means, it would be difficult to live in a conservative town, if you think of the kid's well-being. Though, I don't know, maybe the opposite may happen too. The parents, while talking badly about that parents in question, they may think that the child's well-being needs to be protected against its parents, so they may act in a more protective way than usual. Showing more affection, kind of. While doing that, they may offend the parents in question and that may affect the child in return. So, we go back to the beginning of the cycle.

On the other hand, I don't think having two parents of the same gender will have a visible negative effect on the child. The only problematic part would be the ages, where he will neither be ignorant of the situation (like when he was too young to notice a difference) nor knowledged enough to understand the situation. I don't think there are a lot of examples to derive a result (as the society changes into a more understanding one, those negative side might lessen its intensity). Those people may choose to have a family through adoption or other means, without having a partner. And, that won't be any different than living with a single-parent. In any case, there is no escape, that was something to happen. You cannot change the genetic traits and the basic human desires. It is better to integrate them into the society than delaying this any further...
Fipskuul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-23, 09:27   Link #522
Mr. DJ
Schwing!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central Texas
Age: 30
George Carlin dies at Age 71

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25322638/
Mr. DJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-24, 09:23   Link #523
kitto-chan
很快是工程師
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ゴミ箱の存在の他の平野
Chinese the new black?

Chinese is the new black . Im surprise no one here has brought this issue up. Or I completely missed it. Anyways. I figure a great percentage of the fans on this board is Asians. What are your thoughts.

1. Asians in Africa being Classified as blacks?
2. Asians from Taiwan, Japan, or otherwise from outside South Africa is considered honorary whites?
3. Does Nationality have anything to do with success in business.
4. What does nationality have to do with getting a loans?
5. What is the aftereffects you suspect will occur?

I personal don't believe that could affect me in anyway, but I have to wonder will this set a presidency for other countries to follow. I personal am proud if stubborn to my parents admit I am a Chinese. Secondly in no way do I see any resemblance between any Asians and black. Asians have tiny eyes, dark straight hair and eat rice religiously. Ok I'm kidding about the last part, but in terms of physical features I see no resemblance. I don't see why changing the classification is necessary, its easier I admit but not necessary. Changing the politics and policy would be the long term method would it not.
i could many Blacks as well as Asian being outraged at this classification system. This kind of move by the government may cause a culture to be lose or absorbed by the other. Frankly I don't think it was a wise move from the Africa Government but that my opinion.

BTW if someone already started a thread willl you merge me please.
kitto-chan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-24, 09:39   Link #524
xris
Just call me Ojisan
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: U.K. Hampshire
Did you actually read the article yourself?

It clearly refers to "Chinese-South Africans" specifically and not Asians in general.

Plus, it seems to be in responce to this, "In 2006, the Chinese Association of South Africa sued the government, claiming that its members were being discriminated against because they were being treated as whites". The article states that being classified in this way (as blacks) then they will have advantages they didn't before.
xris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-24, 11:34   Link #525
kitto-chan
很快是工程師
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ゴミ箱の存在の他の平野
Quote:
Did you actually read the article yourself?
I did not read this particular article. I did read the Times and other papers.

Quote:
Plus, it seems to be in responce to this, "In 2006, the Chinese Association of South Africa sued the government, claiming that its members were being discriminated against because they were being treated as whites". The article states that being classified in this way (as blacks) then they will have advantages they didn't before.

South Africa has seen waves of immigrants and investment from China since 1994, and today there are as many as 300,000 Chinese living in the South Africa. But the new court decision is unlikely to benefit most of them or trigger another mass migration– it applies only to those Chinese who were South African citizens before 1994 (and their descendants), a much smaller number of around 10,000 to 12,000.


Its doesn't really change much and offeres little help.

Maybe this will provide my basis for reasoning to have policy changed instead of just classification. This is an exact quote from issue 1765 of New Scientist magazine, 20 April 1991, page Page61
Quote:
So confusing are the definitions that officials frequently get egg all over their faces trying to justify their actions. In 1989, for example, local newspapers had a field day with the story of a Chinese restaurant in the mining town of Boksburg in which the new Chinese owner's own children could not eat because it was in a 'white' part of town. Put on the defensive, the Conservative Party town council retorted that the story was nonsense; everybody knew the Chinese were 'honorary whites'.
Not in nightclubs
In fact the Chinese weren't officially honorary whites. But foreign black businessmen were, and this allowed them temporary run of the 'white' world, but on one condition: that they didn't dance at nightclubs.
The element of farce is underlined by the publication every year by the Minister of Home Affairs of a list of people who have changed their classification, and thus many of the trappings of their lives.
In 1988, for example, 240 people who had been 'blacks' became 'whites' and two became 'Indians', while 52 'Indians' became 'coloureds', and 63 'coloureds' became 'Indians'. Yet others shifted within the subcategories of 'coloured' so that 25 'Malays' suddenly became 'coloureds'.
This has been going on for over 40 even before President F. W. de Klerk before the repelling of Population Registration Act of 1950. Other sources also point out the problems in constant switching classification creating problems. The bookColour, Confusion and Concessions: The History of the Chinese in stating on page 250 describes the hardship Chinese -South-African were facing obtaining citizenships in 1929. A consul from Nanking was sent to investigate the problem and in the report states ”the Chinese are greatly dissatisfied with the restriction which are imposed upon them as Asiatic”. After the an article in the Canton Gazette the African Government made a gentlemen agreement much like they did with the Japanese. The Chinese were in fact suppose to on September 7, 1930, however due to the Sino-Japanese War and WW2 it revered back to the way it was.
Quote:
The Chongs did not get a better score because South Africa's black empowerment rules classified them as whites. The Chongs say that is unfair and, along with other members of the Chinese Association of South Africa, they sued the government. The argument in their lawsuit was simple: Chinese were regarded as people of color during apartheid. Like blacks, they endured discrimination. So, the Chongs say it is wrong to now classify Chinese as white.
source
Chinese were discrimated as coloured, so the government classified them as white according the the BEE. But if something else occur such as white being oppose will they get a different classification?

Quote:
It clearly refers to "Chinese-South Africans" specifically and not Asians in general.
Page 316 of the same book “The 1951 census reflected the total population os South African in excess of 12.6 million – compromising 8.5 million Africans 2.6 million Whites, 1.1 million Coloureds and 336,00 Asiatics (of whom fewer than 5000 were Chinese). “ Reason why I stated Asians in general versus Chinese.
kitto-chan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-26, 15:02   Link #526
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
US citizens had a tremendously important court case opinion issued by the Supreme Court today, Heller versus D.C.

In a nutshell, Heller contested D.C.'s gun restrictions,which in practice amounted to a ban, on the grounds that it violated the second amendment of the US constitution (which reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."). D.C. lawyers argued that the constitution doesn't guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court ruled that the US constitution means what it says. Fancy that.

I don't care what side of the gun control issue you are on. Surely we should all be able to agree that the proper way to oppose the right to bear arms is not to pretend that plain English has strange meanings completely contradictory to the text of the original legislation, but that the proper method would to be to call for the amendment to be appealed and replaced.

The text of the decision can be found here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont.../06/07-290.pdf

I am ashamed that the dissenting justices serve my country. They are welcome to believe whatever they want about the individual right to bear arms, but their job is to interpret legislation, and they clearly fail at the test of either basic English comprehension or the test of integrity in interpreting the law in an unbiased fashion.
__________________

I await patiently
the gift promised to me.
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-26, 15:24   Link #527
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
but that the proper method would to be to call for the amendment to be appealed and replaced.
good luck with that one, it takes a 2/3 vote in the congress and 2/3 of all 50 states to ratified the change to amend the constitution. There is a good reason why it hasn't happen in the last 50 years.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-26, 15:29   Link #528
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
good luck with that one, it takes a 2/3 vote in the congress and 2/3 of all 50 states to ratified the change to amend the constitution. There is a good reason why it hasn't happen in the last 50 years.
Is requiring a 2/3 majority to change a nation's constitution really too much?
__________________

I await patiently
the gift promised to me.
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-26, 15:43   Link #529
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
Is requiring a 2/3 majority to change a nation's constitution really too much?
nope,

Personally i love how the Washington and Jefferson and the bunch setup the American government. No body not even the majority is going to be able to get everything they want unless they compromise.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-26, 15:49   Link #530
Mystique
Honyaku no Hime
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: In the eastern capital of the islands of the rising suns...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
good luck with that one, it takes a 2/3 vote in the congress and 2/3 of all 50 states to ratified the change to amend the constitution. There is a good reason why it hasn't happen in the last 50 years.
Crap, and here was i gonna say 'isn't it about time that the original constitution needed a 231 (soon 232) year old makeover to conicide with the 21st C?"
- as xellos has just explained, it's not easy aligning minds of 48 inland states (of diff cultures and mentalites) to agree :\
__________________

Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn't get you anywhere. - Van Wilder
"If you ain't laughin', you ain't livin'." - Carlos Mencia
Mystique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-26, 16:09   Link #531
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystique View Post
Crap, and here was i gonna say 'isn't it about time that the original constitution needed a 231 (soon 232) year old makeover to conicide with the 21st C?"
- as xellos has just explained, it's not easy aligning minds of 48 inland states (of diff cultures and mentalites) to agree :\
You're absolutely right in saying that it's not easy to get them to agree, but that's not only a disadvantage. That fact, in combination with a few ground rules, is also part of the country's strength. After all, local opinion sways quickly, but the truth isn't so easily found.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. Justice is a well-armed sheep."

For the record, I think the US constitution is in no need of "updating" to match urban modern opinion, and I think it's sad that not even constitutions modeled after it--not even those drafted with the aid of US officials--have provided the same protection from government.
__________________

I await patiently
the gift promised to me.
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-26, 16:26   Link #532
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Yeehaw, let's keep on applying 300-hundred year old concepts of how the world works on today's society without a proper reinterpretation--it does wonders. Wonders, I tell ya.

Next week: Slaves, Or How Plato Was Right.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-26, 16:40   Link #533
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Yeehaw, let's keep on applying 300-hundred year old concepts of how the world works on today's society without a proper reinterpretation--it does wonders. Wonders, I tell ya.

Next week: Slaves, Or How Plato Was Right.
Well, that's not invalid in and of itself, but if it needs reworking, why not rework it instead of pretending it says something else?

I do think it holds up well, though. Logic and reason doesn't change, regardless of time or social custom, and the choices made were very deliberate and in direct response to abuses of power. I'm far more hesitant to revoke limitations on government than any other aspect of society. In our current world, abuse of power is, after all, almost a constant.
__________________

I await patiently
the gift promised to me.
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-26, 17:07   Link #534
Irenicus
Le fou, c'est moi
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
For the record, I think the US constitution is in no need of "updating" to match urban modern opinion, and I think it's sad that not even constitutions modeled after it--not even those drafted with the aid of US officials--have provided the same protection from government.
On the other hand, the Country as it is today is completely different from anything remotely close to the United States of the Former Thirteen British Colonies in 1790. Many rights we take for granted, they did not even consider to be existing, and many they considered to be positively enshrined, we ignore. The Document's viability in its substantive points, it can be argued, remains only because the country's legal forces constantly reinterpret it to suit the needs of the day, even ignoring it when necessary, and because the American People accept some of the values it espoused as absolute, indisputable truth -- or alternatively as core values that represent the American. Something like the famed "Freedom of Speech" concept, which was really only written down in horrid English in the original Amendment to the Constitution.

I appreciate the stability provide by its procedural outlines much more though. A wonderful act of balancing that was.
Irenicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-26, 17:24   Link #535
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
On the other hand, the Country as it is today is completely different from anything remotely close to the United States of the Former Thirteen British Colonies in 1790. Many rights we take for granted, they did not even consider to be existing, and many they considered to be positively enshrined, we ignore. The Document's viability in its substantive points, it can be argued, remains only because the country's legal forces constantly reinterpret it to suit the needs of the day, even ignoring it when necessary, and because the American People accept some of the values it espoused as absolute, indisputable truth -- or alternatively as core values that represent the American. Something like the famed "Freedom of Speech" concept, which was really only written down in horrid English in the original Amendment to the Constitution.

I appreciate the stability provide by its procedural outlines much more though. A wonderful act of balancing that was.
I did speak poorly by saying that the "constitution" doesn't need updating, because it's so much larger a document than the initial ten amendments known as the "Bill of Rights", and I don't treat it like a religious document.

However, I cannot think of any right it espouses that I would ever consider giving up... Modern wisdom isn't always better.

My primary point is that ignoring or misinterpreting it to suit opinion is dishonest and a very, very dangerous way to allow a government to be run.
__________________

I await patiently
the gift promised to me.
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-26, 17:40   Link #536
Irenicus
Le fou, c'est moi
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
However, I cannot think of any right it espouses that I would ever consider giving up... Modern wisdom isn't always better.
Oh, I could hardly disagree with that. Plus, like most people, I wouldn't like to give up any rights and freedom I've got my hands on. Not without being sufficiently manipulated anyway, but that's another topic...

Quote:
My primary point is that ignoring or misinterpreting it to suit opinion is dishonest and a very, very dangerous way to allow a government to be run.
And my primary point is that, it's actually pretty much a myth that the Constitution (and/or its constituent additions) remains the same document today that it was back in 1790. I don't mean in the literal sense, mind you, the texts are all still there -- but rather in that the meaning as we understand it (or its constituent parts) have changed since then.

Was there a right to privacy? No, of course not. Though I have to admire the sheer genius of reinterpreting a completely outdated provision on quartering soldiers in people's homes into a guarantee of privacy, even if they're obviously unrelated. Were the rights guaranteed in the document supposed to apply over State laws? Absolutely not. That change was made much, much later, by reinterpreting existing Amendments and defining newer ones. And, to go in an opposite direction, many of the current taxes that exist today starting right from income tax would convince many of those damn Republican* landowners back in the day to rise for revolt a second time.

Now, don't take this as a disagreement as much as me pointing out something different. I in fact also quite appreciate the delays that navigating across this archaic document causes for the Nation's Guardian-of-the-Day. It's just that it's hardly an impregnable wall, just a dam to slow down the tide and whim of history so we can better prepare to brace for impact.

*a reference to the political attitudes of the American ruling class compared in particular to their monarchist, reactionary, aristocratic European counterparts; unrelated to the Elephant Party.
Irenicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-27, 00:11   Link #537
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
And my primary point is that, it's actually pretty much a myth that the Constitution (and/or its constituent additions) remains the same document today that it was back in 1790. I don't mean in the literal sense, mind you, the texts are all still there -- but rather in that the meaning as we understand it (or its constituent parts) have changed since then.

Was there a right to privacy? No, of course not. Though I have to admire the sheer genius of reinterpreting a completely outdated provision on quartering soldiers in people's homes into a guarantee of privacy, even if they're obviously unrelated. Were the rights guaranteed in the document supposed to apply over State laws? Absolutely not. That change was made much, much later, by reinterpreting existing Amendments and defining newer ones. And, to go in an opposite direction, many of the current taxes that exist today starting right from income tax would convince many of those damn Republican* landowners back in the day to rise for revolt a second time.

Now, don't take this as a disagreement as much as me pointing out something different. I in fact also quite appreciate the delays that navigating across this archaic document causes for the Nation's Guardian-of-the-Day. It's just that it's hardly an impregnable wall, just a dam to slow down the tide and whim of history so we can better prepare to brace for impact.

*a reference to the political attitudes of the American ruling class compared in particular to their monarchist, reactionary, aristocratic European counterparts; unrelated to the Elephant Party.
Certainly a history of flagrant misinterpretations in lieu of proper legislation or codification of common law does nothing to justify continuing such wrongdoing.

It's been a slippery slope we've come down. Small compromises over time have brought us to the current farce we call government, where anything goes as long as you can make it sound nice. I'm glad to see a court get down to brass tacks and make a move toward sensibility. The less honestly we deal with the law, the less it will mean.
__________________

I await patiently
the gift promised to me.
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-03, 22:01   Link #538
aka Providence
(; ,;) fthagn
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The End
Age: 25
Send a message via AIM to aka Providence Send a message via Yahoo to aka Providence
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488009.stm

Quote:
Google must divulge YouTube log

Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube, a US court has ruled.

The ruling comes as part of Google's legal battle with Viacom over allegations of copyright infringement.

Digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called the ruling a "set-back to privacy rights".

The viewing log, which will be handed to Viacom, contains the log-in ID of users, the computer IP address (online identifier) and video clip details.

While the legal battle between the two firms is being contested in the US, it is thought the ruling will apply to YouTube users and their viewing habits everywhere.

Viacom, which owns MTV and Paramount Pictures, has alleged that YouTube is guilty of massive copyright infringement.

The UK's Premier League association is also seeking class action status with Viacom on the issue, alleging YouTube, which was bought by Google in 2006, has been used to watch football highlights.
__________________
"If the Gods could build me a ladder to the heavens, I'd climb up the ladder and drop a big elbow on the world."
--Cactus Jack
aka Providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-05, 13:09   Link #539
Mystique
Honyaku no Hime
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: In the eastern capital of the islands of the rising suns...
Quote:
Originally Posted by aka Providence View Post
*sigh*
you know once a good website goes co-operate, it's more or less screwed. I remember when google had just got it's hands on it and there was a maaaaaasive tear down of j/k/c drama and anime from the site - this sounds like the singapore issue of demanding ip addresses of users who are not being so well behaved, lol.

They'll eventually restrict, monitor, track, hunt and control us all - underground is looking more and more appealing by the year.

I'm guessing that ruling applies to US members only, or they're gonna harrass the local authorities of memebrs outside of the US too?
__________________

Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn't get you anywhere. - Van Wilder
"If you ain't laughin', you ain't livin'." - Carlos Mencia
Mystique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-07, 11:53   Link #540
forget.me.not.blues
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Somewhere awful
Age: 21
I'm not sure whether or not this was posted...but:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...NWFDWAg-mVfleg
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/256315

(I tried to find more articles on this, but because its a Canadian incident, the only press it gets is from television.)

...
I'm sort of speechless...what kind of mental depravity does this kid have?
When I was that age, hell, even now I don't dream about thinking about thinking about posting inappropriate pictures of myself and suing my parent over it.
__________________


forget.me.not.blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.