On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 11:38:09 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <tq3rlq$2h38h$1@dont-email.me>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school board
>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop teacher
>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an enormous
>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
>
>If they can impose a dress code on the kids, why would a dress code for
>the staff be kosher?

Are you missing a 'not'?

Because Oakville is the last community that could be described as
'hard core conservative'.

So far I've been playing the 'safety of staff and students in an
industrial shop' setting but really - that sort of thing shouldn't be
going on in a high school - it's clearly not something conducive or
promoting the kids' education. Nor is it the sort of thing the kids at
that school should have to deal with.

And both my wife's nieces went to school in Oakville (though they're
in Milton now) though I have no idea whether it was at that school.

In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
> >>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:49:13 -0500, Rhino
> >>>>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school
> >>>>>>>>> board
> >>>>>>>>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop
> >>>>>>>>> teacher
> >>>>>>>>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an
> >>>>>>>>> enormous
> >>>>>>>>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
> >>>>>>>>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
> >>>>>>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
> >>>>>>>> throughout that region)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
> >>>>>>> legislature
> >>>>>>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
> >>>>>>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
> >>>>>> difference?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to comply.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the penalty
> >>>> for non-compliance'.
> >>>
> >>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The penalty
> >>> for the other is being beaten to death.
> >>>
> >>> The difference doesn't reduce.
> >>
> >> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked for
> >> was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
> >
> > Which I gave you.
>
> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.

No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.

I then left it to you to determine which is which.

On 2023-01-16 8:21 a.m., moviePig wrote:
> On 1/16/2023 7:42 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> https://www.businessinsider.com/missouri-republicans-pushed-stricter-dress-code-for-female-lawmakers-2023-1
>>
>> Missouri Republicans pass a rule requiring women to cover their arms
>> in the state House chamber
>>
>>
>> I wonder if these were the same assholes who used to whine about
>> "Sharia Law."
>
> ...although it does raise questions about "community standards".
>
>

I don't understand why they need a separate right to bare arms rule.
They already had a dress code that precluded it.

On 1/16/2023 11:20 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2023-01-16 8:21 a.m., moviePig wrote:
>> On 1/16/2023 7:42 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> https://www.businessinsider.com/missouri-republicans-pushed-stricter-dress-code-for-female-lawmakers-2023-1
>>>
>>> Missouri Republicans pass a rule requiring women to cover their arms
>>> in the state House chamber
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if these were the same assholes who used to whine about
>>> "Sharia Law."
>>
>> ...although it does raise questions about "community standards".
>>
>>
>
> I don't understand why they need a separate right to bare arms rule.
> They already had a dress code that precluded it.

(I'm envious I didn't think of that pun.) One point of such "rules" is
the assertion of dominance, which is a repeatable high.

On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:49:13 -0500, Rhino
>>>>>>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school
>>>>>>>>>>> board
>>>>>>>>>>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop
>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an
>>>>>>>>>>> enormous
>>>>>>>>>>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
>>>>>>>>>>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
>>>>>>>>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
>>>>>>>>>> throughout that region)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>> legislature
>>>>>>>>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
>>>>>>>>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to comply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the penalty
>>>>>> for non-compliance'.
>>>>>
>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The penalty
>>>>> for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>
>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked for
>>>> was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>
>>> Which I gave you.
>>
>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>
> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>
> I then left it to you to determine which is which.

....which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
you posted:

"The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
penalty for the other is being beaten to death."

In article <mUyxL.61564$5S78.29965@fx48.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/16/2023 11:20 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 2023-01-16 8:21 a.m., moviePig wrote:
> >> On 1/16/2023 7:42 AM, trotsky wrote:
> >>> https://www.businessinsider.com/missouri-republicans-pushed-stricter-
> >>> dress-code-for-female-lawmakers-2023-1
> >>>
> >>> Missouri Republicans pass a rule requiring women to cover their arms
> >>> in the state House chamber
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I wonder if these were the same assholes who used to whine about
> >>> "Sharia Law."
> >>
> >> ...although it does raise questions about "community standards".
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I don't understand why they need a separate right to bare arms rule.
> > They already had a dress code that precluded it.
>
> (I'm envious I didn't think of that pun.)

Great protest poster if they ever go that route.

In article <mUyxL.61564$5S78.29965@fx48.iad>, moviePig
<pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/16/2023 11:20 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 2023-01-16 8:21 a.m., moviePig wrote:
> >> On 1/16/2023 7:42 AM, trotsky wrote:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.businessinsider.com/missouri-republicans-pushed-stricter-dress-
> >>> code-for-female-lawmakers-2023-1
> >>>
> >>> Missouri Republicans pass a rule requiring women to cover their arms
> >>> in the state House chamber
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I wonder if these were the same assholes who used to whine about
> >>> "Sharia Law."
> >>
> >> ...although it does raise questions about "community standards".
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I don't understand why they need a separate right to bare arms rule.
> > They already had a dress code that precluded it.
>
> (I'm envious I didn't think of that pun.) One point of such "rules" is
> the assertion of dominance, which is a repeatable high.

It's not the same thing, but my (Catholic, Jesuit) high school required
"business dress" for our 50th reunion a couple of years ago. It was
held at the school, in the gym, so there was no real reason for this.
(I did not go, as I live far away from there now. Not too many went,
though. We graduated 221 and the school claimed to still be in touch
with 189, but attendance was only 28.)

Private schools see these events as fundraising opportunities, so
there's a lot of emphasis on them and a push to go to them. In
contrast, my wife went to public school. Someone (the former class
president, maybe?) tried to organize a picnic for their 50th, but there
was a notable lack of interest, so it didn't happen.

On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:49:13 -0500, Rhino
>>>>>>>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school
>>>>>>>>>>>> board
>>>>>>>>>>>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop
>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an
>>>>>>>>>>>> enormous
>>>>>>>>>>>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
>>>>>>>>>>>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
>>>>>>>>>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
>>>>>>>>>>> throughout that region)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>>> legislature
>>>>>>>>>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
>>>>>>>>>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to comply.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the penalty
>>>>>>> for non-compliance'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The penalty
>>>>>> for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked for
>>>>> was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>
>>>> Which I gave you.
>>>
>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>>
>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>>
>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
>
> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
> you posted:

It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
penalty. I gave you one.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:34:53 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>Private schools see these events as fundraising opportunities, so
>there's a lot of emphasis on them and a push to go to them. In
>contrast, my wife went to public school. Someone (the former class
>president, maybe?) tried to organize a picnic for their 50th, but there
>was a notable lack of interest, so it didn't happen.

For me that is scheduled for next September and since I was on crew
for the last one I expect to be asked as the time approaches.

I'm pretty sure it will go ahead - we had about 200-300 (from a class
of 600 and some of that 200-300 were significant others) but we had a
good time. On the other hand we had a 20th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 40th but
no 45th and 2018 was of course pre COVID. I would expect many of us to
be grandparents now though probably weren't 10 years ago.

On 1/17/2023 1:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:49:13 -0500, Rhino
>>>>>>>>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school
>>>>>>>>>>>>> board
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop
>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enormous
>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
>>>>>>>>>>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout that region)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>>>> legislature
>>>>>>>>>>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
>>>>>>>>>>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to comply.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the penalty
>>>>>>>> for non-compliance'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The penalty
>>>>>>> for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked for
>>>>>> was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which I gave you.
>>>>
>>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>>>
>>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
>>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
>>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>>>
>>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
>>
>> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
>> you posted:
>
> It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
> penalty. I gave you one.

No, you gave me what amounts to a difference in penalty. Hint:
expulsion is a real, deterrent penalty.

In article <1bpdshh75e3hup7heq144cb9lcv4irputm@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
<lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:34:53 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >Private schools see these events as fundraising opportunities, so
> >there's a lot of emphasis on them and a push to go to them. In
> >contrast, my wife went to public school. Someone (the former class
> >president, maybe?) tried to organize a picnic for their 50th, but there
> >was a notable lack of interest, so it didn't happen.
>
> For me that is scheduled for next September and since I was on crew
> for the last one I expect to be asked as the time approaches.
>
> I'm pretty sure it will go ahead - we had about 200-300 (from a class
> of 600 and some of that 200-300 were significant others) but we had a
> good time. On the other hand we had a 20th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 40th but
> no 45th and 2018 was of course pre COVID. I would expect many of us to
> be grandparents now though probably weren't 10 years ago.

I was appalled recently to find myself on the school's (rather short)
list of distinguished graduates. (It must be a pretty low bar.) I
assure you and all in the name of God Almighty that I had nothing to do
with it.

In article <ZPBxL.84712$SdR7.68517@fx04.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/17/2023 1:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
> >>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
> >>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
> >>>>>>>>>>> legislature as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating
> >>>>>>>>>>> hijabs for all the women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that
> >>>>>>>>>>> parallel.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
> >>>>>>>>>> difference?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to
> >>>>>>>>> comply.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the
> >>>>>>>> penalty for non-compliance'.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
> >>>>>>> penalty for the other is being beaten to death.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked
> >>>>>> for was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which I gave you.
> >>>>
> >>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
> >>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
> >>>
> >>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
> >>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
> >>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
> >>>
> >>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
> >>
> >> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
> >> you posted:
> >
> > It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
> > penalty. I gave you one.
>
> No, you gave me what amounts to a difference in penalty.

No, I didn't. I described a major difference in the voluntariness of the
restriction. In one instance, a person has to actively choose to become
a member of the body where the restriction exists and can leave at any
time if they don't like it. In the other, there's no choice and no
escape.

On 1/17/2023 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <ZPBxL.84712$SdR7.68517@fx04.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/17/2023 1:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hijabs for all the women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to
>>>>>>>>>>> comply.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the
>>>>>>>>>> penalty for non-compliance'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
>>>>>>>>> penalty for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked
>>>>>>>> for was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which I gave you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>>>>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
>>>>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
>>>>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
>>>>
>>>> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
>>>> you posted:
>>>
>>> It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
>>> penalty. I gave you one.
>>
>> No, you gave me what amounts to a difference in penalty.
>
> No, I didn't. I described a major difference in the voluntariness of the
> restriction. In one instance, a person has to actively choose to become
> a member of the body where the restriction exists and can leave at any
> time if they don't like it. In the other, there's no choice and no
> escape.

The (lesser) penalty is that you must abandon your chosen career path.
That you subsequently survive doing so doesn't mean it's not a
substantial penalty strongly encouraging compliance. Force is force.

On 1/17/2023 2:33 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <1bpdshh75e3hup7heq144cb9lcv4irputm@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
> <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:34:53 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Private schools see these events as fundraising opportunities, so
>>> there's a lot of emphasis on them and a push to go to them. In
>>> contrast, my wife went to public school. Someone (the former class
>>> president, maybe?) tried to organize a picnic for their 50th, but there
>>> was a notable lack of interest, so it didn't happen.
>>
>> For me that is scheduled for next September and since I was on crew
>> for the last one I expect to be asked as the time approaches.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure it will go ahead - we had about 200-300 (from a class
>> of 600 and some of that 200-300 were significant others) but we had a
>> good time. On the other hand we had a 20th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 40th but
>> no 45th and 2018 was of course pre COVID. I would expect many of us to
>> be grandparents now though probably weren't 10 years ago.
>
>
> I was appalled recently to find myself on the school's (rather short)
> list of distinguished graduates. (It must be a pretty low bar.) I
> assure you and all in the name of God Almighty that I had nothing to do
> with it.

Donation solicitation to follow...

In article <L%FxL.396393$vBI8.102129@fx15.iad>, moviePig
<pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/17/2023 2:33 PM, A Friend wrote:
> > In article <1bpdshh75e3hup7heq144cb9lcv4irputm@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
> > <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:34:53 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Private schools see these events as fundraising opportunities, so
> >>> there's a lot of emphasis on them and a push to go to them. In
> >>> contrast, my wife went to public school. Someone (the former class
> >>> president, maybe?) tried to organize a picnic for their 50th, but there
> >>> was a notable lack of interest, so it didn't happen.
> >>
> >> For me that is scheduled for next September and since I was on crew
> >> for the last one I expect to be asked as the time approaches.
> >>
> >> I'm pretty sure it will go ahead - we had about 200-300 (from a class
> >> of 600 and some of that 200-300 were significant others) but we had a
> >> good time. On the other hand we had a 20th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 40th but
> >> no 45th and 2018 was of course pre COVID. I would expect many of us to
> >> be grandparents now though probably weren't 10 years ago.
> >
> >
> > I was appalled recently to find myself on the school's (rather short)
> > list of distinguished graduates. (It must be a pretty low bar.) I
> > assure you and all in the name of God Almighty that I had nothing to do
> > with it.
>
> Donation solicitation to follow...

Oh, nothing stops them. They're shameless.

moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On 1/17/2023 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <ZPBxL.84712$SdR7.68517@fx04.iad>,
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/17/2023 1:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hijabs for all the women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>> comply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the
>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for non-compliance'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
>>>>>>>>>> penalty for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked
>>>>>>>>> for was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which I gave you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>>>>>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
>>>>>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
>>>>>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
>>>>> you posted:
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
>>>> penalty. I gave you one.
>>>
>>> No, you gave me what amounts to a difference in penalty.
>>
>> No, I didn't. I described a major difference in the voluntariness of the
>> restriction. In one instance, a person has to actively choose to become
>> a member of the body where the restriction exists and can leave at any
>> time if they don't like it. In the other, there's no choice and no
>> escape.
>
> The (lesser) penalty is that you must abandon your chosen career path.

Being a politician shouldn't be a career anyway. It should be a period of
public service after which you go back to your real job.

> That you subsequently survive doing so doesn't mean it's not a
> substantial penalty strongly encouraging compliance. Force is force.

It's still a choice (one that those living under the Taliban do not enjoy).
That's not a penalty any more than the consequences of any of the other
thousands of choices we constantly make are penalties.

On 1/17/23 6:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 1/17/2023 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <ZPBxL.84712$SdR7.68517@fx04.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/17/2023 1:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hijabs for all the women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for non-compliance'.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked
>>>>>>>>>> for was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which I gave you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>>>>>>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
>>>>>>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
>>>>>>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
>>>>>> you posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
>>>>> penalty. I gave you one.
>>>>
>>>> No, you gave me what amounts to a difference in penalty.
>>>
>>> No, I didn't. I described a major difference in the voluntariness of the
>>> restriction. In one instance, a person has to actively choose to become
>>> a member of the body where the restriction exists and can leave at any
>>> time if they don't like it. In the other, there's no choice and no
>>> escape.
>>
>> The (lesser) penalty is that you must abandon your chosen career path.
>
> Being a politician shouldn't be a career anyway. It should be a period of
> public service after which you go back to your real job.

Your logic is impeccable. No, I mean nonexistent.

>> That you subsequently survive doing so doesn't mean it's not a
>> substantial penalty strongly encouraging compliance. Force is force.
>
> It's still a choice (one that those living under the Taliban do not enjoy).
> That's not a penalty any more than the consequences of any of the other
> thousands of choices we constantly make are penalties.

Corrupt ideology is corrupt ideology, regardless of what the Oath
Keepers have taught you.

On 1/17/2023 7:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 1/17/2023 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <ZPBxL.84712$SdR7.68517@fx04.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/17/2023 1:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hijabs for all the women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for non-compliance'.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked
>>>>>>>>>> for was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which I gave you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>>>>>>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
>>>>>>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
>>>>>>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
>>>>>> you posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
>>>>> penalty. I gave you one.
>>>>
>>>> No, you gave me what amounts to a difference in penalty.
>>>
>>> No, I didn't. I described a major difference in the voluntariness of the
>>> restriction. In one instance, a person has to actively choose to become
>>> a member of the body where the restriction exists and can leave at any
>>> time if they don't like it. In the other, there's no choice and no
>>> escape.
>>
>> The (lesser) penalty is that you must abandon your chosen career path.
>
> Being a politician shouldn't be a career anyway. It should be a period of
> public service after which you go back to your real job.
>
>> That you subsequently survive doing so doesn't mean it's not a
>> substantial penalty strongly encouraging compliance. Force is force.
>
> It's still a choice (one that those living under the Taliban do not enjoy).
> That's not a penalty any more than the consequences of any of the other
> thousands of choices we constantly make are penalties.

Yes, your "choice" is to comply or to pay an artificial *penalty* --
whether one imposed by a legislature or by a Taliban. 'Choice' doesn't
preclude 'penalty'.

On Jan 18, 2023 at 6:46:08 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/17/2023 7:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/17/2023 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <ZPBxL.84712$SdR7.68517@fx04.iad>,
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/17/2023 1:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hijabs for all the women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for non-compliance'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked
>>>>>>>>>>> for was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which I gave you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>>>>>>>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
>>>>>>>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
>>>>>>>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
>>>>>>> you posted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
>>>>>> penalty. I gave you one.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you gave me what amounts to a difference in penalty.
>>>>
>>>> No, I didn't. I described a major difference in the voluntariness of the
>>>> restriction. In one instance, a person has to actively choose to become
>>>> a member of the body where the restriction exists and can leave at any
>>>> time if they don't like it. In the other, there's no choice and no
>>>> escape.
>>>
>>> The (lesser) penalty is that you must abandon your chosen career path.
>>
>> Being a politician shouldn't be a career anyway. It should be a period of
>> public service after which you go back to your real job.
>>
>>> That you subsequently survive doing so doesn't mean it's not a
>>> substantial penalty strongly encouraging compliance. Force is force.
>>
>> It's still a choice (one that those living under the Taliban do not enjoy).
>> That's not a penalty any more than the consequences of any of the other
>> thousands of choices we constantly make are penalties.
>
> Yes, your "choice" is to comply or to pay an artificial *penalty* --
> whether one imposed by a legislature or by a Taliban. 'Choice' doesn't
> preclude 'penalty'.

But it allows you to decline the possibility of being penalized for
non-compliance, something the women in Afghanistan don't enjoy.

On 1/18/2023 3:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2023 at 6:46:08 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/17/2023 7:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2023 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <ZPBxL.84712$SdR7.68517@fx04.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/17/2023 1:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hijabs for all the women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for non-compliance'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked
>>>>>>>>>>>> for was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which I gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>>>>>>>>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
>>>>>>>>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
>>>>>>>>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
>>>>>>>> you posted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
>>>>>>> penalty. I gave you one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you gave me what amounts to a difference in penalty.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I didn't. I described a major difference in the voluntariness of the
>>>>> restriction. In one instance, a person has to actively choose to become
>>>>> a member of the body where the restriction exists and can leave at any
>>>>> time if they don't like it. In the other, there's no choice and no
>>>>> escape.
>>>>
>>>> The (lesser) penalty is that you must abandon your chosen career path.
>>>
>>> Being a politician shouldn't be a career anyway. It should be a period of
>>> public service after which you go back to your real job.
>>>
>>>> That you subsequently survive doing so doesn't mean it's not a
>>>> substantial penalty strongly encouraging compliance. Force is force.
>>>
>>> It's still a choice (one that those living under the Taliban do not enjoy).
>>> That's not a penalty any more than the consequences of any of the other
>>> thousands of choices we constantly make are penalties.
>>
>> Yes, your "choice" is to comply or to pay an artificial *penalty* --
>> whether one imposed by a legislature or by a Taliban. 'Choice' doesn't
>> preclude 'penalty'.
>
> But it allows you to decline the possibility of being penalized for
> non-compliance, something the women in Afghanistan don't enjoy.

No, that "declining" still incurs the penalty of (self-)expulsion.

Meanwhile, note that it's always the *penalty* that forces the *choice*,
and not the other way around.

On Jan 18, 2023 at 12:46:49 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/18/2023 3:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2023 at 6:46:08 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/17/2023 7:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/17/2023 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ZPBxL.84712$SdR7.68517@fx04.iad>,
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/17/2023 1:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hijabs for all the women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for non-compliance'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which I gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>>>>>>>>>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
>>>>>>>>>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
>>>>>>>>>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
>>>>>>>>> you posted:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
>>>>>>>> penalty. I gave you one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you gave me what amounts to a difference in penalty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I didn't. I described a major difference in the voluntariness of the
>>>>>> restriction. In one instance, a person has to actively choose to become
>>>>>> a member of the body where the restriction exists and can leave at any
>>>>>> time if they don't like it. In the other, there's no choice and no
>>>>>> escape.
>>>>>
>>>>> The (lesser) penalty is that you must abandon your chosen career path.
>>>>
>>>> Being a politician shouldn't be a career anyway. It should be a period of
>>>> public service after which you go back to your real job.
>>>>
>>>>> That you subsequently survive doing so doesn't mean it's not a
>>>>> substantial penalty strongly encouraging compliance. Force is force.
>>>>
>>>> It's still a choice (one that those living under the Taliban do not
>>>> enjoy).
>>>> That's not a penalty any more than the consequences of any of the other
>>>> thousands of choices we constantly make are penalties.
>>>
>>> Yes, your "choice" is to comply or to pay an artificial *penalty* --
>>> whether one imposed by a legislature or by a Taliban. 'Choice' doesn't
>>> preclude 'penalty'.
>>
>> But it allows you to decline the possibility of being penalized for
>> non-compliance, something the women in Afghanistan don't enjoy.
>
> No, that "declining" still incurs the penalty of (self-)expulsion.
>
> Meanwhile, note that it's always the *penalty* that forces the *choice*,
> and not the other way around.

Okay, you've worn me down with your relentless illogic. Yes, I now agree with
you that Missouri legislature is every bit as bad as the bloody Taliban
Islamic dictatorship.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 14:33:06 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article <1bpdshh75e3hup7heq144cb9lcv4irputm@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
><lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:34:53 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Private schools see these events as fundraising opportunities, so
>> >there's a lot of emphasis on them and a push to go to them. In
>> >contrast, my wife went to public school. Someone (the former class
>> >president, maybe?) tried to organize a picnic for their 50th, but there
>> >was a notable lack of interest, so it didn't happen.
>>
>> For me that is scheduled for next September and since I was on crew
>> for the last one I expect to be asked as the time approaches.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure it will go ahead - we had about 200-300 (from a class
>> of 600 and some of that 200-300 were significant others) but we had a
>> good time. On the other hand we had a 20th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 40th but
>> no 45th and 2018 was of course pre COVID. I would expect many of us to
>> be grandparents now though probably weren't 10 years ago.
>
>
>I was appalled recently to find myself on the school's (rather short)
>list of distinguished graduates. (It must be a pretty low bar.) I
>assure you and all in the name of God Almighty that I had nothing to do
>with it.

Lucky you - I graduated first in my class and have NEVER been referred
to that way though I have my minor accomplishments that have gotten me
honored by the mayor during a municipal council meeting. But NEVER
from my old school.

On the other hand I choked back tears the last time I was at the
school as I knew the school had been renovated in the early 2010s but
there was a bronze plaque outside the office saying the school had
been rebuilt in 2012 and that nothing of the original school (i.e. the
one I attended) was left presumably excluding the parking lots. The
only thing in fact remaining that I could see was the original 1966
dedication plaque.

(Alas my late wife who had wanted to attend her old school's
>centenary< exercises had them postponed due to COVID and I've not
heard they've been rescheduled. Being 2000 miles away from where I now
live I'm not keen to make a special trip there just for her sake - as
opposed to my old school I'll be within two blocks of later today)

All this was done in the name of "earthquake preparedness upgrades"

On 1/18/2023 3:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2023 at 12:46:49 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/18/2023 3:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jan 18, 2023 at 6:46:08 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/17/2023 7:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/17/2023 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <ZPBxL.84712$SdR7.68517@fx04.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/17/2023 1:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hijabs for all the women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for non-compliance'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which I gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
>>>>>>>>>>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
>>>>>>>>>>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
>>>>>>>>>> you posted:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
>>>>>>>>> penalty. I gave you one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you gave me what amounts to a difference in penalty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I didn't. I described a major difference in the voluntariness of the
>>>>>>> restriction. In one instance, a person has to actively choose to become
>>>>>>> a member of the body where the restriction exists and can leave at any
>>>>>>> time if they don't like it. In the other, there's no choice and no
>>>>>>> escape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The (lesser) penalty is that you must abandon your chosen career path.
>>>>>
>>>>> Being a politician shouldn't be a career anyway. It should be a period of
>>>>> public service after which you go back to your real job.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That you subsequently survive doing so doesn't mean it's not a
>>>>>> substantial penalty strongly encouraging compliance. Force is force.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's still a choice (one that those living under the Taliban do not
>>>>> enjoy).
>>>>> That's not a penalty any more than the consequences of any of the other
>>>>> thousands of choices we constantly make are penalties.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, your "choice" is to comply or to pay an artificial *penalty* --
>>>> whether one imposed by a legislature or by a Taliban. 'Choice' doesn't
>>>> preclude 'penalty'.
>>>
>>> But it allows you to decline the possibility of being penalized for
>>> non-compliance, something the women in Afghanistan don't enjoy.
>>
>> No, that "declining" still incurs the penalty of (self-)expulsion.
>>
>> Meanwhile, note that it's always the *penalty* that forces the *choice*,
>> and not the other way around.
>
> Okay, you've worn me down with your relentless illogic. Yes, I now agree with
> you that Missouri legislature is every bit as bad as the bloody Taliban
> Islamic dictatorship.

Well, that raises an actually interesting question: The Taliban imposed
a moralistic stricture on the women within their grasp, and so did the
Missouri legislature. I.e., they both went about as 'fer as they could
go, and for (afaics) the same reasons. So, from outward appearances
anyway, how are they *not* every bit as bad?

On Jan 18, 2023 at 1:34:36 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/18/2023 3:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2023 at 12:46:49 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/18/2023 3:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On Jan 18, 2023 at 6:46:08 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/17/2023 7:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/17/2023 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <ZPBxL.84712$SdR7.68517@fx04.iad>,
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/2023 1:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hijabs for all the women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for non-compliance'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which I gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
>>>>>>>>>>>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
>>>>>>>>>>> you posted:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
>>>>>>>>>> penalty. I gave you one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you gave me what amounts to a difference in penalty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I didn't. I described a major difference in the voluntariness of the
>>>>>>>> restriction. In one instance, a person has to actively choose to become
>>>>>>>> a member of the body where the restriction exists and can leave at any
>>>>>>>> time if they don't like it. In the other, there's no choice and no
>>>>>>>> escape.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The (lesser) penalty is that you must abandon your chosen career path.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Being a politician shouldn't be a career anyway. It should be a
>>>>>> period of
>>>>>> public service after which you go back to your real job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you subsequently survive doing so doesn't mean it's not a
>>>>>>> substantial penalty strongly encouraging compliance. Force is force.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's still a choice (one that those living under the Taliban do not
>>>>>> enjoy).
>>>>>> That's not a penalty any more than the consequences of any of the other
>>>>>> thousands of choices we constantly make are penalties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, your "choice" is to comply or to pay an artificial *penalty* --
>>>>> whether one imposed by a legislature or by a Taliban. 'Choice' doesn't
>>>>> preclude 'penalty'.
>>>>
>>>> But it allows you to decline the possibility of being penalized for
>>>> non-compliance, something the women in Afghanistan don't enjoy.
>>>
>>> No, that "declining" still incurs the penalty of (self-)expulsion.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, note that it's always the *penalty* that forces the *choice*,
>>> and not the other way around.
>>
>> Okay, you've worn me down with your relentless illogic. Yes, I now agree
>> with
>> you that Missouri legislature is every bit as bad as the bloody Taliban
>> Islamic dictatorship.
>
>
> Well, that raises an actually interesting question: The Taliban imposed
> a moralistic stricture on the women within their grasp, and so did the
> Missouri legislature. I.e., they both went about as 'fer as they could
> go, and for (afaics) the same reasons. So, from outward appearances
> anyway, how are they *not* every bit as bad?

On 1/18/2023 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2023 at 1:34:36 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/18/2023 3:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jan 18, 2023 at 12:46:49 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/18/2023 3:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 18, 2023 at 6:46:08 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/17/2023 7:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/17/2023 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <ZPBxL.84712$SdR7.68517@fx04.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/2023 1:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hijabs for all the women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for non-compliance'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which I gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
>>>>>>>>>>>> you posted:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
>>>>>>>>>>> penalty. I gave you one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, you gave me what amounts to a difference in penalty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I didn't. I described a major difference in the voluntariness of the
>>>>>>>>> restriction. In one instance, a person has to actively choose to become
>>>>>>>>> a member of the body where the restriction exists and can leave at any
>>>>>>>>> time if they don't like it. In the other, there's no choice and no
>>>>>>>>> escape.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The (lesser) penalty is that you must abandon your chosen career path.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Being a politician shouldn't be a career anyway. It should be a
>>>>>>> period of
>>>>>>> public service after which you go back to your real job.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you subsequently survive doing so doesn't mean it's not a
>>>>>>>> substantial penalty strongly encouraging compliance. Force is force.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's still a choice (one that those living under the Taliban do not
>>>>>>> enjoy).
>>>>>>> That's not a penalty any more than the consequences of any of the other
>>>>>>> thousands of choices we constantly make are penalties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, your "choice" is to comply or to pay an artificial *penalty* --
>>>>>> whether one imposed by a legislature or by a Taliban. 'Choice' doesn't
>>>>>> preclude 'penalty'.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it allows you to decline the possibility of being penalized for
>>>>> non-compliance, something the women in Afghanistan don't enjoy.
>>>>
>>>> No, that "declining" still incurs the penalty of (self-)expulsion.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, note that it's always the *penalty* that forces the *choice*,
>>>> and not the other way around.
>>>
>>> Okay, you've worn me down with your relentless illogic. Yes, I now agree
>>> with
>>> you that Missouri legislature is every bit as bad as the bloody Taliban
>>> Islamic dictatorship.
>>
>>
>> Well, that raises an actually interesting question: The Taliban imposed
>> a moralistic stricture on the women within their grasp, and so did the
>> Missouri legislature. I.e., they both went about as 'fer as they could
>> go, and for (afaics) the same reasons. So, from outward appearances
>> anyway, how are they *not* every bit as bad?
>
> I said I agree. The Taliban = Missouri government.
>
> Makes perfect sense now.