«12. . .116117118119120121122. . .229230»
Good, thanks for asking.
Question of the Day!
What is your favorite musical artist and why?
Oi Barbaroi, Dalmyria, and Novum regal
Maybe it's food poisoning?
Hard to say, but I'd have to say Tally Hall, Abney Park, and Steam Powered Giraffe are up there. In no particular order and all because they speak to me in different ways.
Steam powered giraffes are awesome! I also really like two steps from hell, The SIDH, miracle of sound, the aviators, and clamavi de profundis. So lots of orchestral.
I am so sorry you are not feeling well.
Lycos and New Rightia
So So concerning the Defense in gay panic ban vote I am leaning to vote for it because it is not something that is new. Attacking someone for any reason other than self defense is not a reason to attack.
Miracle of Sound and Aviators are also excellent choices. I nearly included Aviators. I'm currently obsessed with A Thousand Eyes, actually.
I'm leaning against it. Though it seems to be an attempt to protect LGBTQ+, it's not clear about it. Also, crimes, including murder, are crimes, which means they're not acceptable at all.
https://imgflip.com/i/503get
Oi Barbaroi and Holocovoy
I've read this bill three times over and I think I'm tired because I just don't understand it.
Good thing I'm not part of the WA.
Not yet...
*reads WA resolution proposal:
"Oh wow really good, we can finnally protect homosexuals from murderers! What a great law!"
*Co-authored by 
Imperium Anglorum :
"VOTE AGAINST"
Oi Barbaroi and Dalmyria
Poll posted!!
Spider gang assemble
Thanks? Idk how to respond. I'm not good with people, was I right with thanks? I'm not sure
Crab because like the great dark souls community says: "Time for Crab!"
It is quite unclear. But so is the issue it is targeting... I can’t help but feel the author is misrepresenting the issue for votes or else doesn’t understand it. What people call a "gay panic defence" in the real world is essentially a court accepting diminished responsibility due to unwanted sexual advances, of which there are varying degrees and which can apply to anyone. There could be an issue of courts accepting such a defence far too readily when it comes to homosexual advances or advances by a transsexual, but that is not what the resolution describes - it just says the perception of someone’s sexuality is not a defence for murder, which should be obvious.
Also I have long objected to the acronym LGBTQ+ and all the new variations of it for being stupid and lumping too many groups together. This is just a small secondary point but I find it is annoyingly ubiquitous in any discussion of sexuality or gender/sex when they are separate - people say LGBT when they are just talking about gay people or they say ‘I am proudly LGBT’ and that just doesn’t make it clear which of those they even are. I get it makes sense dealing with the issue of discrimination of each individual group together though even then, not always and why the acronym. Why not add any discriminated against minority there ever was.
Real world talk for a sec, the reason it's all "lumped together" as far as self-identification is because LGBTQ+ is a community in addition to orientation or gender. I do think more precise wording is needed for legislation, though.
I agree there tends to be a common acceptance and understanding between the groups but that is able to be found with anyone. Though I concede that there is a chance I am being too idealistic. Still, when it comes to the politics of it all we are at a stage where the agenda of some of the T activists conflicts with that of some Lesbian activists and when everything is made personal any sense of 'community' is thrown into disarray, it feels
Oi Barbaroi and Globulus states
Post self-deleted by Oi Barbaroi.
Post self-deleted by Oi Barbaroi.
WA: Gay Panic Defense Ban
I'm all for protecting people's rights in concerning/in regards to sexual orientation. However, I don't feel this proposal protects as much as it could. Being a piece of legislation, it has the reader assume to much by not having definitions for terms vital to the proposal. This can lead to differing interpretations, as well as loopholes in future related cases.
Also, the first part is not clear about who's sexual orientation they are referring to: that of the perpetrator, or the victim. This can lead to confusion, as it is not straightforward.
My recommendation is to vote "AGAINST" this proposal. What do you all think?
«12. . .116117118119120121122. . .229230»
Advertisement
