Hello, Elliot Page

[Dwarvenhobble]

Never once claimed Yaniv is a good person, was actually treated unfairly nor that she was using the law properly. Not disagreeing with anything you've said on that account. The issue is was it the law or the person at fault here. We could argue the issue lies with the judicial system that enforces the law, but to fault the law is to blame the bullet and not the guy who fired the gun.

My question is: what language (generically, not asking that you type out pages and pages of legalese) would you like to see that would "fix" the law for you? Again, human rights laws are not the only ones abused by overly litigious assholes seeking a payday, and in this case, the law got it right; Yaniv did NOT win her suits and, in fact, was ordered to pay something back.

A simple one " It is no a case where specific requirements were made clear or implied by the nature of said profession or required training to do it." So for example not being able to launch a humans rights case against a gynaecologist for not doing an examination on a cock and balls when that's not what they're specially trained for

Will you concede that there are similar problems with laws that award people for damages from, say, a small business? Perhaps the janitor neglected to put down a "Wet Floor" sign whilst mopping, and my elderly granny slips and breaks her hip? Is it not also feasible that I, an able-bodied young(ish) man might see that same wet floor with no sign, pretend to fall, suffer a minor bruise or contusion, then sue said small business? If they're tired up with me in courts for months or years and suffer losses, by your standard, doesn't that mean the law is improperly written? Point being, to say these newer, more inclusive human rights laws have language that's dramatically different from older, established ones is selective-sighted.

In the case of Yaniv it was 1 person solo businesses not really ones who are paying for janitorial staff so there's a bit of a difference there.

Also while that happens there was still some fault by not putting up the sign. If they'd put up the sign and you slipped and kicked it away and claimed it was never up then that would be a better analogy.

The issue is the laws are easy to see to be open to abuse far more and have far less safety measures. With your example there would have to be doctors evidence of harm as such to get much from a company other than a complimentary settlement.

Two objective facts: no law is perfect and some people will be assholes; lumping the onus of responsibility on a group of people for the innate flaws of the rule of law is exclusionary, and in a time when people are discriminated against, from passive-aggressive denials of service to outright hate speech and violence, I, for one, am glad the imperfect law is there so when someone breaks it, they can be held accountable.

No law is perfect but still no reason to push out ones without trying to close some of the more obvious loopholes just because it feels good to push it out fast.

To pull my "Card" as such is it discrimination I can't eat in ~80% of places that sell food in my local town because their food will literally make me physically ill. Is that denying me access to the services? Or is it actually a practical reason?

 

[Trunkage]

You mean the metric I put in where laws exist to make sure a minority of people can't keep causing harm.......... I think you failed to understand my metric lol.

Nah, just point out the double standards. Pretending laws will cure people of their badness and ensure they will not commit crimes is not a reality

So Dwarvenhobble, just to be clear, what's your stance on bathroom laws?

Who knows. Lot more people with the capacity to shoot back might have very much discouraged a number of actions lol.

I'm pretty sure 1812 says no.

 

[Xprimentyl]

A simple one " It is no a case where specific requirements were made clear or implied by the nature of said profession or required training to do it." So for example not being able to launch a humans rights case against a gynaecologist for not doing an examination on a cock and balls when that's not what they're specially trained for

So you'd be content with language that essentially made it impossible to file a frivolous lawsuit? Again, I ask, should this not be the language of EVERY law? Or are you of the impression this only applies to (or lacks in) these latest human rights ones? Because, in many cases even frivolous lawsuits see their day in court, if only to be handily dismissed.

In the case of Yaniv it was 1 person solo businesses not really ones who are paying for janitorial staff so there's a bit of a difference there.

Also while that happens there was still some fault by not putting up the sign. If they'd put up the sign and you slipped and kicked it away and claimed it was never up then that would be a better analogy.

The issue is the laws are easy to see to be open to abuse far more and have far less safety measures. With your example there would have to be doctors evidence of harm as such to get much from a company other than a complimentary settlement.

Agreed, my point in citing a fraudulent "slip and fall" case was not to make an equivalence, but to show that the issue with written laws not covering "every" potentiality of abuse extends beyond the human rights ones you've taken issue with.

No law is perfect but still no reason to push out ones without trying to close some of the more obvious loopholes just because it feels good to push it out fast.

To pull my "Card" as such is it discrimination I can't eat in ~80% of places that sell food in my local town because their food will literally make me physically ill. Is that denying me access to the services? Or is it actually a practical reason?

Right, no law is perfect and pushing those through with obvious loopholes can be a problem, but again, is this unique to the human rights one's we're discussing?

I don't disagree with you [largely]; just advocating that your complaints are being applied with a surgical needle when they could easily (and justly) be applied with a sledge hammer. The judicial system and its long, arduous processes, ensuring everyone gets their day(s) in court, even if they don't deserve it (them,) is the problem, and personally, I'd rather err on the side of an imperfect law within an imperfect system that tries to protect everyone versus scrapping it entirely because of "some people."

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Nah, just point out the double standards. Pretending laws will cure people of their badness and ensure they will not commit crimes is not a reality

They won't cure them but they also won't generally help them try to commit said crimes

So Dwarvenhobble, just to be clear, what's your stance on bathroom laws?

So to be clear Trunkage what is your stance on Emperor Claudius's 5th decree?

Because they have about as much relevance here unless you'd care to try and present an argument as to which bathroom laws you mean and how you believe it's applicable and relevant here and not another whataboutism?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So you'd be content with language that essentially made it impossible to file a frivolous lawsuit? Again, I ask, should this not be the language of EVERY law? Or are you of the impression this only applies to (or lacks in) these latest human rights ones? Because, in many cases even frivolous lawsuits see their day in court, if only to be handily dismissed.

It should be but outside of the human rights courts there's often more ways to dismiss the lawsuits etc. Well outside of the USA where there's also lots of ways to just prolong the lawsuits far further

Agreed, my point in citing a fraudulent "slip and fall" case was not to make an equivalence, but to show that the issue with written laws not covering "every" potentiality of abuse extends beyond the human rights ones you've taken issue with.

It doesn't show every possibility but again you'd still have to show you actually have injuries. I mean I know a little about this as some-one tried to make a claim that my mother caused them whiplash injuries while they were driving many years ago. She spent all of 2 hours having to fill stuff in and the rest was the car insurance company who went to court on her behalf and won because the other person could only manage to show she had neck trouble 6 months before the incident and her doctor hadn't said the condition had changed just that she still had it.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Right, no law is perfect and pushing those through with obvious loopholes can be a problem, but again, is this unique to the human rights one's we're discussing?

Not unique but far more open to abuse as even doing a fake fall on a wet floor you still have to fake it with witnesses about

I don't disagree with you [largely]; just advocating that your complaints are being applied with a surgical needle when they could easily (and justly) be applied with a sledge hammer. The judicial system and its long, arduous processes, ensuring everyone gets their day(s) in court, even if they don't deserve it (them,) is the problem, and personally, I'd rather err on the side of an imperfect law within an imperfect system that tries to protect everyone versus scrapping it entirely because of "some people."

The thing is would you want some-one to be forced under law to do a job against their unless you were doing it just to be mean to them. I mean wouldn't you want some-one who wanted to do the job so would likely do a better one to begin with.

 

[Silvanus]

Simply because it's allowing other people to use it as a weapon. In this case a racist like Yaniv using it to attack and try to punish people she is prejudice against.

But we were talking about the law. The law isn't assisting her doing so in any way. It prevented her doing so.

Harm was still done. If their entire desire is to harm then they've not failed as long as it costs the opponents more than they make in damages.

Yes, right, so your issue is with litigation causing harm for defendants, whether they're successful or not. Which is not unique or particular to this particular issue, and is a general issue with all litigation.

 

[Xprimentyl]

The thing is would you want some-one to be forced under law to do a job against their unless you were doing it just to be mean to them.

No, of course not. But neither did Yaniv expect that to be the case. She abused the law to put a company (or individual) in a compromising situation she could attempt to exploit for personal gain, got found out, and gained nothing except a $6,000 bill. A similar take would be me (half black, half-Hispanic) pulling up to a Country-Western bar and asking the band to play some Hip Hop, and then claiming racial discrimination and suing when they don't/can't concede to my wishes.

I mean wouldn't you want some-one who wanted to do the job so would likely do a better one to begin with.

Of course... if my intent was to have the job done to my liking and NOT to set the stage to sue someone for not meeting my unreasonable expectations. You seem to be of the understanding that Yaniv had any actual desire to have these service rendered to her when everyone else is rightly calling her on her bullshit.

Yes, right, so your issue is with litigation causing harm for defendants, whether they're successful or not. Which is not unique or particular to this particular issue, and is a general issue with all litigation.

Which is the point I tried to make a couple posts ago. The law isn't the problem; it's litigation and the lengthy, expensive process that it can be. Which might have been what Yaniv was REALLY banking on, a settlement that would truncated the process for the people she was suing, but they went the distance (much to their own harm) because the lawsuit was so ridiculous.

 

[Revnak]

God this shit is bleak

 

[Worgen]

Fine charge a head regardless. Just don't say you weren't warned when things come your way or the way of some-one you know.

Just make sure you watch out for flare guns.

 

[SilentPony]

God this shit is bleak

I would point out the bleak-sayers are just a vocal minority. Remember the overwhelming majority of people don't give two shits what Elliot Page calls himself, or what gender he wants to be. The next largest category support him and are pro-trans. Below that are the people who want to be supportive and respectful, but are too timid to ask any questions for fear of being labeled transphobic and truly do not understand trans culture or identity. And then like below all that, under the rocks, beneath the bug and creepy-crawlers and slime that not even fungus can't eat are the people who legitimately think trans folk are in a 3D chess, long-game pedos are a minority group scheme, and think if Ellen Page can reinvent himself as Elliot Page, well the next step is Roy Moore self-identifying as a 12 year old boy so it was never rape.

 

[Shadyside]

Does anyone have a percentage of how many trans women and trans men there are in murica? I get the feeling it's like 90% trans women and 10% are trans men.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Just make sure you watch out for flare guns.

*Puts on shades*

You're on your own there.

But we were talking about the law. The law isn't assisting her doing so in any way. It prevented her doing so.

No she got to drag the through courts, ruin some businesses or damage them and actually be quite insulting to them in court for a while at least before she was stopped.

Yes, right, so your issue is with litigation causing harm for defendants, whether they're successful or not. Which is not unique or particular to this particular issue, and is a general issue with all litigation.

yeh however it's the degree of harm in the case vs what isn't going to cover those damages at all really.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I would point out the bleak-sayers are just a vocal minority. Remember the overwhelming majority of people don't give two shits what Elliot Page calls himself, or what gender he wants to be. The next largest category support him and are pro-trans. Below that are the people who want to be supportive and respectful, but are too timid to ask any questions for fear of being labeled transphobic and truly do not understand trans culture or identity. And then like below all that, under the rocks, beneath the bug and creepy-crawlers and slime that not even fungus can eat are the people who legitimately think trans folk are in a 3D chess, long-game pedos are a minority group scheme, and think if Ellen Page can reinvent himself as Elliot Page, well the next step is Roy Moore self-identifying as a 12 year old boy so it was never rape.

I'd like to think that, but it's been an uphill struggle to grant trans people the same rights as everyone else, so there must be quite a few people opposed.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, of course not. But neither did Yaniv expect that to be the case. She abused the law to put a company (or individual) in a compromising situation she could attempt to exploit for personal gain, got found out, and gained nothing except a $6,000 bill. A similar take would be me (half black, half-Hispanic) pulling up to a Country-Western bar and asking the band to play some Hip Hop, and then claiming racial discrimination and suing when they don't/can't concede to my wishes.

Except that's what Yaniv wanted the court to do. To tell them they couldn't refuse to do it. Thus had she won she could have gone back and pressed the issue more and taken them to court again for refusing.

She got a $6,000 bill but she in the end got to screw over ~9 people and their families. To cause that kind of annoyance and harm for ~$600 a piece and have it drag out over a year you'd have to be pretty resourceful and thrifty really.

Of course... if my intent was to have the job done to my liking and NOT to set the stage to sue someone for not meeting my unreasonable expectations. You seem to be of the understanding that Yaniv had any actual desire to have these service rendered to her when everyone else is rightly calling her on her bullshit.

Given Yaniv's past actions. I wouldn't put it past her if this was some power play or fetish thing so the service isn't the important part making some-one do something they don't want to is.

Which is the point I tried to make a couple posts ago. The law isn't the problem; it's litigation and the lengthy, expensive process that it can be. Which might have been what Yaniv was REALLY banking on, a settlement that would truncated the process for the people she was suing, but they went the distance (much to their own harm) because the lawsuit was so ridiculous.

yeh especially in human rights cases where most people would look at it and go "getting waxed isn't a human right and you can't expect people trained to wax one kind of intimate area to work on one they're not trained for." But Yaniv had to be allowed to argue the case for waxing being a human right and they had to be dragged along too in the mess.

 

[Seanchaidh]

yeh especially in human rights cases where most people would look at it and go "getting waxed isn't a human right and you can't expect people trained to wax one kind of intimate area to work on one they're not trained for." But Yaniv had to be allowed to argue the case for waxing being a human right and they had to be dragged along too in the mess.

You realize that literally anyone with a penis could bring that same frivolous lawsuit, right?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You realize that literally anyone with a penis could bring that same frivolous lawsuit, right?

Under the rules where you don't have to have socially transitioned yeh.

Canada's rules are or at least were that you had to have socially transitioned.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Residents can vote (in municipal elections) in a lot of countries.
Japan has birth citizenship, not land citizenship.

Japan’s Constitution won’t protect revolting foreigners

It's worth bearing in mind that the most prominent case concerning the constitutional rights of foreigners involved an American who got kicked out of the country for participating in antiwar protests.

www.japantimes.co.jp

You can be denied visa and residency based on your political activities.
English Teachers - typically white men - make the bulk of this Caucasian foreign population.

Uhh, neat?
Doesn't stop people who aren't ethnically Japanese being Japanese citizens.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Under the rules where you don't have to have socially transitioned yeh.

Canada's rules are or at least were that you had to have socially transitioned.

So? It seems like a massive pain the internet ass for all involved *and* she still lost

Like, she's not even on the level as that dude who sues anybody with clout or money that has a "ladies only" night. You know, he sued the Alamo Drafthouse for having a Women's Only screening of Wonder Woman and got a settlement

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So? It seems like a massive pain the internet ass for all involved *and* she still lost

Like, she's not even on the level as that dude who sues anybody with clout or money that has a "ladies only" night. You know, he sued the Alamo Drafthouse for having a Women's Only screening of Wonder Woman and got a settlement

Unless her aim was to just be a dick to women of ethnicities she doesn't like in which case $6,000 was a bargain.

Oh and as I said she's now suing them again this time for $12,000 the same women. The 3 who fought the case to the bitter end before.

Also like it or not the Wonder Woman thing technically would count as sexism. Same as how clubs can't offer ladies cheaper entry than men etc.