Remote View
Censoring Nipples
Censoring Nipples
191 comments
-
Tits censored, guess they are women then. Fuck the transphobes
-
Unfortunately, in these cases, people make the mistake of thinking the law works like computer code. In reality, it doesn't.
People have this idea that law is just like computer code. You make one single definition and then build laws, like a mathematical edifice, around that definition. They think that if the law uses one definition in one place, it must use that definition in all places. They think the law works like a computer program or a physics equation. Change the constant and changes cascade through.
The law however is not a computer code. It is not a physics equation. The law has not, does not, and will likely never use consistent definitions throughout all contexts. Laws can be written with the same term defined multiple ways in different contexts. A tomato can be a vegetable in some legal contexts and a fruit in others. Someone can be legally male in some contexts but legally female in others.
Traditionally how this works with trans folks is, "your legal sex will be defined as whatever hurts you the most in the moment." Does a trans woman want to use a women's restroom? She will be defined as legally male and thrown out. Does she show her breasts in public as protest? Her chest will be considered legally female breasts. She will then be arrested and thrown in a male prison.
The law is not internally consistent. Don't make the mistake of thinking it is. Usually individual laws have their own definitions written into them. These definitions define what terms mean for the sake of applying that and only that law. And the definitions used can differ between different laws.
-
People have this idea that law is just like computer code. You make one single definition and then build laws, like a mathematical edifice, around that definition.
That's pretty much the fucking definition of a law.
Law is a set of rules that are created and are enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate. It has been variously described as a science and as the art of justice.
-- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law (look it up elsewhere and the definition is almost word for word the same)
They think that if the law uses one definition in one place, it must use that definition in all places. They think the law works like a computer program or a physics equation. Change the constant and changes cascade through.
Laws are rules that are worded specifically to match criteria to ensure that the spirit of the law can be maintained and served to protect the public. the interpretation of a law can change once a precedent can be set, but that law is still the rule until it's been amended.
you're being disingenuous and ambiguous in your understanding of law or you're just playing the fool to serve your point.
either way you look like an ass and are too arrogant to be using that much confidence in your conviction.
your are the definition of "confidently incorrect".
-
You wrote a whole lot while saying very little.
You're completely missing the point. You can have two laws:
- Defines that for the purposes of import tariffs, a tomato is a fruit.
- Defines that for the purposes of school lunch funding, a tomato is a vegetable.
Both of these laws can be passed, exist, be upheld and enforced at the same time. People would get confused and say, "but...but...a tomato is a tomato, it can't be both a fruit and a vegetable depending on context! That's not fair!"
Well, I'm sorry, but the law is not required to be internally consistent. No where in the US constitution or the UK's equivalent will you find language that says that all laws must use consistent definitions in all contexts.
I get it, this truth of the law offends people. People with STEM backgrounds are often particularly incensed by it, as it goes so against their way of understanding the world, scientific and mathematical axioms and such. But the law is not a computer code. The law is not a physics equation. It has all sorts of internal contradictions. Definitions are often highly contextual.
Also, quit being such a jackass. You don't need to start throwing around insults just because you disagree with a post.
-
This is basically why a handful of "STEM" people want smart contracts to take over the legal system.
-
And there's a reason smart contracts haven't taken off. Because at the end of the day, people want language in their contracts that protects them from flagrant abuse. And that is not possible with smart contracts.
For example, provisions of contracts can be thrown out in court because they're unconscionable or because they violate various doctrines of fairness or proportionality. If I offer a service, I can put a provision in my service contract that a cancellation fee applies if a client cancels early. But that fee has to be reasonable and proportional. I can't say, "if you cancel your contract early, you owe me $10 million USD." Maybe if that fee was for a hundred million dollar construction project? Maybe. But for a simple consumer service like a plumber or an electrician? No court in the world would uphold such a fee. Contracts can't have language in them that, completely out of the context of the contract, just entitles one party to vastly unreasonable and disproportionate benefit.
The law around real contracts has provisions relating to "unconscionable language" or "a reasonable person." These are things that cannot be defined mathematically. They have to be decided by an actual human being assessing the situation.
And this is also why smart contracts haven't taken off. I don't want to lose my house because some hidden provision of a smart contract flips and now my home belongs to some NFT bro. I don't want my retirement savings disappearing in a puff of logic because of some indecipherable code in a smart contract. I want the contracts governing all the important things in my life to be well-trodden, boring, well-established contracts operating in decades of contract law meant to keep people mostly safe. I don't want whatever snake oil some smart contract coder is trying to sell me. Mandatory binding arbitration is bad enough. The last thing we need is smart contracts.
Sure, someone can try and weasel out of it by saying, "don't like it, don't agree to the smart contract!" To that I say stuff it. We don't let people write language into minor contracts that lets them steal the homes out from little old ladies. We have extensive state regulation of contracts because we've learned the hard way that rigidly enforcing contracts with zero thought or consideration of fairness just ends up rewarding the most vile and wicked people in society.
Yes, it's tempting to do away with lawyers and judges and to replace them all with objective mathematical language. But there's a reason that is never going to happen. People do not want to trust their major financial decisions to some inscrutable code that provides them no legal protections.
-
That's an interesting point! Although I would suspect that for the "STEM people", today's legal system is even more inscrutable and indecipherable. A reasonable person would say that tits are tits, and might more easily notice
from tariffs import tomato
than notice which legal definition applies in that particular situation.
-
-
-
Why the hostility?
It seems pretty clear to me that they meant there's no "what is a woman" definition that's shared between all laws of a government.
Each law defines the terms they contain, which can contradict definitions found in other laws.
When one law changes its definition of a term, it doesn't mean other definitions of the term are also changed.
-
-
-
I don't think this the own people think it is. Drawings and sculptures are often censored. Implanted brests can be seen as similar works of art and still censored by transfobes.
Transfobes don't operate on logic or facts.
-
Drawings and sculptures are often censored.
So they'll censor the nipples on a drawing of sculpture of a woman?
That still indicates that a woman is being depicted, just like in this picture.
-
I think jols point they're trying to make is that breasts are censored, on whomever they're on.
But that also probably doesn't hold up, because I bet if these women had a fat guy with man-titties stand with them, he wouldn't be censored.
-
Yes. But a drawing of a woman is not a woman. It's a drawing.
-
If it makes me cum, it's a man -WAIT, no! A woman. Orrrr..... Both? A NB PERSON YEAH! No wait. If you make me cum you're a superhero! I'm just a confused poly subby pan bottom girl looking for love and good feelings uwuuuuuu the smelllllllllllssssss ahhhh im too gayyy
-
This is not a pipe
-
Right, and a picture of a woman is not a woman, it's a picture.
You'll find that pictures of women get blurred more often than actual women.
-
Well, that's my point. Depictions of female looking breaths get blurred
-
-
-
-
Oh, wow, are nipples of sculptures and paintings being censored in Scotland? I didn't know that. I'd expect it in other countries, mostly not European ones.
-
-
191 comments