> Stripe, similarly, can decide to boot an asshole off their platform. That's well within their legal rights.
What's the legal definition of "an asshole?"
Can I just discriminate against my customers on the basis of some protected class and when asked just say "they're an asshole" and I don't wish to serve them.
None is needed. "I believe you are an asshole" is sufficient, as long as that belief is not based on your membership in a protected class.
> Can I just discriminate against my customers on the basis of some protected class and when asked just say "they're an asshole" and I don't wish to serve them.
Thanks for putting this together, it's odd how others are so quick to dismiss this line of thinking.
There's highly suspicious actions of the Chinese government along with the near-perfect human host tropism of the virus - but then also no evidence of zoonosis or any type of ongoing reservoir or circulation outside Wuhan.
It's bizarre to conclude that it's obviously just natural origin.
I'm not sure which way you're falling on this, but I'll take this whole thread as evidence that everyone is punitive.
I frankly don't believe the people who claim to hate the cops, all you have to do is present them with someone they detest and they reveal their lust for "the law", obscene punishment and violence.
Well, apparently the sample of my take of satire is also not recognized as such; admittedly, without context, I would also take your comment as serious.
I don't trust children to make decisions about irreversibly altering their own bodies.
There's a very real chance that this could be viewed by a future generation like 1920s "Progressives" that thought they were agents of goodness and social progress, equipped with science.
This whole unqualified pro-trans push could be hubristic people who're unwittingly "medically fixing" queer kids with internalized concepts and phobias from their social culture.
> I don't trust children to make decisions about irreversibly altering their own bodies.
Neither do I. Neither does anyone. You're attacking something that does not happen. Children who want to transition have to consult with physicians and psychologists.
> There's a very real chance that this could be viewed by a future generation like 1920s "Progressives" that thought they were agents of goodness and social progress, equipped with science.
No, there isn't. You seem to be talking about eugenics, which was people forcing their views of "science" onto others.
In the case of children transitioning, it's not anything being forced on them. Their parents are not coming up with it, and neither are their doctors. It's something they bring up themselves.
Children are almost always given reversible (meaning hormone-based) treatments, and the rate at which they change their minds later is 0.4%[1].
Considering how rare transgender people are in the first place, that is an exceedingly small number of people.
I'm talking about having a healthy sense of self-doubt.
History shows us that the imprimatur of science is used to advance hubris-driven, pernicious social ideas of a time.
The take-away is that when you're absolutely convinced that some new trend is moral and liberating, you should at the very least try to imagine the possibility that you're not only wrong but actively doing harm.
If children bring up wanting to do hard drugs, and they talk with parents, doctors and psychologists, and still want to do it, should we let them? Hell no! They’re not mature enough to really understand the life long consequences. And so many people make bad choices during their emotional and hormone fueled teen years, that alone should be a check against making permanent changes.
What's the legal definition of "an asshole?"
Can I just discriminate against my customers on the basis of some protected class and when asked just say "they're an asshole" and I don't wish to serve them.