The Don't Say Gay bill

I'm here for the fact that one of our resident fundies was dating somewhere decades younger while arguing for why marriages between other consenting adults should be illegal.

That if her father sells her to him as a slave, she must please him, or else he is allowed to return her for a refund. (Exodus 21:7-8)

Glory be to God.

It's true and I do.

That does not discount the fact that unions, in good faith, pushed for police officers to be able to do their job without fear of reprisal if things go wrong. HOWEVER, that also does not discount the fact that those same unions have abused that ability.

Just because a union exists, does not mean it is above reproach. They still need to be held accountable.

What did I miss?

Interesting how teachers' unions supposedly have so much power and yet teaching is still considered one of the shittiest, underpaid and difficult to recruit for jobs out there.

"Underpaid" if you stretch that 9 months of pay over the whole year and pretend they don't have summer gigs.

If you need a "summer gig" to live off, your job is underpaid.

Fucking try again, tosspot.

And FYI most of the summer will be spent marking and developing lesson plans for the next year.

I know, I know, it just doesn't seem like "proper work" to anyone in an entry-level machinist position. You aren't physically exhausted at the end of the day. And UA (the world fucking authority on the subject) has made it clear that mental stress doesn't exist, so you can't possibly be mentally exhausted.

(As UA)
These snooty asshole teachers with their high-falutin edu-ma-cations should pump soft-serve with the rest of us!!

The idea that folk have spent years getting an education in science/maths/literature/whatever plus incurring a huge student loan and yet all they want to do when they get a class of kids in front of them is turn them queer or brainwash them with liberal propaganda is - or should be - fucking ridiculous to the point that only a braindead idiot would dismiss it, but UA and the Republicans sti... oh, hang on.

Not surprising that you once again have no idea what you're talking about. Just because your teachers failed you, it doesn't mean we should abandon the concept of public schools.

Also not surprising that you are parroting the dog whistle of ending public education.

Don't dump that "labor theory of value " horse shit on me. All I'm saying is that nine months of work cannot be associated with a full year of pay.

And all I'm saying is that employers will often hide tasks outside regular hours.

The amount of shit I deal with beyond 9-5, but my contract states I work the hours "required for the job".

I'll admit forging bits of metal doesn't afford many opportunities for stuff you can't do without a lathe.

My job requires a mind. That doesn't turn off.

Well, in my case, anyway.

And you've read these teacher contracts? And are familiar with the hours worked (including unpaid) by teachers?

Ah, by that logic, enjoy your nine months of pay instead of 12, since the 104 days off you have for weekends comes out to over three months.

Also, that nine months you think teachers 'only' work comes closer to 10-11 with the mandatory meetings, planning, and continuing education required.

And kiss the feet of unions for creating weekends.

Oh, so my job doesn't require a mind. Alright.

If your ability to miss the point could be turned into a forcefield, the Ukranians could have overthrown Putin in a day.

Related, because I don't want to find the 'correct' thread on my phone:

If only Hawley had taken any sort of formal logic classes he simply could have replied, "Of course she still is. Don't commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent".

Saving this for the next "once a cunt, always a cunt" argument about Josh Hawley.

Yes, if only he weren't an idiot.

The phrase 'Tis Pity She's A Whore should never be applicable to an entire political party, but the GOP keep right on putting on the red light.

Which means his original definition was wrong.

Tell me you don't know any teachers without telling me you don't know any teachers.

I mean, TBF, it's been pretty fucking clear UA has never known teachers since his first post.

So you don't understand how "denying the antecedent" works.

You don't understand what antecedent is being referred to.

Of course I do.

The proposition: "Someone with a uterus is a woman".

This is the form of the proposition given:

• The antecedent: "If someone (that is, an adult human person) has a uterus".
• The consequent: "that someone is a woman".

Example syllogism: "If someone has a uterus, that someone is a woman. Kate has a uterus, therefore Kate is a woman".

You can't disprove this syllogism by denying the antecedent. "Jane has no uterus because of a full hysterectomy, therefore Jane isn't a woman" is a logically fallacious statement and doesn't disprove the proposition.

Here's a less controversial example:
"All Doberman Pinschers are dogs. Fido is a Doberman Pinscher. Therefore Fido is a dog."
It is true that all Doberman Pinschers are dogs. But it is also true that some things that are not Doberman Pinschers are dogs.
Take for example, Patches. Patches is a German Shepherd. If we try to disprove this by denying the antecedent, we'd have the (clearly false) example of "Patches is not a Doberman Pinscher, therefore Patches is not a dog."