| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
KwarK
United States43218 Posts
On August 19 2016 01:53 Gorsameth wrote: I assume that cost factors in building an entire new village for them. Time to move to that Alaskan village and demand my cut. I'll also adopt a handful of children before I go, $300,000 per head is a pretty sweet deal. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 19 2016 01:55 KwarK wrote: Time to move to that Alaskan village and demand my cut. I'll also adopt a handful of children before I go, $300,000 per head is a pretty sweet deal. I don't think they are getting all the money directly. They need to build the town infrastructure as well. Police, fire, town hall. Sim City shit. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On August 19 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote: I don't think they are getting all the money directly. They need to build the town infrastructure as well. Police, fire, town hall. Sim City shit. Don't forget the roads, plumbing, utilities, etc. The price tag is "create an entire city (well, village)" not "house 600 people." | ||
|
KwarK
United States43218 Posts
On August 19 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote: I don't think they are getting all the money directly. They need to build the town infrastructure as well. Police, fire, town hall. Sim City shit. I get that but it's still too much. 600 people is a drop in the ocean nationally, rehoming them isn't expensive unless they demand that it be. The kind of money they're demanding for their rehoming expenses, 300k per head, is completely out of proportion with normal spending on displaced peoples. Give them a rebuild your life emergency grant if needed and let them choose whether to join a preexisting community or spend it on fire stations. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 19 2016 02:11 KwarK wrote: I get that but it's still too much. 600 people is a drop in the ocean nationally, rehoming them isn't expensive unless they demand that it be. The kind of money they're demanding for their rehoming expenses, 300k per head, is completely out of proportion with normal spending on displaced peoples. Give them a rebuild your life emergency grant if needed and let them choose whether to join a preexisting community or spend it on fire stations. Except it is Alaska. That place isn't overflowing with residents, housing or really anything else. Sure, they could just send people out there with the value of their houses and a little extra, but I am not really sure that is going to solve the problem. Because they need these people to leave or force them out if the land is going to become inhabitable. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43218 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
To be clear, I have no love for Gawker and think much of their reporting was garbage. But billionaires using the court system to attack publications they don't like is garbage. Especially when they also talk about free speech and the free market as great things that should be protected. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43218 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 19 2016 02:29 Plansix wrote: Gawker is shutting down, the rest of the sites owned by Gawker media will remain active. It appears Peter Thiel won is battle for freedom of speech, A/k/a, freedom for Peter Thiel and no one else. To be clear, I have no love for Gawker and think much of their reporting was garbage. But billionaires using the court system to attack publications they don't like is garbage. Especially when they also talk about free speech and the free market as great things that should be protected. As I've said on this subject before... Billionaire backers should be irrelevant to the legal system. Legitimate lawsuits should be able to go forward without requiring giant check-books. Bad lawsuits should be stopped regardless of how much money is thrown at lawyers, and long before the dollar figures come close to 5 figures, let alone 10. The fact that Peter Thiel is even a talking point is a problem that goes far beyond any issue of free speech. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On August 19 2016 01:47 zlefin wrote: i'd like to limit filibusters to relevant info. since that is relevant to deciding people's fate; irrelevant info shouldn't be allowed though. the main questions is what parameters/limits on the filibuster should there be. senate allows unlimited on topic debate anyways, generally; so i'ts not like they'd stop debate if someone had something relevant to say. I agree with you. What I'm saying is that filibusters are side effects of gamers gaming the system and not the goal of the rules created by the system. So long as there are rules that dictate priority of action--stall tactics will always be present. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 19 2016 02:43 Plansix wrote: If you look at the history of the Hulk’s lawsuit against Gawker, they shopped around the courts and went through special effort to make sure the lawsuit didn’t trigger Gawkers liability insurance. The case was dismissed several time and they just moved on to a new court and filed a new case. His efforts to put them under was a matter of attrition. And he will do it to the next news media site he disapproves of. Which, again, shows a much larger issue than Peter Thiel and Gawker. This is not the first time that court shopping and repeated filings has happened. It may just be the most publicized. There's a reason why the US is known for endless litigation. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11629 Posts
On August 19 2016 02:43 Plansix wrote: If you look at the history of the Hulk’s lawsuit against Gawker, they shopped around the courts and went through special effort to make sure the lawsuit didn’t trigger Gawkers liability insurance. The case was dismissed several time and they just moved on to a new court and filed a new case. His efforts to put them under was a matter of attrition. And he will do it to the next news media site he disapproves of. I hope that will make people realize that you can buy justice in the american court system. Not like anyone didn't know about that before. "I can't afford the legal costs of sueing x" "The legal costs will ruin you" were not really unknown statements in the US beforehands. Rich people shouldn't be able to ruin companies by using the legal system just because they want to, and rich companies shouldn't be able to ruin people or smaller competitors by using the legal system just because they want to. And yet they still can, because if you keep putting money into the legal system, the other party has to match or lose the case. It is really silly. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28706 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On August 19 2016 03:18 Liquid`Drone wrote: While I certainly agree with the sentiment that rich people should not have more justice than poor people, I'm kinda willing to not care all that much about this principle when it rids us of gawker. Gawker shutting down is a plus for human civilization Now if we could only get rid of Buzzfeed, HuffPost, and Salon | ||
|
oBlade
United States5765 Posts
On August 19 2016 02:29 Plansix wrote: Gawker is shutting down, the rest of the sites owned by Gawker media will remain active. It appears Peter Thiel won is battle for freedom of speech, A/k/a, freedom for Peter Thiel and no one else. To be clear, I have no love for Gawker and think much of their reporting was garbage. But billionaires using the court system to attack publications they don't like is garbage. Especially when they also talk about free speech and the free market as great things that should be protected. On November 21 2015 00:24 Plansix wrote: Freedom of expression is not freedom from social consequences. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 19 2016 03:30 oBlade wrote: On November 21 2015 00:24 Plansix wrote: Freedom of expression is not freedom from social consequences. Are you silly enough to be confused by that? I’m talking about someone telling you to shut up or your are an asshole. Not someone filing lawsuits against you until you go bankruptcy. Do you think its cool if a rich person keeps filing frivolously lawsuits against someone else because they were mean once? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Solar vs Zoun
MaxPax vs Bunny
Kung Fu Cup
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
Classic vs Cure
Reynor vs TBD
WardiTV Korean Royale
PiGosaur Monday
RSL Revival
Classic vs Creator
Cure vs TriGGeR
Kung Fu Cup
herO vs TBD
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
