I think what you also have to take into consideration is that Americans came from such diverse backgrounds, and that they really haven't had long to assimilate into one commonly shared national identity. 300-odd years really isn't much in that respect, especially not with many substantiual waves of new immigrants arriving well into the 20th century.
Britain had its share of foreign migration, from Celts to Vikings, Angles and Normans. But even the Normans came here nearly 1000 years ago. If we disregard all the immigration that took place in the 20th and 21st century. Also, there are still four different countries that Great Britain is comprised of, so it leaves room for regional identities in a way that just isn't the same as Americans being able to choose between 50 different states to live in. Being a Californian as opposed to a Missourian just isn't the same. There is an inkling of regional identity between the Midwest and other parts of the country, yes, but again, it's not something that's as ingrained as it is in Britain, or probably even countries like Germany or Spain which also have quite distinct regional identities.
Another thing is that Americans place great value on freedom of speech and self-actualisation, in the olden days near enough equivalent to the Pursuit of Happiness. The two together mean that there isn't that much of a desire to conform. It's every American's right to run their mouth off and thus spout even the most fucking mental opinions imaginable. That's also something you see much less of in Britain by comparison, where we like to keep to ourselves a bit more and at least in some ways tend to try to avoid open disagreement.
>>452180 I promised an update: Almost everyone was old at speed dating. And I met a woman in my industry that I'd seen a few times in an old job - we get along and she's my age but fuck that.
The crux of the debate isn't really about abortion, but about what it means to be a federal republic. I keep seeing people say "America has banned abortion", which isn't remotely true - the Supreme Court have simply ruled that it's a matter for the state governments, not the federal government.
The system of federation was designed for precisely this eventuality; recognising the diversity of opinion within the United States, the remit of the federal government was intentionally drawn as narrowly as possible to create a nation that could simultaneously offer unity and diversity. The scope of the federal government has continuously expanded, largely at the behest of the coastal states and largely at the expense of the south.
I'm a big fan of abortion, I think it should be available as a drive-thru service and include a free £20 Costa voucher and a T-shirt with an amusing slogan, but the democratically elected governments of many southern states believe otherwise. As keen as I am to reduce the number of people in the world, I think that Roe vs Wade was based on incredibly tenuous legal reasoning that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny if viewed purely on the constitutional merits of the argument. It's possible to simultaneously believe that abortion should be a right and that Roe v Wade was a dodgy decision that obviously subverted the intent of the constitution in a fundamentally undemocratic manner; even if you believe that the ends justify the means, you can't expect the other side not to see through it.
Also, before we get too high and mighty about those crazy yanks, it's worth remembering that abortion is only legal in England and Wales for medical reasons, namely to prevent "injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family", or where "ther is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped". It so happens that NHS abortion services interpret the law extremely liberally, but there's nothing in statute to guarantee that. Women in England and Wales do not have the legal right to an abortion solely because they don't want to continue the pregnancy, even if they have the practical ability to choose on that basis.
That distinction is mostly academic in a country where only a small minority oppose abortion, but it's worth remembering that American evangelicals didn't really care about abortion or involve themselves in politics until the mid-1970s.
>>452195 >The crux of the debate isn't really about abortion, but about what it means to be a federal republic. I keep seeing people say "America has banned abortion", which isn't remotely true - the Supreme Court have simply ruled that it's a matter for the state governments, not the federal government.
The slight problem here is that this is a rather dishonest view of it. Within the space of a week, the Supreme Court has handed down decisions that simultaneously declare that such decisions both are and are not a matter for the states. It seems that the Court thinks that in that union of equals, some states are more equal than others.
>>452196 You can't possibly be talking about the New York case. New York had restricted the right to bear arms (publicly) only to those who could demonstrate a self-defence need above and beyond the general population.
Arguing for abortion from the 14th amendment is a massive stretch. Arguing for the right to bear arms from the 2nd couldn't be less of one.
>>452199 You seem hopelessly confused. I think the second amendment should be repealed. But it hasn't been and it's the job of SCOTUS to uphold it until then.
Right. So according to the Supreme Court, it's A-OK for individual states to decide if they want to allow abortion or not, but they can't tell their citizens to keep their guns at home.
Roe vs. Wade was instrumental in the last 50 years in esuring that some fire and brimstone politicians in some redneck, backward Bible Belt state wouldn't take away a woman's right to choose.
Christian Right currents don't normally play a decisive role in federal politics, except during the Dubya Bush years where they had one of their own in the White House. Scant House and Senate majorities often lead to bipartisan compromises. But at the state level, it's all up for grabs if some Deep South voters elect some born-again Christian governor on a mission to spread God's word.
As pendulum swings go, I'm sure there will be enough of a backlash against this decision so that at some point in a decade or two, that new ruling will be overturned as well. But on the way there, countless women's lives will be ruined. All because some people think their imaginary person in the sky god doesn't want you to have an abortion.
>>452203 Not him but you're falling into emotional arguments on points of law. I bet you've been eating the American democrat propaganda.
>Scant House and Senate majorities often lead to bipartisan compromises
They've literally not been able to pass federal law on the issue of abortion. Or making all gun-owners give reason for carrying a weapon. It's not a party issue from the Christian Right, pro-lifers are found in both parties and across the American electorate which goes double with how American abortion law tends to be yes/no rather than accounting weeks etc.
This is why you don't use the courts to pass legislation on contentious issues. It shouldn't be a pendulum issue, it should be a 'why the fuck is the judiciary passing legislation, do people not realise how dangerous this is?' issue.
>So according to the Supreme Court, it's A-OK for individual states to decide if they want to allow abortion or not, but they can't tell their citizens to keep their guns at home.
But different states do have different gun laws, do they not? I was talking to a chap from New York a bit ago and he made it sound like gun laws there are pretty strict, almost on the level with ours. Still technically legal but with enough hoops to jump through that it's not big business and guns aren't a part of daily life.
I have a dull memory of this being illustrated in GTAIV, which is set in a much more serious parody of New York than the games had been previously, and you have to buy guns from a dodgy back alley guy rather than AmmuNation.
(Of course with America, there's nothing to stop you just driving across to the next state where you can get a BOGOF on AR-15s with your weekly grocery shop, but you know.)
Anyway from what I understand with this abortion thing, even the most hardcore red states are just putting in 15 week limits, not banning it outright. For context, throughout most of Europe it's 12 weeks. I have a feeling there's a bit of that "marketplace of ideas" thing going on here (is that an Ayn Rand thing?), and we're getting to see a picture distorted by various group's agendas, because they need it to stay relevant.
Fisherfolk have been badly going out of style over the last few years, ever since their failed coup of the videogame industry and with the biggest issue facing them nowadays apparently being evangelist christian korean youtuber athletes. This is the first time in nearly 40 years they've had something worthwhile complaining about, so they're making it sound like Texas wants to literally implement A Handmaid's Tale, and people like you eat it up, because you are predisposed to see the world that way anyway.
Another example worth thinking about- Loads of states made weed legal despite the fact it's illegal at the federal level. So states can pretty much defy federal ruling with impunity anyway. They could already ban abortions the same way they did that. None of them have, because there isn't the political will to do so. Even the most backward redneck bible belt states know they're better off letting the abortions happen, albeit with more limitations, because to do otherwise is only shooting yourself in the foot with regards to its effects on poverty and crime.
The job of the Supreme Court is not to make political decisions, but to make judgements of law. Unfortunately, the statute they have to work with is extraordinarily poorly drafted. Unless and until they reform their constitution, they're stuck bickering over the meaning of commas.
The Second Amendment reads (in full):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That's a right old linguistic muddle which can be legitimately interpreted to mean a broad range of things, from "everyone can wander around with tactical nuclear warheads" to "states have the right to maintain a militia, but no-one else can have guns".
Roe v. Wade depends on Article 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads (again, in full):
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It's incredibly difficult to see how that could be interpreted to mean "state law can't restrict access to abortion". In recent decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law to imply a general right to privacy.
This implied right has been selectively applied with no real logical consistency as far as I can understand. Griswold v. Connecticut established the constitutional right for married couples to buy condoms, which through a long chain of precedent eventually led to Roe v. Wade. Either Roe v. Wade is based on duff legal reasoning, or the government has no right to restrict any private activity, which would naturally include the possession of firearms.
>But different states do have different gun laws, do they not?
Yes, but. The recent case of NYSRPA v. Bruen ruled that New York's handgun laws were unconstitutional, because acquiring a license to carry a handgun requires special permission rather than being a general right with some exclusions. New York can still deny you a carry permit if you're a criminal or mentally ill or for some other legitimate reason specified by law, but their previous position of only issuing permits in exceptional circumstances was seen as running contrary to the general principle of the Second Amendment. In effect, the state now has the burden of proof to demonstrate that you should be denied your Second Amendment rights.
It's interesting to note that this case was primarily supported by ethnic minority groups, who quite properly believe that New York's gun laws have been historically used to target ethnic minorities.
>Anyway from what I understand with this abortion thing, even the most hardcore red states are just putting in 15 week limits, not banning it outright.
Nine states have banned abortion entirely, or entirely except for where the mother's life is at risk. Let me be clear that I think these bans are a Very Bad Thing, but the extremely shaky legal basis for Roe v. Wade meant that the right to abortion in the US was inevitably going to fall once there was a conservative majority in the SCOTUS. The pro-choice movement could have spent the last decades working to build support for abortion rights on a state-by-state basis, but instead they put all their eggs in one very flimsy basket.
>>452208 >The Second Amendment reads (in full):
>Roe v. Wade depends on Article 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads (again, in full):
... and that right there would be the mistake you're making. Those clauses do not exist in isolation. For instance, you won't find any wording in the 14th that makes it so, but it means that executive agencies can't impose restrictions on speech. The 1st doesn't do that on its own, that only says that "Congress shall make no law", and if you've read the unamended document you'll know that the President is not Congress and vice versa.
It's funny because you don't realise just how ironic such a statement is. You're the one who thinks a person can instantly be discredited just by pulling some smug buzzword out, and you're the one who will get bumsore when doing so doesn't just instantly win the argument.
>>452190 I am recovering from a grisly hangover right now, and I am very bad with hangovers, and if anything, this one feels nicer than some of the others. Not nice, by any means, but I had a good time last night which normally doesn't happen so I'm willing to pay the price.
>>452216 You can buy DHM online from a few sources in pill form, No Days Wasted being the best in my experience. DHM assists inbreaking down acetaldehyde in the blood so that it doesn't build up in your liver and make you feel like shit the next day. One or two pills with your first drink, then one or two before bed, usually sees me right. It's a real game changer.
I love this guy. His idea of stealth camping is just openly sleeping rough, and hoping nobody says anything to him- Which they probably won't, because most of the town must recognise him by now, and they're far too polite to ask what the fuck he's doing sleeping behind a skip again.
I find it deeply endearing. Reminds me of being a kid and sleeping in the pillow fort you made in the front room, instead of your bedroom.
Generally the only reason why they can tell you to get off a roundabout is that you need the landowner's permission for any camping activities in Britain.
Whoever the landowner may be. And the council or police can thus tell you to get off the public property that is in that case the roundabout. Roundabout camping is therefore not illegal per se, in that it's not explicitly an offence in its own right, but it's safe to assume that no council will permit it.
Never liked camping in principle, I don't like that constant feeling of cold and damp and unwashed smelliness. Our parents took us kids on a few camping holidays all over France when I was a younglad, and even then I always thought it was shit. We had a quite luxurious four-person frame tent, but even that was not much fun to me.
Weirdly, the legality of sleeping rough is quite a hot topic at the moment. Sleeping rough was illegal under the Vagrancy Act 1824, but this was repealed just days ago in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 - the same controversial legislation that is being used to criminalise protests. The Vagrancy Act is a fairly archaic bit of legislation, but it was still being routinely used to move on rough sleepers. A lot of police forces would regularly fine beggars, which was always a bit crackers - if you fine a beggar, how do you think they're going to get the money to pay a fine?
Michael Gove's department is now proposing the re-criminalisation of rough sleeping in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. The major homelessness charities had all campaigned to repeal the Vagrancy Act, so they're quite grumpy that the government is effectively trying to bring it back.
Credit where credit is due, Robert Jenrick was instrumental in repealing the Vagrancy Act and is now agitating for a rebellion on the plans to bring it back.
Of course, but in terms of the issue raised in >>542249, it was until last week an arrestable offence to be a "person wandering abroad and lodging in any barn or outhouse, or in any polared or unoccupied building, or in the open air, or under a tent, or in any cart or waggon, and not giving a good account of himself or herself".
If you leave my town's Tesco, and leave the car park area, there is a zebra crossing. On the opposite side of the road, to the left of the zebra crossing, is a long stretch where the normal pavement is replaced by big spikes. Probably 6 inch x 4 inch. They are uncomfortable to walk on, but it's not a big inconvenience. Do you know any reason why they might be there? The only other thing on that road is a job centre. They seem like the sort of thing to stop homeless sleeping there, aggressive architecture or whatever they call it, but there would be no reason for a homeless to sleep there when they can (and do) pitch up in the covered car park. Any suggestions as to what purpose they serve? It's been bothering me for nearly a decade.
>>452258 It's deterrent paving which is all about stopping people congregating or walking to a dangerous area. It's deliberately uncomfortable to stand/walk on which means youths won't hang out near the motorway, under someone's window etc.
I set myself the challenge of a No-Fap June. I did not wank at all throughout June. Having successfully completed my epic achievement, bloody hell, there's jizz everywhere. I feel like that extremely fantastic South Park episode. My only concerns are that I noticed my life get slightly better without wanking and I hope it doesn't go back to how it was, and the other concern which is that I think I might have ruptured something in my genitals.
Trying to get my head around PHP and JavaScript code I wrote at the beginning of last year to validate a web page contact form, which manages to filter and protect against spam all without reCaptchas, but solely based on IP address, time interval checks and input sanitising. In other words, with your IP address, you can only send one post a minute, even if you use a different browser. You'd have to do an IP reconnect each time, because your IP address is temporarily stored in a MySQLi table. And if you reload the contact form page too many times to send the postdata again ("hammering"), your IP address gets blocked for 48 hours. Crosss-site scripting is also prevented both at the front end via JavaScript and at the back end using PHP. All of this doesn't prevent spamming completely, but it makes my web site unattractive to spamming and flooding. There's also the benefit of security through obscurity, because it's homebrew code and even if it should still have vulnerabilities, most spammers focus on exploiting known vulnerabilities in wordpress mail form plugins and will not take the time to pick apart my bespoke code for exploitability.
It was a genius bit of stable, robust code that works faultlessly on my current web page, but now that I've actually bought a shiny new ready-made bootstrap template and I'm trying to integrate my code into that template, I'm realising that I've mostly forgotten just how my code works under the hood, despite meticulous commenting. I just can't get it to work properly and find out what alterations it needs to run correctly within the new template. I've commented out all the sections of the template's JavaScript code that deal with form validation, so that should not cause the problems. At the moment, I'm trying to look at the way each variable behaves and how my PHP and JavaScript codes interact at runtime, but there are no obvious clues why it's not working.
The php include file handling the validation is about 400 lines long, not counting several additional base64-encoded inline images to go out with an automated reply e-mail. The JavaScript only has some 200 lines, but a lot of it is tightly packed functions referencing each other. So it's a lot of complex code to go through to work out what the problem is.
I could just switch over to a ready-made plugin, but I both don't want to abandon code that I'm quite chuffed with, and I want to be in control of my mail form code in a way that external plugins written by somebody else just can't deliver.
Document even the most trivial bit of code (ok, not
i += 1
), especiaially if you think you need to read it again. Jot down the intention at least, worst case do rubber duck sanity checking and write down what you told Mr Duck (or whoever your ducky is).
I've figured it out. My code still works, even with the new template. But I made one minor alteration early on, and for some reason, Javascript will not do a redirect to contact.html#contactform . It will only redirect to contact.html.
After the form is sent, the contact form page redirects to itself in order to clear the postdata. This is done by making PHP insert a Javascript redirect command into the HTML document. But it will not do a redirect at all if you try to redirect directly to an anchor like #contactform inside the page.
I'll pobably work around the problem by augmenting the PHP-generated redirect with code to automatically scroll to the #contactform section on page load if the page detects that it is being redirected to itself.
But not now. Need to spend the rest of the day doing some gardening.
>>452329 The weather was nice. I went out, and then when I got home, I watched Wimbledon. I guess this is my way of saying I never liked either of you.
Is he a queer charmer or a queer harmer? We'll never know.
Also, if you were busy thinking of a political dig rather than enjoying that magnificent hourglass figure, you should probably check to see if you've dropped your gay card.
