Sunday School

Sunday School 8th May 2022

This topic contains 24 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  jakelafort 1 week, 3 days ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #42923

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Reg,

    And as of the invention of the transfer truck, no animals are harmed in the tranport of 20 Mule Team Borax either. I hope the mules portrayed on the box were paid well in royalties of carrots and apples. They certainly won’t have to pay estate tax or inheritance tax. Lucky! 😁

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spacing. These fingers are stubborn as mules
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by  TheEncogitationer.
    #42927

    Autumn
    Participant

    Tell me why I should disagree with the SCOTUS decision in the Christian Flag case.

    It’s almost bizarre the case went that far. The ruling would almost make sense if it fell under anti-discrimination statutes, but instead it was a free speech issue? A flag on a city hall flagpole is free speech?

    In terms of it being discriminatory, if the city really wasn’t enforcing what could or could not go up, then singling out a Christian flag may be discriminatory on religious grounds. (maybe). But deciding because the city did not have a particularly involved approval process that use of the flagpole was private speech seems quite the stretch. It’s not about whether or not private sentiments were being expressed through use of the flag pole, but rather whether or not the flagpole is actually a vehicle for free private speech.

    So now the city will end up taking a more involved approvals process for use of the flag pole to close down this argument, and that will make their actions more consistent with free speech somehow converting the flagpole from a vehicle for private speech to one of government speech. WTF?

    #42928

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Reg and Fellow Unbelievers,

    The only flags The City Government of Boston needs are official City Flags with the City Seal…and they should be posted a mile or so outside City limits so that people know they are approaching and have a chance to turn around. 😁

    Some have said the City needs the flag pole to off-set the “Brutalist” architecture of City Hall. I say government buildings should be as simple, inexpensive and “Brutalist” as possible. One, so no one will want to anything to do with City Hall and two, so private citizens can have taxdollars back to make their own dwellings and offices as elaborate as they please.

    Bureaucrats, Keep It Simple, Stupid! Private Citizens, be Baroque ‘Til You Go Ba-roke! 😁

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Flagging myself for spacing and spelling
    #42930

    I think Boston City Hall was dubbed the “Ugliest building in the world” at some point. It looks like it was planned by a 1950’s politburo committee.

    #42931

    Autumn
    Participant

    I like the exterior. Certainly I would rank the OCAD main campus as uglier (though also more interesting). Could use some more flag poles, probably.

    The Trump Tower Vancouver was uglier not in appearance, but because it still got named that after we all knew in uncertain terms just how much of a piece of shit he was.

    Although, both of those were built well after Boston City Hall. Still, I am sure there are some buildings out there in the world that are delightfully ugly inside and out.

    Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

    #42932

    Yes, ugliness is indeed. One part of my job involves consulting with several architect firms on IT matters. One owner, who is a gold medal winner (think Nobel prize for architecture) really likes City Hall. I can appreciate some aspects of it as I like concrete buildings but I can’t get past my initial opinion off it.

    #42933

    Autumn
    Participant

    I find many of the ugliest buildings appealing if for no other reason than craving some character and variety. Vancouver gets used as a filming location so often because of how indistinct it is (coupled with low filming costs and decent support for the filming industry, of course).

    On balance, there is some prettiness to it from a distance, but honestly, if they erect another fucking glass tower on the skyline, someone needs to throw the whole city in the bin and start over. I’d welcome a few more brutalist buildings if just to break up the feeling that the city is being crystallized by yuppie a-holes.

    There are some cases where buildings that make the ugliest lists make sense to me. The Žižkov Television Tower, included on several lists, is one I agree with not because of the building, but because it makes it look like the skyline is being assaulted by a space shuttle launch. The fact that there are sculptures of babies crawling along it doesn’t ease that tension (not that you can see them from a distance).

    I do wish more designs could incorporate nature more.

     

    #42934

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Just read article about the Boston flag.

    Yeah that is more indication of what is increasingly clear to me that nearly everything in the human sphere is BS. Just no integrity.

    It is speech cuz there was an important political speech case concerning flag burning. There is a clear distinction between an individual acting in her individual capacity and an individual asking the government to speak for her. Flying one’s own flag or burning one’s flag is obviously private.

    This however is not a private matter…clearly not private…it is a government function and government decision and how the government conducts its affirmation/denial of applications is irrelevant. It is a government decision. The notion that insufficient control was exercised thereby causing a metamorphosis into a private matter is ludicrous.

    Boston wanted to steer clear of violating the establishment clause. I am not sure there has been a case that decides what to do when there is a claim of an establishment clause violation balanced against a speech infringement. I am pretty sure the Court would hold for the gov. not the citizen. But this court?

    #42935

    Autumn
    Participant

    The court’s opinion seems to uphold that it is the city’s prerogative, as long as they make a consistent policy of approving what flags to or do not go up.

    But I agree the distinction you’ve made stands. Weak enforcement of use doesn’t make the flag pole de facto private use or private speech. Or at least it shouldn’t.

    It feels like ‘free speech’ is being thrown in as an argument where it doesn’t belong. If I’m not seen turning guests away from my home, does that mean I am legally obligated to play host to Latter Day Saints? Does that become their private speech in my residence? Admittedly, I’m approaching slippery slope territory. That’s not what the court decided. Just sick of the tortured logic. At some point it looks like something went off the rails.

    #42936

    jakelafort
    Participant

    It feels like ‘free speech’ is being thrown in as an argument where it doesn’t belong. If I’m not seen turning guests away from my home, does that mean I am legally obligated to play host to Latter Day Saints? Does that become their private speech in my residence? Admittedly, I’m approaching slippery slope territory. That’s not what the court decided. Just sick of the tortured logic. At some point it looks like something went off the rails.

    YES YES

    It seems we have a few ideologues on the bench. They have an agenda. Will decide outcome before analysis utilizing whatever pretext is available. Eventually it will be evident that POTUS is a sham and one of the primary instruments of democracy and freedom is null.

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.