If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boing Boing)   Sometimes, every once in a while, Reason gets it right   (boingboing.net) divider line 83
    More: Interesting, New York, Boing Boing, Creative Commons licenses  
•       •       •

14121 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2013 at 6:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-01 09:30:30 AM

cptjeff: In farking Watertown? That ain't a rich place, there are probably going to be more than a few pissed people.

Anyway, the local lawyers thank the city council for being jackasses, they (and the neighbors being forced out) are going to be taking some money from the city soon.


Fort Drum is right there. So that might have something to do with this.
 
2013-03-01 09:36:26 AM
Wasn't there a town in Pennsylvania (I think) that made it a crime for landlords to rent to illegal aliens with the idea that if they had nowhere to live they would leave?
 
2013-03-01 09:38:07 AM

naptapper: I'm so sick of the incessant attacks on anything that doesn't follow the liberal narrative. Libertarians are the "in-between" party - they are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative.

Sorry if not everyone believes that their lives should be controlled by the government from cradle to grave.


This is why people make fun of libertarians:

www.leftycartoons.com

Generally, people who call themselves libertarian are right wing shills who just don't want to call themselves republicans.
 
2013-03-01 09:38:25 AM

Nutsac_Jim: cc_rider: There are several towns that limit the number of non-related people living together. They are usually put it place so some poor uptight yuppies don't have to suffer through the abject horror of living next door to 4 or 5 college students Mexican families renting a house.

fixed


As someone who lived next to 4 Mexican families (20 something people) living in a two bedroom duplex (they only had half the duplex), I can tell you it sucks. Broken cars everywhere. Trash making it's way over the fence into our yard. Mariachi band practice until 3am. It wasn't much fun. As a bonus the other half of the duplex was a couple of white trash pot smokers who liked to go through our garbage cans.
 
2013-03-01 09:43:25 AM

Day_Old_Dutchie: Because unrelated people living together is SEX, and that DURDEE DURDEE DURDEE and we need to stop that because jesus...

Damn I HATE PRUDES. I wish we could move all the sex-haters off to an island where they cannot bother us anymore.


cc_rider: Used to live in a town that had one of these laws. When these laws are put into places where gay marriage is not even recognized by the state, it means that a married couple could legally rent a room out, but a gay couple could not. How is that not arbitrary and unfair?


I've never heard of a case of this law applying to two unrelated people, only three or more, and then NY ordinances of this type generally have a "functional family" exception. If you're unrelated but have a family-like relationship, rather than tenant/roommate relationships, you're in the clear. The guidelines are kind of bullshiaty and vague, but it's there, mainly so that the situations you're describing cannot arise.

If this couple were regularly engaging in group sex with the two "friends who are helping them cover the rent" then cooking them breakfast in the mornings, they'd probably be off the hook.

cptjeff: Anyway, the local lawyers thank the city council for being jackasses, they (and the neighbors being forced out) are going to be taking some money from the city soon.


The courts have told people to go fark themselves when they try to fight this many times. I only skimmed the article and may have overlooked some extenuating circumstances, but I'm guessing that because the ceiling of the fizzy lifting drink room now has to be washed and sterilized, they get nothing.
 
2013-03-01 09:50:01 AM
Bawdy house.
 
2013-03-01 09:50:42 AM
Our (college) township still has a law on the books preventing more than three unmarried unrelated females from living in the same house.  Otherwise, they are charged with operating a bordello.  Oddly enough, four unrelated unmarried males living in the same house is A-OK.  For that reason, the college has no off-campus sorority houses.
 
2013-03-01 09:54:04 AM

Tanthalas39: Sometimes, every once in awhile, Fark's faux-intelligencia welfare state liberals have a moment of clarity.


No they don't.
 
2013-03-01 10:02:12 AM

cptjeff: naptapper: I'm so sick of the incessant attacks on anything that doesn't follow the liberal narrative. Libertarians are the "in-between" party - they are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative.

Sorry if not everyone believes that their lives should be controlled by the government from cradle to grave.

This is why people make fun of libertarians:

[www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]

Generally, people who call themselves libertarian are right wing shills who just don't want to call themselves republicans.


People like making fun of anyone who disagrees with them.  Its easier than rational thought.  Just like your funny strawman cartoon.
 
2013-03-01 10:10:23 AM

poorjon: Don't worry, they'll listen to Reason.


+1 internets to you!
 
2013-03-01 10:25:04 AM
freewill:
cc_rider: Used to live in a town that had one of these laws. When these laws are put into places where gay marriage is not even recognized by the state, it means that a married couple could legally rent a room out, but a gay couple could not. How is that not arbitrary and unfair?

I've never heard of a case of this law applying to two unrelated people, only three or more, and then NY ordinances of this type generally have a "functional family" exception. If you're unrelated but have a family-like relationship, rather than tenant/roommate relationships, you're in the clear. The guidelines are kind of bullshiaty and vague, but it's there, mainly so that the situations you're describing cannot arise.

If this couple were regularly engaging in group sex with the two "friends who are helping them cover the rent" then cooking them breakfast in the mornings, they'd probably be off the hook.


In a state that does not recognize gay marriage, a gay couple and their renter would be considered "three unrelated people". This has nothing to do with sex. Study it out.
 
2013-03-01 10:36:24 AM

xcv: cptjeff: In farking Watertown? That ain't a rich place, there are probably going to be more than a few pissed people.

Anyway, the local lawyers thank the city council for being jackasses, they (and the neighbors being forced out) are going to be taking some money from the city soon.

Nobody is being forced out.

"At Monday night's public hearing, Mrs. Cavallario said she hoped Mr. Hartman and his friends "would be grandfathered in" and continue to live there. But she said the situation should not become "normal in our neighborhood.""


Uh huh. Enact a bad law and "hope" it won't hurt good people.
 
2013-03-01 10:44:20 AM
tillerman35:
Our (college) township still has a law on the books preventing more than three unmarried unrelated females from living in the same house.  Otherwise, they are charged with operating a bordello.  Oddly enough, four unrelated unmarried males living in the same house is A-OK.  For that reason, the college has no off-campus sorority houses.

I can't imagine any way that could be enforced without the town being slapped down in court.  Especially if it was selectively enforced in any way (eg. on the basis of the tenants race or social standing).  It has to violate some state or federal level anti-discrimination law.

cc_rider:
In a state that does not recognize gay marriage, a gay couple and their renter would be considered "three unrelated people". This has nothing to do with sex.

I think the suggestion is that if you live together in the manner of a family, then you would have a defense against these laws (Assuming you were lucky and the judge didn't just say "two homos and their kid aint no family outta mah bible", of course).  It might also protect a group of adults with a history of living communally, sharing chores and finances etc (ie. hippies)
 
2013-03-01 10:44:28 AM

cc_rider: There are several towns that limit the number of non-related people living together. They are usually put it place so some poor uptight yuppies don't have to suffer through the abject horror of living next door to 4 or 5 college students renting a house.


Or because they would like to have some semblance of peace and quiet.  Granted that living in a close quarters or shared common area like an apartment complex you have to give up certain expectations, but you shouldn't have to be subjected to a constant barrage of noise and disruptions that would come with 5 different people with different work/sleep schedules.
 
2013-03-01 11:04:55 AM

cc_rider: There are several towns that limit the number of non-related people living together. They are usually put it place so some poor uptight yuppies don't have to suffer through the abject horror of living next door to 4 or 5 college students renting a house.

FWIW, I think those laws are bullshiat and arbitrary, but this is not breaking news, the headline is wrong, and Reason still sucks.


Milwaukee has an ordinance that no more than 3 unrelated people can live in one house together within a certain distance of UWM.  The wife of a state politician was our landlord and told us that we could have more people live there, but only 3 could be on a lease.   A year after we moved out, she got busted for it.

//She was a total twunt, too.  Somehow our security deposit was the exact amount of shiat she had to "fix" because we lived there.  We were young, dumb and 2 of the 3 people on the lease had the deposit paid by their parents (I was the only one that had used my own money), so we never fought it.
 
2013-03-01 11:06:37 AM

vudukungfu: What about all those people in section 8 housing?
A whole lot of them are living together and not related.


probably not allowed to or they are all 'on the lease'; if it is the former HUD will drop the hammer on them, the neighborhoods I worked in HUD was strict... especially after they shot the ice cream man in broad daylight
 
2013-03-01 11:23:21 AM

d23: No one here realizes that if the couple was gay then all of a sudden Reason would have been on the other side of the debate???


Why are you people so obtuse? Is it intentional?
 
2013-03-01 11:23:22 AM

cc_rider: In a state that does not recognize gay marriage, a gay couple and their renter would be considered "three unrelated people". This has nothing to do with sex. Study it out.


If you'll read what I wrote, you'll see that yes, sex does matter. Two people in an ongoing romantic relationship and co-habitating are a functional family unit, just like a married couple. New York state courts are very explicit that ordinances may not discriminate against non-traditional families. If it is legal for the married straight couple to take on one unrelated tenant, the courts will apply the law the same way for an unmarried gay couple taking on an unrelated tenant. Both are two people in a functional family unit, legally related, with one unrelated person sharing the home, rather than three unrelated people sharing the home.

You're applying your own definition of "related", not the one actually used by the courts enforcing this law.

http://www.dos.ny.gov/cnsl/lu05.htm
 
2013-03-01 11:29:31 AM

vygramul: NormallyTechnos: d23: No one here realizes that if the couple was gay then all of a sudden Reason would have been on the other side of the debate???

Honestly, Reason seems to float right around hard-line Libertarian. They'd have no issue with gays, lesbians, or even LGBTBBQWTF.

Yabut, they have a hard-on for voter-ID laws.  I summon the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and point out that Libertarians are not typically in the business of having the government add regulations to problems that have not been demonstrated (and are even against regulations of some problems that have).


When it comes to what you do with yourself or your own property, libertarians are hands-off.

When it comes to what you do to other people without their explicit consent, and voting results in doing things to other people without their explicit consent, then these things should be regulated.
 
2013-03-01 11:31:31 AM

cptjeff: Generally, people who call themselves libertarian are right wing shills who just don't want to call themselves republicans.


Generally people who say this are retards.
 
2013-03-01 11:32:39 AM
So, what about foster parents? Kids aren't related to them. Same with adopted kids. Eh?
 
2013-03-01 11:45:41 AM

Spongebob Plaid Pants: So, what about foster parents? Kids aren't related to them. Same with adopted kids. Eh?


See my post above. "Family", in New York zoning law, does not turn on biological or even, in some cases, legally constructed relationships. It's about the actual nature of the personal relationships. All of those kids are related to their caregivers.
 
2013-03-01 12:11:20 PM

stupiddream: Dragonflew: [vlib.eitan.ac.il image 230x230]

Na na na na na Propellerhead!


You sponsored me for TF (thanks for that!) because I made a remark about Porcupine Tree, and now you recognise the logo of my primary DAW. Do you have the other half of this amulet?
 
2013-03-01 01:50:59 PM

J.Shelby: cptjeff: naptapper: I'm so sick of the incessant attacks on anything that doesn't follow the liberal narrative. Libertarians are the "in-between" party - they are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative.

Sorry if not everyone believes that their lives should be controlled by the government from cradle to grave.

This is why people make fun of libertarians:

[www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]

Generally, people who call themselves libertarian are right wing shills who just don't want to call themselves republicans.

People like making fun of anyone who disagrees with them.  Its easier than rational thought.  Just like your funny strawman cartoon.


...he says, as he makes fun of someone with whom he doesn't agree.
 
2013-03-01 01:53:46 PM

jigger: vygramul: NormallyTechnos: d23: No one here realizes that if the couple was gay then all of a sudden Reason would have been on the other side of the debate???

Honestly, Reason seems to float right around hard-line Libertarian. They'd have no issue with gays, lesbians, or even LGBTBBQWTF.

Yabut, they have a hard-on for voter-ID laws.  I summon the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and point out that Libertarians are not typically in the business of having the government add regulations to problems that have not been demonstrated (and are even against regulations of some problems that have).

When it comes to what you do with yourself or your own property, libertarians are hands-off.

When it comes to what you do to other people without their explicit consent, and voting results in doing things to other people without their explicit consent, then these things should be regulated.


Many Libertarians don't entirely believe that... or they simply don't believe in externalities.  Libertarians are also big on proof - something that Reason doesn't seem to want when it comes to voter ID.  Useless regulation that doesn't fix an imaginary problem is not a hallmark of Libertarianism.  The official Libertarian Party platform includes free immigration - and that sure as hell affects everyone here.
 
2013-03-01 02:01:59 PM
vygramul: "Many Libertarians don't entirely believe that..."

I would say it's the majority of self-identified libertarians, particularly online, that are just Republicans who don't care much about Jesus, weed and gays.
 
2013-03-01 02:14:16 PM

ringersol: vygramul: "Many Libertarians don't entirely believe that..."

I would say it's the majority of self-identified libertarians, particularly online, that are just Republicans who don't care much about Jesus, weed and gays.


I won't disagree.  A lot of them would be horrified to call themselves libertarian if they actually read the libertarian platform.  Heck - Ron Paul is a fascist compared to actual libertarians.  He's just the closest thing the GOP has to it.
 
2013-03-01 02:23:43 PM

cc_rider: There are several towns that limit the number of non-related people living together. They are usually put it place so some poor uptight yuppies don't have to suffer through the abject horror of living next door to 4 or 5 college students renting a house.

FWIW, I think those laws are bullshiat and arbitrary, but this is not breaking news, the headline is wrong, and Reason still sucks.


I once lived in a house with 8 other students. The owners put a lock on every door in the house and rented each one out. As you can imagine, it was a shiathole. Imagine eight students sharing a kitchen and bathroom. My parents once came to visit and still talk about it to this day (over 20 years later). The kicker was that it was the summer term (I was in co-op). The house actually had room for 12 but 4 rooms were empty.
Looking back on that experience, I absolutely understand why such laws would exist. Nobody wants to live next door to a house full of irresponsible slobs. In hindsight the house was probably rife with code violations too.
 
2013-03-01 05:18:16 PM
FTFA: She considered them "servant class."

And that is why we should eat the rich.
 
2013-03-01 06:01:39 PM
I remember this shiat from the 60s.
 
2013-03-01 06:14:27 PM
Funny to see all the hate for Reason Magazine.  I know that having a little light shined on some of your pathetic biases may be tough, precious snowflakes, but someday you'll grow up.  Maybe.

So, let's see....so far, in the limited amount of articles I've read, Reason has been right about the inevitable corruption that comes with "drug" seizure laws that allow cops to steal cash, the rampant abuse of red-light cameras as revenue generators, the fact that outlawing all prostitution just exacerbates problems in sex work, the erosion of student's free speech rights because of worthless post-modernist liberal ideologues ruining humanities departments with their anti-scientific ideologies, the endless brutal clusterfark of our insane "war on drugs", the insane cruelty and puritanism of marijuana prohibition,  the lessening of 4th amendment protections to citizens due to insane drug and anti-terrorism legislation.......

I could go on and on.  Not that libertarians are automatically right about everything, but most of you all are morons compared to the staff at Reason, and should be thanking them (and the ACLU) for doing the necessary work to maintain freedom that most of you are too goddamned stupid and lazy to appreciate.
 
2013-03-01 07:58:54 PM

Canned Tamales: Funny to see all the hate for Reason Magazine.  I know that having a little light shined on some of your pathetic biases may be tough, precious snowflakes, but someday you'll grow up.  Maybe.

So, let's see....so far, in the limited amount of articles I've read, Reason has been right about the inevitable corruption that comes with "drug" seizure laws that allow cops to steal cash, the rampant abuse of red-light cameras as revenue generators, the fact that outlawing all prostitution just exacerbates problems in sex work, the erosion of student's free speech rights because of worthless post-modernist liberal ideologues ruining humanities departments with their anti-scientific ideologies, the endless brutal clusterfark of our insane "war on drugs", the insane cruelty and puritanism of marijuana prohibition,  the lessening of 4th amendment protections to citizens due to insane drug and anti-terrorism legislation.......

I could go on and on.  Not that libertarians are automatically right about everything, but most of you all are morons compared to the staff at Reason, and should be thanking them (and the ACLU) for doing the necessary work to maintain freedom that most of you are too goddamned stupid and lazy to appreciate.


For realsies.  I guess subby doesn't like support for marriage equality, defense of free speech that is more liberal than that of the ACLU, and constant calls to ends the War on Drugs (tm)...those things are dealt with often at Reason.  Oh, wait, they don't fellate President Obama so they're Republican shills.
 
2013-03-02 12:57:52 AM

enderthexenocide: poorjon


I thought you hated the difference between fantasy and reality.
 
Displayed 33 of 83 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report