Skip to content
 
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.

(The Hill)   "Professor of Law" insists SCOTUS opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County actually legalized sex discrimination instead of banning it   (thehill.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Gender, Gender role, Discrimination, Supreme Court, Transgender, Sexual orientation, Supreme Court of the United States, Homosexuality  
•       •       •

2263 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jul 2020 at 10:36 PM (15 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2020-07-14 2:30:35 AM  
3 votes:

LrdPhoenix: pueblonative: So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.

What they're saying is that under the decision's reasoning, xy+xy+xy = xx+xx+xx = xy+xy+xx.  You can't prohibit a group which is consisting only of males or only of females because they are legally equivalent to a mixed group.  Since the court's reasoning was that firing a man for being married to a man but not firing a woman who was married to a man is sexual discrimination, then it is equally true that a disbanding a group consisting only of women but not disbanding a group consisting of men and women is sexual discrimination, because the only difference is that there's also males in the second group.


But
xy + xy + xy = 3xy

and
xx + xx + xx = 3x2

and
xy + xy + xx = x2 + 2xy

Your math is off.
 
2020-07-13 10:38:37 PM  
3 votes:
Lies are your truth.  Obedience is your freedom.
 
2020-07-14 5:01:23 AM  
2 votes:

NM Volunteer: LrdPhoenix: pueblonative: So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.

What they're saying is that under the decision's reasoning, xy+xy+xy = xx+xx+xx = xy+xy+xx.  You can't prohibit a group which is consisting only of males or only of females because they are legally equivalent to a mixed group.  Since the court's reasoning was that firing a man for being married to a man but not firing a woman who was married to a man is sexual discrimination, then it is equally true that a disbanding a group consisting only of women but not disbanding a group consisting of men and women is sexual discrimination, because the only difference is that there's also males in the second group.

But
xy + xy + xy = 3xy

and
xx + xx + xx = 3x2

and
xy + xy + xx = x2 + 2xy

Your math is off.


But, per the Supreme Court decision, they are all equal, and there is a definite solution to the three equations.  In this case, x=ℝ && y=x.
 
2020-07-13 11:32:53 PM  
2 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-13 11:06:07 PM  
2 votes:

pueblonative: So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.


What they're saying is that under the decision's reasoning, xy+xy+xy = xx+xx+xx = xy+xy+xx.  You can't prohibit a group which is consisting only of males or only of females because they are legally equivalent to a mixed group.  Since the court's reasoning was that firing a man for being married to a man but not firing a woman who was married to a man is sexual discrimination, then it is equally true that a disbanding a group consisting only of women but not disbanding a group consisting of men and women is sexual discrimination, because the only difference is that there's also males in the second group.
 
2020-07-14 9:23:12 AM  
1 vote:

incendi: Does the group of all groups that discriminate based on gender, discriminate based on gender?


This is why we don't let group theorists go to law school...


I think you're looking at a proper class action lawsuit there.
 
2020-07-14 2:28:31 AM  
1 vote:

apoptotic: My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard that SCOTUS banned sex altogether. I guess it's pretty serious.


Thank you, Simone.
 
2020-07-13 11:56:01 PM  
1 vote:
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard that SCOTUS banned sex altogether. I guess it's pretty serious.
 
2020-07-13 11:29:12 PM  
1 vote:
What I get out of that is "I found a way to feel victimized as a white male".
 
2020-07-13 11:28:21 PM  
1 vote:
Is this the math Republicans do to make themselves feel better?
 
2020-07-13 10:39:09 PM  
1 vote:
Isn't The Hill the publication where the CEO's wife got a do-nothing job in the Third Lady's office as a favor?
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.