Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Contents contributed and discussions participated by Payton Whiteaker

Contents contributed and discussions participated by Payton Whiteaker

Simple Middle Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics
1More

4 cases of Sexual harassment - 1 views

www.hrmorning.com/bout-sexual-harassment-in-2013 Government
shared by Payton Whiteaker on 18 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 18 Feb 14
     
    This article is about how sexual harassment is still around, and how many people can be affected by it. I found it interesting that these authors found simple solutions to these problems, but also how some of the situations are rather stupid and how some people took what they called, "sexual harassment" to far.
1More

Family Of Victim In New Square Religious Dispute Calls For Civil Rights Probe - 1 views

newyork.cbslocal.com/...k-on-new-square-man-disturbing Civil Rights
shared by Payton Whiteaker on 07 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 07 Jan 13
     
    This happened 2 years ago, in 2011, but I still found it interesting. Someone burning someones house down for a religious belief? Overkill much.
1More

Is Secession a right? - 1 views

www.bonniebluepublishing.com/e%20Right%20of%20Secession.htm Government
shared by Payton Whiteaker on 16 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 16 Nov 12
     
    I found this interesting after seeing the petition to secede article. After all, many have berated Abraham Lincoln for defying the rights of the states, and this is an interesting point of view on the idea of a state seceding from the US.
1More

Romney's Taxing flaws - 0 views

www.usnews.com/...ey-is-dooming-his-own-tax-plan Government Politics congress Economy
shared by Payton Whiteaker on 19 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 19 Oct 12
     
    This article explains a lot, and points out flaws in Romney's plans.
3More

Gaming causing issues - 1 views

www.gamezone.com/...playoffs-azubu-frost-fined-30k
shared by Payton Whiteaker on 12 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 12 Oct 12
     
    There is a game called League of Legends that was developed over 2 years ago. This game is gaining massive popularity, primarily because those who succeed enough at this game get payed to play. For example, George Liu, a 23 year old resident of California makes over 500 dollars a day to play this game for 6 hours a day, 4-5 days a week. This is not even the highest they pay. Similar to sports, this is a team game. Recently, like all sports, they began to hold a 3 week "season playoff" game in which the winning team would receive 1 million dollars (Split between 5 people), and anyone who made it to the finals, left with at least 5 grand in there pocket, not to mention an all expenses payed trip to 3 locations in which they would host the game play. Sounds like fun right, getting payed to play a game you like? What's not fun, cheating. North America's #1 team was eliminated the first game, by the Korean team. Many claim the game play to be unfair, claims of map hacking, and many other claims of cheating have been made. So, an internationally popular game is taking away prize money which will be donated to charity, but the issues of this are so dramatic. So many opinions have been formed, that this is getting a little out of hand, over a game.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 18 Oct 12
     
    I find it interesting that there are over 11million accounts active every month, and more then half of them are from America. This means that about about 1 in every 56 people play this game in the united states. Knowing that this is expanding, (And 11million accounts before published in the popular game informer magazine) I am curious to see if this game is going to cause some sort of international relations to develop, for better or worse. It would be interesting to say the least, that gaming fixed the issues between north and south Korea, primarily since both countries were in the season finals for this game.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 26 Oct 12
     
    It's a world-wide competitive game. I mean, I see football players making more then these guys are giving away. Alex, the American teams nationality was from the same nation that had beat them.
1More

http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-we-too-dependent-on-computers - 3 views

started by Payton Whiteaker on 11 Oct 12 no follow-up yet
  • Payton Whiteaker
    #1 Payton Whiteaker on 11 Oct 12
     
    This just interests me, I want some thoughts, not to much to read either, more over statistics.
1More

The Supreme Court and Elections - 4 views

started by Payton Whiteaker on 28 Sep 12 no follow-up yet
  • Payton Whiteaker
    #1 Payton Whiteaker on 28 Sep 12
     
    I found the article interesting, it brings in to question the ideas if our Constitution is a "living" document that evolves over time or not, explains why the presidents should speak more about the Supreme Court in there elections, and what the court may rule about in the near future.
6More

Arizona Anti-Troll Law - 5 views

dailycaller.com/...trolled-for-anti-trolling-bill Government Anti-Troll Law Arizona
shared by Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    This is possibly one of the funniest laws I have ever seen. Man I am glad I do not live in Arizona, internet trolling is fun, as long as you are not mean about. I really want to see what others think about this.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • Payton Whiteaker on 04 Sep 12
     
    I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 06 Sep 12
     
    Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    Well said Jazmine.
1 - 8 of 8
Showing 20▼ items per page