Mississippi passes religious 'Freedom' bill:

Originally posted by Suzianne
He probably won't be the only one.

I think I am more inclined to favour artists like him going to play there and dedicating their shows to the cause, as it were, and denouncing whatever they feel must be denounced from the stage to the tens of thousands of people gathered.

Originally posted by FMF
I think I am more inclined to favour artists like him going to play there and dedicating their shows to the cause, as it were, and denouncing whatever they feel must be denounced from the stage to the tens of thousands of people gathered.

But OTOH, whinging about it onstage isn't likely to effect any change. Boycotts actually hurt the state's economy and this is what grabs the attention of those in a position to change the law.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But OTOH, whinging about it onstage isn't likely to effect any change. Boycotts actually hurt the state's economy and this is what grabs the attention of those in a position to change the law.

Maybe so. But hitting everyone where it hurts is a blunt tool. Those hurt by it would include those who are against the 'religious freedom bill' who presumably don't need to be persuaded or punished. Boycotting the companies and businesses that actually take advantage of the bill probably makes more sense to me and then you let those hurting ideological stakeholders pressure the state government to drop their pet ideological legislation.

In the meantime, the companies and businesses inclined to take advantage of the bill might decide not to. If Springstein donated all proceeds from his concert to paying for naming and shaming and other targetted boycotting activities, it might be a good idea.

Originally posted by FMF
Maybe so. But hitting everyone where it hurts is a blunt tool. Those hurt by it would include those who are against the 'religious freedom bill' who presumably don't need to be persuaded or punished. Boycotting the companies and businesses that actually take advantage of the bill probably makes more sense to me and then you let those hurting ideological stakehol ...[text shortened]... aying for naming and shaming and other targetted boycotting activities, it might be a good idea.

But this is what gets the dullards removed from office. People who are negatively affected by the actions of state legislators are more likely to vote for their opponents in the next election. Disaffected voters have long memories. And you can count on Springsteen fans feeling disaffected. Springsteen made clear why he was canceling, so blame has been placed and the fans who vote will likely remember it come the next vote.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I am curious, what is it called for women?

ill answer the question you dodged for you....no, you wouldnt be able to hide a physiological response. its a proven scientific fact that the body responds to sexual stimulus before the conscious brain can act....you see a woman you find attractive in the street your body responds a split second before your conscious brain can choose to divert or dwell on it.

this makes it impossible for homosexual to choose his sexuality. his body reacts to men even if he doesnt want it to. a homosexual man who wished to be heterosexual can divert his thinking elsewhere but only after he has had a physiological response of arousal......thus making him a homosexual.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But this is what gets the dullards removed from office. People who are negatively affected by the actions of state legislators are more likely to vote for their opponents in the next election. Disaffected voters have long memories. And you can count on Springsteen fans feeling disaffected. Springsteen made clear why he was canceling, so blame has been placed and the fans who vote will likely remember it come the next vote.

I think economic sanctions and boycotts need to be far more targetted in order to be effective and to have results over a shorter space of time. Don't punish everyone including businesses who oppose the bill. Target those that support the bill and apply it.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
ill answer the question you dodged for you....no, you wouldnt be able to hide a physiological response. its a proven scientific fact that the body responds to sexual stimulus before the conscious brain can act....you see a woman you find attractive in the street your body responds a split second before your conscious brain can choose to divert or dwell ...[text shortened]... but only after he has had a physiological response of arousal......thus making him a homosexual.

Perhaps now you can direct your attention to his question. I mean, this post is interesting and all, but most of us got the idea the first time. Perhaps you could also explain how one might gauge this "attraction" response in women.

Originally posted by FMF
I think economic sanctions and boycotts need to be far more targetted in order to be effective and to have results over a shorter space of time. Don't punish everyone including businesses who oppose the bill. Target those that support the bill and apply it.

Such targeting strikes me as wildly inefficient. All actions have consequences. Those responsible for the actions need to understand the blowback from those consequences. Such specific targeting only hardens the resolve of those who support the actions into supporting similar actions. Unacceptable behaviors are only changed when the behavior becomes unacceptable to nearly everyone. If only 10% of a population supports an ill-advised piece of legislation, then targeting those 10% only results in 10% of a legislator's constituency complaining to the legislator. Most legislators blow this off as insignificant. If 90% of the population is affected by sanctions and boycotts, then you can bet the legislator would get complaints from 90% of his constituency. Not so 'insignificant'.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Perhaps now you can direct your attention to [b]his question. I mean, this post is interesting and all, but most of us got the idea the first time. Perhaps you could also explain how one might gauge this "attraction" response in women.[/b]

to be honest (and without googling it) im not sure. i work with male sex offenders and know the male version is used a fair bit to ascertain their likelihood of re-offending.

id guess that a device could measure blood flow to the vagina if a woman was aroused, but its probably a lot harder to get a woman aroused by simply showing her sexual images though...........maybe they could get doctors to dress up like moody teenage vampires and werewolves, seemed to do the trick in the spalfie household over the last few years.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Such targeting strikes me as wildly inefficient. All actions have consequences. Those responsible for the actions need to understand the blowback from those consequences. Such specific targeting only hardens the resolve of those who support the actions into supporting similar actions. Unacceptable behaviors are only changed when the behavior becomes una ...[text shortened]... n bet the legislator would get complaints from 90% of his constituency. Not so 'insignificant'.

Punishing opponents of the bill will hardly increase their opposition or alter their importance to the legislators who passed the bill. If the supporters of the bill feel the heat of sanctions and boycotts targeted right at them and want it to stop, the politicians who have done their bidding will hear all about it and take the necessary action. Blanket boycotts are too blunt and unjust.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If only 10% of a population supports an ill-advised piece of legislation, then targeting those 10% only results in 10% of a legislator's constituency complaining to the legislator. Most legislators blow this off as insignificant.

Well if only 10% of the electorate supported the bill then the politicians who passed it would probably be doomed in the next election. Target that 10% and it'd be beyond doubt. Why would you impose sanctions on the 90% who oppose the bill anyway?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
So what it boils down to is you think homosexuals are born that way and can't help it?
If this is your belief , I respectfully disagree. End of story.

Why, in your opinion, would someone choose to have homosexual feelings?

Originally posted by FMF
I think economic sanctions and boycotts need to be far more targetted in order to be effective and to have results over a shorter space of time. Don't punish everyone including businesses who oppose the bill. Target those that support the bill and apply it.

Actually I agree with Suzianne, boycotting the entire state as Springsteen has done
[similar to what Ray Charles did back in the day] is the more powerful and more effective
protest.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
to be honest (and without googling it) im not sure. i work with male sex offenders and know the male version is used a fair bit to ascertain their likelihood of re-offending.

id guess that a device could measure blood flow to the vagina if a woman was aroused, but its probably a lot harder to get a woman aroused by simply showing her sexual images t ...[text shortened]... ampires and werewolves, seemed to do the trick in the spalfie household over the last few years.

I don't know what the test is called but I've read about such testing being done on women
in New Scientist articles in the past so it's definitely possible.

I think the interesting detail about the tests was that the men [in general] were very clear
in questioning what turned them on and their answers accurately reflected what the tests
showed.
Women on the other hand claimed to be turned on by a much more limited set of stimuli
than they were actually turned on by.

I think that they were speculating that because men have a very clear visible indicator of
being turned on that they tended to be more honest about it because lying wasn't really
an option. But because women could hide it [and are probably under more social pressure
to conform to certain ideals] they tended to give more 'socially acceptable' answers while
being less honest.

Of course this is just my memory of the article, and it was some number of years ago.
I would post a link, but as I say I can't even remember what year it was from.

Originally posted by FMF
Well if only 10% of the electorate supported the bill then the politicians who passed it would probably be doomed in the next election. Target that 10% and it'd be beyond doubt. Why would you impose sanctions on the 90% who oppose the bill anyway?

Because what matters is both whether people care AND how much.

There was [a few years ago] some piece of [I think] show your papers ID bill that was
being pushed through a state legislator in some southern state [to do with dealing with
Mexican immigrants] that was clearly racist and also completely impractical and one
of the major stories was some very big sports league/team that threatened to leave
the state if it passed. The benefit of this is that for all those who maybe don't really
care about the ID bill but DO really care about seeing their favourite sports team they
suddenly have a really pressing reason to oppose the bill.