Sure, but this isn’t just young adults we’re talking about. Also, public restrooms and lockers often involve less privacy than those bathrooms in those dorms might have. I doubt the men and women were all showering together in open showers with no stalls, for instance.
The bottom line is that some people expect gender privacy, for whatever reason. The question is whether they are entitled to it. This is really a larger question, as you’ve show - should we just go ahead and dump gender segregation altogether? And if so, what do we tell those who still want it?
I didn’t want to hijack any more, and I have a new interest in this, so I started a new thread if anyone is interested:
As long as we’re bringing back ghosts, let’s say ghost Scalia became liberal after he realized there was no afterlife and his entire religious foundation dropped out from under him. Its just an eternity of watching other people masturbate
Yeah, that’s right up there with casting votes for people who don’t vote based on their voter registration. Can’t remember where I heard that idea, but I figured it was the last solution for Democrats upset over poor turnout by registered Dems. Just count them as down the line votes for Democrats whether they show or not!
But even that is more logical than casting votes for Scalia based on WWSD? Supreme Court justices are not as predictable as you might think. Nothing can be assumed.
Regarding seeds and seedlings for growing food: everybody knows Americans won’t do agricultural jobs, especially the poor, the laziest of them all, whose hands will fit an Xbox controller but not a shovel. They must be selling those seeds to illegal immigrants. </sarcasm>
True. But the lists that the Pubbies are trying to push through these days just seem aimed at the idea of ensuring that the filthy moochers don’t get any actual pleasure from the bounty of table scraps that the American people are so generously donating to them…
The list of foods banned in Wisconsin is pretty bad. It includes seafood and low cholesterol eggs, which when you think about it would actually help overweight folks.
Extending this logic (not yours, adaher … the idiot who first suggested this) it would never be necessary to replace SC justices at all. We could still be issuing rulings based on what John Marshall would’ve done.
If the ban applies to sandwiches from delis or wherever, that’s really stupid. But the article doesn’t explain how the other foods not yet on the list could be banned, except to say that it will be up to a state agency to decide. The objection seems to be “well, they might ban anything!”
New Hampshire has 400 members of the state House of Representatives, each representing fewer than 3500 people. So it’s easy to see why there are so many crazy New Hampshire state legislators.
There’s no Wikipedia page, but I’m wondering if she’s a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synode. Not exactly the same viewpoint as the Evangelical “Left Behind” crowd. They see the Pope as more a false teacher than the son of the Satan. They [WELS] would be the first to tell you the “Rapture” is a crock (at least the ones I know).
Interesting to see her hubby participated in the 1st Bundy standoff according to this story in RAW in December of last year.