• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The DeSantis gambit

Stacyhs said:
Let me get this straight: I ask for evidence of a claim you made and your evidence is a link to some retracted paper, the relevancy of which you fail to explain and then you tell me that I'M supposed to go figure out its relevancy? Uh-huh. Yeah, if I were you, I'd be "done", too.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You're already not trying to defend the initial panic mongering that sociology courses were being banned when they aren't.
Click to expand...

Why should I defend it? I never claimed all sociology classes were being banned.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
Even now, you can't get it right. No sociology classes have been banned.
Click to expand...

I never said ANY sociology classes were banned! Jesus H. Christ, do you have a reading comprehension problem?
 
angrysoba said:
I’m not particularly interested in the debate over sociology being a core subject or not, as it is not in most countries so it would not make Florida particularly unusual, but I don’t think it says much about sociology that Boghossian, Lindsay and Pluckrose managed to get a hoax paper submitted to a gender studies journal called “Sex Roles” about the objectification of women by male customers at Hooters. Most fields of study, not just the social sciences get papers retracted all the time for various reasons such as data fraud, plagiarism, over-hyped findings, ethical breaches, etc…

We can’t assume that cancer research, radiography, anaesethiology, physics, chemistry and psychology are useless subjects just because papers in each discipline are being retracted daily.

In particular, if your particular hoax is committed to the act then it is quite simple to pass off a paper with fake data. It’s obviously less time-consuming to write a fake paper than to actually conduct a genuine one and collect genuine data. Peer-reviewers, for the most part, have to trust that if you say you collected data then you did, unless there seems to be no plausible way in which the study could have been conducted.

During the Covid pandemic, we even saw people who cheered on the Sokal Squared hoax apparently very easily hoodwinked by studies that purported to show efficacy for ivermectin, for example. And some of those papers had very obvious and glaring problems with the purported data.

Anyway, people unfamiliar with the extent to which papers get retracted for all sorts of things and assume that a few hoax papers bring down sociology should at least have a look through retraction watch: https://retractionwatch.com/

Or Data Colada, whose are dedicated to looking at data that they suspect is not right: http://datacolada.org/

Or Stuart Ritchie’s book, Science Fictions: https://www.sciencefictions.org/
Click to expand...

No wonder, the biggest fraud in that case was Boghossian et al convincing people that they managed to "prove" bias in academic publishing.
 
Ziggurat said:
Even now, you can't get it right. No sociology classes have been banned.
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
I never said ANY sociology classes were banned! Jesus H. Christ, do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
That's your evidence? A 'retracted article' from a Florida college Dept. of History? I'm going to need a bigger file.
Click to expand...
That paper isn't just any retracted paper, it has a history behind it. You can figure it out if you want to, I'm done. You're already not trying to defend the initial panic mongering that sociology courses were being banned when they aren't.
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
Ziggurat said:
You're already not trying to defend the initial panic mongering that sociology courses were being banned when they aren't
Click to expand...

Why should I defend it? I never claimed all sociology classes were being banned.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
But other people did. YOU jumped into a conversation where that was the claim. It's not my fault you didn't know the topic.
Click to expand...

Well, there's your problem. It's not my fault you seem to think it's MY job to defend what other people said when THEY jumped into MY conversation as I introduced the subject of the core sociology class being eliminated by DeSantis.
 
It appears that Disney is going to appeal the decision.

At least it gives DeSantis a win after scurrying back to FL with his tail between his legs like a beaten dog.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Ziggurat said:
Second, federal priority doesn't apply when you're talking about different laws at issue. And the CFTOD's lawsuit are based on completely different laws than Disney is appealing to in its suit.
Click to expand...
In a post not far above yours, I believe someone pointed out that it's going to be hard for CFTOD to argue that "CFTOD's lawsuit [is] based on completely different laws than Disney is appealing to in its suit" while arguing that Disney's federal suit should be dismissed or paused because the issues are substantially the same as in CFTOD's countersuit.
Click to expand...
Indeed, that argument did not prevail. The suit was dismissed for a different reason, discussed below.

W.D.Clinger said:
Ziggurat said:
It's routine to file a motion to dismiss, but they are rarely granted. This one won't be.
Click to expand...
I don't expect CFTOD's countersuit to be dismissed, simply because it was filed in a Florida state court, and guess who appoints the judges who serve on that court?
Click to expand...
That countersuit is ongoing.

Ziggurat said:
W.D.Clinger said:
But it's going to be fun to watch the CFTOD try to get Disney's federal suit dismissed.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that was fun.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/...out-disneys-lawsuit-against-desantis-00138852

BTW, that link doesn't really get into the legal reasons that the lawsuit was dismissed. If you want to understand the reasons, you can read the actual decision, it's not that long. And it shouldn't be surprising to those who have been paying attention.
Click to expand...


It was dismissed because
Disney lacks standing to sue the Governor or the Secretary, and its claims against the CFTOD Defendants fail on the merits because “when a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose.”
Click to expand...
The court ruled that Disney did indeed have standing to sue CFTOD, but used the Hubbard precedent to rule against Disney on the merits.

The court acknowledged that
The Hubbard principle does not apply when “a law is challenged as a bill of attainder.”...And although Disney does not challenge the laws as bills of attainder, it labels the laws “attainder-like” and seeks to squeeze into the exception.
Click to expand...


Disney had cited a Gwinnett County precedent in which a retaliatory law was ruled unconstitutional because it was aimed at a specific group.

The court said that precedent should be disregarded because the Gwinnett County law "explicitly single[d] out a specific group", whereas the law at issue in this case was phrased so as to apply only to Disney without explicitly saying it was targeting only Disney.

Disney also argues that even if the laws do not explicitly target it, they come close enough to warrant a Hubbard exception. But there is no “close enough” exception. A law either explicitly singles out a specific group or it does not, and the laws here do not.
Click to expand...


The court went on to say "no one reading the text of the challenged laws would suppose them directed against Disney. The laws do not mention Disney."

The court cited two relevant laws that do not explicitly mention Disney: Florida SB 4-C and Florida HB 9-B.

Here is how Florida SB 4-C does not mention Disney:
(2) Notwithstanding s. 189.072(2), any independent special district established by a special act prior to the date of ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, and which was not reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5, 1968, is dissolved effective June 1, 2023. An independent special district affected by this subsection may be reestablished on or after June 1, 2023, pursuant to the requirements and limitations of this chapter.
Click to expand...


And the 191 pages of Florida HB 9-B avoid mentioning Disney by saying things like
Section 1. Chapter 67-764, Laws of Florida, relating to the Reedy Creek Improvement District, and the decree in chancery No. 66-1061 entered by the Circuit Court in and for the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida on May 13, 1966, creating and incorporating the Reedy Creek Drainage District as a public corporation of the State of Florida, are reenacted, amended, and repealed as provided herein.
Click to expand...
and
The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District shall include all of the lands within the following described boundaries:

(1) In Orange County, Florida:
A parcel of land lying in Sections 1 through 3, 8 through 17, 19 through 28, 33 through 36 Township 24 South, Range 27 East, and Sections 6 through 8, 17 through 22, 27 through 31, Township 24 South, Range 28 East, Orange County, Florida, and being more particularly described as follows:

...snipped 79 pages of similarly detailed geographical prose that describe Disney's property without explicitly mentioning Disney...
Click to expand...
By the way, that geographical prose apparently did not appear within the Florida laws that were repealed and/or amended by Florida HB 9-B.

Yes, that was fun.

I don't think the fun is over.
 
Ziggurat said:
True, but Disney will continue to lose. And Joe Patrice (your legal reference) has no idea what he's talking about in this case.
Click to expand...

Joe Patrice: Joe Patrice joined Above the Law in 2013. Joe received a degree in Economics and Political Science from the University of Oregon and a J.D. from the NYU School of Law. From 2001, he worked as a litigator for both Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton and Lankler Siffert & Wohl, representing a variety of individuals, institutions, and foreign sovereigns in criminal and civil matters."
May I ask where you received your law degree?
 
Stacyhs said:
Joe Patrice: Joe Patrice joined Above the Law in 2013. Joe received a degree in Economics and Political Science from the University of Oregon and a J.D. from the NYU School of Law. From 2001, he worked as a litigator for both Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton and Lankler Siffert & Wohl, representing a variety of individuals, institutions, and foreign sovereigns in criminal and civil matters."
May I ask where you received your law degree?
Click to expand...

Dude. He called it completely wrong. Events have proven that. Simping for him now is just pathetic.
 
His jagoff surgeon general is at it again.


With a brief memo, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo has subverted a public health standard that's long kept measles outbreaks under control.

On Feb. 20, as measles spread through Manatee Bay Elementary in South Florida, Ladapo sent parents a letter granting them permission to send unvaccinated children to school amid the outbreak.

The Department of Health "is deferring to parents or guardians to make decisions about school attendance," wrote Ladapo, who was appointed to head the agency by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose name is listed above Ladapo's in the letterhead.
Click to expand...

Putz.
 
So let me get this straight:

A woman shouldn't be able to make a medical decision about her own body, but moron anti-vaxxers can send their unvaccinated kids to school, like splashing gasoline on a fire, just to prove a political point?

******* needs to be slapped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom