The douchery goes all the way down.
1 Like
Wow… the fact that so many people are happily willing to defend demeaning behavior of their fellow human beings is… fucking depressing.
20 Likes
Do you believe that Washington state legislators can do anything about that.
6 Likes
Then they came for the cat jugglers…
9 Likes
1 Like
Just had to mention Brad Williams who is a fantastically funny comedian. He calls his type little people, midgets and dwarfs interchangeably and plays his dwarfism for laughs (and does it well). I think he would have a few choice words about dwarf-tossing (and dwarf bowling for that matter).
1 Like
Real People? We were a That’s Incredible family.
2 Likes
Well no. Maybe airborne little people is their greatest challenge.
Are little people not actual people?
5 Likes
Yes, but I for one am much heavier, and thus less aerodynamic.
That’s gross, man. Kind of a shitty way to talk about other people.
8 Likes
Whether you agree with this proposed law or not, making fun of dwarfs is just fucking disgusting.
10 Likes
The wolf of wolf street was a movie about assholes, and it’s a good movie.
On the other hand, “midgets are built to be thrown” seems like it couldn’t be further from the truth,
and people spreading this clip-- (absurd though it is)-- might well lead to someone’s death.
5 Likes
Does this mean now they’ll only be able to toss dwarves in church?
1 Like
Well at least Kavanaugh’s replacement on the DC Circuit will fight for their right to be tossed. Can’t make this shit up.
3 Likes
it’s probably more useful to read her entire article, “THREE CONCEPTS OF DIGNITY IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW”
Given that it’s published as part of the “Law and Economics Research Paper Series”, it may contain much that is troubling
By looking at specific cases, this Article will identify and demonstrate how constitutional courts have used different concep- tions of dignity when adjudicating individual rights. Separating out and explaining the various meanings of dignity reveal their funda- mental differences and should provide greater transparency about what courts are doing when they invoke dignity.
First, in its most universal and open sense, dignity focuses on the inherent worth of each individual.10 Such dignity exists merely by vir- tue of a person’s humanity and does not depend on intelligence, morality, or social status. Intrinsic dignity is a presumption of human equality—each person is born with the same quantum of dignity. Moreover, inherent human dignity does not establish an external measure for what counts as being dignified or worthy of respect. Rather, such dignity inheres in all individuals without appraisal by any other standard. Inherent dignity focuses on human potential—not the exercise of such potential. It does not judge whether a person’s reasoning, choices or criteria for self-worth are “dignified.” Accord- ingly, inherent dignity is pluralistic and remains neutral about differ- ent conceptions of the good life. In constitutional law decisions, particularly in the United States, intrinsic dignity is reflected in deci- sions about freedom from interference by the state in areas such as freedom of speech, privacy, and sexual relationships. This dignity encompasses the liberal notion of negative freedom—of creating a space for individual choice. On this view, restraint or removal of state interference maximizes dignity because it leaves the individual free to exercise his autonomy in whatever fashion he should choose consis- tent with the rights and freedoms of others.
Second, dignity can express and serve as the grounds for enforc- ing various substantive values.11 Unlike intrinsic dignity, substantive forms of dignity require living in a certain way. Dignity may require behaving, for example, with self-control, courage, or modesty. This dignity embodies a particular view of what constitutes the good life for man, what makes human life flourish for the individual as well as the community. Accordingly, such dignity may take a number of different forms. For example, a government policy may enforce a particular conception of dignity on individuals, a conception that accords with the community’s view of what is dignified. Dignity in this sense depends on specific ideals of appropriateness and deems a personworthy or dignified to the extent that he conforms to such ideals. Constitutional courts have often upheld paternalistic policies that pre- vent individuals from choosing a vocation or a way of life that might be “undignified” in the view of the social and political community. For example, in France some cities banned the spectacle of dwarf throwing as detrimental to public morality and dignity, despite the willingness of some dwarves to earn their living this way.12 Similarly, the French government has defended a ban on the burqa on the grounds that such a ban furthers the dignity of Muslim women, despite the fact that some Muslim women choose to wear the burqa as an expression of their faith.13 Positive or substantive conceptions of dignity are also associated with social-welfare rights or protection by the state from poverty and violence. In this understanding, dignity demands that the government provide the basic conditions of well- being. Each of these positive or substantive forms of dignity requires living according to standards of rationality, morality, or material com- fort that are shaped by the community. This dignity is not intrinsic or inherent in the individual, because it can be gained or lost and depends on whether a person measures up to a socially defined stan- dard of dignity.
Finally, constitutional courts often associate dignity with recogni- tion and respect.14 This dignity is rooted in a conception of the self as constituted by the broader community—a person’s identity and worth depend on his relationship to society. Accordingly, respect for a per- son’s dignity requires recognizing and validating individuals in their particularity. This recognition requires individuals to demonstrate respect and concern for each other. What matters here is not just having a space of non-interference for one’s inherent individual dig- nity or of living life with a particular dignity, but rather the attitude possessed by others and the state. Such dignity requires interpersonal respect, the respect of one’s fellow citizens, as can be seen in laws against defamation and hate speech. The idea is that individuals need protection from insults and hateful speech in order to preserve their self-image as well as their standing in the community. Furthermore, this dignity requires the state adopt policies that express the equal worth of all individuals and their life choices, such as requiring gay marriage, not just legally equivalent civil unions, because of the expressive and symbolic importance of marriage.15
Recognition dignity focuses on the unique and subjective feelings of self-worth possessed by each individual and group…
Are these people forced to be tossed or coerced in any way? I don’t umderstand the draw of this but the law seems a bit bizzare. How can this be illegal but not boxing? What am I missing?
1 Like
Hey, I’m sure there are lots of little people who would enjoy a good toss…
Oh, they meant like being thrown… My bad.
But as others have noted, why is this a thing? But, I guess we’re the same species that has cock fighting (NO PUNS!) and bear baiting, so I shouldn’t be surprised. Just disappointed. As usual.
4 Likes
As an antidote to this thread, folks should go and watch this movie instead:
7 Likes
