DomeGuy

https://thecookingfacts.com/what-are-the-ingredients-in-campbells-cream-of-mushroom-soup/

The condensed soups themselves contain cream and call for milk as the mixin. Your scare quotes are nonsensical.

(The real "problem" with canned soup is the sodium content, and maybe exaggerating how hard it is to make soup at home.)

He can try.

Each of the fifty states literally has its own legal system, which are as a rule very particular about the separation of powers.

If Trump signs an EO directing the FCC to declare AI a."telecommunications" product.that states aren't allowed to regulate, there'd be that same week ten to fifty lawsuits by the states asserting that the EO was unconstitutional and had zero effect.

What the AI oligarchs want is for the FCC to decide this on their own without an EO, or for Congress to pass a law. (Although Scotus has made noises about lifting what can be done without Congress in other areas ...)

Can I go on the record here as saying this is sexist bullshit?

Scouts letting girls in does not make them somehow not "boy-friendly". It just lets dads and moms and brothers bring their daughters and sisters to do "boy-things"

So, if you’re still for collective ownership of the means of production...

Note that most self-described "socialists" aren't literally suggesting we ban the ownership class, declare the value of all stocks to be $0, and force every corporation to operate as employee-owned collectives. They're usually arguing for things like "expand our old-age health-insurance program to just cover everyone" or "make the city buses not charge a per-ride usage fee."

The hate against "socialism" is precisely because Karl Marx and some 20th century communists used it to mean something different, and then the right wing of United States used that label to try and smear every social program since the ban of slavery. Now we have two entirely different and incompatible meanings, and both a lot of bad-faith actors who intentionally conflate the two and a bunch of good-faith actors who aren't even aware there's a difference.

If each and every person should matter then It should be ok to recognize each and every person for what they are being targetted for. And I see this law as doing just that.

Please note that, by all accounts I've seen, Italy's femicide law does not cover any similar offense against men. It's an elevated offense to try and reduce the disproportionate number of Italian women who are killed by intimate partners.

That's a strong argument about whether this law is justified, not whether or not it's sexist.

If the standard for sexism is "unfair" treatment instead of "unequal" treatment, then proponents of things like a lower minimum wage for women would argue that their proposed inequality is "fair".

Thank you for responding all the same, btw

We don't define in law the assisted suicide of a white cis man as categorically less severe than the assisted suicide of a black genderqueer female.

Are you familiar with the US Supreme Court case Moritz v. Commissioner (which my wife brought to my attention after she saw the movie.)?

An important advance in feminist law was literally about a man who wanted a tax deduction but was denied because the deduction was meant for women.

So, what's the link to this english-language translation of the law in question?

Here's an unattributed quote presumably from such from a BBC article:

The Italian law will apply to murders which are "an act of hatred, discrimination, domination, control, or subjugation of a woman as a woman", or that occur when she breaks off a relationship or to "limit her individual freedoms."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dzp050yn2o

As described in the above quote, it seems exactly as sexist as I presumed -- special protection in the law for cis women, which categorically excludes cis men, trans men, and trans women from its protection.

Do you have a contradictory summary or, ideally, a link to the actual text and a professional translation?

A definition of "homicide" as "killing by a person" is nonsensical -- "regicide" or "infanticide" or "femicide" are not killings BY kings or babies or women.

Any unnatural death is a homicide with either definition though, because "unnatural" means "some human did it", and the effect is the same -- a formal investigation is undertaken by professionals to determine the most likely actual cause and possibly begin a criminal prosecution.

All those cop shows are about "homicide detectives" because each story is about some character who died of other-than-natural-causes.

You're probably wrong about the topic at hand.

https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_485.05

Killing of an infant, teenager, or elderly* person in NYS due to their age is the exact same violation of the NYS hate crime law.

There is a separate enhancer for assault of an elderly person, which is less about motivation of the offender and more a statement of presumed infirmity. Similarly, there are offenses like "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" which enshrine certain special protections for persons under a certain age irrespective of the mental state of the offender.

Sentence-enhancers concerning the categorical malice of the offender, though, don't (and shouldnt) distinguish between states in that category. Because to do so would be to enshrine discrimination into law.

What legal system are you referring to?

Do I interpret your meaning correctly as less "it's not sexism" and more "laws should reflect the issues of their time"?

What would be sexism in law in your view? Is it even reasonable to talk about "sexism against men" as a concept?

If you come and burn a cross on my white church-going family's lawn you should be charged with same list of assault, trespass, and arson charges as if you did so on my jewish, black, or pagan friends' lawns.

A group of black men who banded together and murdered a white boy for dating one of their daughters should be charged with the same anti-lynching statutes enacted to stop the KKK.

The white christian guy who bombs a federal building because the government doesn't do what he wants should be charged under the same terrorism statute as a brown muslim guy who bombs a federal building because the government doesn't do what he wants.