[pugsville]

I don't have hidden messages. I'm open about my beliefs. All my messages are out in the open for anyone to shoot at!

And if you notice, I post articles initially without commentary.

But in this case, I couldn't help myself: REMEMBER, THE LEFT IS ALL ABOUT "SCIENCE"

How is this anything to do with the left?

[Godstud]

Don't you know, @pugsville? The "Left" is the Bogey-Man for right-wing GOP clowns. If something happens that isn't what they want, they scream, "It's the Left!!".

It doesn't matter that it's not reality.

[Potemkin]

Don't you know, @pugsville? The "Left" is the Bogey-Man for right-wing GOP clowns. If something happens that isn't what they want, they scream, "It's the Left!!".

It doesn't matter that it's not reality.

Just as the lawyers have redefined the word “bee” to mean “fish”, so @BlutoSays just defines the word “Left” to mean whatever he wants it to mean.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master - that’s all.”

[ness31]

Why? Serious question. The legal code is ultimately concerned only with itself, not reality.

If this were the case why was passing same sex marriage such a fiasco? Why does a Supreme Court judge defer to biologists when asked what a woman is? No no, legal terms are based in reality; it’s the perversion of the legal system and LANGUAGE that’s really letting down the team at the moment. If legal terms are not based in reality, then a matter can be disputed.

It forms a logical, self-consistent system which only has to agree with itself. If it doesn’t fit reality, then just redefine a few words so it does. After all, why not? The word “bee” in the legal code does not have to correspond with the word “bee” as it is commonly used in the English language, just as in physics the word “force” does not have to correspond with the word “force” as it is commonly used in the English language.
In fact, it cannot do so, if physics is to work as a science.

If legal language isn’t going to fit reality, then what’s the point of it? Just because some professionals are more adept at gaming the legal code and how it corresponds to reality, does not mean that is how it is meant to function….sorry, basically just repeated myself, but it bears repeating..

Regarding the word “force”; well, it has multiple meanings but I’m failing to see your point? It’s always about context; and in the context of a legal setting, little differences matter. That’s why arguments are characterized as being ‘watertight’ or weak. Wanna protect bees? Lets put in the effort so some resource giant won’t pick it apart

The legal code appears to be written in English, but it fact it actually isn’t. It’s written in Legalese. It must therefore be interpreted. This is why we have lawyers and judges. Lol.

Sure, you can interpret something like the Constitution now that everyone’s dead Interpretation is needed when the original meaning of something is lost or to see how legislation can or should be applied in a case.

However, a bee is still very much a bee - it ain’t a fish - and I’m surprised at the laziness of this legislative process.

Really? How so?

Just because something hasn’t been challenged doesn’t mean it can’t be. But if we can’t be bothered writing up correct environmental legislation to reflect the definition of a bee, I hold out little hope that we can graduate to giving Corporations a run for their money

[Fasces]

If I pass a law defining a car as any vehicle with wheels, then legally the definition of a car is any vehicle with wheels.

If I pass another law saying that cars are tax free, and a car is legally defined as any vehicle with wheels, you'd be allowed to write off a unicycle or bicycle. It's not my fault the first law has a dumb definition.

California is not saying bees are fish. They are saying that the term "fish", as defined by the law, includes bees.

Who wrote this dumb definition? Well, the CESA was passed in 1970. California's governor was a certain Ronald Reagan. California's state legislature has also been entirely controlled by Democrats since 1959... With the exception of 1969-1971.



It appears it was Reagan and the California Republicans that actually classified bees as fish, then.

Bravo @BlutoSays

[ness31]

This isn’t a left/right issue. This is a “we’ve let our standards as a society drop” issue.

[Potemkin]

If I pass a law defining a car as any vehicle with wheels, then legally the definition of a car is any vehicle with wheels.

If I pass another law saying that cars are tax free, and a car is legally defined as any vehicle with wheels, you'd be allowed to write off a unicycle or bicycle. It's not my fault the first law has a dumb definition.

California is not saying bees are fish. They are saying that the term "fish", as defined by the law, includes bees.

Who wrote this dumb definition? Well, the CESA was passed in 1970. California's governor was a certain Ronald Reagan. California's state legislature has also been entirely controlled by Democrats since 1959... With the exception of 1969-1971.



It appears it was Reagan and the California Republicans that actually classified bees as fish, then.

Bravo @BlutoSays

The legislation, as originally written, protects vertebrates and plants. Perhaps the genius Republicans who drafted it at the time weren’t aware that not all animals are vertebrates?

[Patrickov]

BlutoSays just defines the word “Left” to mean whatever he wants it to mean.

I do that too, but I think having a definition and making myself comply to it would convenience myself.

In a high-level sense one of the following might qualify someone as a leftard at least for a time:
1. Advocate for more (unnecessary) governmental control over a matter
2. Over-assertion of minority interests at the expense of others, or in effect makes more important issues go ignored

Not sure if my definition fits the one written on Wikipedia. Just for reference only.

[Patrickov]

The legislation, as originally written, protects vertebrates and plants. Perhaps the genius Republicans who drafted it at the time weren’t aware that not all animals are vertebrates?

Not the point, really.

Laws are only made to address what's important at the time it's made.

If someone has issue with a law or, in the case, a change of legal term definition, then the correct way is to actually ask for correction of the law so that no such oddity remains.

The OP was, regrettably, simply using this as a strawman to attack Democrats. He had a wrong objective in the first place so it's nothing strange that he did the whole thing wrong.

[Potemkin]

Not the point, really.

Laws are only made to address what's important at the time it's made.

If someone has issue with a law or, in the case, a change of legal term definition, then the correct way is to actually ask for correction of the law so that no such oddity remains.

Changing laws is actually extremely difficult (as it should be). It is much, much easier just to change the definition of words used in the (inadequate) law to make it fit with current needs. As I said, judges and lawyers do this all the time, as part of their 'interpretation' of the law, and it has nothing to do with the political divisions between Democrats and Republicans.

The OP was, regrettably, simply using this as a strawman to attack Democrats. He had a wrong objective in the first place so it's nothing strange that he did the whole thing wrong.

Yup. Lol.

[late]

This is an old problem.

You get complicated problems, but legislators are rarely interested in putting in the work to do their job properly. Which assumes they are capable of understanding, which they are often not able to do.

The upshot is everything get dumbed down (sound familiar?).

So instead of protecting ecosystems, we protect fish. And to make the law work, you may have to say a bee is a fish.

It's painfully stupid, almost designed to make you crazy, but so very American..

[wat0n]

This is an old problem.

You get complicated problems, but legislators are rarely interested in putting in the work to do their job properly. Which assumes they are capable of understanding, which they are often not able to do.

The upshot is everything get dumbed down (sound familiar?).

So instead of protecting ecosystems, we protect fish. And to make the law work, you may have to say a bee is a fish.

It's painfully stupid, almost designed to make you crazy, but so very American..

IMHO it's not simply about that. Protecting "vertebrates" is clearer language than protecting "ecosystems", and that makes it less likely the law could be challenged as being unconstitutionally vague.

The question then is why did they forget to include invertebrates. It would be far better for California to just amend the law TBH.

[BlutoSays]

[Unthinking Majority]

Bees are clearly fish.

Anyways, people are really dumb when trying to save bees. There's people and workplaces that are as busy as fish, err, bees building colonies on their property. This will do nothing, the problem isn't bee (fish) colonies. The problem is that bees don't have the flowers they need for pollen/nectar etc. If you want to save fish don't trim your lawn in the spring so they have wildflowers to visit.

Also, almost every inch of natural grassland has been converted to monocrop farm production and sprayed with pesticides, or paved over. The fish don't have food and habitat anymore. You can setup as many colonies as you want but if you don't give them food & resources they need they will die.

[Deutschmania]

The reason the California court chose to put bees under the fish category isn't just a random decision. According to the California Endangered Species Act, a fish is defined as "a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals" (via CNN). While there may not be an insect category in the act, bees surprisingly fit into the definition of a fish because of the way the bill is written.

This loophole works because bees also are invertebrates -- animals that lack a backbone and other skeletal structures (via Britannica). As the court stated, "although the term fish is colloquially and commonly understood to refer to aquatic species, the term of art employed by the Legislature in the definition of fish in section 45 is not so limited" (via Verify This). Essentially, the court recognized that a bee is not a fish, but the wording of the California Endangered Species Act allowed for bees to be defined in this way because of its vague wording. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/why-bees-are-actually-considered-fish-in-california/ar-AA106vzA

Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that tomatoes are vegetables, and the Bible seems to consider bats to be birds. This is what authority, both human and purportedly divine, has ruled. It's as simple as if it has a tail it's a monkey, if not it's an ape. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+11%3A13-19

[ness31]

Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that tomatoes are vegetables, and the Bible seems to consider bats to be birds. This is what authority, both human and purportedly divine, has ruled. It's as simple as if it has a tail it's a monkey, if not it's an ape. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+11%3A13-19

Actually, there are some versions of Leviticus that use the term “winged creatures”

[Godstud]

The Completely Logical Reason Why a Bee Can Be Considered a Fish Now
In 2018, the Center for Food Safety, the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, and the Defenders of Wildlife petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission to include four species of bumblebees in the list of endangered species protected by the California Endangered Species Act. At the heart of their argument was Section 45 of the California Endangered Species Act, which defines a fish as a “wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.” They successfully argued that the inclusion of the word invertebrate technically allows the act to cover all invertebrates, not just aquatic ones.

Bees are not the only species to be reidentified as fish on a technicality; in the 17th century, the Catholic Church allowed residents of what is now Quebec to eat beaver meat during Lent. The semiaquatic rodent was considered a fish because it lives part of its life in the sea, which has medieval precedent. Sure, that’s a religious matter rather than a legal one. But the United States Supreme Court has also asserted what could be a questionable taxonomy opinion. In 1893, Nix v. Hedden determined that a tomato was a vegetable despite John Nix, a grocer looking to avoid a vegetable tax, arguing that it was a fruit, thus sparking a pedantic debate that continues to this day. (For the record, a tomato is a fruit botanically, because it is a “ripened flower ovary” that contains seeds. But from a culinary standpoint, it’s a vegetable, or the edible part of a plant, because it has no business being added to a fruit salad. “Vegetable” is not a botany term.)


If that were not enough, the defendants came prepared with proof that a terrestrial mollusk has been protected under the CESA since 1980: the Trinity bristle snail. Not only does this prove that aquatic is not implied in the definition of fish, it’s also proof that the CESA is already protecting terrestrial invertebrates (mollusks are invertebrates) and therefore should extend protections to the endangered bee species.

It’s unclear whether this is a permanent victory, as the agricultural groups may decide to take the case to the California Supreme Court. So far, they have not released a statement in response to the ruling. But if the precedent of the bristle snail holds, this is good news for the bees—and good news for our stomachs, too. In a press release celebrating Tuesday’s ruling, Rebecca Spector, west coast director at Center for Food Safety, states that “one out of every three bites of food we eat [comes] from a crop pollinated by bees.” And with more than one-quarter of all North American bumblebees at risk of extinction, our crops will need all the support they can get. So move over, beavers (and muskrats, and capybaras): Bees are fish too.
https://slate.com/technology/2022/06/ca ... -fish.html

[ness31]

If you’re trying to protect something, wouldn’t you be explicit about it?

[late]

If you’re trying to protect something, wouldn’t you be explicit about it?

Your average politician is not exactly what you'd call a thinker. Over the years, they learn how to talk, but if you ever participate in politics, you will get to see kids starting out, and it's painful to watch.

[ness31]

It’s so interesting that this thread has popped up again, right while I’m listening to a podcast with Steven Pinker. Anyone who’s ever listened to that man knows he begrudgingly gives the Bible it’s place in history. He doesn’t see any value in it as a form of moral code. Surprising really, because at least biblical laws were SPECIFIC. They didn’t leave a lot of wiggle room; and the generation long exercise of finding and massaging wiggle room has made Jews aficionados in practicing law.
I try hard not to dislike him, but it’s a struggle

Anyway, my point is, we have template for law, we’re either too lazy or uneducated to follow it. A bird is simply not a fish.