1431: "Marriage"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby orthogon » Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:04 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
addams wrote:There might be a good reason to have gender on ID.
I don't know what that reason is. Do you?

Take gender Off ID.
That will fix that.


It roughly halves the number of people who can claim that ID as their own...

Dunno, my understanding is that you have to take a person's gender at their word. As for their sex (which is probably what's listed on the ID), you'd need to cross-check the ID against their physical apparatus.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:15 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
addams wrote:There might be a good reason to have gender on ID.
I don't know what that reason is. Do you?

Take gender Off ID.
That will fix that.


It roughly halves the number of people who can claim that ID as their own...

Dunno, my understanding is that you have to take a person's gender at their word. As for their sex (which is probably what's listed on the ID), you'd need to cross-check the ID against their physical apparatus.

Roughly half the population looks like they have a given set of apparatus, and apparent mismatches can then be investigated further

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Fri Oct 17, 2014 4:37 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
orthogon wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
addams wrote:There might be a good reason to have gender on ID.
I don't know what that reason is. Do you?

Take gender Off ID.
That will fix that.


It roughly halves the number of people who can claim that ID as their own...

Dunno, my understanding is that you have to take a person's gender at their word. As for their sex (which is probably what's listed on the ID), you'd need to cross-check the ID against their physical apparatus.

Roughly half the population looks like they have a given set of apparatus, and apparent mismatches can then be investigated further

ech...Come on.
Why do we have gender on our ID?
In case we die and can't speak for ourselves?

That's kind of dumb.
In the hospital, they will figure it out.

When they need to.
Of course, people make mistakes.

As flawed as we are, we have performed very few emergency hysterectomies on men.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Oct 17, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

ID does several things:

It establishes the official existence of an identity
It provides chosen information about that identity
It links an individual with an official identity

For that last one, the "proof of identity" feature, information like height, weight, gender, blood type, eye-colour, fingerprint, appearance (usually in the form of a photograph) that is either immediately apparent or can be readily verified is crucial in order to reduce the possibility of the wrong person using the ID...

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:49 pm UTC

But it's not like gender ever gives more useful identifying information than the picture that's already there can give.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Mikeski
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Mikeski » Fri Oct 17, 2014 9:48 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:But it's not like gender ever gives more useful identifying information than the picture that's already there can give.

Leftovers from the days when "picture" ID meant "tiny grainy picture that may or may not be redundant with that M/F bit"?

Inertia? It's still there for the few spots where people think your plumbing matters (selective service, sports leagues...), plus the possibility of people still using non-picture ID?

And at least the "sex" bit is much less likely to change than, say, your weight. Or your hair color. Or your eye color, for that matter; what's the count on colored contacts sold vs. reassignments performed? (I'll accept height and date-of-birth as less-mutable than sex, of the many things printed on the front of my driver's license.)

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4889
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby HES » Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:05 pm UTC

Incidentally, my UK driving license doesn't mention gender or height or anything - just name and photo.
He/Him/His Image

Mikeski
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Mikeski » Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:35 pm UTC

HES wrote:Incidentally, my UK driving license doesn't mention gender or height or anything - just name and photo.

So shave off that huge handlebar mustache and dye your fur, and your ID won't be of much use in identifying you anymore. :mrgreen:

(That is you in the avatar, right?)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Sat Oct 18, 2014 5:53 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
HES wrote:Incidentally, my UK driving license doesn't mention gender or height or anything - just name and photo.

So shave off that huge handlebar mustache and dye your fur, and your ID won't be of much use in identifying you anymore. :mrgreen:

(That is you in the avatar, right?)

We are Doomed.

What is ID for?
Why do we need it?

In England?
Well...Sometimes at Pubs..A person might go thought their Own Pockets, for fun.


It's a Game!
Bet Something!

Beer and Dinner!
That's a good bet!

There was some darned good food in the English and Irish Pubs of Long Ago.

How many pieces of ID do you have in your possession?
How many different counties/provinces/states were they issued from?

How many different names?
Do you have The Treasured Mistake?
(some official mistake that is So obviously Wrong.)

We'd need a score keeper.

If we Lost Our Minds and all put our ID's on the Table together....
How the Hell would we get the ID's back with the Right People?

Ask each one, in turn, to take their own ID?
Oh, Hell...What fun would That Be? So, orderly...

Do we need Positive ID?
What for? I forget, sometimes.

We need a driver's license, because driving is a Privlage.
Proud as punch to have one of Those. Like a merit Badge.

California has an ID card that is, just, like a Driver's Licence.
But; It does not require driving skills. It's a pretty photo ID.

Quite a nice KeepSake.
Great Idea for Tourists!

A Official California ID.
Well worth the Fee.

Many of the persons manning the Photo Machines know how to take a Good Photo.
It's a fun day for EveryOne!

Go in Looking Like California!
You have a Reputation to UpHold!

oh..Crap...
Do not start showing up in Costume.
I have No Idea What the Policy on Costumes is.


Don't try that shit in Oregon,
the next state over.

I was BORN in Oregon!
I had such a Hard Time getting ID!

If it took me weeks and hours of grief,
I'd not expect you to do it, for fun.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Klear » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:37 pm UTC

HES wrote:Incidentally, my UK driving license doesn't mention gender or height or anything - just name and photo.


Well, it's a license, not an ID card.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:40 pm UTC

It's the 21st Century.
We can have ID that when swiped in a little machine tells more about us than even We know.

Blood Type.
Name of First Pet.
Reume' and current income, bank balances and location of First Born, Best Friend and Baby.

You don't need an ID.
Just, hand over your Phone.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby azule » Sun Oct 19, 2014 5:27 am UTC

This is a blind post. Apologies. Ignore if you've moved on.

themultinational wrote:I think people should have kids for whatever reason they want, selfish, altruistic, or otherwise.
Kids are cute and all, but we don't just need more just to have more. Not to please grandparents, not for compliments, not even more passing on our genes. Remember, according to many here, we're super-homogeneous, so who cares who's genes are passed on as long as the human race continues on. Overpopulation and overconsumption are real, so let's not add to it unnecessarily. Have a good reason to have a kid. Thanks.
Updated with your up to date comment: Good to hear. That brings us back around to making sure the love is there first. Still important. :)

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:My personal feeling (not to influence any answer) is that people who participate (I can't guess about lurkers) already had an opinion that did not change, though perhaps a little more informed.
This is why change is so hard. But without the "pointless" discussion there will never be a changed mind. You have to go through the hoops because that is what difficulty requires.

I wouldn't say I've changed my mind, in general, but on the steadfastness of an opinion I might have.

On the discussion in general, well, it was rather good until... Until Kit.'s participation ramped up. No, not all xis fault. The replies back were not free of meta-arguments and sometimes name-calling. It's probably because it was a block of discussion like this. If it had been peppered more through the thread maybe it would have seemed less potent.

gmalivuk wrote:You're not the moderator of a formal debate, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with posts like that.
Well, well. He may not be a moderator of any kind but is it wrong to attempt to get people to see the forest for the trees? If that is his style, is this wrong to do on a forum? It's probably better than some of other styles. Maybe he should be encouraged, and then others may take up this style in further discussions, which might make them more civil and intelligent. *shrug/sigh*
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6858
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby ucim » Sun Oct 19, 2014 12:15 pm UTC

azule wrote:Remember, according to many here, we're super-homogeneous, so who cares who's genes are passed on as long as the human race continues on.
... and why should we care if the human race "continue on"? That answer equally applies to why "my genes" should continue on.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby rmsgrey » Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:37 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
azule wrote:Remember, according to many here, we're super-homogeneous, so who cares who's genes are passed on as long as the human race continues on.
... and why should we care if the human race "continue on"? That answer equally applies to why "my genes" should continue on.

Jose


Why should anyone care about anything? That said, most people are descended from people who did care about their genes being passed on (or at least acted as though they wanted them to be...).

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Sun Oct 19, 2014 6:20 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
ucim wrote:
azule wrote:Remember, according to many here, we're super-homogeneous, so who cares who's genes are passed on as long as the human race continues on.
... and why should we care if the human race "continue on"? That answer equally applies to why "my genes" should continue on.

Jose


Why should anyone care about anything? That said, most people are descended from people who did care about their genes being passed on (or at least acted as though they wanted them to be...).

Must we back all the way up to Desmond Morris's early work?

Ist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)

Then:
Man watching, by Desmond Morris.
It's a great Coffee Table Picture Book.

Good for the whole family.
Naked Men and women for the curious.
Faces and Bodies of children and the young.

People making faces.
Hand gestures.

...Funny Human Tricks...
Of course, it is dated material.
That's! What makes it So Fabulous!

Learning The Truth is often Fun.

For Yucks and Giggles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Zoo_(book)

At that point you might have enough background to consider like Cain did....
Or; Like Jhon Travolta did. "What? God or errr, Mr. Carter...What? Am I my Brother's Keeper?"
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby CharlieP » Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:49 am UTC

Klear wrote:
HES wrote:Incidentally, my UK driving license doesn't mention gender or height or anything - just name and photo.


Well, it's a license, not an ID card.


It's actually a licence. :wink:

The current version lists:

1. Surname
2. Other Names
3. Date and place of birth
4a. Licence valid from 4b. Licence valid to 4c. Issuing Authority
5. Licence number
7. Signature
8. Address
9. Categories of vehicle that the holder is permitted to drive

Presumably field 6 existed on previous versions of the licence.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby orthogon » Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:59 am UTC

CharlieP wrote:
Klear wrote:
HES wrote:Incidentally, my UK driving license doesn't mention gender or height or anything - just name and photo.


Well, it's a license, not an ID card.


It's actually a licence. :wink:

The current version lists:

1. Surname
2. Other Names
3. Date and place of birth
4a. Licence valid from 4b. Licence valid to 4c. Issuing Authority
5. Licence number
7. Signature
8. Address
9. Categories of vehicle that the holder is permitted to drive

Presumably field 6 existed on previous versions of the licence.

According to this, field 6 is the holder's photograph (speaking of which, I don't fancy meeting Mr A. Sample down a dark alley...)
Strangely, the key on the back doesn't give descriptions for fields 7 and 8 either.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Klear » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:46 am UTC

CharlieP wrote:It's actually a licence. :wink:


Ah! Another Americanism I've been unknowingly using. Thanks!

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:01 pm UTC

How does the organisation handling US passports handle sex reassignment?
rmsgrey wrote:
orthogon wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
addams wrote:There might be a good reason to have gender on ID.
I don't know what that reason is. Do you?

Take gender Off ID.
That will fix that.


It roughly halves the number of people who can claim that ID as their own...

Dunno, my understanding is that you have to take a person's gender at their word. As for their sex (which is probably what's listed on the ID), you'd need to cross-check the ID against their physical apparatus.

Roughly half the population looks like they have a given set of apparatus, and apparent mismatches can then be investigated further

This further investigation would be considered offensive in many cultures. And based on reactions from the US to nudity in TV shows I can hardly imagine the US being the exception.
Mikeski wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:But it's not like gender ever gives more useful identifying information
than the picture that's already there can give.

Leftovers from the days when "picture" ID meant "tiny grainy picture that may or may not be redundant with that M/F bit"?

Inertia? It's still there for the few spots where people think your plumbing matters (selective service, sports leagues...), plus the possibility of people still using non-picture ID?

And at least the "sex" bit is much less likely to change than, say, your weight. Or your hair color. Or your eye color, for that matter; what's the count on colored contacts sold vs. reassignments performed? (I'll accept height and date-of-birth as less-mutable than sex, of the many things printed on the front of my driver's license.)

For determining whether it's associated with a specific person it's useless in most cases. To use Dutch law as an example: the law here was recently changed to allow people to alter their formal registration before surgery without much hassle (only requirement is a diagnosis by a specialised professional and the signature of the person whose registration is changed). The situation remains that the registration doesn't change automatically upon surgery so twelve situations exist: female registration for person with or without penis of either male, female or in between gender or male registration with the same options. This was already the case before altering the registration was possible, with the main difference being that registration matching neither plumbing nor gender was probably more common as it's now usually an intermediate step in the bureaucratic process.

In other words: gender cannot be used to check the correctness of the ID as the ID is not necessarily changed to match gender, moreover, gender is not binary while the registration is. Physical sex has the same issues and has the additional issue that it cannot reasonably be checked in most cases in many cultures. Endocrine status has the same issues and is inconsistent in women and useless in children. Finally genetics is meaningless here as the government does not require a test for the presence of a Y-chromosome or XRY gene upon registering a birth and it obviously has the non-binary and not reasonably checkable issues mentioned earlier.

The only ways the registration could be useful would be to require testing for an XRY gene or for a Y-chromosome, add intermediate steps to the registration and test this when asking for an ID or to change the registration automatically upon reassignment surgery/physical trauma, add intermediate steps to registration and ask people to remove their lower clothing during identification.

Day of birth is also useless for identification of anyone over 20 years of age, decade of birth would suffice for ID. It could be used to assign age based privileges though.

Except for mass no common ID entries add anything to the photo for ID purposes unless more than visual inspection is actually performed.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:57 pm UTC

Let's see.
Do I understand this?

ID is like a password, of sorts.
There was an xkcd comic that addressed the issue.

The stick figure gave a password.
The figure on the Telephone with him said, "How do I know it's you?"

The first stick figure started to explain a Secondary Failsafe.
The figure on the Telephone was convinced.

Why do we ever need ID?
Yep. It says I am a 240 pound man.

Who are you going to believe?
Me or that stupid piece of papers?

Damn! (I was attacked by a Thought. Shoo Thought. Shoo.)
Internet Passwords are more important that Real Life proof of ID!

No one is going to believe I'm George Clooney in Real Life.
On the Internet his Mom may not be able to tell the difference.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby rmsgrey » Sun Oct 26, 2014 5:35 pm UTC

The goal with most physical ID is not just to provide a definitive means of associating the bearer with an official identity (both by establishing the existence of the identity, and by allowing confirmation that the bearer is the physical individual associated with that identity) but also to allow a rapid, simple "good enough" confirmation that the ID has the right bearer. A card with an ID number and fingerprints wouldn't be much good for routine use because it would require the taking and comparison of fingerprints every time; add a photograph and it become much better - 99%+ of the time you can just glance at the photo; the 1% or less where the photo doesn't look enough like the person's current appearance, you can then spend the time checking the fingerprints.

Similar reasoning applies to other easily checked data - you're looking for indicative data about someone which can be easily checked for a rapid decision on whether to accept the ID or probe further. Since most people have an apparent gender that is stable and matches their official gender, and it's something people generally notice about other people, gender is a reasonable component of a rapid verification, despite not being definitive.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:23 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:The goal with most physical ID is not just to provide a definitive means of associating the bearer with an official identity (both by establishing the existence of the identity, and by allowing confirmation that the bearer is the physical individual associated with that identity) but also to allow a rapid, simple "good enough" confirmation that the ID has the right bearer. A card with an ID number and fingerprints wouldn't be much good for routine use because it would require the taking and comparison of fingerprints every time; add a photograph and it become much better - 99%+ of the time you can just glance at the photo; the 1% or less where the photo doesn't look enough like the person's current appearance, you can then spend the time checking the fingerprints.

Similar reasoning applies to other easily checked data - you're looking for indicative data about someone which can be easily checked for a rapid decision on whether to accept the ID or probe further. Since most people have an apparent gender that is stable and matches their official gender, and it's something people generally notice about other people, gender is a reasonable component of a rapid verification, despite not being definitive.

I disagree, for this purpose they would need to use apparent gender at application for the ID. Like they do with height here (for some reason it has two decimals and metre units while the clerk (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't check that precisely anyway). If you cannot check whether the ID is wrong or the bearer is wrong the metric becomes useless (you generally cannot check why gender and ID don't match as it's
considered offensive, so the checker generally needs to assume it's a bureaucratic issue).

EDIT: While it cannot practically be used for identification, the metric can be used for discrimination (which I believe was the reason for getting rid of the religion entry in Dutch passports and possibly a reason to get rid of race entries elsewhere).

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:38 pm UTC

Is the subject still Same Sex Marrage?
One time a Judge took me aside and explained something to me.

She said. "Everyone is Bi-Sexual."
Some people are prodomintatly Heterosexual.
Some people are predominately Homosexual.

It's not The Package that we love.
It is that weightless being inside.

(ech) For what it's worth.
That woman made sense.

My first question would not be, "Do your nasty parts fit?"
My first question would be, "Who do you want standing beside you?"

Another lecture held the concept that marriage is not All about sex.

A good marriage can be build on Sex, I suppose.
There are other foundations for a good marriage.

If you get it Right, there may be Good Sex.
If you get it Wrong,.......Does the little Blue Pill help?

Some married people have a strict agreement to Never, Never see one another.

Is that a Good Marrage?
If they are Good to their Word, it is better than staying up to Fight.

edit: I think Same Sex divorces are going to be a Hoot.
Especially for those extroverts among us.

We know who you are.
Go ahead and try to outdo one another with Divorce Parties.

Maybe they will make it illegal.
It's Not Nice to have a better party for a Sorrowful event!

Maybe we are going about this Wrong.
Go back to illegal divorce for EveryOne.

It's a ton more fun for Observers.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby rmsgrey » Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:29 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:The goal with most physical ID is not just to provide a definitive means of associating the bearer with an official identity (both by establishing the existence of the identity, and by allowing confirmation that the bearer is the physical individual associated with that identity) but also to allow a rapid, simple "good enough" confirmation that the ID has the right bearer. A card with an ID number and fingerprints wouldn't be much good for routine use because it would require the taking and comparison of fingerprints every time; add a photograph and it become much better - 99%+ of the time you can just glance at the photo; the 1% or less where the photo doesn't look enough like the person's current appearance, you can then spend the time checking the fingerprints.

Similar reasoning applies to other easily checked data - you're looking for indicative data about someone which can be easily checked for a rapid decision on whether to accept the ID or probe further. Since most people have an apparent gender that is stable and matches their official gender, and it's something people generally notice about other people, gender is a reasonable component of a rapid verification, despite not being definitive.

I disagree, for this purpose they would need to use apparent gender at application for the ID. Like they do with height here (for some reason it has two decimals and metre units while the clerk (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't check that precisely anyway). If you cannot check whether the ID is wrong or the bearer is wrong the metric becomes useless (you generally cannot check why gender and ID don't match as it's
considered offensive, so the checker generally needs to assume it's a bureaucratic issue).

EDIT: While it cannot practically be used for identification, the metric can be used for discrimination (which I believe was the reason for getting rid of the religion entry in Dutch passports and possibly a reason to get rid of race entries elsewhere).


You can't use it for identification, but you can use it to flag up that you might want to check the other elements of the ID more closely - which is, technically, a form of discrimination. Then again, having a distinctive appearance would also cause discrimination since you'd never be singled out for a more in-depth scrutiny of your ID... There are times when equality means handicapping everyone else rather than actually doing anything to advantage the person previously being discriminated against - the equivalent of amputating everyone's limbs because some people are quadriplegic...

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Oct 27, 2014 11:47 am UTC

Yes, taking slightly more time to verify the identity of overly average-looking individuals is totally equivalent to cutting offf people's limbs...

Including gender adds nothing the photo doesn't already get you. No one's going to look at an ID and think, "Well, the photo doesn't seem to match, but it says 'M' and this person definitely looks like a dude, so I'll let him board." And if the person appears to be a certain gender and that *does* match the photo, then the photo portion of the ID already provides all the "needed" gender information as it is.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:19 pm UTC

It's probably more important for automated checking. Computers are generally better with fairly overt categories than pictures.

That said, the information on a driver's license in general is not particularly good for authenticating someone. Weight? Well, shit, given the average renewal time, weight gain/loss, that's probably no better than throwing darts. Even physical appearance can change significantly. Height is a little better, but isn't a very good identifier. Not very unique, much like gender.

Really, the name printed on it is the only bit of personal data that is a halfway decent identifier, and even there, collisions often exist. The license number itself is the only thing guaranteed to be unique. Some sort of biometric tagging would be far better if we were interested in seriously authenticating the card as belonging to a given individual.

But...this is getting a bit far from marriage. About the only relationship is that the name change might require a change of ID, which seems...unnecessarily tedious. Really, the whole system of inventorying people seems horrible.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:58 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It's probably more important for automated checking. Computers are generally better with fairly overt categories than pictures.

That said, the information on a driver's license in general is not particularly good for authenticating someone. Weight? Well, shit, given the average renewal time, weight gain/loss, that's probably no better than throwing darts. Even physical appearance can change significantly. Height is a little better, but isn't a very good identifier. Not very unique, much like gender.

Really, the name printed on it is the only bit of personal data that is a halfway decent identifier, and even there, collisions often exist. The license number itself is the only thing guaranteed to be unique. Some sort of biometric tagging would be far better if we were interested in seriously authenticating the card as belonging to a given individual.

But...this is getting a bit far from marriage. About the only relationship is that the name change might require a change of ID, which seems...unnecessarily tedious. Really, the whole system of inventorying people seems horrible.

I know the thread has stumbled away from Marriage a bit.
Still...I'd like to discuss it.

Inventorying People.
Is that what you think it is?

ID. What's it good for? HUH!!
Remember the Good Ole Days, before Dog Tags on Men?
No, You Don't.

I have wondered a bit.
About my ID.

I have spoken to Passionate Individualists.
I was one, once upon a time.

Some people are Private.
They don't want ID!

Some people do.
I had occasion to spend some Quality Time with a very poor white American Man.

He had Nothing.
He had no ID.

As we talked about how dangerous being poor and homeless is,
He became ...subdued and shamed.

Who would They think he is, if he dies?
He spoke frankly to me, and me to him.

That carcuss is meat like everyone else's.
Something makes his carcus different from Every Other.

I can't remember the details of that conversation.
The Point is The State does not Give a Fuck, Honey.

But; If an Agent of The State finds your carcus and you have ID, they might call your Mom.
In some nations the relationship between State and People is like a Marrage.

Only it's Sooo many people married togather,
You really do need to, sort of, inventory them.

Some of those systems seem nuts, but they are not nuts.
oh, I helped that man make ID for him to carry on his person.

It was an Practical Art Project.
No photo. It did have his Signature.

I think the Signature can ID a person better than the box marked Man can.

I placed the ID inside a baggie taped shut and into his pocket.
He liked it. He said he did. He acted please.

Our ID can speak for us when we can not speak for ourselves.
In the digital world it can say strange things, too.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

wcroth55
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:13 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby wcroth55 » Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:15 pm UTC

Hey, Randall!

Can we have an update to the comic to match today's SCOTUS ruling?

Hurrah!

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Kit. » Sun Jun 28, 2015 10:58 pm UTC

Oh, that old thread is back.

Should I reinstate my position that people here were so willing to misinterpret, or are we good?

User avatar
Znirk
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:47 am UTC
Location: ZZ9 plural Z α

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Znirk » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:45 am UTC

Kit. wrote:Oh, that old thread is back.

Should I restate my position that people here were so willing to misinterpret, or are we good?

Nah, vague whining is fine.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:46 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:Oh, that old thread is back.

Should I reinstate my position that people here were so willing to misinterpret, or are we good?

Depends on whether or not your reason for passively-aggressively bringing it up again was because you wanted to keep trying to explain your position.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

DanD
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby DanD » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:54 pm UTC

Titanium Dragon wrote:

It won't. The phenomena are caused by two different effects. Traditional marriage has been falling because fewer people are getting married and more are getting divorced, though from what I've read apparently that has actually stabilized and even reversed itself somewhat, as young people are apparently more likely to stay together than their parents were for reasons which aren't entirely clear.


(And yes, I know this a very old post at this point)

There are a couple of reasons that are accepted as probable. The big one is that since sex is no longer so closely tied to marriage, people are no longer in a rush to get married just because their hormones are attempting to get them to sleep with anything with a pulse as soon as possible. This means that they are more mature, and generally in a more stable place in life when they do get married, so there it is more likely that they will find a stable relationship before taking the plunge.

Also relevant is the decreasing stigma in living (and sleeping) together before marriage. This allows any incompatibilities to be discovered before the commitment is made. (And yes, sex is also involved in this one, but the reason it's relevant is different).

Both of these reasons speak to why the divorce rate is typically significantly higher in religiously conservative areas of the US compared to the more liberal areas.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5437
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:57 pm UTC

Interesting that what was once "responsible" behavior -- waiting until marriage before sex -- is now more irresponsible behavior, with the responsible thing to do being to really get to know someone thoroughly (including sexually and domestically) before hitching your entire lives together and maybe bringing innocent children into the subsequent mess you might make going into such an arrangement blind.

Tangentially, speaking of people living together before marriage or not, there's something I've been wondering for a while. For a long time now I've lamented that my love life can't progress beyond a certain point -- certainly not to marriage -- because I'm unable to afford a place big enough for two people to live in together (and no significant other I've been with long enough to consider that has had enough income to make a difference in that regard), and there doesn't seem to be much point in getting married if you can't even live in the same house. In olden times, when it was considered unseemly to pursue a relationship without marriage as an end-goal, it seems that would be even more true.

So... were poor people just effectively forbidden (by social mores) from having relationships?

I know nowadays other people less financially scrupulous than my significant other and I might just go "house poor" and either move into someplace big enough for two that they can't actually afford, at the cost of sacrificing the rest of their financial stability, or else double-up two people in a space meant only for one, and suffer the consequences. But it seems like back in the days we're talking about, when men were the sole breadwinners, "hey lady, you can come be my wife if you're OK with that making us desperately poor" doesn't seem like something that would be socially acceptable (to any of the people concerned for the woman's wellbeing at least, e.g. her family) either.

It just seems like, especially back in the day but still somewhat today, home ownership is just a prerequisite to marriage, which just leaves me wondering what the hell the lower classes did / are supposed to do.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

elasto
Posts: 3756
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby elasto » Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:13 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:So... were poor people just effectively forbidden (by social mores) from having relationships?

...

It just seems like, especially back in the day but still somewhat today, home ownership is just a prerequisite to marriage, which just leaves me wondering what the hell the lower classes did / are supposed to do.


I think two things used to be more common:

Firstly, extended families living together was more common: If the husband still lived with his parents, the wife would just move into that household. There wasn't the expectation that there is today for households to consist of parents and young children only, and that children should move out as soon as adulthood is reached.

Secondly, dowries were more common: Extended families would scrape together their savings to give the new couple a good start. In China, it's not uncommon even today for extended families to help with the downpayment on a mortgage, and I imagine it's extremely common in situations where the families have arranged the marriage.

Mikeski
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Mikeski » Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:36 pm UTC

Further, housing used to be cheaper... the green line (ratio of home price to income) shows that. (And please pardon me for using the 1st result from a bing img search and proclaiming it gospel...)
Image
My parents (married near the start of this graph) could afford a house big enough for two (plus two kids, eventually) on a fresh-from-school blue-collar salary. My grandparents did the same, on a manual-labor (union, admittedly) salary. (The other grandparents were farmers, so can't compare to city housing prices.)

And debt for schooling was much much lower, freeing up income to spend on housing. (Though that doesn't affect the "poor" as much, unless they got a "degree" in something with no job prospects.)

And: location, location, location. The first house I bought (in the Minneapolis suburbs; no work for electrical engineers in the boonies) was almost identical to my parents' current house (in Small Town, USATM). Both were 1950s-era rambler style homes, though mine was 3/4 the size, and on a smaller lot. Mine was "worth" 2-3 times what theirs was, at the time.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Kit. » Wed Jul 01, 2015 5:59 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Kit. wrote:Oh, that old thread is back.

Should I reinstate my position that people here were so willing to misinterpret, or are we good?

Depends on whether or not your reason for passively-aggressively bringing it up again was because you wanted to keep trying to explain your position.

That's why the question. Is anyone interested in it being explained? Because I don't want to waste my time if no one is interested in the result.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Wed Jul 01, 2015 6:22 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Kit. wrote:Oh, that old thread is back.

Should I reinstate my position that people here were so willing to misinterpret, or are we good?

Depends on whether or not your reason for passively-aggressively bringing it up again was because you wanted to keep trying to explain your position.

That's why the question. Is anyone interested in it being explained? Because I don't want to waste my time if no one is interested in the result.

Gee...
You expect us to remember your old position?
If so; That's funny.

We may not be able to remember our own positions. My position may have changed in all those many days.
Psychologists doing research on memory say, Each time we take a memory out and examine it, we change it in some way.

The act of remembering changes the memory.
The human mind is very interesting stuff.

What do you remember?
Were you misunderstood?

Were you upset?
Do you want to clear up the misunderstanding?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jul 01, 2015 7:08 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Kit. wrote:Oh, that old thread is back.

Should I reinstate my position that people here were so willing to misinterpret, or are we good?

Depends on whether or not your reason for passively-aggressively bringing it up again was because you wanted to keep trying to explain your position.

That's why the question. Is anyone interested in it being explained? Because I don't want to waste my time if no one is interested in the result.
After 8 months of thread silence, why would you think anyone is interested in an explanation?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Jul 01, 2015 7:17 pm UTC

addams wrote:You expect us to remember your old position?
Remember, care, whichever.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby ps.02 » Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:57 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:Further, housing used to be cheaper... the green line (ratio of home price to income) shows that. (And please pardon me for using the 1st result from a bing img search and proclaiming it gospel...)
Spoiler:
Image

I'll take your graph at its word, but what it leaves out is what a median single-family home represents. I don't have data, but I get the strong feeling that we're building fancier houses than we used to. I bet it wasn't so long ago that a median single-family home had a single bathroom, 2 bedrooms, no garage, and no central air conditioning. I also bet none of those things are true today. Indeed, other than trailer homes, is anybody still building any new single-family dwellings today to any of those specs? Doesn't seem so, at least in my part of the world. (Well, except air conditioning, which is geography-dependent. I hear swamp coolers are still the thing in Salt Lake City, where the air is dry.)

Real estate prices are kind of insane in a lot of locations, to be sure, but at least some of that is our rising expectations.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 101 guests