#Defining VS Non Defining Relative Clauses

[alashrafedu]

(via Defining VS Non Defining Relative Clauses)

[newyorkprelawland-blog]

College Athlete To College Millionaire Athlete

By Nibras Islam, Binghamton University Class of 2022

September 12, 2021

The commissioner of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) earns between $4-5 million, while the commissioners of the top conferences make about $2-3 million. Some college athletic directors make over $1 million annually, while Division I football program coaches can make as much as $11 million, with their assistants earning about $2.5 million annually. Division I programs also earn more revenue from regular-season games due to the viewers attracted. Some television contracts, such as March Madness, are worth as much as $1.1 billion. The NCAA players, the stars and lifeblood of the industry, earn nothing. In fact, they are prohibited from profiting off their hard work and talents. 

The issue of athletes finally being allowed to profit off their name, image, and likeness comes after a long and heated battle that the NCAA had long tried to avoid. Under the clause that college athletes were to be preserved as “amateurs” and NCAA did not intend to compensate as such. Athletes would be subjected to high penalties for accepting any form of gifts or presents, and these punishments ranged anywhere from fines and indefinite suspensions, to losing eligibility altogether. The NCAA president Mark Emmert has long upheld that there should not be blurred lines between professional and collegiate sports, and that college sports would die if athletes were paid. They argue that compensation would draw away from the competitive nature, and the high ratings from consumers reflect a genuine love of collegiate sports games, not originating from financial motives. While this new era of name, image, and likeness certainly has yet to fully unfurl, it certainly comes as a welcome to many.

The case comes subsequent to another NCAA court defeat in June, NCAA vs. Alston which concerns the jurisdiction of the NCAA in restricting and limiting education-related benefits granted to student-athletes. The case was against the NCAA standing rule that capped the amount of scholarship funding schools could offer to student athletes. The former group of athletes that sued had done so on the grounds that the limitation violated antitrust laws designed to promote competition. The 9-0 decision was rendered by the Supreme court in favor of the group, with Justice Neil Gorsuch delivering the majority opinion stating: 

"To the extent the NCAA means to propose a sort of judicially ordained immunity from the terms of the Sherman Act for its restraints of trade- that we should overlook its restrictions because they happen to fall at the intersection of higher education, sports, and money- we cannot agree."

Justice Brett Kavanagh also delivered a concurring opinion, stating impactful words such as “The NCAA is not above the law,” and that the decision "marks an important and overdue course correction" and poses "serious questions" about the NCAA's existing compensation rule. He further tore into the corporation by delivering what would seem to indicate that the Supreme Court would align with those arguing in favor of compensation with athletes. He states:

“But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing. Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different."

The result of the decision meant that schools would now be allowed to entice student-athletes to their schools with incentives that they could not have before, such as scholarships, internships, foreign study programs, computers, and other benefits. By the time of the decision, about twelve states had already passed legislation that student athletes should be allowed to be compensated for their name, image, and likeness to enact shortly, and congress was on the verge of deliberating on the matter as well. While the issue of education related benefits was separate from the issue of compensation of the athletes, the 9-0 defeat in the Supreme Court and imminent further pending legal battles surely seemed to be a proactive measure and had some part in the NCAA deciding to allow for athletes to be compensated. 

Nonetheless, the reversal rendered on behalf of the NCAA board of governors is relatively new, and cause for conflicting discourse over what is deemed permitted in this uncharted territory of college sports.  There are existing laws in different states, but they generally seem to vary, such as the “Fair Pay to Play” Act in California, or the Student-Athlete Equity act in North Carolina. The general guidelines seem to dissuade getting sponsored by bar-like settings that promote gambling, tobacco, alcohol, adult entertainment, or anything that would be deemed questionable by a school’s morals and desire for association. University of Louisville banned its athletes from signing with Barstool Sports, which reportedly already has 150, 000 athletes signed. Other guidelines include not being directly compensated for athletic performance and understanding of the athlete to be fully aware of what is expected in return for compensation, which could be grounds for trouble. Some school officials even fear for the athlete’s personal safety, such as Professor and CEO of the Global Sport Institute at Arizona State University-Tempe, Kenneth L. Shropshire, who states that students should investigate their university athletics department resources, seeking active conversations with their university compliance officer, state guidelines, and even attorneys, accountants, and personal advisers. At Nebraska, the school has taken steps as far as launching an educational support program to combat the pitfalls of navigating the athlete marketplace. Due to the predatory nature of agencies and companies trying to exploit many athletes in the professional world, many are fearful that susceptible and unwary college students may also fall victim. 

The name, image, and likeness era already has had profound effects, and not just for athlete’s personal banking accounts. For eons, the NCAA has held a monopoly in college sports, and even the universities had the leverage of advertising and marketing, attracting future talent in perpetuity. With these reversals, the power balance shifts and athletes can utilize their hard work that has led them to that point, as well as gain something monetarily to show for their grueling student-athlete schedules. They would be able to monetize their social media posts, engage in sponsorship ads, and profit from merchandise, memorabilia, and autographs. Even lesser talented athletes may be able to leverage their social media presence to attract further recognition from big brands that recognize the value and importance of personal branding. By utilizing their social media platforms to attract engagement, they possess marketability and net worth value, always a crucial factor when trying to make one’s institution more lucrative. UCLA gymnast Katelyn Ohashi, who went viral for one of her floor routines, could have had a small fortune. Athletes such as Zion Williamson, with his viral high school and college basketball mixtapes, could have developed their brand much earlier than they had already set out to do in their assured claim to fame. One’s personal brand and likeness is arguably the most priceless item one possesses. That is the utmost essence of our personal intellectual property; the fiber of who we individually are as a human-being. 

It is crucial that we help protect athletes, given how much they sacrifice their bodies for entertainment and monetary value as with any other nationally broadcasted sports, let alone home to two of the top money-making series in college football and basketball. Given how many athletes pursue athletics to combat socioeconomic difficulties, it is absurd to think that a multi-billion-dollar industry, $8.8 billion in television deals generating in over $1.1 billion in revenue to be exact, somehow has the audacity to ensure regulations that its athletes are prohibited from something as simple as obtaining a new laptop to engage in their educational curriculum, resources which they may have not had previously. Over 19 states have enacted or are in the process of passing in the coming years, laws regarding NIL. Furthermore, there is a pending lawsuit of NCAA vs. House, in which U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken denied the NCAA and its Power 5 Conferences motion to dismiss the suit regarding four players who had been denied pay for appearing in television broadcasts. These may be the first in a string of many defeats for the National Collegiate Athletic Association and exposing the corporations’ violations of antitrust principles and regulations. 

This new era also stems into further issues, such as the gender wage imbalance in sports or international student-athlete eligibility, or whether high school NIL eligibility will become a subsequent prominent issue, such as in the case of Texas high school senior Quinn Ewers forgoing his senior year of high school due to Texas’s high school NIL ban. Not to mention, the ever-changing progression of intellectual property technology and regulation that comes with it, such as whether athletes will be able to utilize their school’s intellectual property unequivocally in their financial ventures, or regarding cryptocurrency and whether athletes will be able to profit off non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Nonetheless, the era of name image and likeness is revolutionary in a plethora of remarkable ways, and unprecedented in the existence of collegiate sports.  

______________________________________________________________

Nibras Islam is currently an undergraduate senior studying Philosophy, Politics, and Law at Binghamton University with a minor in economics. He hopes to seek admission into law school for the Fall 2022 class. He is a part of the mock trial team and is a Licensed Real Estate Agent at a student-housing oriented brokerage. His hobbies and passions include fashion, music, basketball, and football. 

______________________________________________________________

https://sites.law.berkeley.edu/thenetwork/2021/04/06/the-future-of-the-ncaas-business-model-is-in-jeopardy/

https://www.boston.com/sports/college-sports/2021/07/01/ncaa-paying-athletes-rules/

https://optimumsportsconsulting.substack.com/p/nil-newsletter-10-thursday-august?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=copy

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2021/house-v-ncaa-legal-primer-1234632887/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf

https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/the-hits-keep-coming-ncaa-loses-another-name-image-and-likeness-court-decision/

https://collegerowcoach.org/name-image-and-likeness/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelrueda/2021/02/11/why-college-athletes-must-prepare-for-the-name-image-and-likeness-era/?sh=46a2ad6e2634

https://unafraidshow.com/ncaa-pay-college-athletes-name-image-likeness/

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/name-image-likeness-what-college-athletes-should-know-about-ncaa-rules

[nylanguageworkshop]

Monday, April 26th: Dorothy Ahn, “It’s not just that: An Account of demonstratives and pronouns”

Our speaker next week will be Dorothy Ahn, who is Assistant Professor of Linguistics at Rutgers. Dorothy will give a talk called ‘It’s not just that: An account of demonstratives and pronouns’:

Demonstratives such as that and that linguist have received a lot of attention in philosophy and linguistics, with many on-ongoing debates on the exact meaning they contribute to the rest of the sentence. I depart from the previous works that focus on deictic (directly referential) vs. non-deictic uses of demonstratives and argue that what uniquely distinguishes demonstratives from definite descriptions is a notion of “introducing” an entity without relying on already-established, familiar discourse referents. Under this theory, one can introduce an entity by pointing them out (deixis) or by defining them with restrictive relative clauses as in those who read. I propose a formal analysis that adopts the main intuition from the Hidden Argument Theories (King 2001, Elbourne 2005, Nowak 2019, Blumberg 2020, a.o.) where demonstratives are analyzed as carrying an additional restriction than a definite, but make two crucial changes: a) the demonstrative lexicalizes a binary maximality operator to host the introducing property, and b) the introducing property replaces the anaphoric index in the syntactic structure. I show how this account derives the distribution of pronominal and adnominal demonstratives without requiring lexical encoding of markedness, allowing for a more uniform, cross-linguistic treatment of definite expressions. I further argue that pronouns in English compete with demonstratives in realizing this introducing mechanism and discuss the implications.

The workshop will take place on Monday, April 26th from 3:00 until 5:00 (Eastern Time) on Zoom. Click this link to join the meeting (or enter the meeting ID 850 2224 2113 in your Zoom client).

[syntaxclass1998]

Phrases VS Clauses

Both clauses and phrases are basic components of writing sentences. When combined with other parts of speech and other parts of sentences, clauses and phrases help build an intricate system through which your words convey meaning. Understanding the difference between the two is vital to write grammatically correct and properly constructed sentences.

CLAUSES:

A clause is a group of words that can act as a sentence, but is not necessarily a complete sentence on its own. All clauses contain both a subject and a predicate, which always contains a verb. A predicate tells something about what the subject is doing. Some clauses can stand alone as a complete sentence; others cannot. The types of clauses are:

Adverbial clauses

Defining and non-defining clauses (also called adjective or relative clauses)

Independent and dependent clauses

Noun clauses

PHRASES:

A phrase is a group of two or more words that does not have the subject and verb combination and does not form a predicate. It can contain a noun or a verb, but does not have a subject or predicate. Essentially, a phrase provides some sort of additional information or provides more context to the sentences you write. A phrase can never stand alone as a sentence; however, a phrase can nestle itself inside clauses that are either complete sentences on their own or ones that are dependent on the rest of the sentence. When a phrase is within a clause, it functions as a part of speech. The types of phrases are:

Gerund phrases

Infinitive phrases

Noun phrases

Participle phrases

Prepositional phrases

Verb phrases

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO:

If there is a subject and a verb with a predicate, it is a clause. If there is a noun but no verb or a verb but no noun and does not have a predicate, it is a phrase. Always keep in mind that sometimes phrases are built into clauses.

[nageshchandramishra]

Comments & Views on “Comical Bureau Of Intrigue “ ( By N.C. Mishra ) Dated 25/10/2018

🇮🇳👇Good Article 👏❗️

My Comments & Views 👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇

The Timing Of All These Happenings In Central Bureau Of Investigation ...Should Be Observed Dispassionately in view of the following Developments :-

(1) #Rafale Matter To Be Heard by Hon. Chief Justice Bench In Supreme Court On 31/10/2018 ;

(2) Prior to that ...Best Legal Brains Of the Entire Opposition Parties & Anti- Modi Forces led by Prashant Bhushan , Arun Shourie & Yashwant Sinha ...Had Tried Their Level Best To #IGNITE & #Initiate #Formal_Inquiries #Rafale_Criminal_Complaint Through Meeting & Influencing #Alok_Verma , the erstwhile CBI Director ; Perhaps , Alok Verma had made up his mind to Order an Preliminary Inquires this week only before SC Hearing Scheduled On 31/10/2018 ❓If so Would have happened..then The Present Govt.’s Affidavits with regard to #Procurement_Process_Of_Rafales_Deals which has to be filed by 29/10/2018 in the Apex Court ...Would #Potentially Might Have Been #Questionable & #Damaging for the Present Govt. .

Perhaps...in order to Obviate such Ugly Situation & for #Diffusing the #Rafale_TIME_Bomb fitted by #Rahul_Gandhi & Anti_Modi Forces ...the Present Govt. Pushed the Panic Button to Remove Alok Verma ❓❓

(3) Now...when Alok Verma has filed Case Against his unceremonious Removal in the Bench Of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi who is known for his impeccable & Independent Judicial Brilliance ....it would be very interesting to Watch whether he #Reinstates Alok Verma as CBI Director Till his fixed Tenure ie 31st January, 2019 ❓❓❓

The matter would be heard on 26/10/2018 by Justice Ranjan Gogoi ie on Tomorrow...&..my Common Sense says...that ....ALOK VERMA Would Be Reinstated By Hon. Supreme Court ❗️The #Arun_Jetaily_Logic_Of Central Vigilance Commission’s #Power_Of_Superintendency Over CBI Director ( In the matter of CBI Director ‘s Removal ) Won’t Pass the Test Of Judicial Scrutiny In the Apex Court ‼️

( I am testing my own Common Sense as an ordinary citizen having very limited knowledge of these Legal Matters 🤞😀 ❓)

(4) My Sixth Sense ..also tells me that ...Hon. Chief Justice Court ...wouldn’t Unnecessarily Rake up #Rafale_Matter at the moment when they hear it on 31/10/2018 & Modi Govt’s Affidavits Would Be Accepted .

This Action Of SC would automatically #PUT_A_BRAKE On #The_Sinister_Design Of #Anti_Modi_Forces to Pin Him Down On #Rafales & It would simultaneously Provide #Guidance to CBI Director For #Keeping_Cool_And_Restraint & for #Avoiding_Unnecessary_Haste In #Initiating_Any_Action to #Inquire_Rafale_Probe At this stage keeping in view of #The_National_Security_on_TOP_PRIORITY 🇮🇳🤞‼️

(5) As Regards ..Rakesh Asthana ...perhaps, he Would have to go from CBI & would be facing Inquiry in Bribery Charges Matter relating to Sandesara’s Obligations during his daughter’s marriage ( though ..the charges are not that Grave . Moin Qureshi’ Angle Of Accepting Crores ...seems to be concocted & fabricated & wont pass Judicial Scrutiny ) ❓

(6) Like Subramanyan Swami ...I am inclined to believe in Alok Verma’s Integrity - it’s another matter that he might have been over enthusiastic in Rafale matters while speaking to Opposition Leaders ❓❓

I also hold the view like Dr. Swamy ...that ...Ravishankar Prasad , Arun Jetaily & many of Modi’s Blue Eyed Bureaucrats Have Common #Conduits With High & Mighty #UPA Stalwarts like P. Chidambaram, SG , RG etc. who are weakening the various High Powered Probes Against Political Rivals ❓❓❓❓

(7) Finally , I would be praying that Hon. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi Would Catalyse , Motivate & Enforce Govt. In Reforming the Central Bureau Of Investigation As #STATUTORY_CONSTITUTIONAL_BODY so that this #Caged_Parrot May be Freed from #Political_Vulture_ism going on since Independence .

TIME HAS COME FOR AN INDEPENDENT CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 🇮🇳Jai Hind 🇮🇳👏‼️

( The Views expressed by me ...May or May Not Prove Going in Such anticipated directions - so ..let me cross my fingers 🤞🤞🤞🤞At this stage : NC Mishra )

Comical Bureau of Intrigue: CBI looks like a joke. Will GoI finally make it a statutory body?

October 25, 2018, 2:00 AM IST Saubhik Chakrabarti in Open patent | Edit Page, India | TOI

What is the world’s most unenviable top cop job now? Interim chief, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Nageshwar Rao, picked by the Prime Minister-led Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, has the toughest remit in any public service – to stop people from laughing at the institution he leads.

The agency can now fairly be called the Comical Bureau of Intrigue, with its two erstwhile senior most officers, director Alok Verma and special director Rakesh Asthana, sent on leave, while different courts deal with disturbingly dramatic plaints made by both.

These are golden days for reporters on the CBI beat, as all sides will inevitably provide more strategic leaks. Those details will have a bearing on the specific controversies framing the CBI mess. But as people outside the government-media complex consume news reports on a Doon and St Stephens educated meat exporter alleged to be close to those in the opposition and a sent-on-leave CBI bigshot who is alleged to be close to those in power, to name only two characters in a multi-starrer burlesque, the general and justified response will be to laugh at the utter absurdity of it all.

Illustration: Arindam

The government is also squarely responsible because all of this has happened under its watch. Its decision to send away both warring CBI officers and ask a special investigation team (SIT) to probe allegations and counter-allegations, while entirely sensible, doesn’t even begin to address the question why the Verma vs Asthana dramedy was allowed to play out for as long as it did.

BJP has made a consistent claim since 2014, when it stormed into power, that one of the defining differences between its government and the one run by Congress is that the latter was prone to dysfunction while the former is always in charge. At least on the CBI question, that claim is in tatters.

The really troubling perceptional question for BJP here is not so much whether it was using CBI as a political tool. That charge has been made against Congress for far longer. What is hurting and will likely hurt BJP is popular perception that its government appeared helpless as the CBI story moved from chaos to farce.

Therefore, countering the Congress charge that Verma was “targeted” because he was apparently “thinking” of a Rafale probe may be politically necessary right now for BJP. It may also be relatively easy to do so – how does Congress know what Verma was thinking, is the obvious retort. But the bigger political job for BJP is to convince people that on the CBI issue, it is back in control. Because for the first time since 2014, and weeks away from the beginning of a long election cycle, the opposition has the chance, if it is minimally clever, to build a narrative that this government, too, is prone to dysfunction.

So, BJP will hope that the SIT will keep Verma and Asthana busy, that courts won’t upend its interim arrangement for CBI, that Rao will step up to the plate and appear as an officer in charge, and that CBI investigations into non-CBI corruption cases will make news.

Note, however, that there are many things here that the government does not control or may not be able to control. For example, one known unknown right now is how the Supreme Court will respond to the ex-CBI chief being sent on leave. The other problem can be whether the accused in various CBI high profile cases supervised by Asthana will benefit from corruption charges against him.

So, the perception of chaos may not necessarily go away. Therefore, BJP needs a politically solid and institutionally impeccable talking and action point, a real solution that will help restore CBI’s institutional credibility and prove that the government is back in charge.

That solution, as many ex-top cops and commentators with domain knowledge of law enforcement affairs have said multiple times, is to make CBI a statutory body through a fresh law. CBI functions under clauses that draw institutional validity from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. Many Supreme Court efforts to institute operational independence for CBI have essentially failed because the agency, as its status is now, is neither de jure nor de facto immune from political interference.

The Election Commission, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Comptroller and Auditor General are all constitutional or statutory bodies. That basically means political interference is difficult in these institutions. So should be the case for CBI.

CBI also draws its senior officers from the Indian Police Service (IPS) and many IPS officers who man CBI – let’s put it politely – have close encounters with politics. Therefore, CBI as a statutory body should also be mandated to draw its cadre from a wide pool of talent and given its own budget. That’s the best way to secure its future, make it a law-backed autonomous investigative agency that attracts quality candidates because the job offers enormous prestige, good pay and real professional independence.

Were the government to announce it is starting the process of writing such a law to create a new, improved CBI, and that its decision is directly related to the current mess at the agency, no matter how Verma vs Asthana plays out, BJP will always have a winning talking point. Every critic will applaud the decision. Congress will find it pretty much impossible to oppose the decision on principle.

But will it happen? Will this government, or any government run by other parties, want to make CBI a statutory body? Let’s put it this way. It would be great for India if it happens. It would also be greatly surprising if it does.

[iyarpage]

Behavior-Driven Testing Tutorial for iOS with Quick & Nimble

Step in and start using Quick and Nimble!

Writing beautiful, performant applications is one thing, but writing good tests that verify your application’s expected behavior is a much harder task. In this tutorial, you’ll examine one of the available approaches for testing applications, called behavior-driven testing, using two extremely popular frameworks named Quick and Nimble.

You’ll learn about behavior-driven testing: what it is, why it’s an extremely powerful concept, and how easy it is to write maintainable and readable tests using Quick and Nimble.

You’ll be writing tests for an amazingly simple and fun game called AppTacToe in which you play a game of Tic Tac Toe vs. the computer, portraying the iOS character playing against the evil Android player!

Note: This tutorial assumes basic knowledge of Unit Testing and using XCTestCase.

Even though you should be able to follow this tutorial without this prior knowledge, we do recommend checking out our iOS Unit Testing and UI Testing Tutorial if you want a refresher of the basics.

Getting Started

The best way to get started testing is to work on a real app, which in your case will be the beautiful AppTacToe game introduced earlier.

Use the Download Materials button at the top or bottom of this tutorial to download the starter project, which already has Quick and Nimble bundled, and open AppTacToe.xcworkspace.

Open Main.storyboard and examine the basic structure of the app. It contains two screens: the Board itself, where the game is played, and the Game Over screen, responsible for displaying the game’s result.

Build and run the app, and play a quick game or two to get the hang of it.

You’ll also see some useful logs printed to your console, portraying the game play and printing out the resulting board as the game ends.

Note: Don’t worry if you notice a minor bug while playing the game; you’ll fix this as you work your way through this tutorial!

Most of the app’s logic is contained in one of two files:

Components/Board.swift: This file provides the logical implementation of a Tic Tac Toe game. It has no UI associated with it.

ViewControllers/BoardViewController.swift: This is the main game screen. It uses the aforementioned Board class to play the game itself, and is solely responsible for drawing the state of the game on screen and handling user interaction with the game.

What you really want to test in this case is the the logic of the game, so you’ll be writing tests for the Board class.

What is Behavior-Driven Testing?

An application is comprised of many pieces of code. In traditional unit tests, you test the ins-and-outs of every one of these pieces. You provide some inputs to some piece of code, and assert that it returns the result you expect.

A downside of this approach is that it emphasizes testing the inner workings of your applications. This means you spend more time testing implementation details then actual business logic, which is the real meat of your product!

Wouldn’t it be nice if you could simply verify your application behaves as expected, regardless of how it was implemented?

Enter behavior-driven testing!

Behavior Driven Tests vs. Unit Tests

In behavior-driven testing (or BDT), your tests are based on user stories that describe some specific expected behavior of your application. Instead of testing implementation details, you’re actually testing what matters: does your app deliver your user stories correctly?

This approach makes tests extremely readable and maintainable, and helps describe the behavior of logical portions in your application to other developers who might be lucky enough to go through your beautiful code one day.

Some examples of user stories you might end up writing as part of the AppTacToe game might be:

Playing a single move should switch to other player.

Playing two moves should switch back to the first player.

Playing a winning move should switch to a Won state.

Playing a move leaving no remaining moves should switch to a Draw (Tie) state.

Quick and Nimble’s role in Behavior-Driven Testing

Tests written in a behavior-driven way are based on user stories, which are regular sentences, written in plain English. This makes them much easier to understand when compared to the usual unit tests you’re accustomed to writing.

Quick and Nimble provide an extremely powerful syntax that let you write tests that read exactly like regular sentences, allowing you to easily and swiftly describe the behavior you wish to verify. Beneath the surface, they work exactly like regular XCTestCase(s).

Quick itself provides most of the basic syntax and abilities related to writing tests in a behavior-driven way, while Nimble is its companion framework. It provides additional expressive matching and assertion abilities via Matchers, which you’ll learn about a bit later in this tutorial.

The Anatomy of a Quick Test

Break up one of the user stories into three clauses based on GWT – Given (the action/behavior you’re describing), When (the context of that action/behavior) and Then (what you expect to happen):

Given: User is playing.

When: It is a single move.

Then: The game should switch to other player.

In Quick, you use three functions as the counterparts of each: describe, context and it.

Anatomy of a Quick test

Your First Test

In Quick, test suites are named Specs, and every test suite you create starts off with a class inheriting from QuickSpec in the same way you inherit from XCTestCase in non-Quick tests. The test suite includes a main method, spec(), that contains the entirety of your test cases.

The starter project already contains an empty test suite. Open AppTacToeTests/BoardSpec.swift and take a look at the BoardSpec test spec, inheriting from QuickSpec and containing a single method, spec(), in which you’ll be writing test cases and expectations.

Note: When you open the BoardSpec.swift file, you might see an error saying No such module 'Quick'. Worry not, as this is just a Xcode bug/glitch unrelated to your project. Your test code will compile and work with no issues whatsoever.

Start by adding the following code inside spec():

var board: Board! // 1 beforeEach { // 2 board = Board() }

This code performs two actions:

Defines a global board to be used across test cases.

Resets that board to a new instance of Board before every test using Quick’s beforeEach closure.

With some basic boilerplate out of the way, you can start writing your very first test!

For the purposes of this app, the game will always start with Cross (e.g. X), and the opponent will be Nought (e.g. O).

Let’s start with the first user story mentioned above: playing a single move should switch to nought.

Add the following code immediately after the end of the beforeEach closure:

describe("playing") { // 1 context("a single move") { // 2 it("should switch to nought") { // 3 try! board.playRandom() // 4 expect(board.state).to(equal(.playing(.nought))) // 5 } } }

Here’s what this does, line by line:

describe() is used to define what action or behavior you’ll be testing.

context() is used to define the specific context of the action you’ll be testing.

it() is used to define the specific expected result for the test.

You play a random move on the Board class using playRandom().

You assert the board’s state has been changed to .playing(.nought). This step uses the equal() matcher from Nimble, which is one of many available functions you can use to assert a matching of specific conditions on an expected value.

Note: You might have noticed the forced try call and implicitly unwrapped optional to define test globals. While this is usually frowned upon when writing regular code for apps, it is a relatively common practice when writing tests.

Run your tests by either navigating in the menu bar to Product ▸ Test or by using the Command-U shortcut.

You’ll see your very first test pass. Awesome!

Your Test navigator will look like this:

You can already notice a few interesting points by going through this code. First of all, it is extremely readable. Going through the lines of code, any person could relatively easily read it as a plain English sentence:

“Playing a single move should switch to nought. Play a random move and expect the board’s state to equal nought playing.”

You were also just introduced to your first usage of Nimble Matchers. Nimble uses these Matchers to let you express the expected outcome of your test in a very fluent, sentence-like way. equal() is just one of the matcher functions available in Nimble and, as you’ll see shortly, you can even create your own custom ones.

Your Second Test

The second user story — “playing two moves should switch back to cross” — sounds fairly close to the first.

Add the following code right after the end of your previous context(), inside the closing curly brace of describe():

context("two moves") { // 1 it("should switch back to cross") { try! board.playRandom() // 2 try! board.playRandom() expect(board.state) == .playing(.cross) // 3 } }

This test is similar to the last one, different in the fact you’re playing two moves instead of one.

Here’s what it does:

You define a new context() to establish the “two moves” context. You can have as many context()s and describe()s as you want, and they can even be contained within each other. Since you’re still testing gameplay, you added a context inside describe("playing").

You play two consecutive random moves.

You assert the board’s state is now .playing(.cross). Notice that this time you used the regular equality operator ==, instead of the .to(equal()) syntax you used earlier. Nimble’s equal() matcher provides its own operator overloads that let you choose your own flavor/preference.

Arrange, Act & Assert

The tests you’ve just written have been relatively simple and straightforward. You perform a single call on an empty Board, and assert the expected result. Usually, though, most scenarios are more complex, thus requiring a bit of extra work.

The next two user stories are more complex:

Playing a winning move should switch to the won state.

Playing a move leaving no remaining moves should switch to the draw state.

In both of these user stories, you need to play some moves on the board to get it into a state where you can test your assertion.

These kind of tests are usually divided into three steps: Arrange, Act and Assert.

Before you plan your tests, you must understand how the Tic Tac Toe board is implemented under the hood.

The board is modeled as an Array consisting of 9 cells, addressed using indices 0 through 8.

On each turn, a player plays a single move. To write a test for the winning user story, you’ll need to play both moves to bring the board to a state where the next move would be a winning move.

Now that you understand how the board works, it’s time to write the winning test.

Add the following code below your previous “two moves” context():

context("a winning move") { it("should switch to won state") { // Arrange try! board.play(at: 0) try! board.play(at: 1) try! board.play(at: 3) try! board.play(at: 2) // Act try! board.play(at: 6) // Assert expect(board.state) == .won(.cross) } }

Here’s what this does:

Arrange: You arrange the board to bring it to a state where the next move would be a winning move. You do this by playing the moves of both players at their turn; starting with X at 0, O at 1, X at 3 and finally O at 2.

Act: You play Cross (X) at position 6. In the board’s current state, playing at position 6 should cause a winning state.

Assert: You assert the board’s state to be equal to won by cross (e.g. .won(.cross))

Run the test suite again by going to Product ▸ Test or using the Command + U shortcut.

Something is wrong; you played all of the right moves, but the test failed unexpectedly.

Add the following code immediately below the expect() code line to see what went wrong:

print(board)

By printing the board immediately after the assertion you will get better clarity of the situation:

As you can see, the board should be in a winning state, but the test is still failing. Seems like you found a bug.

Switch to the Project navigator and open Board.swift. Go to the isGameWon computed property on line 120.

The code in this section tests for all possible winning positions across rows, columns and diagonals. But looking at the columns section, the code seems to only have 2 columns tested, and is actually missing one of the winning options. Whoops!

Add the following line of code immediately below the // Columns comment:

[0, 3, 6],

Run your test suite again and bask in the glory of three green checkmarks!

This kind of scenario would be much harder to detect with regular unit tests. Since you’re using behavior-driven testing, you actually tested a specific use case of the app and detected a fault. Fixing the underlying implementation fixed the tested behavior, resolving the issue your user story was experiencing.

Note: While working on one specific test or a specific context of tests, you might not want to run all of your tests at once to enable you to focus specifically on working on one test.

Fortunately, Quick provides an extremely easy way to do this. Simply add f (stands for focused) before any of the test function names – having it(), context() and describe() become fit(), fcontext() and fdescribe().

For example, changing it("should switch to won state") to fit("should switch to won state"), will only run that specific test, skipping the rest of your test suite. Just don’t forget to remove it after you’re done, or only part of your tests will run!

A Short Exercise

Time for a challenge. You have one last user story you haven’t tested yet: “Playing a move leaving no remaining moves should switch to draw state”

Using the previous examples, write a test to verify the board correctly detects a Draw state.

Note: To get to a Draw state you can play the following positions sequentially: 0, 2, 1, 3, 4, 8, 6, 7. At this state, playing position 5 should result in your board being in a draw state.

Also, matching the state with .draw might confuse Xcode. If that is the case, use the full expression: Board.State.draw.

Tap the button below to see the full solution.

Solution Inside: Test for Draw State SelectShow>

context("a move leaving no remaining moves") { it("should switch to draw state") { // Arrange try! board.play(at: 0) try! board.play(at: 2) try! board.play(at: 1) try! board.play(at: 3) try! board.play(at: 4) try! board.play(at: 8) try! board.play(at: 6) try! board.play(at: 7) // Act try! board.play(at: 5) // Assert expect(board.state) == Board.State.draw } }

Happy Path Isn’t The Only Path

All of the tests you’ve written up until now have one thing in common: they describe the correct behavior of your app while following the happy path. You verified that when the player plays the correct moves, the board behaves correctly. But what about the not-so-happy path?

When writing tests, you mustn’t forget the concept of expected errors. You, as a developer, should have the ability to confirm your board behaves correctly even when your player doesn’t (e.g. makes an illegal move).

Consider the two final user stories for this tutorial:

Playing a move that was already played should throw an error.

Playing a move when the game is already won should throw an error.

Nimble provides a handy matcher named throwError() you can use to verify this behavior.

Start with verifying that an already played move can’t be played again.

Add the following code right below the last context() you’ve added, while still inside the describe("playing") block:

context("a move that was already played") { it("should throw an error") { try! board.play(at: 0) // 1 // 2 expect { try board.play(at: 0) } .to(throwError(Board.PlayError.alreadyPlayed)) } }

Here’s what this does:

You play a move at position 0.

You play a move at the same position, and expect it to throw Board.PlayerError.alreadyPlayed. When asserting error throwing, expect takes a closure, in which you can run the code that causes the error to be thrown.

As you have come to expect from Quick tests, the assertion reads much like an English sentence: expect playing the board to throw error – already played.

Run the test suite again by going to Product ▸ Test or using the Command + U shortcut.

The last user story you’re going to cover today will be: Playing a move when the game is already won should throw an error.

This test should feel relatively similar to the previous Arrange, Act and Assert tests: you’ll need to bring the board to a winning state, and then try to play another move while the board has already been won.

Add the following code right below the last context() you added for the previous test:

context("a move while the game was already won") { it("should throw an error") { // Arrange try! board.play(at: 0) try! board.play(at: 1) try! board.play(at: 3) try! board.play(at: 2) try! board.play(at: 6) // Act & Assert expect { try board.play(at: 7) } .to(throwError(Board.PlayError.noGame)) } }

Building on the knowledge you’ve gained in this tutorial, you should be feeling right at home with this test!

You Arrange the board by playing five moves that cause the board to be in a winning state (e.g. .won(.cross)). You then Act & Assert by trying to play a move while the board was already in a winning state, and expect Board.PlayError.noGame to be thrown.

Run your test suite one more time, and give yourself a pat on the back for all those great tests!

Custom Matchers

While writing your tests in this tutorial, you’ve already used several matchers built into Nimble: equal() (and its == operator overload), and .throwError().

Sometimes, you want to create your very own matchers, either to encapsulate some complex form of matching, or to increase the readability of some of your existing tests.

Consider how you might improve the readability of the “playing a winning move should switch to won state” user story mentioned earlier:

expect(board.state) == .won(.cross)

Reword this statement as an English sentence: expect board to be won by cross. Then the test can look like this:

expect(board).to(beWon(by: .cross))

Matchers in Nimble are nothing more than simple functions that return Predicate<T>, where the generic T is the type you compare against. In your case, T will be of type Board.

In Project navigator, right click the AppTacToeTests folder and select New File. Select Swift File and click Next. Name your file Board+Nimble.swift. Confirm that you correctly set the file as a member of your AppTacToeTests target:

Replace the default import Foundation with the following three imports:

import Quick import Nimble @testable import AppTacToe

This simply imports Quick and Nimble, and also imports your main target so you can use Board within your matcher.

As mentioned earlier, a Matcher is a simple function returning a Predicate of type Board.

Add the following base of your matcher below your imports:

func beWon(by: Board.Mark) -> Predicate<Board> { return Predicate { expression in // Error! ...your custom predicate implementation goes here } }

This code defines the beWon(by:) matcher that returns a Predicate<Board>, so it correctly matches against Board.

Inside of your function, you return a new Predicate instance, passing it a closure with a single argument — expression — which is the value or expression you match against. The closure must return a PredicateResult.

At this point you’ll see a build error, since you haven’t yet returned a result. You’ll fix that next.

To generate a PredicateResult, you must consider the following cases:

How the beWon(by:) matcher works

Add the following code inside of your Predicate‘s closure, replacing the comment, // Error!:

// 1 guard let board = try expression.evaluate() else { return PredicateResult(status: .fail, message: .fail("failed evaluating expression")) } // 2 guard board.state == .won(by) else { return PredicateResult(status: .fail, message: .expectedCustomValueTo("be Won by \(by)", "\(board.state)")) } // 3 return PredicateResult(status: .matches, message: .expectedTo("expectation fulfilled"))

This predicate implementation might seem confusing at first, but it is quite simple if you take it step-by-step:

You try to evaluate the expression passed to expect(). In this case, the expression is the board itself. If the evaluation fails, you return a failing PredicateResult with a proper message.

You confirm the board’s state is equal to .won(by), where by is the argument passed to the Matcher function. If the state doesn’t match, you return a failing PredicateResult with an .expectedCustomValueTo message.

Finally, if everything looks good and verified, you return a successful PredicateResult.

That’s it! Open BoardSpec.swift and replace the following line:

expect(board.state) == .won(.cross)

With your new matcher:

expect(board).to(beWon(by: .cross))

Run your tests one final time by navigating to Product ▸ Test or using the Command-U shortcut. You should see all of your tests still pass, but this time with your brand new custom Matcher!

Where To Go From Here?

You can download the completed version of the project using the Download Materials button at the top or bottom of this tutorial.

You now have the knowledge you need to start applying behavior-driven testing to your app.

You’ve learned all about testing user stories, instead of testing implementation details, and how Quick helps achieve just that. You’ve also learned about Nimble matchers, and even written your very own matcher. Very exciting!

To get started with Quick and Nimble in your own project, start off by following the Installation guide and choose the installation method that works for your project.

When you have everything set up and you want to learn more about Quick, the best place to continue your reading is Quick’s Official Documentation. You might also want to read Nimble’s Readme to discover the vast number of available matchers and abilities it provides.

In the meantime, if you have any questions or comments about this tutorial or behavior-driven tests in general, please join the forum discussion below!

The post Behavior-Driven Testing Tutorial for iOS with Quick & Nimble appeared first on Ray Wenderlich.

Behavior-Driven Testing Tutorial for iOS with Quick & Nimble published first on https://medium.com/@koresol

[jodieshazel]

California Cannabis: In 2018, Resolve to Make Your Leases Better

Put your lease on the list!

With the New Year upon us and California cannabis legalization in full swing, now is the time for industry players to make sure they are poised to thrive in the world’s biggest legalized cannabis market. A critical element of that strategy for commercial tenants, as well as landlords, is making sure the real property chosen for operation is properly tailored to the intended use, and is flexible enough to anticipate various adverse scenarios that can and will arise in a dynamic and rapidly changing legal landscape.

A smart and practical New Year’s resolution would be to make sure your lease is buttoned up and ready to go for commercial cannabis in 2018. Here are some points to consider towards that end:

Stop using form leases. Yes, they’re easy and convenient, and checking boxes is certainly cheaper in the short term than writing a lease, but experience says one of two things will likely happen: either you will (1) end up spending just as much time writing addenda that cancel out, expand upon, or replace terms of the form lease, making it read more like a choose-your-own-adventure book that flips across chapters, or (2) you won’t, but you’ll be far more likely to run into costly problems down the road when you discover the lease is missing crucial pieces that would have helped you avoid a mess. Save yourself the trouble and plan ahead by working with an experienced real estate attorney who understands the proposed use and the industry in California, and can write a proper lease to fit the tenancy.

Specifically describe the permitted use and define applicable law. There are important legal consequences under state and federal law for adult use cannabis operations vs. medical operations, and the state’s regulations require specific authorization from the landlord for whatever license the tenant will obtain. And of course, there remains the issue of federal illegality overhanging everything. To save everyone time and headaches down the road, make sure the parties are in clear agreement on exactly what categories of licensed activity will be allowed under the tenancy, specify that in the lease, and restrict it to that use. Simply writing “cannabis” or the evasive “any use not in violation of law” will not suffice. When it comes to applicable law, local law and state regulations should be front and center, and there should be a carve-out for inconsistent federal law, lest a tenant be in violation of the lease from day one.

Keep it arm’s-length, or know the risks. Entanglement issues such as profit-sharing arrangements and equity-as-rent may be lucrative, but they require a higher risk tolerance. If a federal (or state) enforcement action occurs, the chances that the landlord will be considered part of the offending business may be higher than if the lease had been a traditional arm’s-length tenancy. Also, you might run into problems trying to enforce the lease if it amounts to asking the court to wade into cannabis business operations as opposed to enforcing an arm’s-length rent relationship.

Clarify insurance obligations and anticipate increased operating expenses. Regardless of whether the landlord or the tenancy will be responsible for maintaining and paying for building and property insurance, the parties should realize that: (1) cannabis tenants will have a hard time finding quality property insurance policies right now, and (2) any new or existing policy will likely be much more expensive when a cannabis use is added to the property. In practice, this means that the parties need to decide who will be required to obtain and maintain which kinds of coverages, what the policy limits will be, what happens if that doesn’t happen, and who will bear the increased cost if it does. If it’s a multi-tenant building where common operating expenses will increase disproportionately due to the new tenant’s cannabis use, the lease should account for that and adjust accordingly.

Do due diligence on the property first. Doing things like zoning and title analysis would more typically be associated with a new purchase than a lease. But with cannabis uses there are unique considerations that come into play, such as easements or CC&Rs that prohibit violation of “any laws”, water use rights (which will be a critical part of a state application, particularly for cultivators), and zoning restrictions. On that last item, it’s imperative that the proposed site not run afoul of local restrictions, and it behooves both the landlord and the tenant to have that issue ironed out before pen touches paper. The parties should consider including a due diligence period in the letter of intent, as well as including an early termination option for a variety of land use restrictions that could be triggered by cannabis use, including changes in zoning laws.

Consider the neighbors. We’ve discussed at length how RICO lawsuits have found their way into cannabis land use disputes, as well as nuisance claims, and how NIMBYism will likely play a role in the California cannabis saga just as it has in other states. But similar to a zoning and title analysis, parties looking to start a commercial cannabis tenancy can and should factor the neighbors into the equation before deciding to commit to a lease. This is particularly relevant for business parks or multi-tenant buildings with non-cannabis tenants that might complain about the effect of cannabis (odors or otherwise) on their business operations. Better to know now than 3 years into a 10-year lease term. The parties can also consider including an early termination option in the event that neighbors bring a civil action.

Consider the federal government. One of the most obvious reasons that form leases are wrong for cannabis tenancies is the failure to properly account for the fact that cannabis is still federally illegal, and the government can and does pursue civil asset forfeiture, putting the landlord at risk of losing the property over the tenant’s use. While there is no getting around the fact of federal illegality, one strategy is including early termination options for changes in federal law and/or enforcement guidelines, and for any forfeiture actions.

Anticipate the license timeline. California has just started issuing temporary licenses to applicants who already have local approval. While those have had a relatively quick turnaround, full annual license application review could take longer, and in any event, there is the possibility that the tenant will be denied a state license and/or local approval. This uncertainty can be built into the lease in terms of rent abatement and an early termination option, depending how confident the parties are that approval will be successful.

Make sure the occupancy plan stays legal. California’s new regulations dispensed with SB 94’s requirement that a licensee maintain “separate and distinct” premises for multiple licensed activities. However, licensed premises must still have a designated area dedicated to only one licensed activity at a time, with the exception of adult-use and medicinal operations being allowed to operate in the same place under certain circumstances. The new rules also contain a blanket prohibition on subletting of any licensed premises. This means that the parties should spell out in the lease exactly which activities will be conducted in which areas of the property. Whereas typical commercial tenants would have more or less free reign to use the leased premises however they choose as long as it’s within the permitted use, California’s new rules make this a more nuanced issue.

Choose the right law, venue, and dispute resolution process. Limiting interpretation and enforcement of the lease to California law, restricting venue to state courts, and including a well-drafted arbitration clause are all important aspects of a cannabis tenancy that are typically missing from a form lease.

As we watch California’s regulatory and licensing process play out, landlords and tenants with properly tailored leases and well-researched land use analyses will be more likely to succeed and thrive. Many of the potential problems with the leasehold interest will have been considered and averted.

In 2018, resolve to make your leases better.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://www.cannalawblog.com/california-commercial-cannabis-in-2018-resolve-to-make-your-leases-better/

[parconthreenil-blog]

Making-up for lost time

Last Tuesday(which is an unusual day for our meeting), we had our make-up class for some meetings that will be cancelled because of some instances. James Bryan Buban was the reporter that day, and he reported things about Pronouns. He started the report with a game called What’s yours is mine: everyone should bring out anything from their bag and it should be passed around, and James will call someone to determine which pronoun to use. Things to remember:

DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS – pronouns we use to point something specific such as items in space or in time.

                                                  - could replace a noun or a noun phrase.*In conversational English, we can use demonstrative by pointing/gesturing something we are talking about. *But in written English, we use specific pronouns to point out or determine the exact thing we are talking about. 

4 DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS

��Near” demonstrative pronouns (1this and 2these) – are obviously used when the object you are talking about is/are near you. This – Singular These - Plural“Far” demonstrative pronouns (3that and 4those) – used when the object you are pertaining to is far from you. That – Singular Those ­– Plural *Other demonstrative pronouns: none, such, (n)either  Demonstrative Adjective – the four demonstrative pronouns (this, these, that, and those) are considered demonstrative adjectives because they modify the nouns. That basically means that they come before nouns in sentences. *All of the said demonstrative pronouns are either demonstrative pronouns as is, or demonstrative adjectives. The difference is, if a pronoun is used alone (without a noun), it is a demonstrative pronoun. On the other hand, if a pronoun is used before a noun and modifies it, it is considered demonstrative adjective.

 Interrogative Pronouns – represents the thing that we do not know. (What we are asking about)

5 interrogative pronouns:        

Who – used as an object to ask in a formal way. ·         Whom – used with preposition before the pronoun; used to ask in a more formal way.·         Whose – used when you are asking about a non-specific person.·        What – used when asking about a specific information/thing from a general range of possible answers.·         Which – used when asking about a specific information from a restricted range of possible answers. “-ever” – used to give emphasis. Examples: Whoever would want to do such a nasty thing? Whatever did he say to make her cry like that? They are all fantastic! Whichever will you choose? 

Adverbs acting as interrogatives

Examples: Who came to the party?        Who acts as the subject of the verb came.     Whom should we call?          Whom acts as the object of the verb call. Whose position did he fill?   Whose acts as the possessor of the noun position Where did Jim get his car?   Where acts as an adverb modifying the verb get. Relative Pronouns – (Who/whom, whoever/whomever, whose, that, which) pronouns that introduce relative clause; pronouns that “relates” to the word that its relative clause modifies; used after a noun; used to tell us more about a person or a thing.

 2 types of relative clauses:Restrictive (defining) clause – adds essential information about the antecedent in the main clause.

Relative Pronouns in Restrictive Relative Clauses: Relative pronouns that introduce a restrictive relative clause ARE NOT separated from the main clause by a comma.  

Relative Pronouns Used as a Subject of a Restrictive Relative Clause Examples: This is the house that had a great Christmas decoration. It took me a while to get used to people who eat popcorn during the movie.

Relative Pronouns Used as an Object in a Restrictive Relative Clause Examples: Formal English: This is the man to whom I wanted to speak and whose name I had forgotten. Informal English: This is the man I wanted to speak to and whose name I'd forgotten. *When the relative pronoun is the object of a preposition, which is used instead of that, for example, "in which," "for which," "about which," "through which," etc.   

Non-restrictive (non-defining) clause – provides non-essential information about the antecedent in the main clause.

Relative Pronouns in Non-restrictive Relative Clauses: Relative Pronouns that introduce a non-restrictive relative clause ARE separated from the main clause by a comma.

Relative Pronouns Used as a Subject of a Non-restrictive Relative Clause Examples: The science fair, which lasted all day, ended with an awards ceremony. The movie turned out to be a blockbuster hit, which came as a surprise to critics.

Relative Pronouns Used as an Object in a Non-restrictive Relative Clause Examples: The sculpture, which he admired, was moved into the basement of the museum to make room for a new exhibit. The theater, in which the play debuted, housed 300 people. 

 "That" vs. "Who" and "Which"·         *The relative pronoun that can only be used in restrictive clauses. It can also be substituted for who (referring to persons) or which (referring to things) in informal English.

*When referring     to people, both that and who can be used in informal     language. "That" may be used to refer to the characteristics or abilities of an individual or a group of people:    

Examples:

He is the kind of person that/who will never let you     down.  I am looking for someone that/who could give me a ride to     Chicago. ·         However, when speaking about a particular person in formal language, who is preferred: The old lady who lives next door is a teacher. The girl who wore a red dress attracted everybody's attention at the party. ·         that/which

*There are several cases when that is more appropriate than which:After the pronouns "all," "any(thing)," "every(thing)," "few," "little," "many," "much," "no(thing)," "none," "some(thing)": The police usually ask for every detail that helps identify the missing person.Dessert is all that he wants.

*After the noun modified by an adjective in the superlative degree: This is the best resource that I have ever read!

REMINDER: Antecedent a phrase or a noun that is being replaced by a pronoun.

[envirofriendly-blog]

Blog Entry #12: Biocentrism and Ecofeminism

Biocentrism and Ecofeminism

Word Count: 1944

Biocentrism and ecofeminism are two earth wisdom worldviews which, through different means, each work to reform and abolish certain human behaviorisms which can be considered unethical towards the environment and nature. Biocentrism is an ethical view which extends intrinsic moral value to all living things, not just people. It focuses on understanding how the earth works, particularly as it relates to biodiversity, and takes a firm stance in opposition to anthropocentrism, which focuses on the value of humans. Advocates of biocentrism often promote the environmental protection, animal rights and biodiversity. Ecofeminism, on the other hand, is the term that links feminism with ecology and synthesizes the two together, arguing that if each is to work,  both must incorporate the other. Feminism is defined as the theory of social, political and economic equality of the sexes, and ecology represents the political movement that seeks to protect the environment, especially from pollution. Ecofeminism relates the oppression and domination of all “subordinate” groups such as women, people of color, children, the poor and the oppression and domination of nature including land, animals, water, air, and all else that is considered a part of nature.

The term biocentrism encompasses all environmental ethics that “extend the status of moral object from human beings to all living things in nature.” One major contributor to the worldview of biocentrism is Paul Taylor, a philosopher who was best known for his work in the field of environmental ethics. He created the theory of biocentric egalitarianism which is essentially biocentrism. Taylor’s biocentrism is an extension of traditional community-oriented ethics and deontological “respect for life” ethics or Christian “respect for life” ethics. He extends them to the notion of a moral community that covers the whole community of life on the planet, that is humans, plants and animals (the entire biotic community). The four main pillars of a biocentric outlook are:

Human and all other species are members of Earth’s community.

All species are part of a system of interdependence.

All living organisms pursue their own “good” in their own ways.

Human beings are not inherently superior to other living things.

Taylor claims that each of the members of the biotic community ought to be respected as an end in itself. Taylor believes that animal rights are too narrow and still a kind of anthropocentrism. He presents a radical egalitarian “pro-life” ethic that extends intrinsic value to all living things. However that intrinsic value does not extend to entire ecosystems, only to the individual members. This worldview stems from evolutionary biology and biological sense of ecology. It claims that homo sapiens are only one evolutionary member of  the earth’s community of life. All members of the earth’s community of life, including homo sapiens are interdependent and inter-relational, and each member is a unique and perspectival “teleological center of life” occupying its ecological “niche”. Taylor claims that homo sapiens have the ability of “empathy” or “selfishness” and the ability to project themselves into and understand the perspectives and interests of other species. The traditional anthropocentric claim that because we are “rational”, humans are morally superior to other species is scientifically groundless, the worldview argues, and it derives  from species narcissism.

The principles of biocentrism include community with and respect for all life from humans to microorganisms, empathy, cooperation, tolerance, harmony, balance, sharing and mutual accommodation rather than species narcissism. Biocentrism believes that every living thing has a good of its own and should never be treated as a means only, and that it is our duty to respect the inherent worth of those beings. The stakeholder in this is Taylor, the academic philosopher, and he believes in strong reformist policies which reflect the aforementioned principles.  He believes that we should reflect these principles in our lives in professional areas such as urban planning, construction, business, agriculture and scientific research. Rather than firmly abolishing specific practices, biocentrism is focused on changing the behaviors of people and corporations in order to make a positive, selfless impact on the world. Humans as a species have a history of being selfish, which seems to make it extremely difficult to put these ideals into practice. However, there is also a variety of moral dilemmas which come from this worldview. These dilemmas are called the principle of self-defense, the principle of proportionality, the principle of minimum wrong, the principle of distributive justice and the principle of restitutive justice. Each of these principles provide examples in which the selfishness of humans can seem justified, for example, the ethically permissible moment in which moral agents can defend themselves against dangerous organisms. However, lacking a hierarchical scale to make decision, biocentrism leaves a lot of room for debates of what is morally permissible under these clauses, and arguments for things that may not be very selfless. Biocentrism is focused on creating a selfless society, which in turn, protects and fights for all living beings on this earth. If this is possible however, is another story.

Ecofeminism, on the other hand, relates the oppression and domination of all “subordinate” groups, such as women, people of color, children, the poor, to the oppression and domination of nature, including animals, land, water, air, etc. Ecofeminism insists that feminism and environmentalism are inherently connected, and ecofeminist work often applies feminist analysis to environmental issues. This idea was introduced and developed by Karen J. Warren, who is an author, scholar and philosopher who has written exclusively on environmental ethics, critical thinking and ecofeminism. She views ecofeminism as a “quilt” that is flexible and evolving, including minimal conditions that an ethical narrative has to fulfill if it is to be part of the “quilt” which include:

No “isms” (sexism, anthropocentrism, etc)

Ecofeminist ethics is contextualist (The action or expression can only be understood relative to the context)

Ecofeminists look at oppression. There’s a link between sexism and speciesism. Speciesism, defined by Peter Singer, is the oppression of one species by another. The link between oppression of women and marginalized groups and animals can easily be found in linguistics. Derogatory terms towards women often include link to an animal. For example, the words “bitch”, “cow”, “old bat”. A well known derogatory term towards men is “pussy” which incorporates both femininity and a link to an animal. Linguistic association with animals has also been a method of demeaning Jewish people and people of color. Even in the non derogatory term “Mother Nature”, nature is associated with femininity, and in Western Civilization, femininity is often considered weaker and inferior, especially since we live in a patriarchal society. Ecofeminism focuses on dismantling the patriarchal/hierarchical logic of domination which states as follows:

Without the two assumptions that humans are morally superior to (at least some) non-humans, and that superiority justifies subordination, all one has is some difference between humans and some nonhumans. This is true even if that difference is given in terms of superiority. Thus, it is the logic of denomination,  which is the bottom line in ecofeminist discussions of oppression. Ecofeminists argue that, at least in Western societies, the oppressive conceptual framework which sanctions the twin dominations of women and nature is a patriarchal one characterized by all three features of an oppressive conceptual framework. Many ecofeminists claim that, historically, within at least the dominant Western culture, a patriarchal conceptual framework has sanctioned the following argument B:

(BI) Women are identified with nature and the realm of the physical; men are identified with the "human" and the realm of the mental.

(B2) Whatever is identified with nature and the realm of the physical is inferior to ("below") whatever is identified with the "human" and the realm of the mental: or, conversely, the latter is superior to ("above") the former.

(B3) Thus, women are inferior to ("below") men; or, conversely, men are superior to ("above") women.

(B4) For any X and Y, if X is superior to Y, then X is justified in subordinating Y. (the logic of domination)

(B5) Thus, men are justified in subordinating women.

The main patriarchal moral hierarchy is male-oriented rational mind vs. non-rational or reason-lacking matter/life, where nature and woman are identified with non-rational matter/life. This logic allows for justification of subordination  of both women and nature.

Ecofeminism is centered on respecting difference. Ecofeminism is an Environmental Wisdom worldview, which views nature as having intrinsic moral value.  The Worldview of Ecofeminism is the fact of difference between men and women and between all human things, and the fact of difference between human beings and the rest of nature. This is important because Warren’s extension of feminism and postmodern ethics of “Welcoming the Other” argues that if feminism (in regards to the respect of women and the difference between women and men) is to actually work, it must be ecological, and vice versa. Essentially, one cannot exist without the other.  The principles and values of ecofeminism include welcoming the other, community in difference, loving, caring, respect of differences between humans and nonhumans, and is opposed to the aforementioned hierarchical logic of domination. The rules and policies of ecofeminism are focused on respecting the differences between humans and nonhumans. Ecofeminism calls for strong reformist policies and some abolitionist policies that reflect the above principles and values. Some ecofeminists even call for an end to pet keeping because to be a pet is to have all of one’s life decisions controlled by someone else; when and what to eat, how to act, whom to socialize with, whether or not to reproduce. If the situation were offered to humans, they argue, we’d call it slavery. Any form of oppression, marginalization, exploitation, etc is considered harmful. Abolition of factory farming, hunting, experimentation is necessary. One interesting concept is the cosmetics industry, which often experiments on animals, and exists solely to capitalize on the learned insecurities that women have. This shows a direct correlation between environmental and feminist issues. Ecofeminism offers a wide, comprehensive scope. Ecofeminism is not subject to only women or to people who identify as feminists, rather it is a way of acknowledging that the environment has been continuously exploited and marginalized. Environmental issues and women's issues have direct correlation and have negative effects  on each other. Feminism and environmental activism are essentially fighting for similar things, to end the exploitation, abuse,  marginalization of women/people of color/ the environment. This worldview, in practical action, rather than just in theory, is more narrow. Though it is a way of approaching all environmental issues, there are specific instances where the correlation between ecology and feminism is more obvious, such as in the case of overpopulation. The reformist and abolition policies are both logical and possible, as well as presented in other worldviews, however in ecofeminism it is ought to be reviewed case by case.

Some questions people may have about ecofeminism include:

Why are most Env. Studies and Science majors today women?

There  is a widely held belief and argument that women are more likely to be nurturing than men.

Do biological females subscribe to the male patriarchal mindset/male gender values?

Patriarchal mindset is learned through society, and some women subscribe while others do not.

Do women, along with minorities and the poor, often suffer disproportionately from environmental problems like deforestation in developing countries (subsistence households), overuse of pesticides in agriculture (migrant female farm laborers), hormone-mimicing chemical pollution (breast cancer), indoor household air pollution, etc.?

Yes, such as in the case of environmental racism. Women make less than men to the  dollar, are more likely to live in poverty. Women have less rights than men in many countries globally. Women who are homemakers are more exposed to the above listed dangers.

Alexis Zobeideh

Dr. Van Buren