The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

You can try it with anything you like, Free speech and all that. If you want to run an advertising or propaganda campaign which aims to make it socially unacceptable for private citizens to own military grade weapons, have at it. You just can't use the power of govt. to force your view, that's all.

You missed the point, on both counts.
You -wanted- a conservative leaning Scotus judge, you have expressed a desire for them to become an overwhelming majority.
How are you not asking them to use their "power of the government" to force your view?

[Gatefan1976]

Because as I stated, no society that I can think of, with the possible exception of religious theocracies, would find the disclosure requirements acceptable.

So, you either want a theocracy, or your "solution" is untenable on it's face, and you know it.

[Womble]

Because as I stated, no society that I can think of, with the possible exception of religious theocracies, would find the disclosure requirements acceptable.

But religious theocracies have ALSO failed to implement that sort of solution.

[Annoyed]

So, you either want a theocracy, or your "solution" is untenable on it's face, and you know it.

Did I not say it couldn't be implemented?

But religious theocracies have ALSO failed to implement that sort of solution.

Religious theocracies don't have the unwed/unplanned pregnancy problem we do.

[aretood2]

Did I not say it couldn't be implemented?
Religious theocracies don't have the unwed/unplanned pregnancy problem we do.

...what theocracies don't have that problem? Because I don't know of any.

[garhkal]

Because kids are of the devil?

Some kids certainly seem to be of the devil.. Maybe not yours.
BUT it shows a discriminatory mindset towards single folk.
Like, when it comes to weekend duty, often married folk would get skipped OVER FOR watches, during the day, so they could meet with their families, while single folk GOT the watches..
Or on base when you had "On call watches", single folk would invariably ALWAYS get the weekend duties, even if they had done it 4 straight weekends and the married with kids folk, had not done a single shift that month..

The solution is simple.

Before a woman is awarded one dime of welfare benefits or court-ordered child support from any source, she must name the sperm donor, and this must be confirmed by either the purported sperm donor admitting that it is his, or DNA testing to prove paternity.
This way, you identify the sperm donor and he can be held responsible to whatever extent is possible.
And yes, you can turn this around in rare circumstances when the mother is not identified.

However, good luck enacting this in our society. I don't think people would accept it.

IMO Most men would. Not sure about all women though.

[aretood2]

Some kids certainly seem to be of the devil.. Maybe not yours.
BUT it shows a discriminatory mindset towards single folk.
Like, when it comes to weekend duty, often married folk would get skipped OVER FOR watches, during the day, so they could meet with their families, while single folk GOT the watches..
Or on base when you had "On call watches", single folk would invariably ALWAYS get the weekend duties, even if they had done it 4 straight weekends and the married with kids folk, had not done a single shift that month..

The parents aren't being given time off because people want to be nice to them. They are given time off for the sake of the kids. This action is done as a favor to kids, not the parents. We are, at least normally, wired to do this. As soon as those kids become adults, those little "perks" for parents disappear.

[Annoyed]

...what theocracies don't have that problem? Because I don't know of any.

I suspect there are a few sects in the middle east where there are few such problems.

[jelgate]

Probably because they are all stoned to death

[Gatefan1976]

And not in a good way

[jelgate]

I miss your brownies GF

[Gatefan1976]

I am sure there is a stale plate of MG's brownies around here somewhere...........

[garhkal]

The parents aren't being given time off because people want to be nice to them. They are given time off for the sake of the kids. This action is done as a favor to kids, not the parents. We are, at least normally, wired to do this. As soon as those kids become adults, those little "perks" for parents disappear.

So its institutionalized discrimination...

[Gatefan1976]

So its institutionalized discrimination...

Insofar as groups are given preference over individuals........... yes.

As a single person, you can do stuff every day that -I- cannot, that's the cost of my responsibility.
The advantage of my responsibility is that I get help from the government.
When you die, what will you leave behind?
Nothing.
When I die, I will have provided a home for the next generation to grow in, and strangely enough, I want them to have a habitable planet to live in.
I always find it curious that that the loudest people clamouring for "our way of life" do nothing to actually HELP that to happen.

[Annoyed]

The parents aren't being given time off because people want to be nice to them. They are given time off for the sake of the kids. This action is done as a favor to kids, not the parents. We are, at least normally, wired to do this. As soon as those kids become adults, those little "perks" for parents disappear.

Those perks shouldn't have existed in the first place. The situation garhkal describes is hardly equal treatment. It is hardly garhkal's or anyone else's obligation to work undesirable shifts because other employees have kids.