The Political Discussion Thread

[chrono trigger]

Ok, I'm definitely of a divided opinion on this.

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/13...in-california/



I strongly agree with the goal; putting puppy/kitten mills out of business. Many of those places treat their animals horribly, and there are more than enough unwanted pets to fulfill the need for pets. I would like to see those mills driven out of business.

But I shudder to think about the state interference in the operation of privately held businesses & the state's trampling upon the rights of those business owners. Yes, mandate humane treatment of all animals in these mills, certainly, but this act crosses a line, setting a precedent that I don't think should be set.

Maybe this goal should be pursued via a public education campaign geared towards making it socially unacceptable to purchase or own "mill" animals as pets.

I am from the UK where you can not sell cats and dogs in pet stores due to past issues of them not being looked after properly. Over here you have to get them from a breeder or an animal shelter which only has one downside in that some breeders charge obsene amounts of money. It does help make sure the animals are bred in better conditions though which is more important, i do understand your concerns about private business owners rights but sometimes there are no perfect solutions to difficult issues.

[garhkal]

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.

But isn't that the Definition of discrimination/ Giving an advantage/perk to someone, that is not given to all?

[aretood2]

So its institutionalized discrimination...

We have always discriminated between the needs of the children and the needs adults. It's nothing new.

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.

Why not? We need our species to produce healthy and balanced generations to continue it. Sacrifices have to be made. It's a societal and biological imperative. It's basic species survival 101. Ever culture does this, parents get accommodated so that they can provide for their kids. Those without kids, don't need said accommodations. And sometimes when that contradicts, we have to prioritize for the sake of our collective future.

But isn't that the Definition of discrimination/ Giving an advantage/perk to someone, that is not given to all?

Yes. But some forms of discrimination are acceptable and even needed. Other forms are not. For example, the Military discriminates against physically weaker people versus stronger people.
Or at least it should. Police departments discriminate against people with violent criminal histories versus law abiding citizens. Annoyed has stated multiple times that governments should discriminate against foreign nationals who don't live in their country in favor of their own citizens.

[Gatefan1976]

But isn't that the Definition of discrimination/ Giving an advantage/perk to someone, that is not given to all?

More of a trade off.
What if I said "society discriminates against me as a parent because I have to stay home and take care of kids while you get to go out partying"?

[Annoyed]

Yes. But some forms of discrimination are acceptable and even needed. Other forms are not. For example, the Military discriminates against physically weaker people versus stronger people.
Or at least it should. Police departments discriminate against people with violent criminal histories versus law abiding citizens. Annoyed has stated multiple times that governments should discriminate against foreign nationals who don't live in their country in favor of their own citizens.

But seem to recall you object when I favor our own citizens over citizens of other nations. Your argument about police departments and people with violent criminal histories is a non-starter; they have earned their treatment by virtue of their past behavior.

I guess discrimination is OK, depending upon whom is being discriminated against. Can't have it both ways. You either oppose discrimination or you don't.

[Annoyed]

More of a trade off.
What if I said "society discriminates against me as a parent because I have to stay home and take care of kids while you get to go out partying"?

That's not discrimination. That's you choosing to meet the responsibilities that you chose to take on when you chose to have a child.

[Gatefan1976]

That's not discrimination. That's you choosing to meet the responsibilities that you chose to take on when you chose to have a child.

That's right, and Garkhal is meeting his by his choice not to have a child.
Like I said, trade off.

[aretood2]

But seem to recall you object when I favor our own citizens over citizens of other nations. Your argument about police departments and people with violent criminal histories is a non-starter; they have earned their treatment by virtue of their past behavior.

I guess discrimination is OK, depending upon whom is being discriminated against. Can't have it both ways. You either oppose discrimination or you don't.

That is discrimination...And yes you can. There's merit based discrimination and then their is arbitrary discrimination. For example, you discriminate against women (In your dating life) who want to have children while not having what you consider to be "sufficient resources" to care for them. That's merit based discrimination (And if you ask me, you'd probably be happier if you had just jumped the shark on that one).

[Gatefan1976]

That is discrimination...And yes you can. There's merit based discrimination and then their is arbitrary discrimination. For example, you discriminate against women (In your dating life) who want to have children while not having what you consider to be "sufficient resources" to care for them. That's merit based discrimination (And if you ask me, you'd probably be happier if you had just jumped the shark on that one).

Is "merit based discrimination" -actually- discrimination in this sense?
Or is it just a choice?
This is where "SJW's" get a lot of deserved flack, by assuming that there is discrimination involved in situations where there just may be none to be found.

[Womble]

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

Uh, they do. They just sweep it under the rug and convert it to a range of other, worse problems. Back-alley abortions, forced marriages, honor killings, infanticide in various forms including abandoning a newborn child to die after birth. Are your precious tax dollars worth so much these these would be acceptable solutions? Are you really that kind of person?

They've found at least 800 dead infants in a septic tank in Ireland, in "The Home" - a former refuge house for unwed pregnant women and their illegitimate children. The women, ostracized by the theocratic catholic Irish society between the 1920-s and 1960-s, paid for their stay through indentured servitude- this way nobody's taxes paid for it. Their newborn children died at a rate of two per week from malnutrition, neglect (servants don't get sick leave for child care), measles and TB. The dead ones were tossed into the sewer. The ones that survived were the pariahs of the Irish society. School children were punished by their teaches by way of being seated next to the "Home babies". Fellow children would mock them by wrapping rocks into gift paper and give to the "Home babies" for Christmas.

[Falcon Horus]

Why not paid to both?

Not how the current law stands. Child benefit goes to the mother unless another arrangement has been agreed upon by both parents. Children can therefore also receive the benefit when the parents are deceased or have been relieved of their parental status by ways of a court order.

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.

For the record in Belgium: every mother receives child benefit for every child born, and this includes expats who work and live here.

[Annoyed]

For the record in Belgium: every mother receives child benefit for every child born, and this includes expats who work and live here.

Those poor taxapayers.

[Gatefan1976]

Those poor taxapayers.

Wow, Womble gives you examples of what your idea's will lead to, and you worry about "poor taxpayers"
Your priorities are clear.

For the record, we had a "baby bonus" as well for a time and we lost it because of ideology like yours

[garhkal]

Why not? We need our species to produce healthy and balanced generations to continue it. Sacrifices have to be made. It's a societal and biological imperative. It's basic species survival 101. Ever culture does this, parents get accommodated so that they can provide for their kids. Those without kids, don't need said accommodations. And sometimes when that contradicts, we have to prioritize for the sake of our collective future.

Cause its in effect, saying that single folk are not as worthy as folk who are married/with kids, and that cause of it, single folk need to take up the slack from the married/with kids folks lack of responsibility.

Yes. But some forms of discrimination are acceptable and even needed. Other forms are not. For example, the Military discriminates against physically weaker people versus stronger people.
Or at least it should. Police departments discriminate against people with violent criminal histories versus law abiding citizens. Annoyed has stated multiple times that governments should discriminate against foreign nationals who don't live in their country in favor of their own citizens.

So why are some forms of discrimination acceptable or even necessary, while others are seen as flat out wrong?

More of a trade off.
What if I said "society discriminates against me as a parent because I have to stay home and take care of kids while you get to go out partying"?

How is society discriminating against you, cause you chose to have kids and now have a responsibiliy to put their needs ahead of your own?
And why should single folk have to be punished for your choice?

I guess discrimination is OK, depending upon whom is being discriminated against. Can't have it both ways. You either oppose discrimination or you don't.

Which is what i have been saying for years. If you are in the "Right" sort of group, its OK to discriminate against you.

That's right, and Garkhal is meeting his by his choice not to have a child.
Like I said, trade off.

So cause i (in YOUR words) chose not to have a kid, i therefore have the 'trade off' that i now have to take up the slack from all those who DO chose to have kids? And how is that a 'trade off'??

Is "merit based discrimination" -actually- discrimination in this sense?

Not to me.

For the record in Belgium: every mother receives child benefit for every child born, and this includes expats who work and live here.

So if you want to live on the govts dime, just get there and drop out a kid...

[Annoyed]

Wow, Womble gives you examples of what your idea's will lead to, and you worry about "poor taxpayers"
Your priorities are clear.

For the record, we had a "baby bonus" as well for a time and we lost it because of ideology like yours

For the record, I was responding to FH, and her comment about the money Belgium apparently hands out for having a kid, not Womble.

And why should you get a "baby bonus"? You and your wife had the kid, it's your responsibility to care for it, no one elses.