The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

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.

It is. Discrimination isn't unlawful by default. It's the specifics involved that make it unlawful/immoral. I am speaking from a more social perspective. For example, I am sure you didn't chase every pair of pretty legs that crossed your path. You discriminated some traits in women in your dating life until you found the venerable Mrs. GF.

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.

My question is why is the law like that?

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

Ever heard the saying "It takes a village to raise a kid"? Yes, it is all our responsibility. We all must play a role in ensuring the successful continuation of our species/society. I guess this is the difference between being fake pro-life and true pro-life.

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.

To incentivise the having of babies. European birth rates are declining at dangerous levels. Right now, more Europeans need to have more kids, not less.

[aretood2]

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.

In the grand scheme of things...yes. Single childless folk are a lot more useless to humanity's enduring goal then coupled childbearing folk. Single childless folk, all things remaining equal, do nothing to further the existence of mankind. However, single childless folk can turn that around by helping out the community in the reproduction process through other means...means you seem to be against...thus making them just as valuable as coupled childbearing folk.

Now I say that in the most general of terms. I am not taking into account your individual contributions to our society.

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

Are you on the autism spectrum as well or something similar when it comes to social norms? I don't mean this in an offensive way at all.
It's just that...um...I kinda noticed that with some of FH's questions and ended up being sorta right and I do find this question to be equally odd.

[Gatefan1976]

It is. Discrimination isn't unlawful by default. It's the specifics involved that make it unlawful/immoral. I am speaking from a more social perspective. For example, I am sure you didn't chase every pair of pretty legs that crossed your path. You discriminated some traits in women in your dating life until you found the venerable Mrs. GF.

Actually, legs are my weakness
More seriously however, even in "social terms" I wonder if those choices rise to "discrimination". Like it or not, the very word discrimination comes with a boatload of strictly negative connotations. If I liked other men, would I be "discriminatory" towards women?
I get your point, I just wonder if the word has the social context you are assigning to it in common parlance.

My question is why is the law like that?

See FH's link about patriarchal societies. Society has pushed women into the role of mother and nothing other for quite a long time, and if the mother is the one dealing with the kids, does it not make sense to give them the money "by default"? The law allows for it to go to the man, but all things have a default setting.

Ever heard the saying "It takes a village to raise a kid"? Yes, it is all our responsibility. We all must play a role in ensuring the successful continuation of our species/society. I guess this is the difference between being fake pro-life and true pro-life.

I am not sure the "pro life" argument holds any weight here, more like "pro society" and "not pro-society"
For example, many "pro white" people bemoan the loss of the power of white society, especially in voting and governmental direction of the country they live in, yet the way to turn that around is to produce more white people, which is not happening.

To incentivise the having of babies. European birth rates are declining at dangerous levels. Right now, more Europeans need to have more kids, not less.

Japan is the best example of this, even though they are not European.

[garhkal]

In the grand scheme of things...yes. Single childless folk are a lot more useless to humanity's enduring goal then coupled childbearing folk. Single childless folk, all things remaining equal, do nothing to further the existence of mankind. However, single childless folk can turn that around by helping out the community in the reproduction process through other means...means you seem to be against...thus making them just as valuable as coupled childbearing folk.

So unless i pop out kids, i am not contributing to society then?
Why then not FORCE people into marriages and to have kids? Require everyone by 21 to be engaged, and married with 1 kid by 25, or have something happen (like in that film, Lobster)?

Are you on the autism spectrum as well or something similar when it comes to social norms? I don't mean this in an offensive way at all.
It's just that...um...I kinda noticed that with some of FH's questions and ended up being sorta right and I do find this question to be equally odd.

No i am not? I just don't feel i need to be beholden to what 'society' seems as normal.

[Gatefan1976]

So unless i pop out kids, i am not contributing to society then?

In terms of contributing to the continuation of society......
Nope.
You a an evolutionary dead end.
I don't mean that as -you personally- are a dead end, but your genes and such will end unless you have brothers or sisters.

Why then not FORCE people into marriages and to have kids? Require everyone by 21 to be engaged, and married with 1 kid by 25, or have something happen (like in that film, Lobster)?

Because we allow choice, weather it is "good" for us or not.

No i am not? I just don't feel i need to be beholden to what 'society' seems as normal.

Then don't expect "society" to treat you as normal either. You are a gamer, do people treat you as normal for being a gamer?
They sure as hell did not when I was a kid, because I was not "normal" by their standards, I liked to sit around a table, roll dice and tell stories.
Still, your idea's seem quite "far out there" sometimes, hence Tood's question, and his caveat that he was specifically trying not to offend.

[Annoyed]

Ever heard the saying "It takes a village to raise a kid"? Yes, it is all our responsibility. We all must play a role in ensuring the successful continuation of our species/society. I guess this is the difference between being fake pro-life and true pro-life.

Wasn't that a book by a corrupt politician a few decades back?

[SoulReaver]

Ever heard the saying "It takes a village to raise a kid"? Yes, it is all our responsibility

Wasn't that a book by a corrupt politician a few decades back?

yet you don't mind involving the village to force someone to have a kid in the first place

[Annoyed]

yet you don't mind involving the village to force someone to have a kid in the first place

When have I ever said a couple should be forced to have sex in order to create a child?

[Gatefan1976]

......... and while you were not looking......

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps...tremist-judges

[garhkal]

In terms of contributing to the continuation of society......
Nope.
You a an evolutionary dead end.
I don't mean that as -you personally- are a dead end, but your genes and such will end unless you have brothers or sisters.

Because we allow choice, weather it is "good" for us or not.

Then why punish those choices?

Then don't expect "society" to treat you as normal either. You are a gamer, do people treat you as normal for being a gamer?
They sure as hell did not when I was a kid, because I was not "normal" by their standards, I liked to sit around a table, roll dice and tell stories.

SInce in the mil i met Quite a few gamers, and hundreds of thousands since at the conventions, i don't see us as being out of the norm..

Still, your idea's seem quite "far out there" sometimes, hence Tood's question, and his caveat that he was specifically trying not to offend.

ANd i didn't take any offense at it.. I've been called a tactless ingrate many a time..

[Gatefan1976]

Then why punish those choices?

It's not a punishment dude!!
Mrs GF and I, as a couple will provide more tax dollars to the state than you ever will, but I don't see that as punishment, I see it as an economic reality.
Think of it this way instead.
Mrs GF and I, at the birth of our children got a one off, immediate tax break for a month.
That's the Baby bonus.
What we get on a fortnightly basis is means tested, and if we go over that, all payments stop, and if we were overpaid, we have to pay it back, generally very quickly, with threat of government legal action over our head.

SInce in the mil i met Quite a few gamers, and hundreds of thousands since at the conventions, i don't see us as being out of the norm..

If you met a million of them, that would represent less than 0.3% of the population of the US.
Gamers, at least in the classic D&D sense of gamers are a severe minority and at the height of pen and paper RPG's (80's-90's), we were seen as devil worshippers because we did not conform.

ANd i didn't take any offense at it.. I've been called a tactless ingrate many a time..

Did it ever have an effect?

[Annoyed]

......... and while you were not looking......

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps...tremist-judges

Who says I wasn't looking? I've been saying for a while now that the most positive aspect of Trump's presidency will be his impact on the judiciary. SCOTUS seats are the most visible, but there were a lot of other seats on the bench waiting to be filled. These appointments will have impact for decades to come.

Oh, and of course, I won't pay any attention whatsoever to biased "news" site that you cited. They're so far left they're going in circles.

[Falcon Horus]

And why should single folk have to be punished for your choice?

Correction, you are "punished" for your choice.

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.

It's called social security over here.
A little something to help raise the kid -- it barely covers expenses though. And it's a set amount of money which since the change in the law varies from region to region, in Walloon it's higher than in Flanders, and Brussels is still undecided at the moment.

Are you on the autism spectrum as well or something similar when it comes to social norms? I don't mean this in an offensive way at all.
It's just that...um...I kinda noticed that with some of FH's questions and ended up being sorta right and I do find this question to be equally odd.

Yeah, I know, I'm a bit odd.

So unless i pop out kids, i am not contributing to society then?
Why then not FORCE people into marriages and to have kids? Require everyone by 21 to be engaged, and married with 1 kid by 25, or have something happen (like in that film, Lobster)?

What if the couple can't have children? Will you force divorce as well?

In terms of contributing to the continuation of society......
Nope.
You a an evolutionary dead end.
I don't mean that as -you personally- are a dead end, but your genes and such will end unless you have brothers or sisters.

I'm doing the world a favor by not procreating.

......... and while you were not looking......
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps...tremist-judges

Oh, these are nice fellas... The death penalty for homosexuality (unless you repent -- Pence prefers hanging, or so I've heard), voter suppression, biblethumpers, .... oh yeah, that'll go great.

Who says I wasn't looking? I've been saying for a while now that the most positive aspect of Trump's presidency will be his impact on the judiciary. SCOTUS seats are the most visible, but there were a lot of other seats on the bench waiting to be filled. These appointments will have impact for decades to come.

Oh, what's your favorite method of killing gays?

Transgenderism is Satan's work, Harry Potter had a homosexual mentor, death penalty for homosexuality (unless you repent), voter suppression.

Good thing, you aren't any of those things, hey!

[SoulReaver]

So unless i pop out kids, i am not contributing to society then?

on the other hand if you do pop out kids you're contributing to WWIII

[Annoyed]

Oh, what's your favorite method of killing gays?

Transgenderism is Satan's work, Harry Potter had a homosexual mentor, death penalty for homosexuality (unless you repent), voter suppression.

Good thing, you aren't any of those things, hey!

You actually pay attention to the drivel printed by that site GF referenced?