Originally posted by Annoyed
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Political Discussion Thread
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
sigpic
The best written female character on trek ever.
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostInsofar 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by garhkal View PostSo its institutionalized discrimination...
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostThose 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.
Originally posted by garhkal View PostBut isn't that the Definition of discrimination/ Giving an advantage/perk to someone, that is not given to all?
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by garhkal View PostBut isn't that the Definition of discrimination/ Giving an advantage/perk to someone, that is not given to all?
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"?sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by aretood2 View PostYes. 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostMore 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"?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostThat's not discrimination. That's you choosing to meet the responsibilities that you chose to take on when you chose to have a child.
Like I said, trade off.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostBut 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by aretood2 View PostThat 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).
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.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostDid I not say it couldn't be implemented?
Religious theocracies don't have the unwed/unplanned pregnancy problem we do.
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.If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.- Abba Eban.
Comment
-
Originally posted by aretood2 View PostWhy not paid to both?
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostBefore 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.Heightmeyer's Lemming -- still the coolest Lemming of the forum
Proper Stargate Rewatch -- season 10 of SG-1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostThose poor taxapayers.
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 yourssigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by aretood2 View PostWhy 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.
Originally posted by aretood2 View PostYes. 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.
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostMore 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"?
And why should single folk have to be punished for your choice?
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostI 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.
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostThat's right, and Garkhal is meeting his by his choice not to have a child.
Like I said, trade off.
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostIs "merit based discrimination" -actually- discrimination in this sense?
Originally posted by Falcon Horus View PostFor the record in Belgium: every mother receives child benefit for every child born, and this includes expats who work and live here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostWow, 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
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.
Comment
Comment