What group of americans are still being discriminated against?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


That's where being a lawyer or accountant comes in handy. If you are thinking about your clients' problems whilst in the bathroom then you can bill them for that 6 minute block of time. (assuming you charge by 1/10ths of an hour)

It's actually illegal for a physician to charge a patient for thinking about them. It's called "cognitive services". Physicians have lobbied for the right to bill for cognitive services, but to no avail.

Compared to lawyers we are second class citizens.

[Dr Strangelove]

Ozzie:
So at what age should a person be allowed to:
(1)Vote?
(2)Drink?
(3)Drive?
(4)Hold a job?
(5)Enter into a contract?

What criteria did you use to make your decision?

[SKILORD]

Not a difficult question at all.

The wealthy.

Justice is equality under the law and how can we claim to have established justice if we discriminate on the basis of economic wellbeing?

EDIT: Going off for a while now. I'll let the rest of you rage at this whilst I frolic outdoors.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Dissident

From the beginnings of slavery to the 1960's and still sometimes by nuts today, the argument was made that blacks were too dumb to think for themselves and needed the white man's "protection".

wrong answer. Scientific evidence exists proving youths (stupid word)- children and teenagers brains are not fully developed. Most lacking is the area involved in decision making.

Sorry pal, you're wrong on this as well. I have seen plenty of studies saying exactly the opposite.

Also, you cannot rest your case on studies that are informed by common prejudices and preconceptions. If you go back to 1870 you could find *tons* of studies and scientific research that *proves* women and blacks had diminished capacity for reason or were unable to make decisions for themselves as compared to white men.

Yes, believe it or not there are racist scientists and ageist scientists, and yes it is possible for studies to be biased based on the researcher's preconceptions.

So you throw out your studies, I'll throw out mine, where is it going to get us? No where. You need to do better than that.

[Kuciwalker]

Ozzy, answer Dr. Strangelove's post.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Aeson
I agree that age is not a very good judge of maturity. The problem is defining a better one. I would rather have an arbitrary and equal 'right of passage' than to have laws restricting who is or is not eligible.

In the arbitrary age case, at least everyone able to live to the age will be represented at some point, and nobody before. People are all treated equally by the law (if not by nature/fate). In the other case you have the government defining who can and can't vote. That is more problematic IMO.

It is not a case where people are treated equally by the law. You cannot simply declare that since most people will reach a certain age and be granted rights, its equal. Inequality moves along the 4th dimension too. The political opinions of a 70 year old are not the same as that of a 30 year old, so it would be wrong to claim equal treatment by making everyone wait until 70 to vote.

The political opinions of a 14 year old are different than an 18 year old. Denying the former is inequality.

[Kuciwalker]

So? What's wrong with inequality? A 14-year-old ISN'T equal to an 18-year-old.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SKILORD
Not a difficult question at all.

The wealthy.

Justice is equality under the law and how can we claim to have established justice if we discriminate on the basis of economic wellbeing?

EDIT: Going off for a while now. I'll let the rest of you rage at this whilst I frolic outdoors.

Equal justice under the law is one thing. There's something called distributive justice. That is law which corrects for injustice in society due to things like discrimination.

The govt does discriminate against property owners now through distributive justice, because of the discrimination that takes place in society against people without property.

So I guess Ogie can be right again, as long as he was only talking about discrimination by the govt.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by skywalker
Ozzy, answer Dr. Strangelove's post.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ozzy:

Your liberation would lead to child work camps, and child labour as we had in the 19th century. Children do not have the same capacities of adults, and giving them these rights will open them up to unscrupulous adults who will take advantage of their weaknesses.

Childhood is a time of innocence, which when lost, cannot be regained. Children already grow up fast enough. Why make them age any faster?

Forcing someone to work is illegal for all people of all ages. Stop making dishonest jumps between *allowing* someone to work and *forcing* them to work.

Much of innocence and weakness of youth is imposed on them, not inheriant. Youth who are assertive are punished and broken, so it is natural that young people have become more compliant and docile as a defence mechanism. Much like women and blacks. If youth were empowered with equal rights they would be much less likely to be taken advantage of.

Plus, lots of people get taken advantage of. Seniors always get scammed, women get taken by mechanics and many others. Do you want to propose a law stating women cannot take their cars to the repairshop?

[Kidlicious]

While I admire Ozzy arguing that all people should be treated equally, I have to say that children need people to make their decisions for them until they reach a certain age.

[Dr Strangelove]

Are you proposing no minimum age for voting, drinking, driving, working, or entering legal contracts?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by skywalker
We're talking about the government. Even a flat percentage tax is discrimination based on wealth, because it takes wealth into account when making a decision (how much the person should pay). Since the wealthier people pay more, they are discriminated against. However, "discrimination" has no value judgement attached - this can be a good or bad thing. Fundamentally, "discrimination" is just decision-making.

I'm glad someone around here actually takes the time to think about the real meaning of these buzzwords. Good post Skywalker.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Caligastia


I'm glad someone around here actually takes the time to think about the real meaning of these buzzwords. Good post Skywalker.

Actually the meaning of the word is 'to favor one group or person over another,' not to treat people differently. So I retract my apology.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Actually the meaning of the word is 'to favor one group or person over another,' not to treat people differently. So I retract my apology.

Check your dictionary.