Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What group of americans are still being discriminated against?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by OzzyKP


    Ok, I'll bite and go out on a limb here. How about we move past age as a criteria altogether? Everyone here seems to recognize it is merely a substitute for other criteria. Age is insignificant, it is merely used as a stand-in for other qualities. Why don't we use those qualities as the criteria? Why do we need to use an abstraction, when all it does is lead to irrational, and unfair treatment of individuals?

    (1)Vote?


    So let me throw out another option(out of many others), how about no voting age at all? Germany may be moving in that direction, and legislation has been introduced to abolish the voting age altogether. Now I'm not saying this is the best option, I'm talking it out for your benefit, so before you get all hysterical, please think how this would work. I doubt the vast majority of children would even want to vote, so what would be harmed by allowing them? Massive amounts of 6 year olds would NOT be showing up at the polls and swinging elections. It is entirely likely that .01% of eligible 6 year olds would be interested/able to register to vote and vote. BUT if .01% of 6 year olds ARE interested and ARE able to register and vote, why on earth would you stop them? What are you really afraid of?

    As you would get older, you'd definitely see more able voters, and people more interested in voting. Voting is a self-selecting system, those people who are informed about politics are the ones who will make the effort to go out and vote, those who couldn't care less and who would be voting ignorantly, wouldn't bother registering and then voting. No one is forced to vote.
    In many parts of the country the polling places are located in the elementary schools because elementary schools are plentiful and convenient, so actually it would be very easy for little kids to reach the polling places in "massive" numbers. I think you'd begin to see the NEA's agenda getting a very big boost since young children are very impressionable and easy to sway. Heck, the teachers might lead their little charges right up to the polling places all nice, orderly, and in single file. Man, are your local taxes going to go through the roof.
    (2)Drink?

    In many countries there either isn't a drinking age, or the one on the books exists merely on paper. The drinking age in the United States has existed for a little over 100 years. In Portugaul where there is no drinking age, how often do we see toddler keg parties? Never. In fact in countries with lower drinking ages and lower enforcement of drinking ages we see *less drinking* and moreover less problems with alcohol. During prohibition in America drinking among adults INCREASED, it is no surprize to see such high level of drinking among American youth as compared to their European counterparts. The drinking age only causes problems.
    Wow. This is so timely coming so soon after the tragedy of the two little kids who died drinking. I'm fairly certain that the countries with the greatest youth drinking problems are in Europe. Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Scotland come to mind. Further more, your statement about the alleged increase in drinking during prohibition sort of conflicts with hard statistics showing a decrease in the death rate from alcoholic liver disease from 1925 to 1935.
    (3)Drive?

    Once again, a driving age is a substitute for real criteria involving a person's ability to drive a car. We already have tests for a person's ability to drive a car, a driving age is redundant. Lets suppose the vast majority of 6 year olds are unable to drive safely and competantly. Well fine, they don't drive. That simple. If .01% of 6 year olds could pass a strict (and yes, they'd have to be much stricter than they are today) driving test, why wouldn't you want to let them drive?
    It's well established that the accident rate of teens is much higher than that of older people. In fact studies show that the accident rate among teen drivers is actually higher than that of elderly people with know Alzeheimer's disease! The higher rate isn't completely explained by inexperience, because the accident rate among newly licensed drivers older than 20 is not as high as that of newly licensed teens.
    (4)Hold a job?

    I've been gainfully employed since 9. It has only done positive things for me. Why impose a limit? As I noted in my other post, forcing someone to work against their will is slavery and against the law. If someone very young chooses to work, then they should be able to. Of course it depends on the employer and the job. If a job requires heavy lifting and the child is physically unable to do the lifting, of course he/she couldn't do the job. If it requires advanced knowledge of math, and the applicant doesn't have it, they shouldn't get the job. Young people currently do farm work, do work at home, deliver newspapers (as I did), babysit, volunteer, and do many other productive jobs. How is this any different from hawking designer jeans? Or whatever other jobs might be open to someone young.

    Everyone irrationally fears a return to the unsafe, dangerous working conditions for child workers 100 years ago. News flash: unsafe, dangerous working conditions of the type that existed then are already outlawed.
    Our society has already been down that road. I have many patients who were children before the child labor laws were enacted. They were taken out of school and forced to work. They began their working lives at the most menial of jobs, but later found they had no marketable skills when the menial jobs dried up. Most became unemployed or under employed by their 40s because they're functionally illiterate and can not adjust to new job situations. If you were to spend at least 10 minutes with someone who got yanked out of 5th grade to go to work full time you'd know better than to suggest that the child labor laws be struck down.

    (5)Enter into a contract?

    We want to make sure someone signing a contract understands exactly what they are getting themselves into and the implications of it. Why can't we just make sure of that? You don't need an age restriction for that. It would help out people of all ages. Look at Terrell Owens, who signed a contract and I suppose didn't fully understand what it entailed as he missed out on his free agency because of dumbly missing a filing date. If a greater effort were made to ensure those who sign contracts actually read and understood what was involved in it, then I see no need for an age requirement.
    Under the law children are generally considered to have a lesser degree of responsibility. You can't write a valid contract between two parties if one of them has diminished responsibility. Part of the process of growing up is after all the learning of responsibility. If you abolish the concept that a child has less reponsibility for his actions than an adult then you're opening up a real can of worms. Why bother to build special facilities for youthful offenders? If they're just as responsible as adults then send them to the pen! Bubba wuvs little Billy!
    There are features of contract law that a kid just isn't going to understand, and saddling them with adult responsibilities is just plain unfair.
    "I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!

    Comment


    • Leave it to Strangelove to ruin a thread by bringing up serious and valid points.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Verto
        Leave it to Strangelove to ruin a thread by bringing up serious and valid points.
        I'm sorry. I'll go away now.
        "I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!

        Comment


        • There are features of contract law that a kid just isn't going to understand, and saddling them with adult responsibilities is just plain unfair.
          As opposed to your average soccor mom, who is gonna understand every line?

          Sorry, not trying to enter your debate, just pointing it out
          Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
          Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

          Comment


          • There are people who flunked my Business Law class who have the legal right to enter into contract.
            I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
            - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

            Comment


            • IMO, the British are a disciminated minority in the US. Seriously.

              Comment


              • MrBaggins, you an idiot

                Do you know how many chicks go for guys with English accents?!!!@! If anything you have the advantage!
                Monkey!!!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Japher
                  MrBaggins, you an idiot

                  Do you know how many chicks go for guys with English accents?!!!@! If anything you have the advantage!
                  /me chuckles

                  Hang on... I have proof

                  First, British cuisine is woefully underrepresented... and I'm primarily talking about Fish and Chip shops.

                  There are a myriad of restaurants of every ethnicity in NYC... probably every cuisine known to man, but only one decent Fish and Chip shop that's worth a visit... The Chip Shop in Brooklyn. (great fried mars bars, oreos, etc. too)

                  Other than that you have to drive to Kearny, NJ... where they have 2.

                  and... before anyone says anything about Arthur Treachers... they suck donkey nuts, big time.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBaggins


                    * MrBaggins chuckles

                    Hang on... I have proof

                    First, British cuisine is woefully underrepresented... and I'm primarily talking about Fish and Chip shops.

                    There are a myriad of restaurants of every ethnicity in NYC... probably every cuisine known to man, but only one decent Fish and Chip shop that's worth a visit... The Chip Shop in Brooklyn. (great fried mars bars, oreos, etc. too)

                    Other than that you have to drive to Kearny, NJ... where they have 2.


                    and... before anyone says anything about Arthur Treachers... they suck donkey nuts, big time.
                    That's what you get for leaving the commonwealth. Come to Canada.

                    (no fried mars bars 'though. That's disgusting. )
                    Rethink Refuse Reduce Reuse

                    Do It Ourselves

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Osweld


                      That's what you get for leaving the commonwealth. Come to Canada.

                      (no fried mars bars 'though. That's disgusting. )
                      Don't knock what you've not tried. They are the most luxuriously indulgent "candy" on earth. The deep frying restructures the various carbohydrates in the Mars Bar, for delicious effect.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Kidicious




                        Why do you have to try to say the exact opposite of what I say? I trolled first. This isn't fair.

                        Anyway, property is obviously a benefit. You get income from it and so forth. It's just ridiculous to say that people are discriminated against for recieving a benefit. That are discriminated for.
                        A) Whoever said I was fair.
                        B) All is fair in jest and trolling

                        "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                        “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                        Comment


                        • Well, back to the original question, I could say we Latter-day Saints/Mormons are still being discriminated against. No kind of legal redress has been given, that I know of. At least one governor had the decency to apologize and rescind the Extermination Order.

                          I am repressed! Sympathize and pity me!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


                            A) Whoever said I was fair.
                            B) All is fair in jest and trolling

                            Are you related to DinoDoc or is it the ideology.
                            I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                            - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Verto
                              Well, back to the original question, I could say we Latter-day Saints/Mormons are still being discriminated against. No kind of legal redress has been given, that I know of. At least one governor had the decency to apologize and rescind the Extermination Order.

                              I am repressed! Sympathize and pity me!
                              I agree there is a lot of prejudice against LDS folks. Not really any anti-Mormon laws though, except maybe anti-poligamy laws, but I guess y'all don't do that anymore. But yea, I hear a lot of bad things said about LDS. I'm with ya.
                              Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012

                              When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kidicious


                                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.
                                There's a big difference between systematic discrimination by the government and what is basically discrimination served up by reality.

                                Let us say that caucasians were less adept at handling a certain computer code.... language thing. Numbers of caucasians in the tech workforce would drop significantly. Due to the fact that revenge is the highest virtue at the present stage of history the government wouldn't care, but say they did and decided to perform some 'Distributive Justice' up on that.

                                Disaster in the making.

                                -

                                A closer chain of thought now.

                                How does a government enforce its demands?

                                They cannot actually control the behavior of their 'subjects' so how do they "correct" "faulty" behaviors?

                                Force.

                                Now by discriminating against the wealthy we are "correcting" the behavior of success by deducting from that success. If the opressed refuses to pay a specifically opressive tax (i.e. income tax) he will be... I dunno what's the punishment for tax evasion? Well let's fast forward a while and eventually this guy is in prison for refusing to submit to the "corrections" placed upon his behavior. Prison. Guards watching him, no freedom. Yes, its probably a white collar prison-resort (another double standard I don't like) but I'm sure that he would still rather be free. Force has been applied against him.

                                Let us say, on the other hand, that a certain man is walking down a street when he feels the cold, heartless muzzle of a gun being pressed into his back.

                                Force.

                                And how can we say that a mugging is any different from the first application of force? Because the government claims some absurd 'mandate from the masses?'

                                Mandate to do what? To rob, cheat and steal from select portions of her citzenry?

                                -

                                I do not believe that Distributive Justice is a correct form of Justice. It is a proposition doomed to failure.
                                Read Blessed be the Peacemakers | Read Political Freedom | Read Pax Germania: A Story of Redemption | Read Unrelated Matters | Read Stains of Blood and Ash | Read Ripper: A Glimpse into the Life of Gen. Jack Sterling | Read Deutschland Erwachte! | Read The Best Friend | Read A Mothers Day Poem | Read Deliver us From Evil | Read The Promised Land

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X