NationStates Jolt Archive

What is true equality to you?

To me its the same standard for everyone.

No Affirmative Action

No "Special standards for women"

No Welfare or Social Security.

You rise and fall on your own merit. To me that is true equality.

To me, true equality is where I enslave everyone.

Having equal welfare for equal amounts of poverty would be a truly equal right, rather than just doing away with Welfare, which is very much needed.

No special rights for men or women, yes, this sounds good. People should be treated equally, regardless of sex.

No Affirmative Action. Very good idea, because Affirmative Action just makes it easier for minorities to get into college without having to work hard like all the other kids.

Equal rights for gays and lesbians, plus equal rights for transgenders and hermaphrodites.

Like I said, everyone rise and fall on their own merit.

What is true equality to you?

To me its the same standard for everyone.

No Affirmative Action

No "Special standards for women"

No Welfare or Social Security.

You rise and fall on your own merit. To me that is true equality.
Women get paid 73 cents to a man's dollar--so not equal. And how does welfare DISCOURAGE equality. It's sole purpose is to prevent the poor from starving.

Like I said, everyone rise and fall on their own merit.
So you're saying that just because you don't have money, you deserve to starve and die.

Exactly, which is why in my post, I mean it as both sexes should be treated absolutely equally.

I don't know if that's what he meant, but you never know.

Originally posted by Potaria
Women get paid 73 cents to a man's dollar--so not equal. And how does welfare DISCOURAGE equality. It's sole purpose is to prevent the poor from starving.

I agree with you there. It's easy for a person to have "good merits" when daddy paid for thier college tuition. :rolleyes:
And don't give me that bullshit how one's merits matches their needs because that is not true.

To me all Welfare does is encourage people to mooch off the government and taxpayers. I know people like this. I've MET people like this. They all disgust me. I will agree to Welfare under one condition. The person has to be activitly looking for a job. As soon as he stops, so does his check. There should also be a time limit on when he can recieve the check. To get it renewel will be hard. Might as well get a job then go through the renewel process.

Exactly, which is why in my post, I mean it as both sexes should be treated absolutely equally.

I don't know if that's what he meant, but you never know.


Yes that is what I ment. Both sexes should be created as equal. In True Equality, sex, religion, handicapps, and race does not matter.

To me all Welfare does is encourage people to mooch off the government and taxpayers. I know people like this. I've MET people like this. They all disgust me. I will agree to Welfare under one condition. The person has to be activitly looking for a job. As soon as he stops, so does his check. There should also be a time limit on when he can recieve the check. To get it renewel will be hard. Might as well get a job then go through the renewel process.
Wouldn't you try to mooch off the government if the minimum wage didn't cover a one-bedroom apartment?

Originally posted by German Kingdoms
To me all Welfare does is encourage people to mooch off the government and taxpayers. I know people like this. I've MET people like this. They all disgust me. I will agree to Welfare under one condition. The person has to be activitly looking for a job. As soon as he stops, so does his check. There should also be a time limit on when he can recieve the check. To get it renewel will be hard. Might as well get a job then go through the renewel process.

Yeah, well I seem to have more merit on this subject than you do. My mom gets state aid and she works. She's single and gets a $50.oo support check. Welfare does not allow people to mooch off of the government. It barely gives you enough to feed your family. :rolleyes:
Second of all, I live in a section-8 nieghborhood almost every person here has a job. I know this to be true. I've lived here for 14 years.

Theres no such thing as true equality, because someone is alway going to want more then others and think they are entitled to more based on who or what they are. Its human nature, replace everyone with robots then we'll talk.

Absolutely without a doubt, this is how things should work.

It isn't though...

This would only work in an environment where other people aren't actively attempting to discriminate against others. Our world isn't perfect, there are people out there who positively hate others based on nothing more arbitrary than their skin colour, gender, sexual preference or religion.

The concept of "special standards" is supposed to work by counteracting discrimination.

I agree that no one should be given a job just because they are female or because they are a racial minority. However, until you can positively prove that people aren't missing out on a job because they ARE female or a racial minority then these sorts of anti-discrimination laws/regulations are about the best we've got.

They're not perfect either, I'm not foolish enough to think that they are not being abused by some people. Ideally, anti-discrimination would be handled on a case by case basis where each is weighed according to its merits but that would unfortunately be unworkable.

Yeah, well I seem to have more merit on this subject than you do. My mom gets state aid and she works. She's single and gets a $50.oo support check. Welfare does not allow people to mooch off of the government. It barely gives you enough to feed your family. :rolleyes:
Second of all, I live in a section-8 nieghborhood almost every person here has a job. I know this to be true. I've lived here for 14 years.


Having been on Welfare, I can vouch for that. $275 a month for Food Stamps doesn't even last the whole month, especially for three people.

Theres no such thing as true equality, because someone is alway going to want more then others and think they are entitled to more based on who or what they are. Its human nature, replace everyone with robots then we'll talk.
here's a question. since "guns don't kill people, people kill people", if a robot kille me with a gun, does that make him a person?

Yeah, well I seem to have more merit on this subject than you do. My mom gets state aid and she works. She's single and gets a $50.oo support check. Welfare does not allow people to mooch off of the government. It barely gives you enough to feed your family. :rolleyes:
Second of all, I live in a section-8 nieghborhood almost every person here has a job. I know this to be true. I've lived here for 14 years.

$50?? wow, and this one woman I've met gets $300!

She also lives with her mom and sits on her fat ass all day and does nothing but sit in front of the computer. All the while part of my paycheck goes to support her. I feel sorry for her mom though. Poor girl is working 2 jobs to support them both. Shes 23, no college education, no job nothing. I think her mom needs to kick her out into the real world. I know if she was my daughter. She would've been out of the house with $1,000 from me at the age of 21. After that, its her responability to support herself.

Ah the Welfare system over here is bludgy as hell. If you have 3 or 4 kids you'll make as much on welfare as someone doing a 40 hour week, sometimes more.

Originally posted by Germanic Kingdoms
$50?? wow, and this one woman I've met gets $300!

She also lives with her mom and sits on her fat ass all day and does nothing but sit in front of the computer. All the while part of my paycheck goes to support her. I feel sorry for her mom though. Poor girl is working 2 jobs to support them both. Shes 23, no college education, no job nothing. I think her mom needs to kick her out into the real world. I know if she was my daughter. She would've been out of the house with $1,000 from me at the age of 21. After that, its her responability to support herself.

I do agree with you there. Single people with no children should not get support from the government unless they truly cannot work. People who have disabilites also should not get support if she/he works. :)

Let me just say,
dog eat dog =/= equality

I just think that here in the USA if we're really going to go for equality, then lets go for it. None of the stupid liberal BS.

Originally posted by Germanic Kingdoms
I just think that here in the USA if we're really going to go for equality, then lets go for it. None of the stupid liberal BS.

If that would happen, there'd be mass oppression everywhere. The middle class would wither away. The upper class would turn into an elite select who has dominated survival. I doubt you fit into the latter. :rolleyes:

If that would happen, there'd be mass oppression everywhere. The middle class would wither away. The upper class would turn into an elite select who has dominated survival. I doubt you fit into the latter. :rolleyes:
Yup, since capitalism is polarising in nature. I just thought of Midnight Oil - "The rich gettin' richer, the poor get the picture..." :p

And under tis system you NEED safeguards to protect vulnerable people from exploitation. Besides, economically women and non-whites AREN'T equal.

Yup, since capitalism is polarising in nature. I just thought of Midnight Oil - "The rich gettin' richer, the poor get the picture..." :p

And under tis system you NEED safeguards to protect vulnerable people from exploitation. Besides, economically women and non-whites AREN'T equal.


Exactly, which is why a Protectionist Democracy is better than a full-on, raw Democracy.

Women get paid 73 cents to a man's dollar--so not equal. And how does welfare DISCOURAGE equality. It's sole purpose is to prevent the poor from starving.

They also work less hours, take more days off, change careers more and they more often take more than a year off for "personal reasons" that does not include schooling, career training or any kind of preparation for a new career.

That women get paid 80 cents to a man's dollar (the accurate figure) obviously has nothing to do with the fact that they work less and are far more likely to be working part-time.

I swear I think I've repeated these facts on here three times in the past week.

P.S. This topic is about true equality, which can not be encouraged or discouraged, it can only exist or not exist. The idea of "encouraging" equality spits in the face of true equality.

here's a question. since "guns don't kill people, people kill people", if a robot kille me with a gun, does that make him a person?

It would make it an automated weapon that was likely produced and programmed by a person to kill you with a gun. Thusly "robots with guns don't kill people. People, who make robots with guns, kill people"

It would make it an automated weapon that was likely produced and programmed by a person to kill you with a gun. Thusly "robots with guns don't kill people. People, who make robots with guns, kill people"
interesting. then here's a follow up question. If a dog figures out the workings of a firearm and uses it to blow a rather large hole in me. is that dog then a person?

interesting. then here's a follow up question. If a dog figures out the workings of a firearm and uses it to blow a rather large hole in me. is that dog then a person?

Logical Fallacy.

Guns don’t kill people, People kill People.
Guns don’t kill people, Dogs kill People.

Both statements coexist without making the dog a person.

What is true equality to you?

To me its the same standard for everyone.

No Affirmative Action

No "Special standards for women"

No Welfare or Social Security.

You rise and fall on your own merit. To me that is true equality.

Very nice. Of course, there are a few prerequisites:

No racism or sexism.

No history of slavery and segregation with lingering effects.

No legacy admissions or good ol' boy hiring.

No inheritance. If you rise or fall on your own merit, you don't need daddy or mummy's money.

Equal education opportunities.

No standards that are male-biased. Requiring unnecessary strength, for example, but not testing stamina or dexterity.

No corporations. No stock manipulation.

No government subsidies of businesses.

I can go on and on and on . . .

Your world view is a tad narrow.

I live on 600.00 dollars a month disability. I currently don't get section 8. I might be able to handle a part time job, but if I do I lose my prescription coverage. My prescriptions cost about 950.00 a month. Without some sort of reform, I can't afford to work. But it's almost impossible for me to get medical coverage unless I get a full time job with immediate insurance, or shoot out a couple of kids.

I live on 600.00 dollars a month disability. I currently don't get section 8. I might be able to handle a part time job, but if I do I lose my prescription coverage. My prescriptions cost about 950.00 a month. Without some sort of reform, I can't afford to work. But it's almost impossible for me to get medical coverage unless I get a full time job with immediate insurance, or shoot out a couple of kids.

The real question then becomes how did it occur/what is the problem. But frankly you are supposedly living on only 7,200 dollars a year in income and 11,400 dollars a year in prescription. So I take it you can not earn more than 18,600 dollars after taxes per annum?

IE: Gay guy sleeps with 100 men in 3 months gets AIDS. Tough shit, here's a revolver
IE: Woman drops her laptop on her foot while on the job. Tough shit.
IE: Somebody is minding their own business and gets shot through the kneecap by a stray bullet during a robbery. Here's some help.

Ah, if only that’s how it actually worked.

I live on 600.00 dollars a month disability. I currently don't get section 8. I might be able to handle a part time job, but if I do I lose my prescription coverage. My prescriptions cost about 950.00 a month. Without some sort of reform, I can't afford to work. But it's almost impossible for me to get medical coverage unless I get a full time job with immediate insurance, or shoot out a couple of kids.

Well, the obvious choice is to get cracking on those kiddies. As long as you're not too fussy about who the father is (or even if it is the same one each time) you can have a bunch of kids in pretty rapid succession.

And yes, I'm joking. Just in case you weren't sure :D

Bah, making money in the US is easy. The problem is most people don't realize is that you'll never get anywhere if you work for someone else. (Unless you are particularly good at brown-nosing). That's why so many immigrants do well, and so many americans get trapped in middle class poverty.

If you want to make money, you have to look at something outside of your job to do it.

The other thing that pisses me off is that americans aren't very good at being lazy either. Personally I have no problem with lazy people per se. What does irritate me is that they are always whining that life is unfair and people should pay more taxes so they can get a bigger house and car. I blame our third world educational system for that.

If you are going to be sucessful and happy at being lazy, you must learn to adjust your expectations to match your income, because, frankly, the other way round is just unreasonable. (Teachers I am looking at you here as well).

As to the farm subsudies. Good, I'm glad the Repubs are axing them, that's the sort of thing they were elected to do. I hope the NEA and all those pointless grants to workshy professors are next.

The real question then becomes how did it occur/what is the problem. But frankly you are supposedly living on only 7,200 dollars a year in income and 11,400 dollars a year in prescription. So I take it you can not earn more than 18,600 dollars after taxes per annum?

IE: Gay guy sleeps with 100 men in 3 months gets AIDS. Tough shit, here's a revolver
IE: Woman drops her laptop on her foot while on the job. Tough shit.
IE: Somebody is minding their own business and gets shot through the kneecap by a stray bullet during a robbery. Here's some help.

Ah, if only that’s how it actually worked.

I am living on an annual income of $7400.00 a year. If medicaid, which is currently being cut to bare bones, didn't cover the majority of my prescription costs I would have to go without them. As it is, I am only counting the ones I actually get filled. Medicaid only covers a maximum of three namebrand prescriptions, and will cover three generic prescriptions. I don't usually get my asthma and thyroid prescriptions filled because I can't afford it. I alternate some of the other ones, getting pain and sleep medications filled on alternate months and doing without a lot. I'm eligible for $36.00 a month food stamps. Apparently some people are convinced I'm living it up. I'm lucky, because I worked long enough and for high enough paying jobs that I actually get more than average for someone my age. I actually make too much money to be eligible for SSI.

Originally posted by Bitchkitten
I am living on an annual income of $7400.00 a year. If medicaid, which is currently being cut to bare bones, didn't cover the majority of my prescription costs I would have to go without them. As it is, I am only counting the ones I actually get filled. Medicaid only covers a maximum of three namebrand prescriptions, and will cover three generic prescriptions. I don't usually get my asthma and thyroid prescriptions filled because I can't afford it. I alternate some of the other ones, getting pain and sleep medications filled on alternate months and doing without a lot. I'm eligible for $36.00 a month food stamps. Apparently some people are convinced I'm living it up. I'm lucky, because I worked long enough and for high enough paying jobs that I actually get more than average for someone my age. I actually make too much money to be eligible for SSI.

This is another case of bullshit. The problem is not that government gives out support, but that it gives the wrong amounts to the wrong people, the right services to the wrong people. Here's an example:

My brother has a friend who is 20 years-old. He works and goes to college. He gets $250.00 a month in food stamps. Why? Because he's legally blind in one eye. I kid you not. Who'd think one person would need $250.00 a month to eat. My mom doesn't make get that much. :rolleyes:

I am living on an annual income of $7400.00 a year. If medicaid, which is currently being cut to bare bones, didn't cover the majority of my prescription costs I would have to go without them. As it is, I am only counting the ones I actually get filled. Medicaid only covers a maximum of three namebrand prescriptions, and will cover three generic prescriptions. I don't usually get my asthma and thyroid prescriptions filled because I can't afford it. I alternate some of the other ones, getting pain and sleep medications filled on alternate months and doing without a lot. I'm eligible for $36.00 a month food stamps. Apparently some people are convinced I'm living it up. I'm lucky, because I worked long enough and for high enough paying jobs that I actually get more than average for someone my age. I actually make too much money to be eligible for SSI.

So the more pertinent, and now repeated question. Are you incapable of making the 20k/year that it would take to provide for yourself at the same level you are currently being provided for via other people's money?

It depends a lot on which state you live in. Oklahoma is close to the bottom when it comes to "welfare" spending. I can afford cable and the internet because my roommates pay 2/3 of the bills. But there are three of us in a one bedroom apartment. We hope to move to a two bedroom soon, especially since my apartment refuses to fix things I consider essential, like air conditioning.

So the more pertinent, and now repeated question. Are you incapable of making the 20k/year that it would take to provide for yourself at the same level you are currently being provided for via other people's money?

Yes, I am currently incapable of it, and even if I could, insurance doesn't start immediately in most jobs. And insurance companies won't cover pre-existing conditions for the first six months. It's not all other peoples money. Social Security disability is based on how much money I put into the system.

It depends a lot on which state you live in. Oklahoma is close to the bottom when it comes to "welfare" spending. I can afford cable and the internet because my roommates pay 2/3 of the bills. But there are three of us in a one bedroom apartment. We hope to move to a two bedroom soon, especially since my apartment refuses to fix things I consider essential, like air conditioning.

What is this even in response to? :confused:

My brother has a friend who is 20 years-old. He works and goes to college. He gets $250.00 a month in food stamps. Why? Because he's legally blind in one eye. I kid you not. Who'd think one person would need $250.00 a month to eat. My mom doesn't make get that much. :rolleyes:
I had a second cousin or some distant relation like that that lived off disablity pay and food stamps, and didn't actually have a disability of any sort, they just somehow managed to fool the government into paying them more.

Grr.
:mad:

What is this even in response to? :confused:

Oksana

Equal rights for gays and lesbians, plus equal rights for transgenders and hermaphrodites.

They are called intersexuals. Hermaphrodite is a term refering to an organism that is both male and female during it's life span, such as an oyster.

Aside from that, I don't understand why intersexed people would have any different rights in any case. I mean, people don't go around showing off their genitalia.

The only place I can see a possible problem is in the porn industry, and good luck enforcing equal rights there.

Very nice. Of course, there are a few prerequisites:

No racism or sexism.

No history of slavery and segregation with lingering effects.

No legacy admissions or good ol' boy hiring.

No inheritance. If you rise or fall on your own merit, you don't need daddy or mummy's money.

Equal education opportunities.

No standards that are male-biased. Requiring unnecessary strength, for example, but not testing stamina or dexterity.

No corporations. No stock manipulation.

No government subsidies of businesses.

I can go on and on and on . . .

Your world view is a tad narrow.


*gives the The Cat Empire a triple choc cookie.* :)

what is equality to you?

at the moment i'm going for Rawls' idea of 'fairness'. fairness is justice and fairness equals equality. so i suppose equality is everyone having the same potential and opportunity to do what they want with no societal influence (no discrimination for or against a particular group) and also no natural influence/bias (talent, skill - eg. looks, intelligence or, say, being strong). this is because, much as it is a lottery, a matter of luck, what situation in society we are born into (we could be born into a wealthy family who encourage and support education, or a poor family unable to provide), it is also a lottery wich talents or skills, predispositions or advantages we are born with. in a truly equal society these should be taken into account and should not be able to stop a person doing what they want.

Bah, making money in the US is easy. The problem is most people don't realize is that you'll never get anywhere if you work for someone else. (Unless you are particularly good at brown-nosing). That's why so many immigrants do well, and so many americans get trapped in middle class poverty.

If you want to make money, you have to look at something outside of your job to do it.
...


That is not true as a rule. It depends alot on the type of work you do. A computer programmer, database administrator, or other highly trained techie can live very comfortably working for other people. The same applies to lawyers, doctors, scientists, engineers, and alot of other professions. Of course, if you'll notice, the common theme among these professions is education. A person with a good education can make plenty of money without starting their own business.

*gives the The Cat Empire a triple choc cookie.* :)

Thank you, we love cookies. 'specially chocolate.

To me, true equality is where I enslave everyone.

Good minds think alike. One day, the world will be mine. MWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Equality? It only exists once your dead. Everybody dies.

Not me.

You rise and fall on your own merit. To me that is true equality.
I agree wholeheartedly

They also work less hours, take more days off, change careers more and they more often take more than a year off for "personal reasons" that does not include schooling, career training or any kind of preparation for a new career.

That women get paid 80 cents to a man's dollar (the accurate figure) obviously has nothing to do with the fact that they work less and are far more likely to be working part-time.



Does any of this by any chance have anything to do with the fact that women tend to have babies, take care of old parents etc.? Should we be economically punished for that?

Does any of this by any chance have anything to do with the fact that women tend to have babies, take care of old parents etc.? Should we be economically punished for that?

And delving further into that, why should women be expected to do that. (I'm not saying that women can't CHOOSE to, it's just that there's more social pressure in that direction for a woman than a man)

I mean, you'd NEVER hear a father being asked whether he's going to stay home to raise the kids...

Does any of this by any chance have anything to do with the fact that women tend to have babies, take care of old parents etc.? Should we be economically punished for that?
if a woman chooses to have babies, take time off from work to care for the babies, take time off to care for old parents, or any other such things, then those are her choices. she is free to make them, but an employer is free to view her as a less valuable member of his team if she is unable to put in as much time and effort as other employees.

you can't have everything your way. if you want to have a family and put them first then you won't be as valuable to an employer as a person who puts their job above everything else and dedicates themselves to work. you are free to choose that, but you aren't free to bitch that you aren't getting paid as much...you aren't DOING as much, and you are more likely to leave for long periods of time (having babies) or to leave the company all together. they are smart to invest less in you than in more solid potential assets.

if a woman chooses to have babies, take time off from work to care for the babies, take time off to care for old parents, or any other such things, then those are her choices. she is free to make them, but an employer is free to view her as a less valuable member of his team if she is unable to put in as much time and effort as other employees.

you can't have everything your way. if you want to have a family and put them first then you won't be as valuable to an employer as a person who puts their job above everything else and dedicates themselves to work. you are free to choose that, but you aren't free to bitch that you aren't getting paid as much...you aren't DOING as much, and you are more likely to leave for long periods of time (having babies) or to leave the company all together. they are smart to invest less in you than in more solid potential assets.

I'm so horrifiedmy this post... i don't known how to reply to it! ...wait a minuate... i just did

I'm so horrifiedmy this post... i don't known how to reply to it! ...wait a minuate... i just did
what is so horrifying about holding men and women to equal standards? do you really think employers should be forced to pay women more money even if they aren't as valuable as male employees?

what is so horrifying about holding men and women to equal standards? do you really think employers should be forced to pay women more money even if they aren't as valuable as male employees?

just the thought that women are less valueable then men for having babies. If a man was hospitalised for the same amount of time would he get sick pay?

But that would matter as the olny thing we should worry about is giving to company the most profet to the shaire holders. for true equality men should get pregnat as well. then they will be paid the same.

just the thought that women are less valueable then men for having babies. If a man was hospitalised for the same amount of time would he get sick pay?

having babies does not make a woman less valuable. i regard pregnancy leave as the same as any other medical leave; if a woman is gone one or two times because she is having a baby, that should be regarded the same way that any other medical leave would be. if, however, she insists that she cannot carry the same work load because she must care for her children, then her pay and promotions should reflect her reduced contribution. if she chooses to dedicate more of her time to family then that's perfectly fine, but the employer should not be required to pay her the same as another employee who is putting in more time and contributing more to the group.


But that would matter as the olny thing we should worry about is giving to company the most profet to the shaire holders. for true equality men should get pregnat as well. then they will be paid the same.
it is not necessary to make people identical in order to make them equal under the law.

True equality doesn't exist. It never will. I can't even breathe like a normal person. Must I say more? :(

having babies does not make a woman less valuable. i regard pregnancy leave as the same as any other medical leave; if a woman is gone one or two times because she is having a baby, that should be regarded the same way that any other medical leave would be. if, however, she insists that she cannot carry the same work load because she must care for her children, then her pay and promotions should reflect her reduced contribution. if she chooses to dedicate more of her time to family then that's perfectly fine, but the employer should not be required to pay her the same as another employee who is putting in more time and contributing more to the group.


it is not necessary to make people identical in order to make them equal under the law.

Sorry i misunderstood you, i do agree with you that women should be paid the same, but if they choose to work less hours, then they will be paid less. however this should not affect their promotion prospects if they have a child, they should be judged by their work they get done in that time not how long they spend in the office. It's Quality then Quantity.

Sorry i misunderstood you, i do agree with you that women should be paid the same, but if they choose to work less hours, then they will be paid less. however this should not affect their promotion prospects if they have a child, they should be judged by their work they get done in that time not how long they spend in the office. It's Quality then Quantity.
it depends; some jobs pay you by the hour, and if a woman cannot put in the same number of hours as a man then she should not be paid as much.

To me, true equality is toiling in slavery to The Goa uld.

What is true equality to you?

To me its the same standard for everyone.

No Affirmative Action

No "Special standards for women"

No Welfare or Social Security.

You rise and fall on your own merit. To me that is true equality.

I agree 150%.

"You rise and fall on your own merit. To me that is true equality."

Ah, merit.

www.foxnews.com/.../ 107829/1_21_hilton_paris.jpg

http://www.islamfortoday.com/George_W_Bush.jpg

Does any of this by any chance have anything to do with the fact that women tend to have babies, take care of old parents etc.? Should we be economically punished for that?

Yes. You are asking for the same, or more, money for less work. It doesn't matter particularly if you have children or decide to care for your elderly parents. If a woman has kids or decides to quit her job to take care of her parents she should be economically “punished” for that choice. You can not make that choice and expect to have no consequences.

Originally posted by Salvondia
Yes. You are asking for the same, or more, money for less work. It doesn't matter particularly if you have children or decide to care for your elderly parents. If a woman has kids or decides to quit her job to take care of her parents she should be economically “punished” for that choice. You can not make that choice and expect to have no consequences.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. People should not be punished for taking care of their parents or children. In fact, there should be financial incentive for that, in a decently government anyway. Don't tell me it's a woman's choice or it's her responsiblity. Until men start stepping up to the plate, the government should do whatever they can and want to to help women care for their children. :rolleyes:

No Welfare or Social Security.I can only presume that you have no historical training in economics. Without the "safety net," the economy goes through a devastating cycle of depression with the wealthy getting through and the middle and lower classes getting burned. Welfare and social security doesn't solve the problem of economic depression once it has set in, but it does appear to prevent it from occuring; the impact of economic depression is much smaller.

You rise and fall on your own merit. To me that is true equality.There are many problems with this, but let me explain one concerning children. Using this commandment, how are we to raise our children? If children are allowed to rise and fall on their own merit, what right does the wealthy parent have to use his money to put his child into a high-class private institution while less well-off parents must place their children in public schools? What if the private school child is not nearly as intelligent as the child in public school? These children aren't rising and falling depending on their merit. The parents are helping them. Parents help until they die, and continue to do so afterwards. Is there something wrong with this? I don't think so. But creating a pure meritocracy would mean regulating how parents raise their children. And I certainly don't want that.

To me all Welfare does is encourage people to mooch off the government and taxpayers. I know people like this. I've MET people like this. They all disgust me.Basing your opinions of others based on your limited experience is not wise. I've met black people who have been hostile; I met one black person at work who was very lazy. Using your logic, all black people are hostile and lazy. You too can generalize like a bigot, kids!

I will agree to Welfare under one condition. The person has to be activitly looking for a job. As soon as he stops, so does his check. There should also be a time limit on when he can recieve the check. To get it renewel will be hard. Might as well get a job then go through the renewel process.How do you define "looking for a job"? How do you monitor that? It's an unrealistic request.

I don't understand why intersexed people would have any different rights in any case. I mean, people don't go around showing off their genitalia.Funny thing; I saw an episode of Law & Order about this not long ago! Many laws look at gender as being binary; that is, you are either male or female. But let's say you're a man that is undergoing a transformation into a woman, and will have your surgery soon; you commit and crime and are sent to prison - MALE PRISON. Bad things will happen, I think. That's just the example, L&O gave; you can imagine any number of events in which laws concerning gender have a strange and sometimes ineffective application when the person in question is intersexual.

Equality? It only exists once your dead. Everybody dies.Even this is a fallacy. Some people have gradiose graves. Some people are preserved. People are dealt with in different ways; mummified, cremated, buried.. and where and how all of these things are done is a whole other issue! Plus! How are you remember after you die, if you're remembered at all? Jesus Christ is remembered as GOD! I won't be remembered 100+ years after I pass away, and even while I am remembered, I'll just be "Grandpa Tyler." You know, the Romans believed that the point of life was to do as many great deeds as you can so you'll be remembered well for as long as possible [being remembered badly was not considered a good thing, though].

Ah, You Forgot Poland, with the gleeful sarcasm! You're my hero, sir!

Anyway... Meritocracy and equality can't coexist. People are not born equal. They are born unequal. I was born asthmatic, by eyes are bad, my hearing will probably go once I'm in my late 40s, I'm naturally physically weak, I'm physically unappealing.. The list goes on and on, and there are people who don't have these problems; who were born physically "perfect." The moment I was born, some people were better than me, some worse. I was unequal from the start.

Ever read "To Kill a Mockingbird"? That's one of it's many morals. That everyone is not born equal - many people, even in the United States of America, are born without opportunity and without ability, and others are born with abundant amounts of both. Sad but true.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. People should not be punished for taking care of their parents or children. In fact, there should be financial incentive for that, in a decently government anyway. Don't tell me it's a woman's choice or it's her responsiblity. Until men start stepping up to the plate, the government should do whatever they can and want to to help women care for their children. :rolleyes:

If you leave your job to take care of your parents you are not working for the company, you are not gaining experience and you are not bringing in new clients. You have no right to be paid for it. Which is exactly what happens to women. They leave their job to take care of their parents, fine good for them. They loose experience, they loose some skills and it costs companies on average about 150k to replace them for the time they are gone.

Besides which you are the one foolish enough to believe an average is all women. Women who don't leave their job and don't switch careers mid-life and don't work less hours get paid the same as their male counterparts.

Originally posted by Salvondia
If you leave your job to take care of your parents you are not working for the company, you are not gaining experience and you are not bringing in new clients. You have no right to be paid for it. Which is exactly what happens to women. They leave their job to take care of their parents, fine good for them. They loose experience, they loose some skills and it costs companies on average about 150k to replace them for the time they are gone.

Besides which you are the one foolish enough to believe an average is all women. Women who don't leave their job and don't switch careers mid-life and don't work less hours get paid the same as their male counterparts.

First off I don't give a shit what the company has to do. Someone has to tak care of children and elderly people. Daycares and nursing homes don't do all that great of a job taking care of them anyway. Raising children and taking care of you parents is far more work than any job. It doesn't end at the end of the day or the end of the work week. You are the fool not me. Your sentence doesn't make any sense. You can't figure out what you're even trying to say.

First off I don't give a shit what the company has to do. Someone has to tak care of children and elderly people. Daycares and nursing homes don't do all that great of a job taking care of them anyway. Raising children and taking care of you parents is far more work than any job. It doesn't end at the end of the day or the end of the work week. You are the fool not me. Your sentence doesn't make any sense. You can't figure out what you're even trying to say.

Actually I did and I said it quite clearly. If you can't understand it, it is your own bias.

Raising children and taking care of your parents, may or may not, be more work than any job. I don't care how much work it is. It is not working for your employer. It is not increasing your experience in your field and it is not helping your employer in any way. Your employer doesn't, or at least shouldn't, have to pay you for time you didn't serve and for experience you don't have.

True equality, eh?

Well, equality before the law is of course an important component, we don't want the government to treat anyone as anything except an individual person. We also want to include equality of opportunity, which can be defined as:

-Have a chance to reach any office or position, irregardless of non-relevant factors (race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc.)
-The ability to pass your labor, or the fruits of your labor on to whomever you choose in return for whatever you desire, and they agree to.