USA Politics

bearfan

Ancient Mariner
Suicidehummer said:

When it is equated to quotas, which in many cases it has been, I think you'll find a large amount of people against that and I think that is the conotation the term "Affirmative Action" has to many people, if that is changed to equal opportunity, the number of people in favor of that goes up quite a bit I would think (and hope).
 

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
I don't know. I think affirmative action in things like school opportunities is not necessarily a bad idea. Certain demographics are notably less educated than others, and only by forcibly injecting more education into those areas can you make things better. If education was better, and opportunities were equal, then we wouldn't need to worry as much about the need for affirmative action.
 

bearfan

Ancient Mariner
LooseCannon said:
I don't know. I think affirmative action in things like school opportunities is not necessarily a bad idea. Certain demographics are notably less educated than others, and only by forcibly injecting more education into those areas can you make things better. If education was better, and opportunities were equal, then we wouldn't need to worry as much about the need for affirmative action.

I understand and to a degree agree with that, but I start having a problem when you take a lesser qualified person over a more qualified person.  I'll also say giving preference to the children of alumni is wrong as well.  Better education needs to start well before college where things like school choice and rewarding better teachers, etc would make the applicants more qualified before they get to college. 

In Texas, there is a rule that if you are in the top 10% of your class, you get into a state university automatically. To a degree that helps even out the playing field from poorer schools while still getting the best overall students and a diverse pool.  I do not think that is a perfect solution, but it is better that some of the quota systems that the courts have struck down.
 

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
Yes, it's not a bad idea. Of course, it doesn't help when that 10% from Poory Poor School goes to State U and finds out that he barely knows how to write a paper or lab report.
 

bearfan

Ancient Mariner
Very true, I think it is the state's way of saying "we know we put you in a crappy school, but you did the best with what you had".  I went to visit a few schools with my son and I was amazed by the amount of free services they offer now compared to when I went to school for things like helping with papers, lab reports, computers, etc.  I think someone who has the determination can make it though.  Every famiily had (or will have) the first person who broke through and spread the "you will go to college" spirit to their children.  In my family, that was my Mom.
 

bearfan

Ancient Mariner
Wow, just wow.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/19/ma ... tml?hpt=C1

In the California city that banned Happy Meal toys,outlawed sitting on sidewalks during daylight hours and fined residents for not sorting garbage into recycling, compost and trash, Lloyd Schofield wants to add a new law to the books in San Francisco: A ban on all male circumcisions.

Those who violate the ban could be jailed (not more than one year) or fined (not more than $1,000), under his proposal. Circumcisions even for religious reasons would not be allowed. At this point, Schofield's proposal is an idea that would have to clear several hurdles to be considered.

Schofield and like-minded advocates who call themselves "intactivists" seek to make it "unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis" of anyone 17 or younger in San Francisco
 

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
Phew.

Circumcision of a minor is a freaking unnecessary surgery that can end up horrifically damaging the child. It's bad news bears.
 

Onhell

Infinite Dreamer
LooseCannon said:
Circumcision of a minor is a freaking unnecessary surgery that can end up horrifically damaging the child. It's bad news bears.

I don't know, what percentage actually get "butchered?" Mine is just fine :D
 

bearfan

Ancient Mariner
I was going to say, that is a pretty small percentage ... luckily we have the city of San Francisco to tell people how to live their lives.  They are encouraging them in Africa to reduce disease and there is probably an equally small percentage of issues that happens to people who do not have it done.

I think the city should be told to shove it (circumsized or not) right up their ass with a Happy Meal box for a condom and let people make their own choices
 

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
The problem is that people aren't making their own choices: they're choosing to alter the genitalia of another person (ie, their child). There's no medical benefits of circumcision, and there is a chance of harm being done. I'm not sure the government should be telling people to not do it, but we do tell people not to cut off the clitorises of their daughters, so maybe foreskin should be off limits too.
 

bearfan

Ancient Mariner
Parents make and are permitted to make a vast number of decisions for their children up to the point they reach the age of majority.
 

Onhell

Infinite Dreamer
LooseCannon said:
The problem is that people aren't making their own choices: they're choosing to alter the genitalia of another person (ie, their child). There's no medical benefits of circumcision, and there is a chance of harm being done. I'm not sure the government should be telling people to not do it, but we do tell people not to cut off the clitorises of their daughters, so maybe foreskin should be off limits too.

Legally minors are property, not "little people." They are the property of their parents, in lieu of that... the state. Foreskin CANNOT be equated to the clitoris. The clitoris is a knot of nerve endings that lead to pleasure, while the foreskin does nothing... it's just there, it is "extra" skin, the nerve endings are at the head of the penis.

I agree there is no solid argument for or against it whether medical or hygienic. The only argument is religious and so must be left to the family, not the state.
 

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
That's not true about the foreskin - its purpose is to protect the glans from damage or abuse, and protect the more vulnerable skin there.

Children aren't property. You can't sell them, you can't up and kill them. They have the same rights as you or I do - in fact, they have more (the right, for example, to a free education, the right to have a guardian present, so on and so forth).
 

Cornfed Hick

Ancient Mariner
Onhell said:
Legally minors are property

Huh??

LooseCannon said:
Circumcision of a minor is a freaking unnecessary surgery that can end up horrifically damaging the child. It's bad news bears.

Whether to circumcise your son is a question lots of parents grapple with.  My Jewish friends pretty much do it automatically for religious reasons, but goyim are faced with a real choice.  We asked our obstetrician and pediatrician about it.  There are, in fact, benefits to circumcision, but perhaps the largest is psychological:  when I was a kid, pretty much everybody was circumcised, and anyone with an uncircumcised penis looked pretty strange in gym class.  Apparently it is pretty embarrassing, as boys are pretty insecure about that kind of stuff.  One dude told me his high school girlfriend was freaked out by it, which in turn freaked him out -- not a fun conversation to have in the heat of the moment.  Nowadays, however, more and more people are foregoing the surgery, so it is likely to be more common and less embarrassing to have an uncircumcised penis.  At least, that's what I tell myself, as we decided not to circumcise my son. 

Onhell said:
ok ok, minus the selling, abusing and killing... they're property :p

Um...........no.  They are dependents. 
 

Invader

Ancient Mariner
Onhell said:
I agree there is no solid argument for or against it whether medical or hygienic. The only argument is religious and so must be left to the family, not the state.

You're right, the only argument is religious.  That's precisely why it shouldn't be done.  I'd say it's more the responsibility of the state to protect the child from religious parents.  It's the parent's religion in case, not the child's.  Banning circumcision would probably create more problems than it would solve, but cutting up children solely for religious reasons still irks me.
 
Top