What group of americans are still being discriminated against?

[Urban Ranger]

Atheists and communists.

[I Am Jeff]

Everyone is discriminated against in some way or form. Just for some, unfortunatly it is in a worse fasion. For example, in the US whites are discriminated against in college admissions. At my school, I know for a fact some minority students whose grades and SATs were much lower then the average white persons. Now I am not saying they should not be there, but to get diversity, they discriminate against whites. Again this is really no big deal and it does have some benefits, it is just an example of discrimination against whites.

But generally in the area I live I do not see anything really bad like they had before the civil rights movement of the '60s. People may not like other races or whatever, but there is nothing saying you have to like everybody. We are close, but not quite there. The main issue of the day are with gays, and personally if they ask want equal rights to that of hetero's, I am all for it. Our Constitution says so . . .

Age discrimination while maybe existent has not really effected me, I have not been discriminated against because of age except for the standard things like, drivers licens, voting, things like that etc. But certain things take time to develope. You can not have 10 year olds driving.

And, to tell you the truth in my short life of almost 19 years, I have had to make many hard decision that my parents and other adults did not agree with, but let me chose and later on they all agreed that I made the right decision. This has happend many times. I even have a running joke with my family about always being right. . . (even though it is not true). Maybe I was lucky and had good parents, who knows, but the idea what you call "children" can not make informed decisions is crazy, maybe many can not, but a few can.

[Dis]

Ozzy

I have scientific evidence of the fact that young brains, even into the late teens, are not fully developed. The evidence is there.

[Nubclear]

Ozzy

But that has convinced me.
I mean, think of it....If my son paid bills and taxes and such, life would be so much more peaceful

[Dis]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

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.

[Nubclear]

Yeah....And this isn't just limited to whites or blacks or anything.
Teenagers are still developing life experiences (the basic ones), they are still in school, they are still growing....

[Ben Kenobi]

Ozzy:

Most youth cannot vote,

Nor are they required to fight for their country.

cannot own property,

But they live off their parents.

cannot sign contracts,

Nor can they be bound into any.

cannot control their schooling,

Nor do they pay for their schooling.

can't get a job,

Again, supported by their parents.

Would you support child labour?

get less pay for the same work,

I thought they couldn't get jobs in the first place?

suffer profiling by the police,

presumed to be innocent.

can't leave their parents,

Parents legally required to take care of them.

can't drink alcohol,

Can't handle alcohol.

can't drive cars,

Can't reach the pedal/ can't handle cars.

can't run for office,

Can't handle office.

can't enter many businesses,

Sure they can. Some even cater to young people.

can't walk down the street without being arrested,

Don't face same penalties as adults.

[qutoe]
can't smoke,
[/quote]

Can't pay for smokes. Can't handle them either.

can't watch many movies, or play many video games,

Don't have to pay for either, other than through an allowance.

face drug tests, random searches, uniforms, and censorship at school,

Uniforms help kids. Censorship I dispute. They should not have to face random drug tests, and searches.

can be legally hit and beaten,

No they cannot. Abuse can be upheld against a child.

do not have the human right to use the restroom at school,

like a teacher will prevent them from going to the restroom.

get sent to Gulag Schools where they face torture and brainwashing,

And receive a free education, for which they do not need to pay a penny.

are punished by an unequal and unfair juvenile justice system,

Which treats children more leniently than adults.

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?

[Dr Strangelove]

Honest people are discriminate against. Nice people too.

Oh, and about younths not being able to go to the bathroom. I don't even get a lunch break, nor do I get bathroom breaks. IIRC schools usually give their students five minute breaks between classes, and classes are only 55 minutes long. When I work an 8 to 10 hour day, that's exactly what I do. My patients don't pay me to eat or urinate and they're more than willing to make that very clear.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
My patients don't pay me to eat or urinate and they're more than willing to make that very clear.

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)

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

People with property or people with more property and/or income.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Actually, Templar, I was more referring to your comments about accessing capital and education.

Public school was the great equalizer that allowed the middle class to flourish. It requires people to get a minimal level of education to function in our society. Want a society where education is optional? Move to Bolivia - they're really going places there

The job of the courts and police is to enforce the law. On the other hand, it is ridiculous to try to make lawyers, cops, and judges work for free.

That's why there are taxes. That's why Gideon mandated the provision of defense lawyers to criminal defendents. Unfortunately, what is needed now is a civil Gideon so that low income (and even middle income) people can get a lawyer when involved in a civil suit. The court cannot be fair if the procedures are designed in such a way as to put people who cannot afford competent representation at a disadvantage.

Remember, when you are paying your taxes for cops and courts and lawyers, and schools, and welfare, etc. you are really just paying your "Not In Haiti Fee".

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
That may or may not be the case, but even if so, what is the tie between experience and rights? The tie between experience and freedom? The tie between experience and equality?

So babies should be allowed to "vote"? They should be "free" of their parents?

Age discrimination is valid discrimination because your age is IMPORTANT. In some cases, like an acting role, your race or appearance is important, so they can discriminate against you based on that.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
People with property or people with more property and/or income.

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.

[Japher]

I discriminate againsT all commie's like Kid, closeT homosexuals, and soccer mom's driving SUVs...

edit: we have a shortage of t's!!

[Kuciwalker]

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.

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.

[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

Quote:

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.

[Kidicious]

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?

[Kidicious]

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.

[Kidicious]

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.