Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Aaaaanyways, to get this back on topic...
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Given the number of children this involves, I'm pretty sure it would be the ENTIRE workforce, not just the federal workforce. Because if you want to take care of each child individually, you're going to have to fucking hire a lot of people for that. It would also be ludicrously expensive, since it would require excessive taxation to pay for all this, if you're not making the hypothetical foster parent pay for it. And you're also paying the person for doing a job. Which to my mind really depersonalizes the child and reduces them to numbers and commodities.
Children are a fuckload of work.
And dp, I'm talking about damage to the child as well. This "let parents visit the children" thing is just going to confuse the fuck out of them. As well as cause a lot of angst about who their parents are. Separating child and parent also damages the child. They need a stable home. And most parents provide that in some form. And you know what? That child gets damaged all over again when they decided it's time to have children. All you're convincing me of is something I already believe; we need a better system in place for taking care of children who are hurt.
I really don't think you understand how much a child would be hurt by this. Families are really fucking important parts of our societies, and putting them in the care of "trained individuals" the way you suggest basically just trashes the fuck out of that. You're turning raising children into a job, a mere task to be done, rather than something people choose to do with their lives. This isn't a good way to structure a society.
It's just. So impersonal. Reducing children and parents to units that don't matter. That's not the kind of society I want. And that's not the kind of society my sister and my niece and my nephew deserve. And yes, I think there are some things my parents did wrongly, or at least should have done differently. But I love them. So very much. And I don't doubt that they love me. (Loved, in the case of the dead one.) And the state can't replace that sort of connection. It's a very vital part of my life.
Goddamn ninjas, this thread was quite for like twenty minutes then six posts while I'm typing.
edited 19th Nov '12 10:22:03 PM by AceofSpades
@Deviant: Fine! I'll link a different thing to talk about!
Hobby Lobby isn't a religious organization, therefore must follow the laws put down by the ACA.
It's a bit misleading, they have to provide health insurance that covers all forms of contraceptives, including emergency ones like the morning-after pill. They had sued to get an exemption to the law because the owner is Christian, therefore is against such stuff.
edited 19th Nov '12 10:29:59 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian@Starshoip:
While it stands to reason that, once you're rich enough to get paid for being rich, you wouldn't have much incentive not to be an Immature Hedonist, there's greed, passion, and just plain boredom that can cause these people to be active, although it doesn't have to be economically productive activity in any way. It's more tempting to be "lazy" when you're paid so low and your working conditions are so degrading that the rewards just aren't worth the effort, and being idle is in fact less humiliating and degrading.
Appeal to Inherent Nature is obviously a very unproductive approach to problem-solving. However, sometimes some problems are legitimately impossible to solve or even alleviate. It can be just and fair to give up on improving them if one focuses one's effort into more rewarding opportunities.
Remember, to let it into your heart, then you can start, to make it better. And well you know that it's a fool, who plays it cool; don't carry the world upon their shoulders.
What is the limit between "significant" and "insignificant" number?
[citation needed]
[[quoteblock]]I'm never going to cosign on taking something from somebody that they earned fair and square.
Starship, you don't think the government should levy taxes?
I had missed that, thank you for linking it back. This is a very quotable quote. Do we have a place on this wiki to store quotable quotes? Can I create a quotes page to your troper page, Fighteer?
Actually, they both do; the programs make further horizons accessible, the thinking makes you raise your head and take notice of them. But there's no point in keeping your head tall if you can't go nowhere, and you'll get tired and despair soon enough.
The point of you being their father is your ability to pass on your love, values, knowledge, skills, and connections. I don't see how money, the raw power you have over other people, needs to come in that package; in a social environment where people are justly rewarded on their merit, they can easily earn it all over again. In an unfair environment, though... you'd be perpetuating injustice.
This is also very quotable, RT, and I'd like to hang it up somewhere.
Mathematical proof and scientific proof are two very, very different things. Mathematics is the language of science, but it is not a science. Scientific proof is writing a map of the city, going out to the city to try the map out, test for inconsistencies, find them, write a new map making the best possible guess from what you know, try again. Mathematic proof is making sure the map is self-consistent. You can draw beautiful self-consistent maps without looking at the city. If they're accurate, it's an amazingly unlikely coincidence. You, just by going to the city over and over again, draw incredibly ugly maps that have some absolutely ridiculous bits, but which still work most of time.
It's possible to do science without math. It's certainly possible to do math without science. And the reason scientific assumptions are right (or rather, less wrong than non-scientific assumptions) is because they go out and test them out against reality, and assumptions that are proven wrong are flushed down the toilet.
Validity = it's consistent with my previous assumptions. Truth = factual. Validity is a secondary concern.
This thread goes too fast. I'll come back later.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.It became a structural thing and it's still the best way to get your health insurance to this day, especially since the ACA standardizes plans allowing them to be rolled over to a new job during periods of cyclical or frictional unemployment. COBRA, passed in the 90s, alleviated the cancellation of plans during frictional unemployment.
Having individual plans will be much cheaper now, too, due to subsidies.
Right, because the cheapest and most simple way of obtaining health coverage can be chalked up to "people are stupid". I'm against private insurance, too, but at least attempt to understand how the system works.
edited 19th Nov '12 11:50:35 PM by Completion

@deathpigeon: You don't seem to understand the scale of what you are talking about. The number of people you'd have to add to the foster care system to adequately parent all the children in the US would be more than the entire federal workforce today (assuming families with 5-10 kids each, which most people consider rather large).
<><