Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Honestly, I'm just amazed that "illegitimate" is still used, considering how many babies are born outside of marriage these days.[DOUBLEPOST=1486999557,1486999382][/DOUBLEPOST]
It's mostly a parental rights issue, coming down to whether the second parent would have to legally adopt the child. For example, when my son was born, I wasn't yet married, so my husband (then fiance), had to sign a bunch of paperwork at the time saying that he accepted paternal responsibility for the child, before he was allowed to be on the birth certificate. When we had my daughter, he was just put on there by default. Had he not signed that paperwork, he would have had to go through blood tests later to prove paternity, and get the certificate amended.
IANAL, but I assume the answer is "yes," especially as regards inheritance, succession, parental responsibility, custody, etc.
--Patrick
Or additional ways to make it harder for gay parents to both get parental custody.
You're a bastard, Jon Snow...
...
There shouldn't be, if the father recognizes his paternity. But then again the US has way 2 many different laws depending on the state.
Dave
Staff member
About the murdered KKK guy that I said the wife was going to be indicted? Boom goes the dynamite.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...d-shot-dead-on-mo-river-bank/ar-AAmT1dw?pfr=1[DOUBLEPOST=1487023706,1487023674][/DOUBLEPOST]Apparently the accomplice was the step-son.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...d-shot-dead-on-mo-river-bank/ar-AAmT1dw?pfr=1[DOUBLEPOST=1487023706,1487023674][/DOUBLEPOST]Apparently the accomplice was the step-son.
Necronic
Staff member
Apparently a bunch of cops and firefighters are surprised to discover that republicans aren't pro union:
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/02/iowa-union-shocked-learn-republicans-are-anti-union
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/02/iowa-union-shocked-learn-republicans-are-anti-union
Necronic
Staff member
Are you saying that criticizing the current administration is inherently dangerous because we aren't being "nice" about it? That it's more important to be kind than right?
Tell that to the people who are directly suffering as a result of this, of any other oppressive administration. Tell them that it's wrong to get angry because anger fundamentally harms our humanity. Tell them that while they are being put under the thumbscrews of a dangerous administration.
This viewpoint, the idea that we have to be kind to each other in our discussions, is one of extreme privilege.
Tell that to the people who are directly suffering as a result of this, of any other oppressive administration. Tell them that it's wrong to get angry because anger fundamentally harms our humanity. Tell them that while they are being put under the thumbscrews of a dangerous administration.
This viewpoint, the idea that we have to be kind to each other in our discussions, is one of extreme privilege.
GasBandit
Staff member
The truth of the matter is there is an irreconcilable rift in the American population which has been growing for a long time, and it's one of collectivism vs individualism. What makes it even more complicated is that it doesn't fall among geographic lines, unlike the slavery issue of the 19th century.
I assume by this you mean the spread of the attitude of, "You're either for us or agin' us!" that leaves no room for people with differences to just exist together all friendly-like.
--Patrick
More like, the argument of whether or not the needs of the whole are more important than the rights of the individual.
GasBandit
Staff member
No, I don't.[DOUBLEPOST=1487096677,1487096670][/DOUBLEPOST]
Yes, that.
GasBandit
Staff member
Not in a practical sense.
That's really not the way you worded it though.
GasBandit
Staff member
ALT FACTS
Yeah, this.
Although from my distant perch, I don't actually see any real sign of this "Collectivist v Individualist" divide that Gas is talking about. It just seems like d8fferent Collectives trying to come out on top.
That Individualism that I think Gas is talking about looks to me like a myth from America's founding, that people wrap around them like it's a flag, as they try to draw people in to their group.
(It's like that joke about Goths. They may be nonconformist, but you better be wearing black.)
GasBandit
Staff member
Sure you do, you're merely misinterpreting a group of individualists with common cause as a collective.[DOUBLEPOST=1487099151,1487099069][/DOUBLEPOST]Oops I hit reply too early, and explaining in detail is difficult on a phone on my lunch break. But really you need look no further for the Divide than the gun control argument, the socialized Healthcare argument, the War on Drugs, and so on.
GasBandit
Staff member
Ok, I'm back in the office and can expand a little further, now.
There seem to be two conflicting schools of thought on the role of government in America. One philosophy is that the role of government is to take care of its citizens and make their lives better, whereas the other philosophy is that the role of government is to protect the liberty and safety of its citizens but otherwise have no role in their lives, leaving them to rise or fall of their own accord and the capriciousness of fate.
The collectivists will say "how can a modern wealthy country not provide universal health care for its citizens," the individualists will say "how can a country with pretense to upholding liberty and freedom confiscate the property of one citizen to give to another citizen under the threat of force?" The collectivist and individualist disagree as to whether or not the constitutionally enshrined individual right to keep and bear arms is more important than public safety and their own peace of mind when they are "out with their kids" in one public area or another. Collectivists will say it's the duty of the individuals to strive for the betterment of the whole, or at least the poorest, whereas the individualist will say it's the duty of the individuals to be responsible for themselves, which will have the effect of strengthening the whole collectively.
It's a centuries old debate, and granted, it's been harder to see over the last decade or so because there have been so many collectivists in charge of setting policy.
There seem to be two conflicting schools of thought on the role of government in America. One philosophy is that the role of government is to take care of its citizens and make their lives better, whereas the other philosophy is that the role of government is to protect the liberty and safety of its citizens but otherwise have no role in their lives, leaving them to rise or fall of their own accord and the capriciousness of fate.
The collectivists will say "how can a modern wealthy country not provide universal health care for its citizens," the individualists will say "how can a country with pretense to upholding liberty and freedom confiscate the property of one citizen to give to another citizen under the threat of force?" The collectivist and individualist disagree as to whether or not the constitutionally enshrined individual right to keep and bear arms is more important than public safety and their own peace of mind when they are "out with their kids" in one public area or another. Collectivists will say it's the duty of the individuals to strive for the betterment of the whole, or at least the poorest, whereas the individualist will say it's the duty of the individuals to be responsible for themselves, which will have the effect of strengthening the whole collectively.
It's a centuries old debate, and granted, it's been harder to see over the last decade or so because there have been so many collectivists in charge of setting policy.
Meh, that might seem like an easy way to frame the Dem/Rep divide, but it doesn't hold. It's the "individualists" who think government should limit plenty of other freedoms - say, abortion, or adopting as a gay couple, or half a dozen others.
Both sides claim they want as much freedom as possible, with as much protection of rights as possible - they differ over which values they hold dearest.
GasBandit
Staff member
It doesn't actually fall along "perfect" political divisions among the two major parties, though Republican ideology does tend more toward the individualist and Democrat ideology more toward the collectivist, but as you note, you don't have to dig hard to find contradictions.
That being said, the larger, vaguer debate of "how big a role should government have in the lives of its citizens" tends to yield more easily discernible divisions.
The only true out-and-out individualists, of course, are the Libertarians
GasBandit
Staff member
No more than you think traditional serfdom is the way to go, contrary to all appearances.
Yeah, good old rugged individualism... arguing that we should all be free to do as we like... well, unless it's about drugs, or abortions, or joining a union.[DOUBLEPOST=1487103242,1487103092][/DOUBLEPOST]
Teammates... that say out loud and proud that they want to make you a 1 term president. And the complain about how unfair it is that you're doing the same thing to them.
GasBandit
Staff member
I already addressed that in a post on this very page.
Except for the union part. The problem with unions is not that you CAN join a union, it's that there are places where you are required to join the union or you don't get to work there. "But, but, but, without that unions can't work!" Too fuckin' bad. Liberty, mofo.
Sure, the division between length vs girth... as in the end they're both about fucking you, they just disagree how.[DOUBLEPOST=1487103473,1487103344][/DOUBLEPOST]
So why can't a union have the freedom to sign a contract that has the employer guarantee to only hire union guys? Shouldn't the market decide if that's better then the alternative?
I looked again... you're no Kellyanne, but you did mostly dodged it by saying it's not a perfect match...
C'mon, you know you don't believe that, and you're basically forced to be republican because it's a 2 party system, and they're just slightly closer to your own stance (even though you know they're lying about it, and just want to make their donors richer).
Last edited:
To say it another way, the union should have you WANT to join them, not MAKE you join them. When they reach that point, very often they are also destructive to you.
However, I do recognize that on the other hand, those places WITH unions very often (many exceptions to this one exist) deserve them because of how they treat their employees.
To REALLY take this argument to the next level, we wouldn't need as many labour laws if the employment "market" was a lot more in favor of the employees. When there are job shortages, labour benefits, as then getting fired isn't held over your head, but rather your own working conditions (and related) are such that employers compete to GET people. The strange left/right contradiction here is that when the labour supply is tight, organized labour suffers as people don't need them. So business owners AND union heads BOTH want a surplus of labour, as employers can hire people for cheap, and conditions are bad, so unions prosper too.
Anybody who DOESN'T want a tight labour market is anti-worker IMO.
Yeah... so who do we kill to reach the right ratio?