reclegend22;1485918 wrote:Also, whether you want to admit it or not, we live in a society that, from the beginning of time, has been conditioned to believe in the mother and father dynamic as the traditionally acceptable structure of the "family."

"Conditioned"? I think "natural/normal" is probably a better term.

Fly4Fun;1485913 wrote:There are still people who are racist and those who are absolutely against mix-raced couples. Should we not allow heterosexual mixed raced couples or black couples adopt white children?

The only difference would be that of numbers. At what point do you deem enough of a percentage of society has changed their views to allow it?

Heck, take it further. There are plenty of people who think gambling or drinking even in moderation is not morally acceptable. Should we not allows families who partake in those activities in moderation not adopt?

I think you misread my post or inferred something that I did not mean to imply.

Your suggestion "should we not allow mixed race adoption" is not a proper response to what I wrote. I support gay adoption. What I said was that if you must choose between a gay couple and a straight couple that are essentially equal on the merits (a highly unrealistic scenario in the real world I imagine due to the supply of children who could use a good home), then you ought to choose the straight couple because of currently established societal norms and gender roles.

So I think you misread my post. I support gay adoption whole-heartedly. I was suggesting that the unlikely scenario where you must choose between equals, you choose the straight couple.

There would be no good way of choosing between a straight mixed race couple and a straight non-mixed race couple as race is an entirely arbitrary social construct. As much as I'm supportive of feminism, gender roles are not entirely social constructs.


NOTE: I re-read my post that you quoted. I guess you didn't really mis-read. I didn't really make clear that I support gay adoption. Given the supply of kids that could use a good home, most children would choose a good home over no home so I see no good reason to deny gay adoption.

In some other possible world where there is not ample supply of children needing a good home and an ample supply of potentially great gay parents and great straight parents...I would apply the moral calculus I etched out.


NOTE 2: When I said "I can't believe liberals disagree" what I was referring to was the very unlikely scenario where you must choose between the gay couple and straight couple. They might say that my preference for the straight couple in that scenario is wrong, etc.

gut;1485940 wrote:"Conditioned"? I think "natural/normal" is probably a better term.

Thank you. I would agree. It didn't sound right when I wrote it, either.

FWIW I also think Big Bang Theory is unfunny and don't laugh at all when I've watched but apparently people love it?

"Given the supply of kids that could use a good home"

Which is pretty much zero in the United States.

edit--- in other countries, there is a supply but for political reasons it is difficult.

I get why people don't like the Big Bang Theory. What I do not get is why people don't understand why other people like it. If rapidly witty and wry dialogue appeals to you, then there is a chance you might like it. If you're a so-called "academic geek" who enjoys science, then it's an added bonus.

The oppressive laugh track is too much to bear for me, though, and ruins the show. I think the concept is good, if done differently. It's still a show I would watch if nothing else were on, however.

Manhattan Buckeye;1485957 wrote:"Given the supply of kids that could use a good home"

Which is pretty much zero in the United States.

edit--- in other countries, there is a supply but for political reasons it is difficult.

^I was thinking of the whole world but yes you're right there are significant political barriers that I failed to note.

Yeah, China is pretty much a 5 year waiting period, and Russia....well....

Manhattan Buckeye;1485957 wrote:"Given the supply of kids that could use a good home"

Which is pretty much zero in the United States.

Wait ... what?

O-Trap;1485999 wrote:Wait ... what?

this

reclegend22;1485959 wrote:I get why people don't like the Big Bang Theory. What I do not get is why people don't understand why other people like it. If rapidly witty and wry dialogue appeals to you, then there is a chance you might like it. If you're a so-called "academic geek" who enjoys science, then it's an added bonus.

The oppressive laugh track is too much to bear for me, though, and ruins the show. I think the concept is good, if done differently. It's still a show I would watch if nothing else were on, however.

I'm a geek and I don't like the show. What I've seen of it is just a "haha, nerds are socially awkward" joke repeated ad nauseum with some tech/geek culture references thrown in. And laugh tracks are the product of satan.

I Wear Pants;1486034 wrote:I'm a geek and I don't like the show. What I've seen of it is just a "haha, nerds are socially awkward" joke repeated ad nauseum with some tech/geek culture references thrown in. And laugh tracks are the product of satan.

That would actually make a pretty good product description for the show on Amazon.

I Wear Pants;1486034 wrote:I'm a geek and I don't like the show. What I've seen of it is just a "haha, nerds are socially awkward" joke repeated ad nauseum with some tech/geek culture references thrown in. And laugh tracks are the product of satan.

This. I tend to be a nerd, and this show was funny for a couple seasons. Then, it became obvious that every season's comedy is the same.

Yeah I'm as nerdy as they come re science fiction and that sort of stuff. I just don't get what is funny. The episode I partially saw had one girl just stating "I'm a girl" when she wanted to be invited to a girl's night out and the laugh track kicked in every time. Go to the girl's night out at home, one girl says she has hard cervix, a second one said she had an inverted uterus and the third (the hot one) said just because it is girl's night out doesn't mean they can only discuss their lady parts. Again after every line the laugh track interrupts. That's supposed to be funny?

So all of us of very different beliefs can agree that the show is not good?

One step towards peace.

I Wear Pants;1486152 wrote:So all of us of very different beliefs can agree that the show is not good?

One step towards peace.

This is the unpopular opinions thread, so now you guys can't talk about the show now

There shouldn't be a minimum wage.

bases_loaded;1486160 wrote:There shouldn't be a minimum wage.

Oh man...count me in.

No reason why a 16 year old should be paid THAT much to flip a burger. Ridiculous. Oh, you want to clean a table or two...you get $8.00 an hour. Stupid.

OSH;1486196 wrote:Oh man...count me in.

No reason why a 16 year old should be paid THAT much to flip a burger. Ridiculous. Oh, you want to clean a table or two...you get $8.00 an hour. Stupid.

Restaurant workers are worthless, why do we even pay them at all? Better yet lets just kill them all and save us the trouble of dealing with these lazy proles so that our master race of rich entrepreneurs can all live in perfect capitalistic peace and harmony.

/Ayn Rand

At the very least, there should be two minimum wages, one for adults and one for minors. The current minimum is a job-killer for the under-18 crowd.

queencitybuckeye;1486211 wrote:At the very least, there should be two minimum wages, one for adults and one for minors. The current minimum is a job-killer for the under-18 crowd.

Except the current minimum is lower than the minimum of the past when you adjust for inflation. So how would lowering it help?

Lowering it more would just result in a higher burden being shifted to taxpayers.

I Wear Pants;1486208 wrote:Restaurant workers are worthless, why do we even pay them at all? Better yet lets just kill them all and save us the trouble of dealing with these lazy proles so that our master race of rich entrepreneurs can all live in perfect capitalistic peace and harmony.

/Ayn Rand

Thanks for adding quality to threads...

queencitybuckeye;1486211 wrote:At the very least, there should be two minimum wages, one for adults and one for minors. The current minimum is a job-killer for the under-18 crowd.

I would definitely be more interested in seeing this happen.

^^^ There are many legislative movements to make it a two-tiered system, and IIRC there was a law about this in Ohio regarding farm work. I could be wrong but it makes sense. If the farmers had to pay everyone $15/hour or whatever "living wage" is being touted during planting and harvest season most farms would be out of business, and young people wouldn't have jobs.

That, or farmers would just pay people under the table, not that it happens of course.

Manhattan Buckeye;1486216 wrote:^^^ There are many legislative movements to make it a two-tiered system, and IIRC there was a law about this in Ohio regarding farm work. I could be wrong but it makes sense. If the farmers had to pay everyone $15/hour or whatever "living wage" is being touted during planting and harvest season most farms would be out of business, and young people wouldn't have jobs.

That, or farmers would just pay people under the table, not that it happens of course.

As someone who has worked on a farm I can confirm that no one has ever been paid under the table.

I Wear Pants;1486214 wrote:Except the current minimum is lower than the minimum of the past when you adjust for inflation. So how would lowering it help?

Not sure how history tells that much of a story here. The current minimum wage is X. If you make it a number less than X for minors, some businesses who hire lots of minors will hire more of them. I know for a fact that the restaurant industry would like more people, but simply can't afford little Johnny at $8, but can at $6.

Lowering it more would just result in a higher burden being shifted to taxpayers.

For minors? How so?