The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
True equal rights
Spectral Swallow
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So after hearing the news of the female teacher that got probation after sleeping with her male student it got a friend and I to talking about equal rights and how lopsided they were.
Aside from the obvious, 'If a male were sleeping with a female student he'd get years in jail', you see unequal rights everywhere from the police to the movies.
At the movies a 20 something year old will pay TWICE as much (at least at the Harkins near my house) than either a child or a senior despite occupying the exact same space. A situation similar to what you see in restaurants. I mean can you imagine going into McDonalds and having to pay $2 for a hamburger,while just because someone has survived longer in the world they only have to pay $1?
Alternatively I was talking to a friend (who also happens to be a cop) and it's essentially an unwritten rule that if the woman even implies the man has touched her (like hit) than he's arrested, but on the flip side a man has to say he wants the woman arrested before they'll do anything.
So what do you think? Are things fine the way they are now or do the laws need to change to provide TRUE equal rights?
Aside from the obvious, 'If a male were sleeping with a female student he'd get years in jail', you see unequal rights everywhere from the police to the movies.
At the movies a 20 something year old will pay TWICE as much (at least at the Harkins near my house) than either a child or a senior despite occupying the exact same space. A situation similar to what you see in restaurants. I mean can you imagine going into McDonalds and having to pay $2 for a hamburger,while just because someone has survived longer in the world they only have to pay $1?
Alternatively I was talking to a friend (who also happens to be a cop) and it's essentially an unwritten rule that if the woman even implies the man has touched her (like hit) than he's arrested, but on the flip side a man has to say he wants the woman arrested before they'll do anything.
So what do you think? Are things fine the way they are now or do the laws need to change to provide TRUE equal rights?
Spectral Swallow on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
I would be upset if they got payed more than me just because they were older and we did the same job, yes.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Edit: In the interest of actually contributing something, I'll add that senior discounts are not an example of unequal rights. You have the same entitlement to the discount when you reach the appropriate age.
Now, I don't know much about my co-workers salaries, but doesn't this happen, like, often?
So if they suddenly decided to start charging blacks more to see a movie then that'd be okay? Since, you know it's not a right.
You're confusing "right" with "supply and demand".
THE LAW, SIR!
I'm not sure you understand the difference between discrimination and incentives.
This would be a valid analogy if everyone was born black and turned white on their 60th birthday.
For instance, if a particular group generally (in the past, African Americans) has a lower access to education because of lack of employment opportunities or a particular social predisposition (again due to the same circumstances, like higher crime, drug-use, etc.), then it would take them far more work than is generally expected for them to meet the requirements of post-secondary education. So if the requirements of the university simply have a universal aspect to them, they're necessarily not taking into account the lower starting point for the disadvantaged group and thus aren't equally accessible to everyone.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Morally okay? No. That doesn't make it a right.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Which is kinda what I'm getting at, since you can't discriminate on race and religion, why is it okay to do it on age? I mean I can kinda understand at a restaurant, where children won't eat as much or get a smaller portion, but at theaters, everyone is seeing the exact same movie and occupying exactly one theater seat.
In a perfect world, I generally agree. I think it is a worthwhile goal for gender to not be at issue and for these sorts of 'double standards' to disappear.
On the other hand, when people make these 'reverse sexism' statements like you did, they tend to have an underlying misogynistic motive, so you'll please pardon my reluctance to give a more full-hearted endorsement.
When you're younger and older you are less likely to have as large a disposable income than when you're middle-aged. To have theatres be as accessible as possible to large age groups, you compensate for the difference by having different prices for general age categories. Plus there's the argument for the older people that they've already contributed to society so society should give them some break in return (see: pensions, lower cost on pretty much everything else, etc.).
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Eight posts in and the race card gets pulled? That was fast.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
It is a matter of statistical fact that men are more likely to be convicted of a crime than women, and that when a man is convicted they are more likely to receive a longer/harsher sentence for the same crime when compared to the sentence a woman would receive.
The exception to this is when a woman was perceived as violating her 'maternal mandate'. That is to say she did something like abandoned her children. In those cases the woman is more likely to receive a harsher punishment.
While our androcentric society clearly places men over women in many ways, men still are hurt by in it many ways.
That covers the old people, but what about the younger ones? They haven't contributed anything to society.
And wouldn't it be more beneficial for a movie theater to say 'hey instead of charging you $12-15 for a movie ticket, we're going to charge everyone the same $6.50 regardless of race, age, sex or orientation.'
Along these lines: Ideally, companies would love to charge everyone the maximum they were willing to pay for products and services. They can't very well ask for everyone's income or tax bracket, but age is something they can capitalize on. I don't believe there's any law forcing companies to offer these discounts, and I haven't heard of children's or senior citizen's groups threatening boycotts of companies that don't offer them, so it stands to reason that companies have them because they believe they improve their profits. If movie theaters routinely sold out every single showing 24/7 then they probably wouldn't offer age-based discounts.
Man, I have no idea why that crack dealer keeps giving out free or cheap samples of product to all those people. I mean, they don't do crack now.
Hyperbolole yes, but it's the same principle - get them hooked on entertainment. Make their parents go with. Money money money.
Woohoo drug related toppage.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
:P
I've never actually worked for any like huge companies or anything, but the places I have worked I've only seen equal treatment (as far as workload, pay, etc) for both sexes. Of course that was only in the lower to middle management.
He pulled the stupid card in the OP, it was only the logical continuation.
The free market is often more efficient than it is equitable. If you don't like it, then move to a socialist country. Black people and white people DO get charged different amounts for the same goods. Just look at the way that near-identical goods (in every way except for brand name) are marketed, and you'll see it.
If they're attempting to attract a particular group to their theatre (younger ones) then from a business perspective no, since a lower price for that group would draw more in. And from an equality perspective, again no, as a flat fee necessarily ignores social/economic disparities amongst age/race categories (though this is more applicable to government/service-provides than businesses).
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
not to mention that different employees may demand different minimum salaries, based on their own wants and needs.
I know I've been underpaid in a position before not because of my race or age, but because I didn't bother to speak up and ask for a raise.
I go to the hospital base where they have special parking for 'people with 2 or more kids' and 'pregnant women'.
Oh come on. Are you denying that when people start threads like this they don't usually end up having some misogynistic sentiment? I'm not saying the idea is wrong, I agreed with it in general terms. It's like how some people dislike affirmative action because although it does work to solve a real problem, it does so by relying on race, and others dislike affirmative action because they're racist.
I'm willing to defend the first kind of person, and not the second. That's all I meant by reluctance.
Edit: Of course pregnant women get special parking. Is this somehow controversial? You know that they've got a baby in there, right?
Those fiends!
Really?
If anyone is given something easier than you, no matter what the reason is or how insignificant what they're being given is, your rights are being violated?
Do you get into arguments with men who open doors for women but not for you? Do you think it's unfair that ivy league colleges only admit smart people, not anyone who can pay the tuition?