• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama pushes for paid family leave

I'm sure you'll support the rights of white supremacists and NAMBLA execs to have their opinions given prominent places in editorial pages. or are we proposing ONLY to discriminate based on wealth?
 
DeacDiggler said:
Ah, now I understand. Perhaps you could show me where in the Constitution everyone is afforded a right to have their speech given equal weight.
Click to expand...

i wasn't implying that John Q CEO's thoughts weren't more informed or novel, just that in this so-called democracy, fewer and fewer voices are being heard and/or heeded.
 
I agree with you on that. I think that it's a case of "more noise" to be heard over, so only really loud (wealthy) people can be heard.

am i being argumentative? perhaps - but I don't know of a "right to be heard."
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Of course it increases labor rates, because someone has the "job" of getting paid to stay home with their kid, so the employer has to hire someone else to do the actual job. That is an artifical increase, it isn't actually adding another job. How does that in any way increase productivity? You still only have one person doing the actual job - the other person is being paid not to work. If that is the logic, then everyone receiving unemployment should be considered in labor participation rates.
Click to expand...

What? No the point is that women don't stay at home to raise their kids at the same rates if they have longer leaves up front. Allowing men to stay home as well doesn't disadvantage women in the ways that you've clearly shown us pregnancy can. There is a very clear correlation between longer parental leave and female labor participation rates.

I posted an article and study all about this yesterday.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
What? No the point is that women don't stay at home to raise their kids at the same rates if they have longer leaves up front. Allowing men to stay home as well doesn't disadvantage women in the ways that you've clearly shown us pregnancy can. There is a very clear correlation between longer parental leave and female labor participation rates.

I posted an article and study all about this yesterday.
Click to expand...

Everything I know about parenting decisions I read on the internet.

- Numbers
 
s
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Of course it increases labor rates, because someone has the "job" of getting paid to stay home with their kid, so the employer has to hire someone else to do the actual job. That is an artifical increase, it isn't actually adding another job. How does that in any way increase productivity? You still only have one person doing the actual job - the other person is being paid not to work. If that is the logic, then everyone receiving unemployment should be considered in labor participation rates.
Click to expand...

"How do you reach a 142% unemployment rate?" Is this the answer?
 
PhDeac said:
Not only that. Wealth is considered a form of speech.

I'm not what point Wrangor and pour are trying to make with the whole some countries don't have basic human rights argument. "Human rights violations" are something we all know about and should be working to address.
Click to expand...

He didn't say those countries don't have basic human rights, he said it was only a right for wealthy countries. There is a gigantic difference in those two statements. He is saying that Maternity/Paternity leave is a right, but only in a wealthy nation. This by definition means it isn't a right, but a privilege that wealthy nations may choose to afford their citizens or may choose to not afford their citizens.

The redefinition of rights seems like a small matter but it really isnt, because at its base is the notion that disagreement must be silenced. Because if you disagree with something that has been determined a 'RIGHT', then you are not merely disagreeing, you are in violation of humanity. It is a subtle, but very effective method to marginalize all dissension.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I don't have a problem at all with defined contribution plans. I wasn't even making an argument, you just like to be counter to everyone on here. Someone could say the sky is blue and you'd argue about atmospheric condition.
Click to expand...
Channeling rjkarl! !!
 
If you really want people to have paid family leave, beseech your employer to reduce your wages and give the proceeds to the new babymamas of the firm and whoever it was that inseminated them or claims some version of domestic relationship with them. You don't have any "right" to force others to make that same choice.
 
Wrangor said:
The redefinition of rights seems like a small matter but it really isnt, because at its base is the notion that disagreement must be silenced. Because if you disagree with something that has been determined a 'RIGHT', then you are not merely disagreeing, you are in violation of humanity. It is a subtle, but very effective method to marginalize all dissension.
Click to expand...
No kidding. What makes it really scary to me is that some don't even see that it's been redefined....and apparently can't describe the difference.

My f'd up point of view is....we should be able to live like the naturally evolved mammals we are....and those principles are our "rights". The founders called it god given. Anything a squirrel can run around and do naturally, we should be free to do. Squawk, defend ourselves, live, eat, hide in a hole, eat a deer turd, fornicate with other squirrels, etc. Belief is what IMO we evolved with that is different than a squirrel so that's part of it as well. If squirrel could believe, they could do that too. We have those rights unless they impinge on others. Governments should protect those rights.

Squirrels don't get access to free healthcare. Not a right. Rights come from nature/God, not from man.
 
Last edited:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

God given right!
 
TownieDeac said:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

God given right!
Click to expand...

But are there squirrel slaves?!?!?
 
Is pourman one of those yahoos who thinks the Constitution is ordained by God?
 
Some people really get into the natural rights thing from a philosophical perspective. Personally I think it is a distinction without difference.

The only natural right you have in my opinion is the right to attempt to survive.
 
As a squirrel, do I have the right to eat your nuts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top