| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Social & Relationships Social skills, dating, family life, friends, soul mates, marriage, parenting, children, education, networking |
|
Welcome to the Personal Development for Smart People Forums, the place for lively, intelligent discussion of all personal growth issues -- physical, mental, financial, social, emotional, spiritual, and more. You're currently viewing as a guest, which gives you limited read-only access. By joining our free community, you'll be able to post your own messages, access many members-only features, see the new messages posted since your last visit, and of course remove this header message. Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please join today. If you arrived here from a search engine, you may want to explore the main site first, which includes hundreds of deep and insightful articles on a variety of personal development topics. |
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
04-30-2008, 04:15 AM
| |||
| |||
 Ideas for creating a better society in the US Speaks for itself. I'm looking for major changes that will affect large amounts of people in a positive way. Both broad and specific answers and ideas are welcomed. I'm just looking for some extra ideas to go into a personal project. Thanks.      |
|
04-30-2008, 04:18 AM
| |||
| |||
| I'd be happy if the US would stop treating me like a second-class citizen and give me the same rights that straight people have. |
|
04-30-2008, 04:22 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
|
|
04-30-2008, 01:03 PM
| |||
| |||
| Problem / Solution Illegal immigration from Mexico / deport them back... to the SOUTHERN TIP of Mexico. Illegal immigration from Mexico / Send the deportation bill to the Mexican government. War in Iraq (cost) / Pull out, let them kill themselves off, go back when there are fewer to worry about Oil Crisis / Join the 21st century and work from home. Seriously, all the factory jobs went to China/India, why do most people NEED to be at a specific location? sales/support/etc. Oil Crisis / Join the 21st century and start building more nuclear power plants. Public Education / "No Child Left Behind" has got to go. It used to be that schools taught to the average kid, now they teach to the dumbest kid. Public Education / Worst thing ever for "socialization". Homeschool works much better. Racial divide / Get rid of hate crime laws. Why is it illegal to call a black man a ****** (which will likely be filtered by this forum as well), but not illegal to call a white man a cracker? Racial divide / Get rid of "Affirmative action". All it is is a crutch. (although I can pretty much guarantee that they will get rid of it when the white man becomes a minority) Class divide / Get rid of "part time employee" status. A company should not be able to hire 100 people as "part time" instead of 90 as "full time" and get around the mandatory breaks/benefits/... Crime / Remove most "gun laws". Ever notice that crime goes UP in places where they make handguns illegal? Crime / Take Penn Gilette's suggestion and arm all women. ... more to come. |
|
04-30-2008, 01:58 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
2. Incorporate sexual orientation and gender identity as protected qualifiers from discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Employment Act. 3. Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. 4. Repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. 5. Continue encouraging broad-mindedness regarding sexual orienation, gender identity, and the GLBT community at large, but without going so far as to start treating such citizens any differently than straight citizens, be those differences more positive or more negative for the citizens in question. 6. Once this is all accomplished, encourage all citizens to put the issue to rest and treat one's sexual orientation or gender identity as no more important than one's hair color or the grain of wood constituting one's coffee table. |
|
04-30-2008, 04:42 PM
| |||
| |||
| PianoManGidley, I agree with you, except for points 2, 5, and somewhat 6. Sure, give homosexuals the same marriage rights. I'm fine with that, as long as you make divorce just as difficult. I do not, however, agree with giving them any different protective status or benefits or ... than the average citizen. I feel that a major part of why America is in the situation that it is in is BECAUSE of the creation of "laws of distinction." And, for full disclosure, I am a member of the only group left that it is legal to make fun of, discriminate against, etc. I am a straight, white, middle aged, average height, average weight, non-religious, married male. --Doku |
|
04-30-2008, 05:04 PM
| |||
| |||
| 2 is very important to me, because I don't like the idea that I could legally be fired from my job just because I'm gay. Keep in mind that the Equal Opportunity Employment Act already protects against discrimination based on issues such as race and religious beliefs, meaning that you can't be fired for being Black OR for being White (goodness knows I've had people be racist against me just because I'm White), and you can't be fired for being non-Christian OR for being Christian. I would hope that a sexual orientation and gender identity clause would make it so that people could not be fired for being gay, bisexual, asexual, lesbian, transgendered, OR straight. I'm not asking for special privelages--I'm asking for EQUAL RIGHTS. And if you're against distinction, why are you against 6? Oh, and there aren't laws saying that people can't make fun of other groups. So, people can still legally make fun of anyone for anything, really. It may not be popular or "politically correct," but I'm against political correctness anyways--I believe in 100% free speech. |
|
04-30-2008, 05:29 PM
| |||
| |||
| PianoManGidley is spot on with his number two suggestion. Incorporating sexual orientation and gender identity as protected qualifiers from discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Employment Act is absolutely crucial. I personally have had to be in the closet at multiple jobs over the years simply because I knew my employers could (and would) fire me with impunity if I didn't constantly lie about my personal life. Whenever I was really talking about my boyfriend Paul I would change it up and say I was talking about my girlfriend Stacy. I didn't go to holiday parties where significant others were invited. I couldn't play company sports where Stacy would be expected to show up. I couldn't go to company outings or picnics, etc. This was difficult. I was managing a couple hundred people at various times and was expected to come to these functions. Stacy was expected to come too. Sometimes I hear the argument that personal lives should stay out of the workplace. Well great, if that notion is applied to everyone equally then I have no problem with it. But as it is, gay people have to play "don't ask don't tell" with their personal lives while their straight colleagues bare all and brag about whatever with impunity. Having to pathologically hide one's sexual orientation in the workplace for fear of losing your income source is just no good at all. Companies should not be able to fire you for being gay, it's as simple as that. That's just basic equal rights, it has nothing to do with special or distinct treatment.
__________________ Best, Dan Linehan |
|
04-30-2008, 06:01 PM
| ||||||
| ||||||
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________ Best, Dan Linehan |
|
04-30-2008, 06:55 PM
| |||
| |||
| Disclaimer: I'm not from the US, nor have I ever been there. I've known a few Americans, and all (except one...he was a sociopath) were fine people. That out of the way. Looking from the outside, it feels to me that the US needs to change the way it thinks. It seems very much built around the idea that you can make your own fortune, which you surely can, but this also means there is little or no support for those that fail. Which means that the divide between the rich and the poor becomes huge. This is neither good for the rich or the poor, it just means more people will turn to crime, making life unsafe for the rich. I believe, the strong opposition to things like social security and most state controlled social support for those who need it has it's roots in a fear/hatred for communism. I'm not saying communism is a great system, it has been tested and it has failed, but there is a middle ground between communism and a totally capitalistic society, and currently the US is a good bit to the right of this middle ground. If you look at countries where people in general are more happy with their life, you'll see they have many things in common (Denmark, Switzerland, etc.). Reasonably good social security, low crime rates, free health care, good job market and solid rights for workers (high minimum wage, sick pay etc), solid civil rights and more. A country that takes good care of it's citizens, is a good place to live.  |
|
04-30-2008, 07:22 PM
| |||
| |||
| A lot of these suggestions are good... I don't personally consider illegal immigration a problem. In fact, they increase our economy since there are more people who are willing to do unskilled labor (less and less americans these days; people complain about outsourcing businesses and illegal immigration both, not realizing that illegal immigrant workers are a big reason we still have some of the business we do). Also, i don't think i can blame them for doing what they believe is best for themselves and their loved ones..., it's the same thing any other reasonable person on their position would do. If you can refute these arguements however, i'm willing to listen. Anyway, thanks all for taking the time to reply. More ideas are welcome. |
|
05-01-2008, 01:18 AM
| |||
| |||
| Dude, you are named after a gun. Just in case you didn't realize. So anyway, change the US for the better. Hmmmm. I would build the concept directly off the quote by Ghandi: ~Be the change you wish to see in the world. The idea is that change starts with one person at a time, convincing people that yes every action they take, every decision they make, affects the entire organism. Bring it to schools because for it to work, you'll have to start young and reinforce constantly. You can't count on churches to do it but they can be used to spread the message. Parents have to be taught not to thwart the process in their children even if they don't buy in to it and their own habitual idiocy has to be bred out over time, that it's still for the good of the world. Respect is more important than anything. That would have to be hammered home. That includes self-respect. That compassion is possible in a capitalistic world. That if it's humanly possible to contribute, one should contribute. But people that are unable to contribute should be respected for the people that they are. Everyone has a place. Jennifer |
|
05-01-2008, 04:23 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
What's wrong with having the name of a gun? Are you suggesting that i'm violent or uncaring just because of my screen name on some random online forum? What if my name was Marquis de Sade, or Nuclear Waste; Cow or ComputerGeek? Does it really matter? A name is superficial, it has nothing to do with anything. My name could be Ak47 for 1000 different reasons that you'd never guess, good or bad. Personally, i don't think open stereotype is a very good method for promoting a positive social change. However, i do think that the absolutionism that is created in some people by symbolic interactionism is ridiculous. Props for pointing that out to me. Otherwise, good points. I like your approach to the Ghandi quote with the mix of influence [convincing]; very unique. |
|
05-01-2008, 01:16 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Quote:
One issue is that money has to much influence on US policy. Change Congress — Home is a nice movement by Larry Lessig (the guy behind Creative Commons), which tries to be webbased to fight this problem. Quote:
__________________ I am always open for feedback on my posts. That might focused on the argument at hand or on my writing style. If your feedback would go offtopic feel free to send me a Personal Message. Reality is fragile |
|
05-01-2008, 06:55 PM
| |||
| |||
| I disagree with the "equal opportunity employment act" on principal. Nobody should be to force me to hire someone for any reason. Some examples: If I were running a gay strip club... Should I be forced to put a chick on stage? One could easily argue that she is just as capable at taking her clothes off. There is equal opportunity for the sexes, you know. How about "Doku's Japanese Massage Parlor" Should I be forced to hire the 6'4" 320lb black guy that just retired from the Cowboys football team? He's perfectly capable of giving someone a massage. There is equal opportunity for race. How about Father Bob's Catholic traveling minestry? Should he be forced to hire a Hare Krishna? There is protection for religion as well. As to why the Mexican government should pay, not only does their government do nothing to prevent it, they go so far as to teach people how to invade this country! And how do we force them to pay? Embargos do wonders. |
|
05-01-2008, 09:24 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Father Bob's Catholic Traveling Ministry is not a business, but a church, and is therefore exempt from the Equal Opportunity Employment Act. As for the Japanese massage parlor--my boyfriend is currently finishing up his degree in massotherapy. He is a White Jewish male, 5'11" and roughly 300 lbs.--fat, not muscle. And yet he, as well as men larger than him, can be trained in the alternative medicine of massage therapy, including all its unique practices--which includes the technique of standing and applying pressure on the client's back (I'll have to ask him what the name of that specific technique is again)--just as easily as a petite 4'9" 85-lb. Japanese woman. As long as your retired football player has proper training in the practices the Japanese massage parlor commonly employs and meets all other business-specific criteria (such as, potentially, the requirement to speak Japanese as a second language, in case enough clientele speak exclusively Japanese to warrant such a requirement), then he should be considered for the job. Your examples include reasons outside of sex, religion, or race as to why an employer would not want to hire a prospective employee. The EOEA was established so an employer couldn't say "I'm not hiring you JUST because of your race/religion/sex/other qualifying factor." And it is my belief that sexual orientation and gender identity should be included in that. The EOEA wasn't created to say that business HAVE to hire so many men, women, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, etc....you're confusing the EOEA with Affirmative Action, which is an ideal I personally feel is archaic and no longer needed. Hopefully, soon, the EOEA won't be needed, either. Last edited by PianoManGidley : 05-01-2008 at 09:28 PM. |
|
05-02-2008, 01:23 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Well, syllogisms are great. They are how you think most logically, and are absolutely necessary for survival. People tend to put opinion in them though when a key element is fact, however, and when it comes to people... this is how prejudice, descrimination, etc happens. Consciousness is realization, which is not necessarily conclusive by nature. Might i be so bold to say that being successful in realization is understanding that many things are not conclusive at all. Which, in itself, is a realization; that you should be conscious enough to realize that not all things are conclusive. Realizing that you don't know any thing (in my opinion) is one of the best things for someone to be conscious of. |
|
05-02-2008, 01:34 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
minorities in poverty => minorities can't get jobs just because of their race (or whatever else) => minorities are still in poverty => minorities become detatched from society since they cannot participate and interact with the majority => right back where we started. if you throw it the "equal opportunity employment act"... this gives minorities the chance to interact with the majority. if they can interact with the majority as their equals... then it's more likley that, over time, both groups will consider themselves equals. it's not a permenant answer, but it gives the minorities a better chance of becoming accepted by society... hopefully enough that eventually they |