It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Society has not only a right, but an obligation, to defend itself against such awful hatred and backward thinking by correcting malevolent instruction learned from idiot parents.
Lastly, you just said that incest, polygamy, and goat sex are all ok. Is that correct?
You are not allowed to dictate to anyone else who or what they are allowed to do in the privacy of their own lives.
Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by something wicked
Is that a serious question?
Because we live in America, not Nazi Germany, USSR or Communist China. If you think that people should be locked up for a behavior, feeling or a thought without committing a crime, you might as well lock yourself up right now and throw away the key, or heres a ticket, admit one to a FEMA labor camp. See you in the gulags.
Arguably though, homophobia and racism are natural behaviors as long as they are not acted upon or taken to extremes.
If this behavior leads to a crime, the offender should be arrested for that crime within the system and laws that already exist. In no case should a person be charged with the same crime twice because it is thought that the crime was motivated by racism or homophobia, a crime is still a crime, though sometimes racism and homophobia can help establish a motive.
But to take this to an extreme is to try to abolish this type of behavior. That means I could suspect that you are a racist or a homophobe and have you arrested and you would be guilty until proven innocent. If a law like this were to pass, we might as well throw out all other laws because no law would effectively exist. We would live in lawless police state ran by savage mobs and barbarians.
Have you ever seen the movie the minority report? How about 1984? What about idiocracy? I always thought that movie was a far fetched comedy until after reading some peoples posts on this thread, now I take it more seriously.
1984 was not an instruction manual.
Right, now take a step back, grow up and read what I said again. Where did it state that 'abolishment' of bias towards people based on their colour, gender or gender preference would be an offence leading to a spell in jail unless it was also linked to violence or the threat of?
Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by something wicked
Right, now take a step back, grow up and read what I said again. Where did it state that 'abolishment' of bias towards people based on their colour, gender or gender preference would be an offence leading to a spell in jail unless it was also linked to violence or the threat of?
Those types of laws do exist, but I don't agree with them. They are called hate crimes.
Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Shminkee Pinkee
What they want to add to the curriculum is education about LGBTQ and tolerance etc. I have no problem with the tolerance part, but I think it reaches to far at a young age. Most students at that age have not began to realize their attraction to the opposite sex, gone through puberty or anything like that. I think the LGBTQ should be left out all together and not expanded upon because the implications could drive the outcomes for young impressionable children.
Well I knew what Gay people were when I was 5 years old, so did most of my friends, and we turned out ok, surely undestanding from an early age, breeds understanding, not too early of course, let children be children, but give them the opportunity to understand the world around them, some children in their classes may have gay parents, it makes sense in that case to tell children all about it.
I dont have a problem with birth control. Except many types of female birth control can be very harmful to the female reproductive system
This is true certain birth control pills can be harmful, some of my friends have had issues, nothing that has affected fertility though
I have a problem with it being free because it comes at expense of the tax payer.
I have a problem with my government spending enormous amounts of money on Nuclear weapons and the Royal family, there is alway something you don't want your taxes to go to in principle, however if we all decided to be self serving it wouldn't be a very nice world to live in
Another part of this issue that I accidentally left out is that they also want free abortions during any term of pregnancy at the expense of the tax payer. This reaches into the obamacare stuff. But anyways I have a major problem with this more so than the birth control.
Abortion, has always been an issue that divides people, I'm pro choice, but the same applies as with my last answer. The government should provide the choice for people who can't afford private care, that doesn't mean it forces you take that choice, it's there as an option.
marxist and socialist political figures created that system
Seems unlikely, there is nothing socialist about the Federal Reserve :-)
I dont know what that is, but in America, parents can raise their children any way they want. It is not up to the state to decide how parents should parent.
Parents can raise their kids anyway want here too, sometimes good sometimes very badly :-) when you said allowance I thought you meant in monetary terms, as you say allowance which refers to what we call pocket money. Child benefit is what our government gives all families with children in the UK it is not means tested and everyones entitled, rich or poor.
Birth control, sex, abortion, school field trips and social programs, curfews, boyfriends, sleep overs at friends and early every aspect of parents raising their children.
If the child is over 16 or 18 whatever the age is over there, then I don't think parental consent is required
You can not abolish human thought, emotion, intellect.
We live in America, not George Orwells 1984 or the minority report. There is no such thing as a thought crime here. It is all protected under our first amendment right to freedom of speech.
I am well aware you live in America and I have no problem with freedom of speech:-), and people have the freedom to be racist sexist and homophobic if they want, the same way other have the right to oppose that stance, but I have a problem with ignorance, most racism sexism any kind of intollerence is bred from general ignorance to other peoples beliefs, education is the key and co-operation.
It is affordable housing and in some cases free for welfare recipients at the expense of the American taxpayer.
End of foreclosures
Because nothing is free, somebody has to pay for it, one way or another.
Community based housing
I dont know, ask the survivors of the holocaust or the bolsheviks.
Our interstates federal highways that connect cities together, America is a travel based economy. They want to restrict our constitutional right to travel and force us into the rail system as mentioned above in a way that controls, regulates and restricts travel.
Ever heard of Nazi Germany?
Currently, airlines are privately owned. This implies huge problems and a basic theft or takeover of the airline industry.
Federally funded car insurance
Unconstitutional.
Greater access to all media
I don't see a problem with this
This implies greater access for the government to the media, not the people to the media. What this implies is that dissent would not be tolerated and would be censored. Basically the media would become the governments mouth piece.
We already have this and a constitutional right to appoint a public defender. What this implies is a takeover of all private lawyers and complete regulation over the law industry.
These are the high security prisons where they put mass murderers and the upper echelon of prisoners with security risks.
Abolishment of the death penalty
The death penalty is Government sanctioned murder, it is not justice, only the absence and failure of Justice
In the cases of mass murder, it is much more reasonable to have them put to death, then have the tax payers pay to feed them and house them til the day they die.
It says government ownership. Basically a monopoly and complete control. Please see my comments about dissent and freedom of speech above.
Public Funding for Newspapers and Magazines
Yeah right, see above.
A sliding scale that favors low income people
Low income people should be helped, humanity should make it's goals to abolish poverty hunger and disease, instead of argueing over scraps, there is enough money out there to do this, it's just the few at the top who control it all want to keep it so they pit us against each other so we don't see them stealing from us all everyday.
Good idea in theory, but in reality it doesnt work.