Discrimination is not created equal

11/12/05 10:40:49 PM

Then you have a poor understanding of what I think

But this is a simple matter of forcing views.

If they want to limit recruiters access, then they need to limit ALL recruiters.

But, since we're talking about the military...its a popular view to restrict.

Now, if you want to compare it to religion, I believe you would be the minority viewpoint, yet it is perfectly ok to restrict the majority so that their views aren't forced upon you.

I guess I'm the only one here that sees this as a HUGE double standard.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,846

11/12/05 11:21:06 PM

Re-read what you wrote

I'm not commenting about the military being in schools. I'm commenting about the double standard in your post.

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=233830|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=233830]

You say that this law should be struck down by a court.

I'm saying that there is no way that a judge can do that without making law, which is something that I thought you were against. Furthermore I pointed out that the law which has been the basis of other anti-discrimination actions is one which is of questionable constitutionality.

So by my understanding of your views, no matter how much you dislike this law, you shouldn't want a court to strike it down.

Am I missing something?

Cheers,
Ben

PS Having read the bill, I'll venture a position on it. I'm personally for having the military be able to recruit from an equal position with other employers. I'm against giving them the kind of special access they have. But that isn't an option in the San Francisco decision. Given the alternatives presented, I prefer the one that they chose. However, like most votes in our democracy, that's a "least evil" choice, not a "I agree with that" choice.

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,850

11/12/05 11:50:47 PM

I am of the opinion

that equal access would not be a creation of new law, but an enforcement of exist.

Now I'm not willing to spend a day looking through the codebook to verify that and, of course, IANAL.

Having the court weigh the constitutionality of a law is something that I agree with.

Having a court in SF create the ban on the military would be a creation of law (and something that happens all the time) and that is what I don't favor.

On the personal note, we are in agreement.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,851

11/13/05 12:34:41 AM

My understanding is...

that your opinion is factually wrong. Outside of a very specific list of categories, discrimination is allowed. In particular discriminating against specific businesses or classes of businesses is both allowed and common.

For instance where I worked in NYC had a product that was sold for a very different price to broker dealers (who issue bonds) than traders (who buy bonds). When I asked whether that was discrimination, a lawyer there told me that it was blatant discrimination, but perfectly legal since it wasn't one of the narrow classes of things that you're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of.

And why aren't you allowed to discriminate on the basis of a limited number of things? Mostly because of [link|http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm|The Civil Rights Act]. And what is the Constitutional justification for this law from Congress? It is that they have the power, To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; What does a restaurant in Atlanta hiring an employee from Atlanta who will serve people in Atlanta, most of whom are permanent residents there, have to do with interstate commerce? According to Scalia et al, it shouldn't. Hence my comment about how the strict constructivists want to do away with the existing federal law in this matter.

BTW the right to discriminate comes up in regular life as well. For instance if I don't like Walmart, then I have the right to not buy stuff from Walmart. I don't have to give a reason. Is that discrimination? Of course! But it is perfectly legal discrimination.

That applies to groups as well. For instance if a troupe of girl scouts wants to not buy things from Walmart, they don't have to. They have a right to discriminate that stems out of their right to free association.

The San Francisco case is similar. The Federal government gives money. That money comes with strings attached. The city doesn't like those strings. The city decides that it doesn't want the money or the strings. If they don't accept the money, why should they be forced to do what they don't want to do?

It is not as if the kids won't find out about the military. Turn on the TV, go to a movie, there are ads everywhere for how to join. The option is available whether or not the military shows up at those schools.

Now I'd prefer that they give limited access. But I don't think that they should be forced to. And I'm pretty sure (I'm not a lawyer, but I've talked with plenty) that they are within their legal rights to choose not to. Unless (which is always possible) there is some law from Congress mandating that schools have to allow that.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,852

11/13/05 12:43:40 AM

Different situation altogether

Your examples are all of people being allowed to not do something that they do not want to do.

This is not that type of situation.

This is a public facility (a school) that wishes to allow job recruiting. Now a group of people want to disallow one employer but allow others. You examples of shopping at WalMart don't apply. Your examples of pricing differently to different customers also does not apply.

This is about access to public facilities in an equal fashion.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,855

11/13/05 1:00:25 AM

There's something basic at stake here

In order for a court to say that the law should be rejected, the court has to have a justification for rejecting it. That is if someone wants to say that the city can't do this, the burden of proof is on them to prove it.

You've complained that it is discrimination, and discrimination is not allowed. I've pointed out that lots of discrimination is allowed. In fact you're only not allowed to discriminate based on a narrowly defined list of specific cases. (And the legal justification for those exceptions is open to question.) That my examples are different from this case is irrelevant - their purpose is to establish that discrimination is allowed by default. They did that.

So unless you are of the opinion that judges should create law (which I don't think you are), then your position that a court should strike this law down should be backed up with justification for why a judge should have that authority.

I'm asking you to present that justification.

Thank you,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,868

11/13/05 10:35:12 AM

And I'm telling you that I think its different

because it is a measure of equal access that I think already exists in the law.

We have a different opinioni on what law exists...but not being a lawyer I don't have a library of case law and a bunch of lackies to research the specifics.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,912

11/13/05 3:24:50 PM

In short, I'm wasting my breath

Because your opinion is already made up, and you're uninterested in producing something as mundane as "facts" to support it.

Regards,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,922

11/13/05 6:42:27 PM

Box gave you one

I am of the opninion there are more. And yes, I'm comfortable enough in that knowledge to disagree with you without bothering to spend an hour searching the web to prove you wrong.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,957

11/13/05 9:44:58 PM

Yes, boxley did. But even if he didn't, you wouldn't have.

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,982

11/14/05 8:22:49 AM

For the stated reasons

You imagined a "gotcha" in my position which, based on my understanding of the law, was not a "gotcha" at all...and since I didn't care enough to prove to you what I already was comfortable in my knowledge of, you decided to take offense.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,877

by boxley

11/13/05 11:48:18 AM

lets try some case law shall we?

its called viewpoint discrimination, it attackes the first ammendment

"[I]t appears that the Board was engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination. By allowing the publication of the military recruitment advertisements, the Board allowed the presentation of one side of a highly controversial issue. The Board provided a forum to those who advocate military service. The Board then refused, without a valid reason, to allow those who oppose military service to use the same forum. The only reasonable inference is that the Board was engaging in viewpoint discrimination. As the Supreme Court has stated, "to permit one side of a debatable public question to have a monopoly in expressing its views . . . is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees." . . . In other words, "the First Amendment means that the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." . . . Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a non-public forum.

its clear although the complainant in the above case is anti military, you cannot restrict viewpoint presentation (recruitment) in public school.
thanx,
bill

"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #233,913

11/13/05 3:47:26 PM

Can you say where that case is from?

Context makes a huge difference. I can't tell how closely it applies in this case.

I do know that freedom of speech means less than you might expect. For instance remember the [link|http://www.savethepinebush.org/NewsArt/XGates/Protest.html|tshirt eviction] from a mall? The mall eventually dropped the case because of the publicity, but in conversations with a lawyer at the time I was told that, had it gone to court, there was little doubt that the mall would win. Malls are private property, and may eject whomever they want, whenever they want, for any reason that they want as long as it is not one of the reasons given in the Civil Rights Act. If you refuse to leave private property when requested, you are guilty of tresspass. Apparently wearing a t-shirt is not exactly the same thing as free speech.

I can't tell from what you quote what your case was about. But I'm going to guess that some government organization ("the Board") accepted military advertisements but not non-military advertisements in some forum. Depending on the details, the San Francisco people are going to have to be careful to not violate that precedent. However I think that if they both deny military recruiters and do not provide a platform for anti-military spokespeople, they are fine. That is, freedom of speech only applies if you're providing a platform for speech. Don't provide the platform, and nobody can fault you for not letting someone specific speak.

Of course if the school provided a platform for people who hate the military to come in and give special presentations to the school, then didn't allow the military to present their case as well, then it looks like your case might apply pretty well indeed.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,950

by boxley

11/13/05 9:23:24 PM

hmm, thought I linked it, here ya go

[link|http://www.efn.org/~eugpeace/lawyerletter.htm|http://www.efn.org/~.../lawyerletter.htm]
and another, perhaps better one
[link|http://www.doe.state.in.us/safety/legalad.html|http://www.doe.state...fety/legalad.html]

Thus a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the discussion of any topic, or to the entire public for the discussion of certain topics, or some combination of the two. "Once the state has created a limited public forum. its ability to impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that forum is quite restricted[.] Although a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable time, place and manner regulations are permissible, and a content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." Id., at 1475, citing to Perry Education Assoc. v. Perry Local Education Assoc., 460 U.S. 37, 46, 103 S.Ct. 948, 955 (1983).

Once the state creates a limited public forum, ie recruiters of firms seeking employees, peace corp etc. Note again "and a content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest" there is no compelling state/city/muni interest in restricting access to an arm of the Federal Government unless in a state of open rebellion and insurrection, although SF is constantly flirting with that, they havnt seceded yet. Case law is clear. Now they can use local laws that prohibit organizations that prohibit homosexuality to prevent recruiters but that is not settled law yet, its working its way thru the courts.
thanx,
bill

Post #233,955

11/13/05 9:42:46 PM

That does look applicable, thanks

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,853

by Ashton

11/13/05 12:52:04 AM

Sophistry flying under perverse banner, Social Darwinism 101

And while advocating the allowance of sophisticated, Tested+Refined persuasion techniques upon High School children, you remain -typically- silent about the Main ingredient within this propaganda barrage; the one which is so often Decisive
(even for the smarter-than-You, but poorer-than-You, TARGET of these recruiters):

The Chance to escape the fate of that 20-million or 40, depending on selected stats - who haven't a 'prayer' of acquiring the education and skills they'd Like to have - without help.

You will smugly permit, nay encourage - this Faustian bargain which the US Government will offer in lieu of actual Help.

Don't want a life of Mickey-Ds? Gamble that Life!
Gl\ufffdcksspiel mit uns!

..and we'll train you to Kill, by a massive variety of slick techno means.. why, it will be just like playing Doom (only *YOU* get to push the FIRE button on that Blackhawk, over that village we're conquering this week.
ZZzzOOooMmmm - *BANG* Exciting, Ain't it, Sonny?

Fie on your 'Principles', Oh Liber-contrarian or {whatever Logo}.
They are as bloodless as that Econ spreadsheet; the one which putatively measures National 'Wealth' / but has no box for 'Personal Greed'/ or one for the 'Social defunding' as follows, and many others which determine qualities of a real 'Life' == in those neatly-balancing equations.

(I can see why your typ answer to every event is a slogan; your essay-answers give away quite too much, of those cards held-so-close to the chest.)

Maybe ~when Your Kids get to that magic 18, when they are presumably to be fair game for Every Scam extant? your POV shall have prevailed, and Rev Moon *LLC will be able to make His hoary presentations too: "Go with My Messiahhood and.. and.. the Mansion you get after death will be bigger than Jesus' and with better Nintendo."

* THAT makes him a Bizness too, so then: Equal Access, Baby (and.. cha cha cha)
Gawd knoze - it's a $multi-Billion one already; wait til it's a Franchise too.

Maybe the US needs to consider its collective IQ <-> VS The World - and raise that Age of Majority to ~23?

Post #233,869

11/13/05 10:43:10 AM

Sophistry ?

The mantra chanted is "We know better".

How charitably presumptuous of you.

And in this case you are oh so charitable with your intellect. We must "save them from themselves".

And with healthcare, we are "bad" because we don't follow the majority...but here we have no mandatory service...and this, of course is a good thing...made better by our "elite minds" who, in order to protect "the cheeldrun", feel that those evil, mind warping recruiters will fool our young into a life of carnage.

Ignoring the fact that 1) not eveyone in service gets to shoot people and 2) they don't need your help to decide...its NOT YOUR JOB.

If they are allowed to be wooed by McDonalds at a job fare (with promises of benefits, promotion, money, education) then they should be, nay must be allowed to hear the same information from another potential employer...be it army, navy, air force or Marine.

Thats the joy of freedom boys.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,871

11/13/05 10:52:04 AM

They can quit McDonalds

Why do you refuse to acknowledge this difference?

Post #233,884

11/13/05 11:58:47 AM

Because it makes no difference

Its THEIR DECISION TO MAKE. You want to make it for them.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,915

by andread

11/13/05 4:55:30 PM

11/13/05 4:55:51 PM

no difference

no one is banning anyone from joining the armed forces
only putting a limit on how the military goes about
getting its volunteers

A

Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]

Edited by andread Nov. 13, 2005, 04:55:51 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #233,924

11/13/05 6:44:58 PM

More of a limit

than on any other organization.

And they are doing it because they don't LIKE it.

My humble apologies for being OFFENDED by that.

And I would recommend to my children that they DON'T enlist.

I am not being pro-military in this defense...but I'm sure most think that I am.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,942

by Simon_Jester

11/13/05 8:14:53 PM

I think some people

see the point that you're making regarding the military. But you brushed away the other two points (that the military already had unequal access from "No Child Left Behind" and the removal of choice a la legal drinking ages) so dismissively (and apparently without validating those points) that your issue appeared to be solely military access.

Post #233,873

11/13/05 11:26:49 AM

Companies are not the same as the armed forces

That's my point. There's a world of difference between being a junior greasemonkey at McDonald's and being a junior greasemonkey in the army in Iraq.

Post #233,883

by imric

11/13/05 11:57:00 AM

Other employers

cannot fundamentally alter the rights they have. The armed services can. Normal employers don't have putting employees in combat situations as a reason for being. Normal employers can't force extended service, and don't have their own laws, courts and prisons.

Employer<>Armed services. Just like Business<>Government. They aren't the same, and shouldn't be the same.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #233,885

11/13/05 11:59:22 AM

See above.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,886

by imric

11/13/05 12:04:37 PM

No.

The Army is not a job. any more than government is business. It's not something that can be quit. The fact that you may permit businesses to recruit does NOT mean that you must let all organisations everywhere recruit.

You are completely wrong here, my friend.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #233,887

11/13/05 12:20:51 PM

You continue to hunt for things

that change the fundamental argument.

It is THEIR CHOICE you are taking away because you don't like that they are choosing. All these differences make it BAD FOR THEM so you shouldn't LET THEM do it.

You are being sucked into the forest and missing the tree.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,890

11/13/05 12:44:21 PM

No-one's taking any choices away, though.

The recruiting office is still there, where it always was.

Post #233,928

11/13/05 6:50:37 PM

Without equal access

because someone knows better than you what choices you should be allowed to make.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,971

11/14/05 1:32:34 AM

Yes, adults do know better than children.

Post #233,894

by hnick

11/13/05 1:01:52 PM

Ok, how about this?

The college students can do what they want. They can be recruited for anything and do as they please. They've been trying to run their own lives for a while now, so let them. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

High school students may still legitimately be protected from predators. Military recruiters eminently qualify as predators, particularly if they are way behind in their quotas. The kids still have to sign up for selective service when they hit 18; that's law. The military doesn't need any more information than that. We should be able to protect our young, even when they approach 18 and you want to turn their air off. If they're 18 and want to enlist, it's their choice. Nothing to be done about it. But we don't have to give predators extra information to hook them.

Post #233,907

11/13/05 1:32:44 PM

But but but

Think of the poor recruiters!!!

Post #233,908

by hnick

11/13/05 1:38:35 PM

Their problem. TS as it were...

Post #233,909

11/13/05 2:07:05 PM

I guess I needed the sign

Post #233,910

by hnick

11/13/05 2:41:25 PM

Me too

Post #233,926

11/13/05 6:49:32 PM

I'm cool with that.

The "extra information" part can go away. In fact, I would support that it does.

Not allowing recruiters access is my problem, especially of other organizations are allowed to recruit.

Thats a "groupthink" issue and I have a problem with that. Its making choices for others because you know better than they do what is good for them. I'm disappointed in several here for not seeing this and coming to the table with "but this is different" and the tried and true "but its for the cheeldrun".

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,930

11/13/05 6:53:01 PM

It was impossible to tease that out though

from you, since you refuse to engage.

At least to me.

That was one of my specific points that made me unhappy.

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=233870|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=233870]

Post #233,931

11/13/05 6:57:56 PM

I engaged

on the point that I was making. Since the info seemed to have more legs, I addressed it here.

The info piece was not central nor important to my point.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,932

11/13/05 7:01:46 PM

Sorry

It was to mine.
I should have been clearer.

Post #233,933

11/13/05 7:05:56 PM

No reason for that

If I was pissed, I know where you live :-)

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,934

11/13/05 7:06:05 PM

11/13/05 7:06:29 PM

dupe

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Edited by bepatient Nov. 13, 2005, 07:06:29 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #233,977

by Ashton

11/14/05 5:34:33 AM

If there's any 'groupthink' here, Mr. Legal Theoretician

(Too many hours memorizing Atlas Shrugged?)

- it's in your refusal to acknowledge that the Military is *NOT* a business, that their techniques include baldfaced, premeditated harassment; Psych Warfare. Recruits, barely ex-children thus utterly inexperienced with even civilian law: enter a surreal NON-civilian Code of Military Justice from Day 1.
(And the rest of Peter's, Imric's clear and relevant points - which you completely ignored.)

Remember? Recruiters commence this Psychological pre-Warfare while these are still CHILDREN.
(Officially! in that arbitrary but Scriptured legal definition of Age of Adulthood - and anyone sane notices that THAT number necessarily ignores the considerable variation in individual 'maturity': both ways.)

But WTF, BeeP - you aren't the only one around who will Stay The Course, No Matter Where that course actually Led. Why, I'd bet you'd reach any conclusion - based on nothing but a few things you deem to be some sort of legal factoid / screw all context. (Some might call that, a simple-minded obsession with the pseudo-science of The Law; you know: "computers can do the Boolean on 'Statutes' and no messy human or humane Live People need attend / spoil the mathematical Efficiency.")

But I call your obdurate repetition of the most simplistic aspect of this proposition: purest Digital Think.
Your faith clearly is in Formulas. (Legal 'Scripture'?)

You're not even 'arguing' - just contradicting. Any deeper, more nuanced examination of this Issue appears beyond your chosen shallow mechanistic mindset. (Speaking of mantras..)

Shit, might's well just Google: "Should I let my kid be exposed to this icky ~~sex edjaKayshun~~ Psyche Manipulation or Not?" Google says: _____.

Pshaw. Wait'll they start bringing in some of that 'missing' Iraqi plastic-wrapped stacks of $100s and dangling them in front of 17 yos... Oh wait -

Post #233,984

by boxley

11/14/05 9:20:04 AM

conclusions should be made on rationale not gut think

we are a nation of laws and any "law" created by an elected assembly needs to fit within the framework of our body of laws. Going "ook bad" is fine but not legally defensible. Going "ook bad because our body of laws do not allow this" actually gets the argument further along.
thanx,
bill

Post #233,988

11/14/05 9:44:40 AM

Bullpucky

I don't HAVE to acknowledge the difference.

You want to take other people's freedom to choose away from them because you don't like their choice, or for some don't think them smart enough to make it, or for some think that its some "evil enterprise" in action, brainwashing our poor children (some of whom are your fellow posters now that they're all growed up, btw)

This is not contradiction. Its not even support for the military. Its a defense of one of the most fundamental aspects of this country.

And some say...well they can choose them...but "we don't have to make it so easy". Again, bullshit. If you are going to give them access to choice 1...then you need to give them equal access to choice 2...WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

Welcome to the US of freakin A, pal.

But because its the military, all eyes here are blind to this. The hatred that you show for the current regime and their policies has you completely blind to the most fundamental aspect of this debate.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,990

11/14/05 9:46:11 AM

No-one's freedom to choose has been taken away.

Unless, of course, recruiting offices are being blockaded.

Which they aren't.

Post #233,991

11/14/05 9:49:54 AM

That is in there

you are making it harder to choose this by restricting access.

maybe over there, Peter...but not here. That dog don't hunt here. Not allowed.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,996

11/14/05 10:10:17 AM

It's harder to choose because it's not the same.

The military and the corporations are not equivalent.

And access isn't restricted, unless the aforementioned recruiting offices are blockaded, which they're not.

Post #233,998

11/14/05 10:14:56 AM

But the access to choose

by the individual must be the same.

They decide if the difference warrants another choice. Not you.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,000

11/14/05 10:21:24 AM

By that logic...

...you might as well invite in the KKK; I'm sure they have a number of PR openings.

Post #234,002

11/14/05 10:28:37 AM

Chuckle

you would have to let them if they wanted.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,003

by boxley

11/14/05 10:28:41 AM

as a matter of fact you might have a hard time keeping them

out if there is an extra currecular black history studies group.
thanx,
bill

Post #233,993

by boxley

11/14/05 9:52:09 AM

either equal access for all or no access for anyone

that is how things work here. Socially unacceptable is not a criteria for banning public discourse in America, Yet.
thanx,
bill

Post #234,001

by Another Scott

11/14/05 10:21:52 AM

Suppose this was rural Nevada rather than SF.

Should brothel owners be allowed to attend high school career day or recruiting events in Nevada? Why or why not?

Recall that only a small percentage of those in high school will be of the age of majority. Also recall that brothels are legal in many counties of Nevada.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who sees a higher standard other than merely "non-discrimination" that needs to be applied in high school career day events.)

Post #234,004

11/14/05 10:30:51 AM

Its a legal occupation

In they come.

Somehow you think my position would change because of this?

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,005

by boxley

11/14/05 10:31:12 AM

prostitution is a venerable profession

put their booth right next to planned parenthood and the Focus on the Family displays.
thanx,
bill

Post #234,116

11/14/05 5:13:08 PM

I misread that as...

"Prostitution is a venereal profession."

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #234,125

by boxley

11/14/05 6:18:01 PM

intended this time :-}

Post #234,127

by Ashton

11/14/05 6:35:48 PM

11/14/05 6:44:26 PM

OK Beep, you've convinced me

Of what is needed to level the playing field. It IS now 2005 and not 1776, before Persuasion became a $Growth$ Industry, staffed by legions of mercenaries with the same level of conscience as your 'strict construction' Scalia argument displays.

Premise:
IF.. in '05 - a 17 yo has not yet figured out that *everyone* with something to Sell is Lying -??- (by omission if not commission) in his/her selective-data presentations:

Perhaps that naif *IS* Just the sort of malleable cannon fodder we shall need more and More-of, to bring US-defined 'Democracy' to Everyone; by all means possible (whether or not practicable.) You appear to be onboard with this view. You, Ayn and and Mr. John Galt.

Initial solution:
The clear next step then, in refining this Open-to-Every-POV process, is:

Each Presenter's table has, (placed a decent audio-space away) a Second table - staffed by any group which wishes to deconstruct the messages from the Main table, employ whatever persuasion techniques as they care to employ / as does the Presenter.

(Headphones, etc. lest duelling audio cancel-out Both sides)

This policy would ensure (at least) two aspects of all 'recruitment' on any *school campus* anywhere:

Conditions:
A) Each student is reminded, properly: to weigh the fact that All Presenters are Salesmen and are minimizing that which you would not Like to find out only.. AFTER it is Too Late.

Presenters are magnifying that which you'd Like to believe -- but in practice, you may have SIGNED-away your chances ever, of Enforcing.
[The reason there should also be a lawyer assigned to Each Child, in order to clarify the often weasel-words in the Promises.] 'Course that would cost some money once pro-bono was exhausted, but WTF - what's a 'child' worth?

B) Each student also is reminded that, No Job! is *without* its negatives; some of these negatives may place your life (or your mental health or both) in far more jeopardy than you can possibly guess - at AGE 17. 'Death' may be less onerous a risk than quadriplegia - for just one example.
(Hell, you can die when your Pinto gets nudged at 20 mph, enroute to the Finest-grade imitation-leather cubicle..)

(And, re a Military career: screen before Recruitment Day - Johnny Got His Gun and preferably, too: The Green Table ballet, for a change of Media - as a small sop for the fact that these are indeed, 'Children' being hustled by Pros.)

(Oh, equivalency for the Corporate ladder to climb: every student gets, if wanted - a tour of the largest local Cubicle Farm, preferably to silently observe ... ... for a period of several hours; a second trip if requested.)

Of course, were this realized - there might be more candidates for Monasteries, but W.T.F.

WITHOUT (A + B): I aver that your 'principle' remains as simplistically Boolean as when proffered and, like the ostrich - its position remains both vulgar and vulnerable.

Ashton,

CIEIO -
The OTHER Side, LLC

War is Good (for) Bizness: Invest Your Son/Daughter/Ward -
But FIRST: pay us some Conscience money, so when you visit the kid later, in the rehab clinic - you can say, Well, we tried to warn you - remember?

tysop

Edited by Ashton Nov. 14, 2005, 06:44:26 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #234,141

11/14/05 7:28:37 PM

11/14/05 7:30:56 PM

WDYHASM?

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Edited by bepatient Nov. 14, 2005, 07:30:29 PM EST

Edited by bepatient Nov. 14, 2005, 07:30:56 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #234,144

by Ashton

11/14/05 7:44:37 PM

(Because it's Broken?)

Post #234,143

by Andrew Grygus

11/14/05 7:44:33 PM

Judging by infected computers . . .

. . today's kids don't develop a suspicion of the word "free" until they're about 24 years old. I suspect their suspicion of other sales pitches is similarly weak until that age.

Naturally, our government is anxious to recruit the required quota of canon fodder from the 18 to 23 year olds, because beyond that it's "game over". I'm sure they'd recruit them at 12 years if they could - boy could they make hay then!

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #233,845

by boxley

11/12/05 11:18:38 PM

ya might want to check into title 9 etc

and while in the general neighborhood the fact that freedom from association does not apply to public, taxpayer funded institutions, only private groups accepting no federal largess.
thanx,
bill

Post #233,847