Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-07-2011, 07:52 PM
 
75 posts, read 60,448 times
Reputation: 28

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen View Post
If that's all we have to worry about, then I'm cool with it.

Because that's not a problem at all.
Phhht. You only say that because your wife would say "I'm Parent #1." And you'd be like, "Yeah, she is."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2011, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Chicago
6,025 posts, read 15,356,445 times
Reputation: 8153
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
They are free to cross out Mother/Father and write in Mother/Mother or Father/Father. I don't see the big deal and the need to pacify extremely sensitive groups. It's a waste of time and money. Now all those forms need to be redone to keep the few "happy" about filling in their name.

Either they are upset enough that they asked for this or they are not.
No one group will be happy because it excludes the other group.
you keep saying this as if we aren't talking about an official government form. you can't just go crossing out stuff and adding in stuff all willy-nilly. otherwise, I would have long ago crossed out "African American" on some official forms in put in "black" or "Haitian American"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
8,346 posts, read 7,051,460 times
Reputation: 2874
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Check "other" and write in "American".
That's what I do.
Which means they have every right to hand you back your document and inform you to fill it out properly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
38,007 posts, read 22,193,086 times
Reputation: 13830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen View Post
THis is a part of the gay agenda.

Anyone who says otherwise is apparently lying.

Well, according to posters in this thread, it seems.
Yup, and government is only going to be ban smoking on airplanes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Long Beach, CA
195 posts, read 186,590 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
They are free to cross out Mother/Father and write in Mother/Mother or Father/Father. I don't see the big deal and the need to pacify extremely sensitive groups. It's a waste of time and money. Now all those forms need to be redone to keep the few "happy" about filling in their name.

Either they are upset enough that they asked for this or they are not.
No one group will be happy because it excludes the other group.
because from a legal angle... a neutral term can be termed inclusive while a specific one can be termed exclusive. Thus from an efficiency and legality standpoint the neutral term is preferred as it is far less likely to cause any sort of offense. Ironically looking at this thread it is those who do not want it changed that seem most offended... meaning your comment about keeping some "happy" can just as easily be applied to those against such a simple and neutral change.

From a Data entry sense, simplification reduces work load and thus cost... from a legal standpoint, neutral terms are less likely to cause exclusion and thus legal suits based on segregation or personal offense.... from an efficiency standpoint inclusive terms prevent or reduce the need for manual review after the fact.

Simply put there are several logical reasons why the change is productive... so from a purely logical and objective standpoint there is nothing wrong with the change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 07:54 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,336,868 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio View Post
Isn't that what a social security number is? We are just a number.

A mother is a parent.
A father is a parent.
Yeah, right!

No confusion here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI_Pg...eature=related
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,563,928 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio View Post
Actually, alterations to a federal document in such manner would most likely result in it becoming invalid.
Nope..not if you initial the changes in front of the person you are turning it into.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
8,346 posts, read 7,051,460 times
Reputation: 2874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Brilliant View Post
Phhht. You only say that because your wife would say "I'm Parent #1." And you'd be like, "Yeah, she is."
You're darn tootin'.

She makes the money, I make the food. It's obvious who's #1.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 07:55 PM
 
Location: Over There
5,094 posts, read 5,444,531 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle View Post
Logic is not by definition opinion. If I had said that I felt the terms were better that would be opinion... but I said that a neutral term can not be exclusive and thus from an officiating standpoint is a safer choice. That is not opinion as a neutral term by definition is not exclusive... that is a statement of fact followed by logical inference based on the fact that the lack of exclusion is safer than a term that allows exclusion and thus is less likely to cause offense that can be pursued in an official sense.

Your "logic" does not equate to facts. Nor does mine. Just because you feel your logic makes more sense then mine does not mean it is is fact. I am unsure how people can say we need to understand the feelings of those that support this but no one will even attempt to understand the feelings of those that do not.

As I said before I really have no dog in the fight, I simply understood what another poster was trying to say and stated that.

People need to face the fact that things will not always be "all inclusive". I love football but I am very aware I could never play on a NFL team. Like it or not it is a male sport and I am fine with that. We will never have an "all inclusive" in every area. People need to get over it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 07:55 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,563,928 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle View Post
because from a legal angle... a neutral term can be termed inclusive while a specific one can be termed exclusive. Thus from an efficiency and legality standpoint the neutral term is preferred as it is far less likely to cause any sort of offense. Ironically looking at this thread it is those who do not want it changed that seem most offended... meaning your comment about keeping some "happy" can just as easily be applied to those against such a simple and neutral change.

From a Data entry sense, simplification reduces work load and thus cost... from a legal standpoint, neutral terms are less likely to cause exclusion and thus legal suits based on segregation or personal offense.... from an efficiency standpoint inclusive terms prevent or reduce the need for manual review after the fact.

Simply put there are several logical reasons why the change is productive... so from a purely logical and objective standpoint there is nothing wrong with the change.
This is one form out of a bazillion government forms.
None were deemed exclusive before some PC sensitive folks determined they needed genderless titles.

What about all the other forms ? Won't those same folks get upset ?

Didn't they tie the passport to the driver license to the SS card ?
If so then they will have programming problems because those other forms haven't been changed.

And most times in the government one agency's data cannot be used in another agency as each one does what they want and so it becomes a mess to connect the two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top