Unpopular opinions you hold

[Perry Winkle]

As a very large man, I don't feel feminine at all holding a woman's purse for her. If YOU do feel odd about it, then you're hiding something from yourself, or you're a short person. In which case you don't have any reason to live anyway.

[elSicomoro]

Holding a purse is one thing...holding it for over an hour while sitting at a bra shop is another situation entirely.

[TheMercenary]

Another. Prisoners who go to prison for hard time should do hard time. No TV, no magazines, no weights, no play time, no pictures, no letters, no packages, no nothing. All violent and felony repeat criminals should be sent to large high capacity prisons in Northern Alaska or on an island similar to Alcatraz. Full sentances must be served with no time for parole.

Death sentances should be carried out with in 12 months of sentence. And as another poster put it, in full view of the public.

[King]

Again, thanks for the response to this thread, people. Excellent.

[monster]

There are no bad words. There are inappropriate ways to use words, and societal norms as well as grammar can define inappropriate, but there are no bad words.

[cowhead]

see! unpopular!

although, he(?) does have a point there. I think it's less about actual physical resources than financial ones. and the way the whole thing went down.. the bulk of the american people were scared shitless and wanted blood (atleast from Afghanistan). and I have been against attacking Iraq from day one... since the first 90's era invasion in fact.

[wolf]

Calling a whore a "sex worker" doesn't make him/her any less of a whore.

Originally Posted by wolf

Calling a whore a "sex worker" doesn't make him/her any less of a whore.

I don't believe in assigning moral value to sex. In other words, sex for fun or profit is not immoral, bad, naughty, or any other silly, repressed word someone wants to assign to it. A whore is someone who dates someone for money or sex while lying to them about how they feel for them, that is a whore, male or female. Prostitution is illegal because of religion and that men are afraid of women having power over them.
Another of my unpopular opinions.

[kerosene]

Actually, I agree with that one, Rzkenrage. I think what a person wants to do with their own body is their choice.

[Perry Winkle]

If we have affirmative action based on skin color, then we should extend it to people with other physically undesirable qualities (in the opinion of our culture in general [I don't subscribe to the same standards :P]). So, fat people, short people, ugly people and people with visible body-mods should get benefits under the same legislation as minorities.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Prostitution is illegal because of religion

Then it must be legal in China.

[Happy Monkey]

And vice versa.

[Clodfobble]

You know, they have done study after study after study and determined that it is NOT race which indicates grades, employment, or any other measure of success, but rather socioeconomic status.--i.e., it's not that minorities are held down, it's that poor people are held down and minorities are statistically more likely to be poor.

I know this looks like thread drift, but it's not, see:

I think that if we're really going to attempt to "level the playing field," (which is impossible IMHO) then affirmative action should actually be in the form of an economic rating. Give young adults a score based on their parents' tax forms, and schools/employers can give preference to the lower numbers as they see fit. After the age of 25, you've had enough years to recover and you're on your own.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

You know, they have done study after study after study and determined that it is NOT race which indicates grades, employment, or any other measure of success, but rather socioeconomic status.--i.e., it's not that minorities are held down, it's that poor people are held down and minorities are statistically more likely to be poor.

I know this looks like thread drift, but it's not, see:

I think that if we're really going to attempt to "level the playing field," (which is impossible IMHO) then affirmative action should actually be in the form of an economic rating. Give young adults a score based on their parents' tax forms, and schools/employers can give preference to the lower numbers as they see fit. After the age of 25, you've had enough years to recover and you're on your own.

That form of thing already occurs with the FAFSA. If your kid goes to college, every parent must fill this out. It tells the college exactly how much money they can get from your parents and how much they don't have to help your kid to pay through grants or scholarship.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That form of thing already occurs with the FAFSA. If your kid goes to college, every parent must fill this out. It tells the college exactly how much money they can get from your parents and how much they don't have to help your kid to pay through grants or scholarship.

The Department of Education's take is that a parent is "responsible for their children's education" until the child is 24. Though that is an abitrary age, imho, I agree with the concept. I've seen parents who make in excess of 100 grand a year who can't believe their kids don't get government assistance. What? You mean I should have been saving for my child's education rather than buying a new RV, a McMansion, and generally keeping ahead of the Joneses? Clodfobble is right, some parents are dicks. She is right in every aspect of her post. The problem for some students is that the parents know they make too much for the student to qualify for grants, but low interest federal student loans are also based on the FAFSA. For the parents who did not save, a loan may be the difference between a kid going to college at all, or maybe the difference between attending the college of their choice which may have a much better program in their field of interest.

The purpose of grants is to assist lower income families. Though there are system players, financial aid administrators try hard to follow the regulations as well as understand the individual challenges that each family may face. In the end, however, we have to abide by DOE regs.

I'm a liberal with closet conservative tendencies beyond my control, because of what I see every day. For a better synopsis of my view on the subject you can refer to this post, and the one after that.

As for scholarships, though some are based solely on need, most are academic or a combination of academics and need. Scholarships are governed by the donors; as administrators we just have to abide by the donor's wishes.