Regarding the step children, that one makes a LITTLE more sense, as step kids really do often live in two separate houses.
Regarding my “delicate sensibilities,” you are taking my outrage to be way more than it is. I filled out the census, accurately and completely. It annoys me a tiny bit to have adopted and biological children differentiated, that’s all.
As far as having more data rather than less, the way they gather the data isn’t really all that accurate, anyway. They only ask how persons 2-X are related to person 1. If I’m person 1, and I have bio kids in the house, but my husband is their step or adopted father, the census will never know that they aren’t his biological children. It doesn’t matter because the numbers are so huge, but I think there are much better reasons for differentiating adopted from biological than the accuracy of the numbers.
a) well, it does ask you who was resident in that house on April 1, 2010. If you get to plea that people shouldn’t have problems following the instructions as to who is a resident, then this isn’t a problem
b) and my point is that any outrage at all is misplaced and indicative of a delicate sensibility
c) they will call and follow up if they can’t do what they need to do with the data they’ve collected
Yes, and it’s also not a problem where adopted children are concerned. You were the one who told me that people are so stupid that they don’t know when a child is theirs and living in their house or not.
No it’s not.
Uh…how are they going to magically know if my kids aren’t blood related to my husband again?
Sorry; I should have realized that due to my post following a question, it would look like I was trying to answer that specific question. I just provided the cite as an answer to the question of “What could they possibly want to use the data for?”, not specifically, “How does this data prevent double-counting?”
so, see I’m saying that it’s ok for both - people are stupid and if they aren’t given the proper prompts, they may incorrectly over or under count step and adopted children. you’re the one saying that adopted and biological parents were able to discern who was living where, but simultaneously saying that step parents weren’t able to do the same. i pointed out that the information given on the face of the form is sufficient to answer both types of issues - if the parents can figure it out properly - as a rejoinder to your assertion that step parents need the prompt but adopting/biological parents don’t.
I’m not so sure why you’re fixated on double counting as if that’s the only justification I gave for the validity of asking if the child is adopted.
Because step children really DO live in two residences, and adopted children generally don’t. I find the former to have much greater potential for confusion than the latter.
Because you said:
You mentioned the accurate counting thing, then you said there is a difference between adopted and biological children, and that there are valid reasons for wanting the statistics to show adopted children. But, you didn’t tell me what those reasons are.
You might notice that MsWhatsit gave me some of those reasons, and I’m not arguing with her. I just think that the accurate counting thing is a stupid reason, and probably not one of the actual reasons, either.
If by “ghetto-ize,” you mean “draw up districts so that minority neighborhoods are kept seperate from white ones,” you are mistaken. Most minority groups want districts gerrymandered to create designated “black” or “hispanic” district.
The political class in general, on both sides of the aisle, want to make as many safe, noncompetitive districts as possible.
“what are you talking about, adopted kids are exactly the same as biological children and there shouldn’t be any distinction drawn! especially since there’s no chance that if this distinction isn’t made, some group of children (who, you know, I can’t identify at all because they are all my children, and absolutely all the same) may be double counted!”
the “especially since” is a tip off that what follows isn’t the exclusive justification given for the antecedent sentence, rather it’s an add-on supplementary reason. at this point I’m just picking out a reason out of the hat to further draw out the ramblings of an outraged adoptive parent in an attempt to color my post, not to make some claim that double counting is the big reason why they ask.
then, you countered:
to which I answered:
First off, the short form doesn’t even ask about adoption status, at least not in any place that I noticed it
(which was demonstrably wrong)
But let’s ignore that. People are, on average, stupid. If you don’t distinguish between adopted and biological children, biological parents may very well answer that they have a child (even though technically it’s no longer theirs), and hypersensitive adoptive parents will for sure answer that they have that same child. ergo, the double counting.
(at this point I am further explaining my, remember, supplementary rationale without approaching the first point, namely: “what are you talking about, adopted kids are exactly the same as biological children and there shouldn’t be any distinction drawn!” i.e. a sarcastic point that there are valid justifications to distinguish between the two. which is expounded upon by)
And let’s just ignore this and get to the root of the issue: there’s a slight difference between a biological child and an adopted child, and there are perfectly valid reasons for wanting to glean statistics from adopted as opposed to biological children, your (global you) offense notwithstanding.
(at which point I hit “Submit” perfectly content that this was such a plainly obvious statement that it didn’t require explaining. Then I scroll up and see that “MsWhatsit” has gone ahead and provided the reasoning. I figure that we’re done here, and yet you come back and keep blabbing on about how double counting is just not at all a concern (which, to me, it is, however slight) and acting as if that’s my only concern.)
Second of all, take a look at your post I just quoted and tell me who is rambling again?
Finally, you didn’t provide the reasons, and MsWhatsit did. They seemed like valid reasons, no need for me to argue them. The reason YOU gave, however, seemed bogus and it still does, so I argued with it.
I think it’s the opposite. I think the Census data has been specifically used to gerrymander to dilute the minority vote (not to prevent it) and used by individuals and businesses to cherry-pick areas based on the racial make up of the population. The government has no business asking about race or ethnicity. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the U.S (as a friend-of-the-court brief ) held the view that there should be “racial neutrality in governmental decision making”; it seems to me, that asking about ethnicity in order to “correct inequalities” goes against that. Whatever happened to the we’re all equal, there no differences, race doesn’t exist, we’re all just Americans blahblahblah?
I don’t like the fact the federal funds are given based on total head count and not U.S citizens. I also don’t like that 1/5 of the Census is devoted to questions about race and that this information is made publically available on a website, no less. If there was a 72 year lag before that data was released, I would have no problem with it.
From some source of arcane knowledge not available to the federal civil rights enforcement division, so that they must needs obtain this data elsewhere to do their jobs? No.
first of all, that’s why (global you) was written into the post - I don’t give two shits about your parenting situation, or your lack thereof.
MsWhatsit’s post was authored as I was authoring mine, and I saw no need to go back and amend my post to reference it.
And you really don’t think that knowing whether a child is full-on biological, adopted, or step has any importance whatsoever in obtaining a full and accurate count of the US population? :dubious:
So, if someone lives in an area that has a lot of people who aren’t citizens (note: may include people who have never been in the country legally, who aren’t citizens but are legal residents, or who were once legal residents but no longer are), they should just get fucked on funding, even though they’d have much greater demand for the services in question than an area with an equivalent number of citizens but no non-citizens?
Maybe we can put in a tax on unicorn farms to subsidize the extra costs. I bet you’d love that idea.
But that’s your choice. Possibly someone else doesn’t want to fill out some corporation’s survey, whether the offer is for a free burger or a gift-card drawing or thousands of dollars; so long as we’re talking about private companies, people can keep on cheerfully telling 'em to go to hell. I don’t care what your choice is; I care that it’s your choice, is all.
But, to quote Lightray:
If a fast-food company or a store employee asks me my race, I can walk away no matter that they offer me a burger or a gift-card. If the government asks me, I – ?