Whose Responsibility are Children?

[Phatscotty]

Be nice to the noobs! They come in here just to comment once in while. You're scaring all the fish away!

[Haggis_McMutton]

Yeah it does because people want a good, emotional show, and critical thinking is deemed too expensive for most people. The general contention I have with your post and the OP (that lady's) stance is that "society" is often used as a mask for "government."

fair point, "society" is a bit vague.

(2) Kind of. To be precise, the community and--more importantly, a child's peer group (which is different from 'community')--have influence over the child.** To what extent should other adults impose their favored child-rearing policies into other families? Not sure. To what extent should other adults raise the banner of "community" or "society" in order to have the government regulate other parents' upbringing of their kids? Very, very little.

Hmm, so if I wanted to, for instance, keep my kids out of school so that they'll have less options in life and be more likely to stay home and work my farm, should that be a-ok as far as the state is concerned?

(2b) It depends on what you mean by 'stake in one's life'. I'm fine with people exchanging advice and whatever on a voluntary basis, but when it becomes involuntary, there better be extremely good reasons for intervention. Unfortunately, extremely good reasons are severely lacking, and the call for intervention is generally ceaseless, emotional, burdensome, and uninformed.

Well, I'd say, since a kid is a person and not, as mizery seems to think, property, then the state has obligations to the kid as well to only to the parents. If the parent's are doing something that will severely limit the child's options later in life such as, I dunno, cutting off one of the kid's legs for religious reasons or not sending him to school so he has no choice but to work the farm, then it seems to me like the state should intervene.

Basically, there has to be a balance between parent's wishes and fundamental human rights.

So the only question being posed here is, how large of a stake society should have in kids as opposed to the parent's stake in said kids. What things should society leave to the parents and which should it try to help the parents with.

What do you mean by 'society'?
(How much should 'society' be scaled up or descaled in particular circumstances? (e.g. the parents' friends, the neighborhood +/- parents' friends, or municipal/State/national government?).

What do you mean by 'help'?
(what are the means and what are the ends?)

I guess the end is assuring the kid has some minimum standard of living and some minimum chance at success in life. The means are either helping the parents be able to give their child these things, if the parent's are good, or coercing the parents to improve if they're bad (with the removal of the child from the parent's if they're terrible).

Ideally, you'd want to have local communities set up that could handle this organically (i.e. through the friends/neighbours option), but if that is not possible the issue should be escalated to higher levels of government.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Be nice to the noobs! They come in here just to comment once in while. You're scaring all the fish away!

eh, a little adversity is good for them, especially since many people seem to take your view. I have a feeling this guy won't be too intimidated, but we'll see.

[Phatscotty]

Be nice to the noobs! They come in here just to comment once in while. You're scaring all the fish away!

eh, a little adversity is good for them, especially since many people seem to take your view. I have a feeling this guy won't be too intimidated, but we'll see.

Are you a community vote btw?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Be nice to the noobs! They come in here just to comment once in while. You're scaring all the fish away!

eh, a little adversity is good for them, especially since many people seem to take your view. I have a feeling this guy won't be too intimidated, but we'll see.

Are you a community vote btw?

I'm a "this question is bad and you should feel bad" vote. didn't you at least skim my post?

[Phatscotty]

Be nice to the noobs! They come in here just to comment once in while. You're scaring all the fish away!

eh, a little adversity is good for them, especially since many people seem to take your view. I have a feeling this guy won't be too intimidated, but we'll see.

Are you a community vote btw?

I'm a "this question is bad and you should feel bad" vote. didn't you at least skim my post?

Yeah, I thought about more options, but its either more one, or more the other. That way people are forced to partake in the discussion!

[john9blue]

If you use lube and roofies, it's very possible to be a gentle rapist.

If you say "excuse me sir, I am terribly sorry, but I must end your life now" then yes, you are a polite murderer.

your worldview isn't black and white enough!

"rape is rape", amirite?

So if he uses lube and roofies it isn't rape? Cool.

where the hell did you get that from?

or are you just being ironic by espousing a black-and-white worldview?

see, THAT is a strawman, right there. nothing i've ever posted would lead you to believe that i think that, but you say it anyway.

you know that there are different degrees of severity for rape, right?

[chang50]

Funny, a woman has the right to kill HER unborn child, because it is HER child and HER rights. But the woman who delivers HER baby, nurtures HER baby, sends HER kid to school for education, all the sudden the kids is part of the "collective!" WE (the collective) are becoming communist with no sense of virtue!!!!

Firstly a fetus is not a child,secondly when people refer to 'their' children it is a figure of speech,only crazies think they actually own them,and thirdly who is this 'WE',because some fairly large parts of this world are already communist?

A fetus is a CHILD, it has a 4 chambered heart, a spine, the same organ systems as you and I. Get you facts straight! An embryo is not a child. Secondly, a birth certificate is a legal document in which the mother and father's name is on it(well supposed to be, becoming rare to have both) this is just like a car title isn't it! Do you own your car??? Also, i sign the permission slips that the school sends home when it comes to sensitive subjects in school or field trips. I make all the responsible decisions when it comes to my child!!! As far as Communism goes, we all know that democracy is how a country should be run! Your a fool for defending communism!

Who's defending Communism?I asked for clarification on exactly who the WE is,that's all.Perhaps English is not your first language and this explains your lack of comprehension,in which case I apologise.As regards the status of the fetus we will have to agree to disagree.However I stand by my comment about 'owning' children,and your absurd analogy with car ownership condemns you to the ranks of the crazies on this.

[Phatscotty]

well, the Communism bit clearly comes from "All ur children belong to STATE now"

[chang50]

well, the Communism bit clearly comes from "All ur children belong to STATE now"

The only sane position is that they belong to no-one,ideally parents are the principal stewards and the wider community takes a secondary but important role.

[/]

I would have thought many conservatives would find the whole "It takes a village to raise a child" concept more appealing. I'm pretty sure I've heard a few of my conservative relatives reminisce about the "good old days" when all your relatives, teachers, neighbors, pastors, etc. had the right to whoop you for misbehaving.

I must say it's not the worst concept in my opinion. Individuals have a right to choose, and a duty to learn to live with; the choices they make. Both parents and community should ensure the child has a good enough upbringing until the certain point when they can make these choices for themselves. It's not about ownership; I don't think the government should be allowed to randomly conscript children to the scouts or whatever, neither should a parent be allowed to decide their baby needs a tattoo before they can speak.

It's all about respect, plain and simple, society and parents should lead by example. It's the parent's job to respect their child's individuality, and teach them to respect their family in turn. It's society's job to teach a child to respect laws, and to coexist respectfully with the system set in place for their mutual benefit. Once the child is old enough to understand the lessons learned, they can make their own choices; to leave their community/family, or to join in as a member.

[Phatscotty]

That reminds me, I saw a cartoon in a paper somewhere that showed how 30 years ago, when a young student got an F, the parents and the teacher would join in on focusing on the child and addressing the issue.

30 years later (the present) when a young students gets an F, it showed the parents and the child pointing and yelling at the teacher and the government for not doing "their" job.

I think this is due to lack of responsibility. Nowadays many more parents say "YOU teach my kid, that's YOUR job. I pay xyz taxes, and we just passed a levy for 2 million more dollars etc"

There is an arch here that generally, the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. Now we have gigantic all involved gov't, to the point where the video in the OP is making the case that children being the responsibility of the parents is a "private notion" that needs to change, and it's all based on the tax money we spend on schooling, which she refers to as "investment" and that's where the "community" comes in to take over the responsibility, in the name of getting the maxiumum return on "investment" in the children. What that says, flat out, is that a child is like a share of stock, a number to be inflated as highly as possible, in order to produce as many tax dollars in the future as possible, of course at the future rate of 50%+

See, they know they are going to need new taxpayers to pay a shit load of taxes, because that's how much money we just got done spending today and yesterday and the decade before that. The kids are already on the line, the gov't is just stepping in to collect. They are going to get their money, and they are going to "care for" everybody's kids so they can finally indoctrinate enough kids in a generation to brainwash them into giving up all their rights.

but bankers are part of the community too!




April 12, 2013

A father was shocked to find a note in his 4th grader son’s bag that indicated his teachers had instructed children at the school to accept that they should be willing to give up some Constitutional rights in order to be more safe.

Aaron Harvey from Florida found a note scrawled in Crayon in his son’s back pack that read “I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure.”

When the father questioned his son on the matter, the boy told him that his teacher, Cheryl Sabb, had said the statement out loud and instructed the children in the class to write it down, following a lesson on The Bill of Rights and The Constitution.

Mr Harvey noted that he asked other children in the class, at Cedar Hills Elementary in Jacksonville, for an explanation and received the same answer.

“I believe in our Constitution. I am a veteran, I served for six-and-a-half years proudly and I served to protect our rights,” Harvey said. “Now whenever I have someone coming in and trying to pollute my child’s mind with biased opinions…there’s no education in that.” he urged.

The statement is particularly bizarre, given that perhaps the most famous line that founding father Benjamin Franklin ever uttered was “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”

[Haggis_McMutton]

If you use lube and roofies, it's very possible to be a gentle rapist.

If you say "excuse me sir, I am terribly sorry, but I must end your life now" then yes, you are a polite murderer.

your worldview isn't black and white enough!

"rape is rape", amirite?

So if he uses lube and roofies it isn't rape? Cool.

where the hell did you get that from?

or are you just being ironic by espousing a black-and-white worldview?

see, THAT is a strawman, right there. nothing i've ever posted would lead you to believe that i think that, but you say it anyway.

you know that there are different degrees of severity for rape, right?

yeah, it was a strawman. Just found it funny that you picked that comment describing an act that is clearly rape to poke symm about that other thread or whatever.

[Gillipig]

Haggis have a way of turning any thread he posts in boring. I don't know if that's a talent or a handicap but whatever it is, FunkyT does the same.........wait a minute, I think I know which one it is

[Haggis_McMutton]

Haggis have a way of turning any thread he posts in boring. I don't know if that's a talent or a handicap but whatever it is, FunkyT does the same.........wait a minute, I think I know which one it is

I think it only seems that way because your brain has become used to shouting knee-jerk slogan replies, so when someone deconstructs the problem and tries to progress past the slogans your brain just classifies it as dull as to avoid breaking from it's rut. Oh well.
Btw, I'm predicting you're gonna reply with something to the extent of: "yaaaaaawn"

[Gillipig]

Haggis have a way of turning any thread he posts in boring. I don't know if that's a talent or a handicap but whatever it is, FunkyT does the same.........wait a minute, I think I know which one it is

I think it only seems that way because your brain has become used to shouting knee-jerk slogan replies, so when someone deconstructs the problem and tries to progress past the slogans your brain just classifies it as dull as to avoid breaking from it's rut. Oh well.
Btw, I'm predicting you're gonna reply with something to the extent of: "yaaaaaawn"

Well either that, or you're just BORING!!! Really, it starts with your boring ass avatar.
If you only did what you're doing a little bit better I'd have no problem with it, but the thing is you rarely get to any valid conclusions. You just suck out the energy of any given thread and spit out a poorly constructed essay. You should either get better at your "deconstructions" or skip them all together.

[PLAYER57832]

A father was shocked to find a note in his 4th grader son’s bag that indicated his teachers had instructed children at the school to accept that they should be willing to give up some Constitutional rights in order to be more safe.

Aaron Harvey from Florida found a note scrawled in Crayon in his son’s back pack that read “I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure.”

When the father questioned his son on the matter, the boy told him that his teacher, Cheryl Sabb, had said the statement out loud and instructed the children in the class to write it down, following a lesson on The Bill of Rights and The Constitution.

Mr Harvey noted that he asked other children in the class, at Cedar Hills Elementary in Jacksonville, for an explanation and received the same answer.

“I believe in our Constitution. I am a veteran, I served for six-and-a-half years proudly and I served to protect our rights,” Harvey said. “Now whenever I have someone coming in and trying to pollute my child’s mind with biased opinions…there’s no education in that.” he urged.

The statement is particularly bizarre, given that perhaps the most famous line that founding father Benjamin Franklin ever uttered was “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”

This illustrates the difference between real education and pretend "education". Its not about conservative or liberal, religious or not. Children need to be taught to think. They need to be taught to respect their parents and other's opinions AND to think for themselves.

The trouble is, to think, you have to begin with a basis of set knowledge. When conservatives and liberals each want to claim a lock on "facts".. then we ALL lose. Facts are not biased. They are real. Opinions are just that.. full bias. Everyone has different opinions and should be able to discuss them, but today too many think that facts should be debated. That hurts everyone. This does not preclude parents teaching values. It enhances them in most cases. The exceptions are when the parents are espousing something very contrary to society or contrary to known facts. A parent teaching their kids to hate all people of x race or nationality should not be supported, BUT the key is to get the child to think about the parents ideas in a factual format. If they say that "God tells me these people are inferior".. then you don't counter that idea specifically, but if they say that xyz PROVES this to be, then you have some data you can factually dispute.

It is not terrible that an older child might be asked to THINK about whether they are willing to give up some rights to have freedom. Even you Phattscotty, would agree to a certain extent. That is, we give up the "freedom" to drive 200 miles an hour by schools so kids can play more safely. Some limits are reasonable. Getting kids to think out those boundaries is a good excercise. The trouble is when such "lessons" are dictated and dictated to younger kids who don't have the capacity, yet, to really think out the issues.

Unfortunately, too many people want to not teach thinking and facts, but want to teach their opinions as if they were solid facts. Kids taught in that environment not only don't think as well, they begin to think that there is no such thing as a real fact.

[Phatscotty]

I am following you, but I just don't see where you make the connection to this teacher trying to get the kids to think. From the reports, the teacher told them to copy down what she said



that is not making kids think about giving up freedom for security, that is telling them to give up freedom for security. And another thing, we are talking about 9 and 10 year old kids here. I highly doubt they have a grasp on what security and rights mean in today's world. (they are writing it in crayon!) As I remember, they should just be finished up polishing their multiplication tables...That's why this is indoctrination.

I think what you are trying to say, and correct me if I am wrong, is that students are being taught to memorize what to think, and not how to think. Right?

[BigBallinStalin]

I believe the parents, but if the parents are unfit to actually raise them then they should be taken by the community ie some other parents.

That sounds like you mean the community owns the kids and lets their parents raise them if they do what the community wants. With other words they belong to the community.

Yeah, like Plato's Republic!

Don't think Plato's Republic would allow parents to raise their children, and their use of eugenics is almost as disturbing as the Nazis use of it. I think it's safe to say we shouldn't listen to what people who lived several thousands of years ago thought, because quite frankly, they were retards!

Yup, it wouldn't allow that---if the metals were mixed, but the Republic (herkaderp: I mean, the "community") definitely retains the ownership rights over one's kids.

IIRC, there wasn't any mention of eugenics in The Republic--at least, not in how we understand eugenics in the 20th century.

The community would choose (whether this was done collectively or by a ruler is uncertain) who the members were allowed to mate with, and they would base their choice on various genetic criteria such as health, child bearing potential, attractiveness. They would match people so that the next generation would have as good genes as possible, favoring the fit, attractive and strong. This is of course eugenics, and also a type of eugenics that completely removes from the individual the chance to choose his partner. So imagine this society, where you're not allowed to raise your own kids, not allowed to choose who's going to be your partner, everything is basically decided by a bunch of philosophers, what are the upsides? If you remove that from people you better be able to bring them something else in aplenty. I just don't see any upsides in Plato's Republic that could possible compensate for all that it takes away from people. The ancient Greeks really weren't all that great.

Um, have you read The Republic?

The only people to be raised communally were the Guardianship--i.e. the Auxiliaries and the Philosopher Kings (and PKs-in-training). If you were of the "Productive Class," and if you did not have a child deemed worthy to be an auxiliary or guardian, then you were pretty much free to do what you wanted---except for infringments on property rights (e.g. the guardians taking your kids of the 'silver' or 'gold' class).

Sure, the Guardians would breed and train their own--just like humans breed cows. So if you mean eugenics in this sense and here,, then sure I agree with you. If you mean eugenics similar to the policies of the National Socialists, then I disagree.

I don't find The Republic very compelling, but I view it as a thought experiment which would induce a more codified criticism against starker government control.

"The ancient Greeks really weren't all that great."
<BBS pats Gillipig on the head for his okay trolling efforts>

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah it does because people want a good, emotional show, and critical thinking is deemed too expensive for most people. The general contention I have with your post and the OP (that lady's) stance is that "society" is often used as a mask for "government."

fair point, "society" is a bit vague.

(2) Kind of. To be precise, the community and--more importantly, a child's peer group (which is different from 'community')--have influence over the child.** To what extent should other adults impose their favored child-rearing policies into other families? Not sure. To what extent should other adults raise the banner of "community" or "society" in order to have the government regulate other parents' upbringing of their kids? Very, very little.

Hmm, so if I wanted to, for instance, keep my kids out of school so that they'll have less options in life and be more likely to stay home and work my farm, should that be a-ok as far as the state is concerned?

I'm not sure what the state would want from your kids---maybe more taxes and votes. To be clear, let's get beyond the state and think in terms of self-governance.

In my opinion, that plan would be fine because it depends on you and your circumstances. Also, people choose on the margin, so it's not like it would be 100% farmwork and 0% education, and education need not be brick-and-mortar. Homeschooling or an education in farming, ecology, etc. could be learned by the child while he works. Even a community could open a school for x-amount of days per week at various hours deemed best by the community itself (self-government). ETc. etc. etc. I'm open to new forms of education and innovation.

(Besides, current methods of education are creating 'skills gaps' for industries among many other mismatches. The cause is predominantly due to previous and ongoing state intervention, but I digress. Just sayin' that even if we want the State to step in and mandate X, we still get problems and perhaps no effective solutions--until the state is relinquished of its duties).

(2b) It depends on what you mean by 'stake in one's life'. I'm fine with people exchanging advice and whatever on a voluntary basis, but when it becomes involuntary, there better be extremely good reasons for intervention. Unfortunately, extremely good reasons are severely lacking, and the call for intervention is generally ceaseless, emotional, burdensome, and uninformed.

Well, I'd say, since a kid is a person and not, as mizery seems to think, property, then the state has obligations to the kid as well to only to the parents. If the parent's are doing something that will severely limit the child's options later in life such as, I dunno, cutting off one of the kid's legs for religious reasons or not sending him to school so he has no choice but to work the farm, then it seems to me like the state should intervene.

Basically, there has to be a balance between parent's wishes and fundamental human rights.

Chopping off kids' legs? A good call for intervention--but why by the State? Why not by the local community or by something other than a Centralized, National government?

I don't see the State as a worthy and trustworthy enforcer of "fundamental human rights." It's got a real shitty record on that job.

So the only question being posed here is, how large of a stake society should have in kids as opposed to the parent's stake in said kids. What things should society leave to the parents and which should it try to help the parents with.

What do you mean by 'society'?
(How much should 'society' be scaled up or descaled in particular circumstances? (e.g. the parents' friends, the neighborhood +/- parents' friends, or municipal/State/national government?).

What do you mean by 'help'?
(what are the means and what are the ends?)

I guess the end is assuring the kid has some minimum standard of living and some minimum chance at success in life. The means are either helping the parents be able to give their child these things, if the parent's are good, or coercing the parents to improve if they're bad (with the removal of the child from the parent's if they're terrible).

Ideally, you'd want to have local communities set up that could handle this organically (i.e. through the friends/neighbours option), but if that is not possible the issue should be escalated to higher levels of government.

Agreed with the underlined, but the "if that is not possible" condition is hardly ever met before the higher levels of government roll in to 'fix' things.

As far as assuring a minimum standard of living and success in life, I don't find that the State has attained this--but to have mostly hampered people from such standards.

[BigBallinStalin]

Haggis have a way of turning any thread he posts in boring. I don't know if that's a talent or a handicap but whatever it is, FunkyT does the same.........wait a minute, I think I know which one it is

I think it only seems that way because your brain has become used to shouting knee-jerk slogan replies, so when someone deconstructs the problem and tries to progress past the slogans your brain just classifies it as dull as to avoid breaking from it's rut. Oh well.
Btw, I'm predicting you're gonna reply with something to the extent of: "yaaaaaawn"

Well either that, or you're just BORING!!! Really, it starts with your boring ass avatar.
If you only did what you're doing a little bit better I'd have no problem with it, but the thing is you rarely get to any valid conclusions. You just suck out the energy of any given thread and spit out a poorly constructed essay. You should either get better at your "deconstructions" or skip them all together.

Go play in the snow, Gilli. Leave the serious discussion to the adults please.

[Gillipig]

Haggis have a way of turning any thread he posts in boring. I don't know if that's a talent or a handicap but whatever it is, FunkyT does the same.........wait a minute, I think I know which one it is

I think it only seems that way because your brain has become used to shouting knee-jerk slogan replies, so when someone deconstructs the problem and tries to progress past the slogans your brain just classifies it as dull as to avoid breaking from it's rut. Oh well.
Btw, I'm predicting you're gonna reply with something to the extent of: "yaaaaaawn"

Well either that, or you're just BORING!!! Really, it starts with your boring ass avatar.
If you only did what you're doing a little bit better I'd have no problem with it, but the thing is you rarely get to any valid conclusions. You just suck out the energy of any given thread and spit out a poorly constructed essay. You should either get better at your "deconstructions" or skip them all together.

Go play in the snow, Gilli. Leave the serious discussion to the adults please.

How adorable, a guy who has Johnny from The Shining as his avatar proclaims to be pro serious discussions. Haha BBS, here me laugh, no really, HEAR me laugh:
http://soundbible.com/2010-Laughter.html

[BigBallinStalin]

[AslanTheKing]

does your wife ( spouse, girlfriend) belong to you?

the only person belonging to you is yourself,
what do you do with that person?
you abuse it with alcohol, cigarettes ( the most common drugs) pills, drugs,food...

so if the kids belong to you - you would harm them the same ?

no, kids dont belong to us, they belong to the themselves first,
if u live in a poor country with average income of i dollar per day
they belong to you, since they support u when ure old and cant take care of yourself

but were talking about a society who lives in europe, us,or australia and is far above that situation

in our culture, kids belong to them selve first,
and we want their best

and many abuse that,make some superchildren out of them
and treat them very tough, they become the best in school and play the piano with 5 years,
later they get famous and die young, and have no morals,is that it

follow the natures call, kids learn by themselves, just take care of them
they need love , food and shelter, intelligence u cant teach them, they all have it

beeing the best in school doesnt make them to be the best in society later on ( or in real life)

they have to learn to be self independent,
if u teach them they belong to you, they will ask u even with 45
to pay their bills

[Phatscotty]

Okay, let's move from custody to responsibility

And Mellisa Harris Perry has doubled down on her statement and is standing firm. If you watch the video here, it's interesting to watch someone try not to act defensive. She doesn't pull it off very well

MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry on Saturday strongly reaffirmed the sentiment behind her recent promotional ad for the network in which she declared that children are part of the collective.

Addressing the outcry on her show Saturday morning, Harris-Perry said it would be “too easy” to simply dismiss that some people are just “haters.”

In the ad, Harris-Perry said that “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

“I can see that some people are genuinely upset about what I actually said,” she said.

She added, “I stand by that statement. Families have first and primary responsibility for their children. The private sphere of our homes and families deserves great deference in policy and in practice…but I believe our children are not our private property, they are not just extensions of ourselves. They are independent, individual beings.”

Harris-Perry — who is auctioning off the sweater she wore in the spot for charity — said the ad “isn’t about me wanting to take your kids, and this isn’t even about whether children are property.”

“This is about whether we as a society, expressing our collective will through our public institutions, including our government, have a right to impinge on individual freedoms in order to advance a common good. And that is exactly the fight that we have been having for a couple hundred years,” she said.

She said a budget debate, after all, is “a conversation about finding the balance between rights and responsibilities — private earnings and public investments.”

“Our kids who will inherit our nation belong to all of us and we have a collective responsibility to them. I hit a nerve with a 30-second promotional ad, and the nerve that I hit is connected to the central nervous system of our democracy, at the synapses of civic engagement is the electrical current that forges our more perfect union.”