Parents' rights (Can o' worms)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2012, 05:05 PM
RE: Parents' rights (Can o' worms)
Thanks Aseptic. I knew she was full of shit, but it is stunning to find out that she was pretty much lieing for 2 whole years. But ok...

Vera: As far as I know it starts with grade 1 and stays. or at least they have religion for the first 3 or 4 years. Not sure. My man says that the school system is being changed so much that noone ever knows what to expect from the next school year. so who knows really.

[Image: 69p7qx.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 01:42 PM
RE: Parents' rights (Can o' worms)
(26-11-2012 01:11 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Muffs, I had you figured for a guy who'd at least comment on parents who keep their children on leashes.



... by the way, is it bad is I make a remark under my breath about a woman toting a child around on a leash?
I'm pro-leash.

Have you ever had children? (I should bloody well hope not Dodgy )
They don't call them terrible twos for nothing. Kids love to explore and chase shit etc...
I'd rather have a kid on a leash then that kid chase something onto the road and be hit by a car.

Any parent will tell you how quick they can get away, turn your head for a second and they're on a plane to Bangladesh.
But if they're on a leash then you know exactly where they are.

Plus, have you ever been to the grocery store with little shits running around? So fucking annoying.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 02:04 PM
RE: Parents' rights (Can o' worms)
Kids naturally are active, perhaps people should play with them or discipline them more... Maybe less sugar would calm the fuckers down too.
If one is concerned about the kid taking off, mayhap they should not take the damn things outside where they can get away, or be more damned attentive.


And besides, their tantrums and whining about food they want are more annoying than them running around in grocery stores.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 02:42 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2012 02:49 PM by Leela.)
RE: Parents' rights (Can o' worms)
(26-11-2012 05:02 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'm curious.

Has anyone ever successfully parented a strong willed child without spanking?
I am no parent, yet, but yes I have educated strong, wild, stupid, and agressive children without spanking.
Would I have spanked a child, I would have lost my job and worse.
My kids knew very well when they misbehaved and the next time they thought about it twice Wink
Like: Kid destroys a nice tower another kid built. > Ok, you will clean up that place, you will build a new, nice tower, for that child and if I hear one complaint you are going to clean up for that child all day long.
Easy as that. Do I sound mean now?


EDIT: Freethought, problem is, that indeed most parents nowadays, are unable to educate and discipline their kids. Yes they are very active, that is why you are supposed to go on a playground, put them in some sports etc. The thing about the sugar, btw, is a myth. Sugar does not make them more hyper. Not getting mentally and physically challanged is the problem. If you have your kid learn things and so on, there is no energy left to be so annoying. The magic trick is basically, alternating the states of activity. If you read your kid a long story you need to do something exciting and physical afterwards or it will explode and annoy you. Better you control the activity and have fun with the kid instead of shouting and spanking for not being able to do it right. Not saying that kids do always behave like angels with that method. of course not. But most of the time they will be ok. And the few times they are not, you discipline them (in a way that fits).

[Image: 69p7qx.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 09:29 PM
RE: Parents' rights (Can o' worms)
(25-11-2012 04:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  ...
What are the rights of parents concerning their children? What are the limits?
...
Do parents have the right to home-school their children and feed them utter nonsense?
Do parents have the right to bring up their children in some 19th century bubble?

It would be interesting to see if there were actual, legal rights of parents codified somewhere, outside of what might be fairly construed as *obligations* that parents (presumably defined as a mother and father of one or more kids) are expected by society to uphold.

As a parent of two kids and as a Christian and libertarian conservative, it is my and my wife's responsibility to raise our children to ultimately become moral, ethical and productive societal members. To me, this means the following:

1. They will be raised to recognize what we believe to be the importance of God and church in society, and that not everyone is going to 100% agree with them on 100% of issues;
2. They will be raised to think for themselves and understand that it's not government's role to take care of them;
3. They will be raised that good government requires moral/ethical leaders, that moral/ethical teachings must originate from the church and not government, and that the government has no business at all being involved in the church (beyond being a disinterested third party in resolving civil/criminal disputes).

I believe that homeschooling -- when it is properly accredited -- is a reasonable form of education, though while such associations exist, this form of education may put some kids at a relational disadvantage relative to their conventionally-educated peers.

I think that since a "19th century bubble" likely includes an understanding of the US Constitution without such progressive ideas as a direct tax on income and the direct popular election of Senators, it might not be such a bad idea Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 10:09 PM
RE: Parents' rights (Can o' worms)
(07-12-2012 09:29 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  
(25-11-2012 04:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  ...
What are the rights of parents concerning their children? What are the limits?
...
Do parents have the right to home-school their children and feed them utter nonsense?
Do parents have the right to bring up their children in some 19th century bubble?

It would be interesting to see if there were actual, legal rights of parents codified somewhere, outside of what might be fairly construed as *obligations* that parents (presumably defined as a mother and father of one or more kids) are expected by society to uphold.

As a parent of two kids and as a Christian and libertarian conservative, it is my and my wife's responsibility to raise our children to ultimately become moral, ethical and productive societal members. To me, this means the following:

1. They will be raised to recognize what we believe to be the importance of God and church in society, and that not everyone is going to 100% agree with them on 100% of issues;
2. They will be raised to think for themselves and understand that it's not government's role to take care of them;
3. They will be raised that good government requires moral/ethical leaders, that moral/ethical teachings must originate from the church and not government, and that the government has no business at all being involved in the church (beyond being a disinterested third party in resolving civil/criminal disputes).

I believe that homeschooling -- when it is properly accredited -- is a reasonable form of education, though while such associations exist, this form of education may put some kids at a relational disadvantage relative to their conventionally-educated peers.

I think that since a "19th century bubble" likely includes an understanding of the US Constitution without such progressive ideas as a direct tax on income and the direct popular election of Senators, it might not be such a bad idea Smile
By "19th-century bubble" I meant the Amish/Mennonite cults.

And I disagree with " moral/ethical teachings must originate from the church and not government" for two reasons.

First, it is a false dichotomy between church/government; you left out the individual, society, family, or philosophy.
Second, see the list of other sources in the previous sentence. Ethical beliefs do not originate with religion.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
08-12-2012, 12:39 PM
RE: Parents' rights (Can o' worms)
(07-12-2012 09:29 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  
(25-11-2012 04:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  ...
What are the rights of parents concerning their children? What are the limits?
...
Do parents have the right to home-school their children and feed them utter nonsense?
Do parents have the right to bring up their children in some 19th century bubble?


It would be interesting to see if there were actual, legal rights of parents codified somewhere, outside of what might be fairly construed as *obligations* that parents (presumably defined as a mother and father of one or more kids) are expected by society to uphold.

As a parent of two kids and as a Christian and libertarian conservative, it is my and my wife's responsibility to raise our children to ultimately become moral, ethical and productive societal members. To me, this means the following:

1. They will be raised to recognize what we believe to be the importance of God and church in society, and that not everyone is going to 100% agree with them on 100% of issues;
2. They will be raised to think for themselves and understand that it's not government's role to take care of them;
3. They will be raised that good government requires moral/ethical leaders, that moral/ethical teachings must originate from the church and not government, and that the government has no business at all being involved in the church (beyond being a disinterested third party in resolving civil/criminal disputes).

I believe that homeschooling -- when it is properly accredited -- is a reasonable form of education, though while such associations exist, this form of education may put some kids at a relational disadvantage relative to their conventionally-educated peers.

I think that since a "19th century bubble" likely includes an understanding of the US Constitution without such progressive ideas as a direct tax on income and the direct popular election of Senators, it might not be such a bad idea Smile


Wow, just wow. You believe that the government leaders must be religious? This is how we end up with things like the Pope. A rediculously wealthy and powerful individual that without the power of the catholic church might be working in mcdonalds. You are one of the problems with the world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Birdguy1979's post
08-12-2012, 07:52 PM
RE: Parents' rights (Can o' worms)
(07-12-2012 10:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 09:29 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  It would be interesting to see if there were actual, legal rights of parents codified somewhere, outside of what might be fairly construed as *obligations* that parents (presumably defined as a mother and father of one or more kids) are expected by society to uphold.

As a parent of two kids and as a Christian and libertarian conservative, it is my and my wife's responsibility to raise our children to ultimately become moral, ethical and productive societal members. To me, this means the following:

1. They will be raised to recognize what we believe to be the importance of God and church in society, and that not everyone is going to 100% agree with them on 100% of issues;
2. They will be raised to think for themselves and understand that it's not government's role to take care of them;
3. They will be raised that good government requires moral/ethical leaders, that moral/ethical teachings must originate from the church and not government, and that the government has no business at all being involved in the church (beyond being a disinterested third party in resolving civil/criminal disputes).

I believe that homeschooling -- when it is properly accredited -- is a reasonable form of education, though while such associations exist, this form of education may put some kids at a relational disadvantage relative to their conventionally-educated peers.

I think that since a "19th century bubble" likely includes an understanding of the US Constitution without such progressive ideas as a direct tax on income and the direct popular election of Senators, it might not be such a bad idea Smile
By "19th-century bubble" I meant the Amish/Mennonite cults.

And I disagree with " moral/ethical teachings must originate from the church and not government" for two reasons.

First, it is a false dichotomy between church/government; you left out the individual, society, family, or philosophy.
Second, see the list of other sources in the previous sentence. Ethical beliefs do not originate with religion.

Having grown up in rural PA, I think it'd be pretty hard-pressed to call Mennonites a cult. At least in PA, there've never been any allegations of anything illegal pertaining to that societal sect. In fact, many farmers have looked upon them with disdain due solely to the fact that the Mennonites have lately been buying up a lot of resources in the area, so it's not like some folks wouldn't have a reason to call them out on something.

Next, by not mentioning certain things doesn't necessarily mean that I'm explicitly excluding qualifiers. However, morals must originate from somewhere, and it can't be society, because society -- no matter how ancient -- is merely a collection of individuals. Therefore, the argument becomes circular very quickly.

Thirdly, institutions such as the church most assuredly (I argue) promote a moral code. And the last time I checked, morally upstanding individuals are better leaders than those individuals who are, say, pathological in terms of lying or any other manner of vice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 07:59 PM
RE: Parents' rights (Can o' worms)
(08-12-2012 12:39 PM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  ...
Wow, just wow. You believe that the government leaders must be religious? This is how we end up with things like the Pope. A rediculously wealthy and powerful individual that without the power of the catholic church might be working in mcdonalds. You are one of the problems with the world.

Who said anything about religious leaders being in government (I'll go ahead and take out your reaction to its logical extent)? I believe I used the term moral, not religious.

However, here's the rub. I argue that there has to be a separate institution in society that is going to explicitly promote a moral code. And a moral code must reign supreme, else one runs into horrible inconsistencies in society, such as whose morals will win out for the benefit of everyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 08:03 PM
RE: Parents' rights (Can o' worms)
The problem you run into is that once you remove the decision making away from the parents you must put it in the hands of someone else. Parenting would become a controlled activity. Who controls it? Government? Neighbors? Schools? Who? How would stop/punish someone for teaching creationism to their kids? As irritating as it is to have poor children be forced to go to catholic schools we can't federally moderate how people raise their kids. That would have far, far greater consequences.



inb4 liberals who are okay with said parental oversight

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: