|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 14 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 02:42 zlefin wrote:On February 14 2018 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On February 14 2018 02:32 zlefin wrote:On February 14 2018 02:18 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 01:28 zlefin wrote:
School lunch is a tricky issue; from what I've heard, efforts to put in healthier foods often resulted in vast amounts of waste as the kids simply didn't eat them. Which highlights the fact that we let parents have too much dominion over the raising of their children. The vast majority of parents do a very poor job. Shitty parenting is the reason kids choose chicken nuggets over vegetables. trying to change that, while potentially beneficial, would involve extremely politically unpopular behavior. Implementing cultural change is hard, and even harder without an agreement that it should be done so. Pushing for less parental control over child-raising wouldn't get enough agreement I think. I agree its an incredibly difficult topic to tackle. But look at child obesity rates and it is something that will need to happen before long. One might say it may well already be to late for the coming generation. there's certainly some damage already being done; it's just hard to get politicians to do politically unpopular things. And this is far harder to do than it would be in europe, given the american cultural milieu. Gettin kids to eat well starts with getting parents to eat well; a lot of people just eat poorly, and therefore, so do their kids. mohdoo, what proposals do you favor for addressing these problems? In a general sense, I advocate for child protective services having significantly more power. Parents are given a somewhat executive power when it comes to raising their children. I think that is madness. Checks and balances should ultimately allow the state to play a much more active role in ensuring children are raised to a minimum standard and are given a minimum standard of health. If I can get even more comfortable explaining my unobtainable positions, I think having children should require a license in the same way we adopt children. We have already decided as a society that adopting a child should not be easy. But we let people just blast kids out their ass so long as they were the ones to create them. It makes no sense.Overall, we should feel more obligation to children. We should be doing more to make sure humans are given a fair shot at life and are not tragically hindered by shitty parents. Poor parenting is costing us a lottttttttttttt of money every year. This is some dystopian hand maiden’s tale in reverse shit. The key to true reform and durable progress is to not design systems that can easily be abused. If people want to address child abuse, focus on the children, not some misguided system to prevent potential bad parents from having kids. Why should it be easier to have children biologically than to adopt? The ability to have children is a basic human right, not to be infringed upon by goverment without good cause. You want to talk about making the adoption process cheaper and easier without putting the child's welfare at risk, I'm with you. But let me put it to you another way, do you want this administration to have to the power to decide who can and can't have kids? What demographics do you think would be denied the right to have children? What common trait do you think those couples would have? And what do we do to people who break the law?
I'm not convinced the problems you are onlining couldn't be addressed. I don't subscribe to the idea that an issue being complicated and messy for government means the government shouldn't try.
Even a system where it is more like getting a driver license would be an enormous benefit.
"True or false: (insert dietary nutrition question here)"
*anything* beyond just kinda rolling over one day and deciding to be pregnant is a huge benefit. The effects of a rough childhood are too intense for us to be letting anyone do whatever the fuck they want. Plain and simply, I believe children are more entitled to a proper upbringing than I believe parents are entitled to raising their own children.
In my thought experiment regarding parenting licenses, systematic issues like denying blacks would be worked out. I'm not outlining a piece of policy. I am outlining the reasons the way our society views parenthood is fundamentally flawed and we suffer a lot because of it.
|
You guys want the state to have invasive power over the way people raise their children? Your children? Have you thought this one through? It seems like an absolutely insane idea.
The license-to-kids one isn't bad, though ^__^ as long as an AI decides what the rules are. People who clearly don't want children shouldn't have them. It makes no sense.
We already have "measures" against eating crap & not taking care of your body btw. It's called being fat. If that doesn't motivate people, I don't know what will.
|
On February 14 2018 03:29 Kickboxer wrote:
You guys want the state to have invasive power over the way people raise their children? Your children? Have you thought this one through? It seems like an absolutely insane idea.
The license-to-kids one isn't bad, though ^__^ as long as an AI decides what the rules are. People who clearly don't want children shouldn't have them. It makes no sense.
We already have "measures" against eating crap & not taking care of your body btw. It's called being fat. If that doesn't motivate people, I don't know what will.
Look at obesity numbers and tell me that 'being fat' is working as a deterrent.
|
On February 14 2018 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 02:42 zlefin wrote:On February 14 2018 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On February 14 2018 02:32 zlefin wrote:On February 14 2018 02:18 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 01:28 zlefin wrote:
School lunch is a tricky issue; from what I've heard, efforts to put in healthier foods often resulted in vast amounts of waste as the kids simply didn't eat them. Which highlights the fact that we let parents have too much dominion over the raising of their children. The vast majority of parents do a very poor job. Shitty parenting is the reason kids choose chicken nuggets over vegetables. trying to change that, while potentially beneficial, would involve extremely politically unpopular behavior. Implementing cultural change is hard, and even harder without an agreement that it should be done so. Pushing for less parental control over child-raising wouldn't get enough agreement I think. I agree its an incredibly difficult topic to tackle. But look at child obesity rates and it is something that will need to happen before long. One might say it may well already be to late for the coming generation. there's certainly some damage already being done; it's just hard to get politicians to do politically unpopular things. And this is far harder to do than it would be in europe, given the american cultural milieu. Gettin kids to eat well starts with getting parents to eat well; a lot of people just eat poorly, and therefore, so do their kids. mohdoo, what proposals do you favor for addressing these problems? In a general sense, I advocate for child protective services having significantly more power. Parents are given a somewhat executive power when it comes to raising their children. I think that is madness. Checks and balances should ultimately allow the state to play a much more active role in ensuring children are raised to a minimum standard and are given a minimum standard of health. If I can get even more comfortable explaining my unobtainable positions, I think having children should require a license in the same way we adopt children. We have already decided as a society that adopting a child should not be easy. But we let people just blast kids out their ass so long as they were the ones to create them. It makes no sense.Overall, we should feel more obligation to children. We should be doing more to make sure humans are given a fair shot at life and are not tragically hindered by shitty parents. Poor parenting is costing us a lottttttttttttt of money every year. This is some dystopian hand maiden’s tale in reverse shit. The key to true reform and durable progress is to not design systems that can easily be abused. If people want to address child abuse, focus on the children, not some misguided system to prevent potential bad parents from having kids. Why should it be easier to have children biologically than to adopt? The ability to have children is a basic human right, not to be infringed upon by goverment without good cause. You want to talk about making the adoption process cheaper and easier without putting the child's welfare at risk, I'm with you. But let me put it to you another way, do you want this administration to have to the power to decide who can and can't have kids? What demographics do you think would be denied the right to have children? What common trait do you think those couples would have? And what do we do to people who break the law? I'm not convinced the problems you are onlining couldn't be addressed. I don't subscribe to the idea that an issue being complicated and messy for government means the government shouldn't try. Even a system where it is more like getting a driver license would be an enormous benefit. "True or false: (insert dietary nutrition question here)" *anything* beyond just kinda rolling over one day and deciding to be pregnant is a huge benefit. The effects of a rough childhood are too intense for us to be letting anyone do whatever the fuck they want. Plain and simply, I believe children are more entitled to a proper upbringing than I believe parents are entitled to raising their own children. In my thought experiment regarding parenting licenses, systematic issues like denying blacks would be worked out. I'm not outlining a piece of policy. I am outlining the reasons the way our society views parenthood is fundamentally flawed and we suffer a lot because of it.
Well first off, it would be very likely be unconstitutional as a basic violation of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The entire concept is so wild that the first instance of a judge prohibiting pregnancy in a criminal proceeding didn’t happen until 1993. Since then I have been able to find two appeals to similar rulings that were overturned on the grounds that the court does not have the power to prohibit someone from having children as punishment.
Second of all, we can barely assure that blacks and other minorities are treated fairly by police and their own jobs. It took decades of work to get lending laws in place to prevent racial discrimination. I still have to deal with deeds and other recorded property documents that restrictive covenants(the deed prevents the sale to blacks/Jews/Non-Christians) in the year of our lord 2018. Some of them recorded less than 10 years ago. So your claim that this system wouldn’t be abuse sounds naïve at best.
On February 14 2018 03:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:29 Kickboxer wrote:
You guys want the state to have invasive power over the way people raise their children? Your children? Have you thought this one through? It seems like an absolutely insane idea.
The license-to-kids one isn't bad, though ^__^ as long as an AI decides what the rules are. People who clearly don't want children shouldn't have them. It makes no sense.
We already have "measures" against eating crap & not taking care of your body btw. It's called being fat. If that doesn't motivate people, I don't know what will. Look at obesity numbers and tell me that 'being fat' is working as a deterrent.
Considering our own body is designed to seek out sugars and fats, it pretty hard to argue that getting fat is going to be sufficient. The amount of research that goes into how much sugar is needed to trigger that response troubling. The only thing more troubling is the amount of salt used to cover up the sugar taste, because then we don't associate the food with excess sugar.
|
|
|
On February 14 2018 03:29 Kickboxer wrote:
You guys want the state to have invasive power over the way people raise their children? Your children? Have you thought this one through? It seems like an absolutely insane idea.
The license-to-kids one isn't bad, though ^__^ as long as an AI decides what the rules are. People who clearly don't want children shouldn't have them. It makes no sense.
We already have "measures" against eating crap & not taking care of your body btw. It's called being fat. If that doesn't motivate people, I don't know what will.
If you actually believe this, it kinda invalidates your entire perspective. I think you have limited experience or knowledge as to what exactly goes down in certain households regarding child raising. Maybe Europe has a better parenting culture. But hundreds of thousands of children are raised in ways that could only be considered gross negligence. As GH pointed out, a malnourished child is treated very differently than a child at risk of diabetes. In both cases, the child's health is seriously compromised. We only do something about the skinny kid.
If you need more information regarding depression, social anxiety, obesity and how their prevalence is impacted by childhood, there is a lot of reading you can be doing. I'd be happy to send some your way. This is all well documented. It is just an extremely uncomfortable thing.
This may be a case where people don't understand how bad things are in poor America.
|
United Kingdom10025 Posts
When people want the state to interfere in parenting, they generally mean other people's parenting.
There's no way that anyone could ever imagine that they would be on the receiving end of this kind of legislation. This is the main reason I would be against this. Its just another example of people blaming all of society's problems on other people without thinking through the possible negative consequences of their zealotry.
Do you really want the state getting involved in your family's private life, even if the state is run by people on the extreme right wing, or the extreme left wing?
|
On February 14 2018 03:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 02:42 zlefin wrote:On February 14 2018 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On February 14 2018 02:32 zlefin wrote:On February 14 2018 02:18 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Which highlights the fact that we let parents have too much dominion over the raising of their children. The vast majority of parents do a very poor job. Shitty parenting is the reason kids choose chicken nuggets over vegetables. trying to change that, while potentially beneficial, would involve extremely politically unpopular behavior. Implementing cultural change is hard, and even harder without an agreement that it should be done so. Pushing for less parental control over child-raising wouldn't get enough agreement I think. I agree its an incredibly difficult topic to tackle. But look at child obesity rates and it is something that will need to happen before long. One might say it may well already be to late for the coming generation. there's certainly some damage already being done; it's just hard to get politicians to do politically unpopular things. And this is far harder to do than it would be in europe, given the american cultural milieu. Gettin kids to eat well starts with getting parents to eat well; a lot of people just eat poorly, and therefore, so do their kids. mohdoo, what proposals do you favor for addressing these problems? In a general sense, I advocate for child protective services having significantly more power. Parents are given a somewhat executive power when it comes to raising their children. I think that is madness. Checks and balances should ultimately allow the state to play a much more active role in ensuring children are raised to a minimum standard and are given a minimum standard of health. If I can get even more comfortable explaining my unobtainable positions, I think having children should require a license in the same way we adopt children. We have already decided as a society that adopting a child should not be easy. But we let people just blast kids out their ass so long as they were the ones to create them. It makes no sense.Overall, we should feel more obligation to children. We should be doing more to make sure humans are given a fair shot at life and are not tragically hindered by shitty parents. Poor parenting is costing us a lottttttttttttt of money every year. This is some dystopian hand maiden’s tale in reverse shit. The key to true reform and durable progress is to not design systems that can easily be abused. If people want to address child abuse, focus on the children, not some misguided system to prevent potential bad parents from having kids. Why should it be easier to have children biologically than to adopt? The ability to have children is a basic human right, not to be infringed upon by goverment without good cause. You want to talk about making the adoption process cheaper and easier without putting the child's welfare at risk, I'm with you. But let me put it to you another way, do you want this administration to have to the power to decide who can and can't have kids? What demographics do you think would be denied the right to have children? What common trait do you think those couples would have? And what do we do to people who break the law? I'm not convinced the problems you are onlining couldn't be addressed. I don't subscribe to the idea that an issue being complicated and messy for government means the government shouldn't try. Even a system where it is more like getting a driver license would be an enormous benefit. "True or false: (insert dietary nutrition question here)" *anything* beyond just kinda rolling over one day and deciding to be pregnant is a huge benefit. The effects of a rough childhood are too intense for us to be letting anyone do whatever the fuck they want. Plain and simply, I believe children are more entitled to a proper upbringing than I believe parents are entitled to raising their own children. In my thought experiment regarding parenting licenses, systematic issues like denying blacks would be worked out. I'm not outlining a piece of policy. I am outlining the reasons the way our society views parenthood is fundamentally flawed and we suffer a lot because of it. Well first off, it would be very likely be unconstitutional as a basic violation of the right to life, liberality and the pursuit of happiness. The entire concept is so wild that the first instance of a judge prohibiting pregnancy in a criminal proceeding didn’t happen until 1993. Since then I have been able to find two appeals to similar rulings that were overturned on the grounds that the court does not have the power to prohibit someone from having children as punishment. Second of all, we can barely assure that blacks and other minorities are treated fairly by police and their own jobs. It took decades of work to get lending laws in place to prevent racial discrimination. I still have to deal with deeds and other recorded property documents that restrictive covenants(the deed prevents the sale to blacks/Jews/Non-Christians) in the year of our lord 2018. Some of them recorded less than 10 years ago. So your claim that this system wouldn’t be abuse sounds naïve at best.
An appeal to tradition/law is not a valid counterargument against an issue of ethics. Something being unconstitutional does not mean it is unethical or wrong. You are describing a systematic reason this would be difficult to do, not describing why the current situation is more ethical than the one I am describing.
The crux of my argument is: Parental rights are in excess as compared with children's rights in modern day society. Parents should have significantly less dominion over the ways they raise and feed their children. A wealth of psychological and physical issues facing American society have their roots in poor parenting. Suffering could be minimized by parents being held to stricter standards. Childhood obesity should result in your kids being taken from you the same way starving your kid does because both have significant impacts on long term health.
In many ways, we are allowing parents to torture their children.
On February 14 2018 03:41 Jockmcplop wrote:
When people want the state to interfere in parenting, they generally mean other people's parenting.
There's no way that anyone could ever imagine that they would be on the receiving end of this kind of legislation. This is the main reason I would be against this. Its just another example of people blaming all of society's problems on other people without thinking through the possible negative consequences of their zealotry.
Do you really want the state getting involved in your family's private life, even if the state is run by people on the extreme right wing, or the extreme left wing?
To a degree, yes. If nothing else, a parent should never have the ability to raise an obese child. The psychological and physical damage caused by childhood obesity are too extreme.
I'm not saying let's have a list of approved story books. I'm saying children are given almost zero personhood and it is totally fucked up.
|
On February 14 2018 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:34 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 02:42 zlefin wrote:On February 14 2018 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On February 14 2018 02:32 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
trying to change that, while potentially beneficial, would involve extremely politically unpopular behavior. Implementing cultural change is hard, and even harder without an agreement that it should be done so. Pushing for less parental control over child-raising wouldn't get enough agreement I think. I agree its an incredibly difficult topic to tackle. But look at child obesity rates and it is something that will need to happen before long. One might say it may well already be to late for the coming generation. there's certainly some damage already being done; it's just hard to get politicians to do politically unpopular things. And this is far harder to do than it would be in europe, given the american cultural milieu. Gettin kids to eat well starts with getting parents to eat well; a lot of people just eat poorly, and therefore, so do their kids. mohdoo, what proposals do you favor for addressing these problems? In a general sense, I advocate for child protective services having significantly more power. Parents are given a somewhat executive power when it comes to raising their children. I think that is madness. Checks and balances should ultimately allow the state to play a much more active role in ensuring children are raised to a minimum standard and are given a minimum standard of health. If I can get even more comfortable explaining my unobtainable positions, I think having children should require a license in the same way we adopt children. We have already decided as a society that adopting a child should not be easy. But we let people just blast kids out their ass so long as they were the ones to create them. It makes no sense.Overall, we should feel more obligation to children. We should be doing more to make sure humans are given a fair shot at life and are not tragically hindered by shitty parents. Poor parenting is costing us a lottttttttttttt of money every year. This is some dystopian hand maiden’s tale in reverse shit. The key to true reform and durable progress is to not design systems that can easily be abused. If people want to address child abuse, focus on the children, not some misguided system to prevent potential bad parents from having kids. Why should it be easier to have children biologically than to adopt? The ability to have children is a basic human right, not to be infringed upon by goverment without good cause. You want to talk about making the adoption process cheaper and easier without putting the child's welfare at risk, I'm with you. But let me put it to you another way, do you want this administration to have to the power to decide who can and can't have kids? What demographics do you think would be denied the right to have children? What common trait do you think those couples would have? And what do we do to people who break the law? I'm not convinced the problems you are onlining couldn't be addressed. I don't subscribe to the idea that an issue being complicated and messy for government means the government shouldn't try. Even a system where it is more like getting a driver license would be an enormous benefit. "True or false: (insert dietary nutrition question here)" *anything* beyond just kinda rolling over one day and deciding to be pregnant is a huge benefit. The effects of a rough childhood are too intense for us to be letting anyone do whatever the fuck they want. Plain and simply, I believe children are more entitled to a proper upbringing than I believe parents are entitled to raising their own children. In my thought experiment regarding parenting licenses, systematic issues like denying blacks would be worked out. I'm not outlining a piece of policy. I am outlining the reasons the way our society views parenthood is fundamentally flawed and we suffer a lot because of it. Well first off, it would be very likely be unconstitutional as a basic violation of the right to life, liberality and the pursuit of happiness. The entire concept is so wild that the first instance of a judge prohibiting pregnancy in a criminal proceeding didn’t happen until 1993. Since then I have been able to find two appeals to similar rulings that were overturned on the grounds that the court does not have the power to prohibit someone from having children as punishment. Second of all, we can barely assure that blacks and other minorities are treated fairly by police and their own jobs. It took decades of work to get lending laws in place to prevent racial discrimination. I still have to deal with deeds and other recorded property documents that restrictive covenants(the deed prevents the sale to blacks/Jews/Non-Christians) in the year of our lord 2018. Some of them recorded less than 10 years ago. So your claim that this system wouldn’t be abuse sounds naïve at best. An appeal to tradition/law is not a valid counterargument against an issue of ethics. Something being unconstitutional does not mean it is unethical or wrong. You are describing a systematic reason this would be difficult to do, not describing why the current situation is more ethical than the one I am describing. The crux of my argument is: Parental rights are in excess as compared with children's rights in modern day society. Parents should have significantly less dominion over the ways they raise and feed their children. A wealth of psychological and physical issues facing American society have their roots in poor parenting. Suffering could be minimized by parents being held to stricter standards. Childhood obesity should result in your kids being taken from you the same way starving your kid does because both have significant impacts on long term health. In many ways, we are allowing parents to torture their children.
Do you have children mohdoo?
|
On February 14 2018 03:38 Mohdoo wrote:
If you actually believe this, it kinda invalidates your entire perspective. I think you have limited experience or knowledge as to what exactly goes down in certain households regarding child raising. Maybe Europe has a better parenting culture. But hundreds of thousands of children are raised in ways that could only be considered gross negligence. As GH pointed out, a malnourished child is treated very differently than a child at risk of diabetes. In both cases, the child's health is seriously compromised. We only do something about the skinny kid.
If you need more information regarding depression, social anxiety, obesity and how their prevalence is impacted by childhood, there is a lot of reading you can be doing. I'd be happy to send some your way. This is all well documented. It is just an extremely uncomfortable thing.
This may be a case where people don't understand how bad things are in poor America.
What you're saying is 100% correct but proposing the state should be raising children is still insane.
The state is exactly who's endorsing the cancer foods that are behind the bulk of this problem. FDA basically says it's ok to drink artificial sugar water and eat plastic excrement. You want a government agency to force-feed your kids? I don't even trust GMOs just because these buttmonkeys claim they are "safe".
|
Here's a plan:
Explain to poor people just how much it sucks to be fat and sick. Propose decently healthy cheap alternatives to plastic excrement. Stuff like eggs, fresh milk, cottage cheese, cheap fish, ez-to-stir-fry-veggies, thai stuff, fruit, weed ...
Then, go to the rust belt or wherever there's low-qualified unemployed and subsidize semi-organic farms that grow the above shit. 2 birds 1 stone.
|
mohdoo, the republican congress is unable to pass a basic budget, which is really very simple math.
I don't think they can manage something as difficult child-raising, or overseeing a system for effective child-raising.
in an ideal world, the state might indeed be much more active in dealing with children, but we do not live in suhc a world.
|
On February 14 2018 03:47 Kickboxer wrote:
Here's a plan:
Explain to poor people just how much it sucks to be fat and sick. Propose decently healthy cheap alternatives to plastic excrement. Stuff like eggs, fresh milk, cottage cheese, cheap fish, ez-to-stir-fry-veggies, thai stuff, fruit, weed ...
Then, go to the rust belt or wherever there's low-qualified unemployed and subsidize semi-organic farms that grow the above shit. 2 birds 1 stone.
Don't have time to cook while taking care of 4 kids and working 3 jobs so dinner is a quick trip to mcDonalds.
|
On February 14 2018 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:34 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 02:42 zlefin wrote:On February 14 2018 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On February 14 2018 02:32 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
trying to change that, while potentially beneficial, would involve extremely politically unpopular behavior. Implementing cultural change is hard, and even harder without an agreement that it should be done so. Pushing for less parental control over child-raising wouldn't get enough agreement I think. I agree its an incredibly difficult topic to tackle. But look at child obesity rates and it is something that will need to happen before long. One might say it may well already be to late for the coming generation. there's certainly some damage already being done; it's just hard to get politicians to do politically unpopular things. And this is far harder to do than it would be in europe, given the american cultural milieu. Gettin kids to eat well starts with getting parents to eat well; a lot of people just eat poorly, and therefore, so do their kids. mohdoo, what proposals do you favor for addressing these problems? In a general sense, I advocate for child protective services having significantly more power. Parents are given a somewhat executive power when it comes to raising their children. I think that is madness. Checks and balances should ultimately allow the state to play a much more active role in ensuring children are raised to a minimum standard and are given a minimum standard of health. If I can get even more comfortable explaining my unobtainable positions, I think having children should require a license in the same way we adopt children. We have already decided as a society that adopting a child should not be easy. But we let people just blast kids out their ass so long as they were the ones to create them. It makes no sense.Overall, we should feel more obligation to children. We should be doing more to make sure humans are given a fair shot at life and are not tragically hindered by shitty parents. Poor parenting is costing us a lottttttttttttt of money every year. This is some dystopian hand maiden’s tale in reverse shit. The key to true reform and durable progress is to not design systems that can easily be abused. If people want to address child abuse, focus on the children, not some misguided system to prevent potential bad parents from having kids. Why should it be easier to have children biologically than to adopt? The ability to have children is a basic human right, not to be infringed upon by goverment without good cause. You want to talk about making the adoption process cheaper and easier without putting the child's welfare at risk, I'm with you. But let me put it to you another way, do you want this administration to have to the power to decide who can and can't have kids? What demographics do you think would be denied the right to have children? What common trait do you think those couples would have? And what do we do to people who break the law? I'm not convinced the problems you are onlining couldn't be addressed. I don't subscribe to the idea that an issue being complicated and messy for government means the government shouldn't try. Even a system where it is more like getting a driver license would be an enormous benefit. "True or false: (insert dietary nutrition question here)" *anything* beyond just kinda rolling over one day and deciding to be pregnant is a huge benefit. The effects of a rough childhood are too intense for us to be letting anyone do whatever the fuck they want. Plain and simply, I believe children are more entitled to a proper upbringing than I believe parents are entitled to raising their own children. In my thought experiment regarding parenting licenses, systematic issues like denying blacks would be worked out. I'm not outlining a piece of policy. I am outlining the reasons the way our society views parenthood is fundamentally flawed and we suffer a lot because of it. Well first off, it would be very likely be unconstitutional as a basic violation of the right to life, liberality and the pursuit of happiness. The entire concept is so wild that the first instance of a judge prohibiting pregnancy in a criminal proceeding didn’t happen until 1993. Since then I have been able to find two appeals to similar rulings that were overturned on the grounds that the court does not have the power to prohibit someone from having children as punishment. Second of all, we can barely assure that blacks and other minorities are treated fairly by police and their own jobs. It took decades of work to get lending laws in place to prevent racial discrimination. I still have to deal with deeds and other recorded property documents that restrictive covenants(the deed prevents the sale to blacks/Jews/Non-Christians) in the year of our lord 2018. Some of them recorded less than 10 years ago. So your claim that this system wouldn’t be abuse sounds naïve at best. An appeal to tradition/law is not a valid counterargument against an issue of ethics. Something being unconstitutional does not mean it is unethical or wrong. You are describing a systematic reason this would be difficult to do, not describing why the current situation is more ethical than the one I am describing. The crux of my argument is: Parental rights are in excess as compared with children's rights in modern day society. Parents should have significantly less dominion over the ways they raise and feed their children. A wealth of psychological and physical issues facing American society have their roots in poor parenting. Suffering could be minimized by parents being held to stricter standards. Childhood obesity should result in your kids being taken from you the same way starving your kid does because both have significant impacts on long term health. In many ways, we are allowing parents to torture their children. Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:41 Jockmcplop wrote:
When people want the state to interfere in parenting, they generally mean other people's parenting.
There's no way that anyone could ever imagine that they would be on the receiving end of this kind of legislation. This is the main reason I would be against this. Its just another example of people blaming all of society's problems on other people without thinking through the possible negative consequences of their zealotry.
Do you really want the state getting involved in your family's private life, even if the state is run by people on the extreme right wing, or the extreme left wing?
To a degree, yes. If nothing else, a parent should never have the ability to raise an obese child. The psychological and physical damage caused by childhood obesity are too extreme. I'm not saying let's have a list of approved story books. I'm saying children are given almost zero personhood and it is totally fucked up.
The thing is I completely agree with you on that point. I do believe the state’s power to prevent child abuse is to limited and underfunded. Having seen its impact personally, I do not believe we have a robust system to both remove children from abusive homes and place them in health environments. And we do not promote and reward the creation of those environments, instead choosing to blame bad parents and heap the burden of their failure on their children.
It’s the part where you want to prevent the children from being born to shitty parents through some sort of certification is where we disagree. That system would make more problems than it ever solved and there is no way we could make sufficient safe guards for people to trust it. And I don’t think it would prevent shitty parents or help any children from abused households.
Bad parents are just a fact of human existence. Some can be saved. Others can’t. Sometimes it is barely their fault, they were just dealt a bad hand they couldn’t deal with. But none of that is the children’s problem, so the focus should be on them.
|
On February 14 2018 03:44 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:34 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 02:42 zlefin wrote:On February 14 2018 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
I agree its an incredibly difficult topic to tackle.
But look at child obesity rates and it is something that will need to happen before long. One might say it may well already be to late for the coming generation. there's certainly some damage already being done; it's just hard to get politicians to do politically unpopular things. And this is far harder to do than it would be in europe, given the american cultural milieu. Gettin kids to eat well starts with getting parents to eat well; a lot of people just eat poorly, and therefore, so do their kids. mohdoo, what proposals do you favor for addressing these problems? In a general sense, I advocate for child protective services having significantly more power. Parents are given a somewhat executive power when it comes to raising their children. I think that is madness. Checks and balances should ultimately allow the state to play a much more active role in ensuring children are raised to a minimum standard and are given a minimum standard of health. If I can get even more comfortable explaining my unobtainable positions, I think having children should require a license in the same way we adopt children. We have already decided as a society that adopting a child should not be easy. But we let people just blast kids out their ass so long as they were the ones to create them. It makes no sense.Overall, we should feel more obligation to children. We should be doing more to make sure humans are given a fair shot at life and are not tragically hindered by shitty parents. Poor parenting is costing us a lottttttttttttt of money every year. This is some dystopian hand maiden’s tale in reverse shit. The key to true reform and durable progress is to not design systems that can easily be abused. If people want to address child abuse, focus on the children, not some misguided system to prevent potential bad parents from having kids. Why should it be easier to have children biologically than to adopt? The ability to have children is a basic human right, not to be infringed upon by goverment without good cause. You want to talk about making the adoption process cheaper and easier without putting the child's welfare at risk, I'm with you. But let me put it to you another way, do you want this administration to have to the power to decide who can and can't have kids? What demographics do you think would be denied the right to have children? What common trait do you think those couples would have? And what do we do to people who break the law? I'm not convinced the problems you are onlining couldn't be addressed. I don't subscribe to the idea that an issue being complicated and messy for government means the government shouldn't try. Even a system where it is more like getting a driver license would be an enormous benefit. "True or false: (insert dietary nutrition question here)" *anything* beyond just kinda rolling over one day and deciding to be pregnant is a huge benefit. The effects of a rough childhood are too intense for us to be letting anyone do whatever the fuck they want. Plain and simply, I believe children are more entitled to a proper upbringing than I believe parents are entitled to raising their own children. In my thought experiment regarding parenting licenses, systematic issues like denying blacks would be worked out. I'm not outlining a piece of policy. I am outlining the reasons the way our society views parenthood is fundamentally flawed and we suffer a lot because of it. Well first off, it would be very likely be unconstitutional as a basic violation of the right to life, liberality and the pursuit of happiness. The entire concept is so wild that the first instance of a judge prohibiting pregnancy in a criminal proceeding didn’t happen until 1993. Since then I have been able to find two appeals to similar rulings that were overturned on the grounds that the court does not have the power to prohibit someone from having children as punishment. Second of all, we can barely assure that blacks and other minorities are treated fairly by police and their own jobs. It took decades of work to get lending laws in place to prevent racial discrimination. I still have to deal with deeds and other recorded property documents that restrictive covenants(the deed prevents the sale to blacks/Jews/Non-Christians) in the year of our lord 2018. Some of them recorded less than 10 years ago. So your claim that this system wouldn’t be abuse sounds naïve at best. An appeal to tradition/law is not a valid counterargument against an issue of ethics. Something being unconstitutional does not mean it is unethical or wrong. You are describing a systematic reason this would be difficult to do, not describing why the current situation is more ethical than the one I am describing. The crux of my argument is: Parental rights are in excess as compared with children's rights in modern day society. Parents should have significantly less dominion over the ways they raise and feed their children. A wealth of psychological and physical issues facing American society have their roots in poor parenting. Suffering could be minimized by parents being held to stricter standards. Childhood obesity should result in your kids being taken from you the same way starving your kid does because both have significant impacts on long term health. In many ways, we are allowing parents to torture their children. Do you have children mohdoo?
No, and if you're hoping that's a good reason to ignore my perspective, you're wrong. Parents let their own stress and anxiety let themselves justify doing a shitty job. It is natural and we do it throughout our lives. Some people do it more than others. Better parents do it less. Allowing your kids to be raised on processed food is doing it to a critical extent.
I'm really not interested in hearing how parenting is difficult. If it is too difficult for you, don't do it. No one is forcing you to have kids. If you are going to create a human consciousness, I believe you are obligated to make sure it goes well. People often moan about how "you just don't get it", yet many people do just fine. Lots of healthy kids out there.
|
United Kingdom10025 Posts
On February 14 2018 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To a degree, yes. If nothing else, a parent should never have the ability to raise an obese child. The psychological and physical damage caused by childhood obesity are too extreme.
I'm not saying let's have a list of approved story books. I'm saying children are given almost zero personhood and it is totally fucked up.
Trust in government's ability to get things done is at an all time low. I'm sure letting them into our houses is a recipe for absolute disaster.
What will happen the first time some kid gets taken off their parents for being 3 pounds overweight and then dies in a car accident on the way into care?
There's already enough examples here in the UK of social services taking kids off their parents for matters where practical concerns meet ideology (vaccines and other conspiracy stuff which you're not allowed to believe if you're a parent). Its a very short walk from there to having kids taken from parents because they are a bit racist or sexist.
|
On February 14 2018 03:47 Kickboxer wrote:
Here's a plan:
Explain to poor people just how much it sucks to be fat and sick. Propose decently healthy cheap alternatives to plastic excrement. Stuff like eggs, fresh milk, cottage cheese, cheap fish, ez-to-stir-fry-veggies, thai stuff, fruit, weed ...
Then, go to the rust belt or wherever there's low-qualified unemployed and subsidize semi-organic farms that grow the above shit. 2 birds 1 stone.
Well first you need to teach them balance a check/debit account, budget, get them to trust the bank, reduce their work hours and assure they have a working cooking space in their apartment. But after that, teaching them to cook is good.
Cooking is one of the many, many, many skills the poor folks of the US missed out on.
|
On February 14 2018 03:54 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To a degree, yes. If nothing else, a parent should never have the ability to raise an obese child. The psychological and physical damage caused by childhood obesity are too extreme.
I'm not saying let's have a list of approved story books. I'm saying children are given almost zero personhood and it is totally fucked up. Trust in government's ability to get things done is at an all time low. I'm sure letting them into our houses is a recipe for absolute disaster. What will happen the first time some kid gets taken off their parents for being 3 pounds overweight and then dies in a car accident on the way into care?There's already enough examples here in the UK of social services taking kids off their parents for matters where practical concerns meet ideology (vaccines and other conspiracy stuff which you're not allowed to believe if you're a parent). Its a very short walk from there to having kids taken from parents because they are a bit racist or sexist.
Is this what you think I am arguing against? A little bit of chub? Unvaccinated children *should* be taken from parents.
I'm not interested in the average citizen's view of government. I am making an argument of ethics.
|
On February 14 2018 03:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:44 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 14 2018 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:34 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 02:42 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
there's certainly some damage already being done; it's just hard to get politicians to do politically unpopular things. And this is far harder to do than it would be in europe, given the american cultural milieu.
Gettin kids to eat well starts with getting parents to eat well; a lot of people just eat poorly, and therefore, so do their kids.
mohdoo, what proposals do you favor for addressing these problems? In a general sense, I advocate for child protective services having significantly more power. Parents are given a somewhat executive power when it comes to raising their children. I think that is madness. Checks and balances should ultimately allow the state to play a much more active role in ensuring children are raised to a minimum standard and are given a minimum standard of health. If I can get even more comfortable explaining my unobtainable positions, I think having children should require a license in the same way we adopt children. We have already decided as a society that adopting a child should not be easy. But we let people just blast kids out their ass so long as they were the ones to create them. It makes no sense.Overall, we should feel more obligation to children. We should be doing more to make sure humans are given a fair shot at life and are not tragically hindered by shitty parents. Poor parenting is costing us a lottttttttttttt of money every year. This is some dystopian hand maiden’s tale in reverse shit. The key to true reform and durable progress is to not design systems that can easily be abused. If people want to address child abuse, focus on the children, not some misguided system to prevent potential bad parents from having kids. Why should it be easier to have children biologically than to adopt? The ability to have children is a basic human right, not to be infringed upon by goverment without good cause. You want to talk about making the adoption process cheaper and easier without putting the child's welfare at risk, I'm with you. But let me put it to you another way, do you want this administration to have to the power to decide who can and can't have kids? What demographics do you think would be denied the right to have children? What common trait do you think those couples would have? And what do we do to people who break the law? I'm not convinced the problems you are onlining couldn't be addressed. I don't subscribe to the idea that an issue being complicated and messy for government means the government shouldn't try. Even a system where it is more like getting a driver license would be an enormous benefit. "True or false: (insert dietary nutrition question here)" *anything* beyond just kinda rolling over one day and deciding to be pregnant is a huge benefit. The effects of a rough childhood are too intense for us to be letting anyone do whatever the fuck they want. Plain and simply, I believe children are more entitled to a proper upbringing than I believe parents are entitled to raising their own children. In my thought experiment regarding parenting licenses, systematic issues like denying blacks would be worked out. I'm not outlining a piece of policy. I am outlining the reasons the way our society views parenthood is fundamentally flawed and we suffer a lot because of it. Well first off, it would be very likely be unconstitutional as a basic violation of the right to life, liberality and the pursuit of happiness. The entire concept is so wild that the first instance of a judge prohibiting pregnancy in a criminal proceeding didn’t happen until 1993. Since then I have been able to find two appeals to similar rulings that were overturned on the grounds that the court does not have the power to prohibit someone from having children as punishment. Second of all, we can barely assure that blacks and other minorities are treated fairly by police and their own jobs. It took decades of work to get lending laws in place to prevent racial discrimination. I still have to deal with deeds and other recorded property documents that restrictive covenants(the deed prevents the sale to blacks/Jews/Non-Christians) in the year of our lord 2018. Some of them recorded less than 10 years ago. So your claim that this system wouldn’t be abuse sounds naïve at best. An appeal to tradition/law is not a valid counterargument against an issue of ethics. Something being unconstitutional does not mean it is unethical or wrong. You are describing a systematic reason this would be difficult to do, not describing why the current situation is more ethical than the one I am describing. The crux of my argument is: Parental rights are in excess as compared with children's rights in modern day society. Parents should have significantly less dominion over the ways they raise and feed their children. A wealth of psychological and physical issues facing American society have their roots in poor parenting. Suffering could be minimized by parents being held to stricter standards. Childhood obesity should result in your kids being taken from you the same way starving your kid does because both have significant impacts on long term health. In many ways, we are allowing parents to torture their children. Do you have children mohdoo? No, and if you're hoping that's a good reason to ignore my perspective, you're wrong. Parents let their own stress and anxiety let themselves justify doing a shitty job. It is natural and we do it throughout our lives. Some people do it more than others. Better parents do it less. Allowing your kids to be raised on processed food is doing it to a critical extent. I'm really not interested in hearing how parenting is difficult. If it is too difficult for you, don't do it. No one is forcing you to have kids. If you are going to create a human consciousness, I believe you are obligated to make sure it goes well. People often moan about how "you just don't get it", yet many people do just fine. Lots of healthy kids out there.
Take a step back. Breathe. It was a question so I could gauge how to respond. When you've collected yourself and lower the hostility, I'll respond in kind.
|
On February 14 2018 03:54 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To a degree, yes. If nothing else, a parent should never have the ability to raise an obese child. The psychological and physical damage caused by childhood obesity are too extreme.
I'm not saying let's have a list of approved story books. I'm saying children are given almost zero personhood and it is totally fucked up. Trust in government's ability to get things done is at an all time low. I'm sure letting them into our houses is a recipe for absolute disaster. What will happen the first time some kid gets taken off their parents for being 3 pounds overweight and then dies in a car accident on the way into care? There's already enough examples here in the UK of social services taking kids off their parents for matters where practical concerns meet ideology ( vaccines and other conspiracy stuff which you're not allowed to believe if you're a parent). Its a very short walk from there to having kids taken from parents because they are a bit racist or sexist.
One of those is a risk to all children and the other one depends on the severity. If the UK system is anything like the US, there is plenty of warning for the parents that the state will become remove them and it rarely is done without the court being involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
