|
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 04:28 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 14 2018 03:53 Mohdoo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're not the first to respond to my criticisms of parents by asking if I am one. Once you've made an argument, you'll get a different response. The main problem, which imo I don’t think you can get around, is that most people are bad parents, so that if you have some scheme of disciplining bad parents it runs the risk of producing overbearing state intervention. A surveillance state where every parent is constantly at risk of losing their children, where people can inform on each other, where poor parents can be held accountable for the impoverished condition of their children, and so on.
Very Orwellian.
|
Why can't all polls have graphs like this.
|
On February 14 2018 04:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 04:21 Grumbels wrote: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. An AI would almost certainly decide that black people shouldn’t have children, because they are most at risk for poverty, violence etc. An AI reproduces existing biases. Then you remove the racial component and only look at family history and income, plus some other factors.
It would find other biases or have other flaws.
I don’t understand how we have this endless reserve of fiction and non-fiction about the hubris of making AI and relying on it to replace human judgment and people still advocate that we can solve that problem.
|
On February 14 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:
The slippery slope fallacy still applies here. Not vaccinating a child is straight up child abuse. Schools around my country have had to change rules to prevent unvaccinated children from attending because they are a risk to other students. Just becomes someone calls it a “belief” doesn’t make it less risky or stupid. We had that fight in the early 1900s and it should have ended there.
TBH I don't like vaccinations as the "bad parenting" example here because of the bolded part. Unvaccinated people are problematic because they are a public health risk. In a lot of cases, not vaccinating your kid does not increase their risk of infection to particular pathogens if they are not put in situations where they are at risk for exposure in the first place. It's just incredibly selfish because you are really just choosing to benefit from herd immunity while not contributing to it yourself, and increasing the risk of exposure for people who for various reasons cannot be vaccinated.
|
On February 14 2018 03:17 Grumbels 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? Did your parents ever have “the talk” with you?  Children come from sex, which can’t be made illegal as it is private behavior.
See: Teenage Pregnancy.
Better education is really the only solution.
Investing in children from an early age to ensure they have the ability to make the best possible decisions/be socially responsible, regardless of their parents is where my vote is going.
|
On February 14 2018 04:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 04:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 14 2018 04:21 Grumbels wrote: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. An AI would almost certainly decide that black people shouldn’t have children, because they are most at risk for poverty, violence etc. An AI reproduces existing biases. Then you remove the racial component and only look at family history and income, plus some other factors. It would find other biases or have other flaws. I don’t understand how we have this endless reserve of fiction and non-fiction about the hubris of making AI and relying on it to replace human judgment and people still advocate that we can solve that problem.
How would it get the racial bias if it was removed? That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying AI is the way to go. AI can help make decisions, but it would ultimately have to be, as is now, on a case by case basis.
|
On February 14 2018 04:32 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:17 Grumbels 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? Did your parents ever have “the talk” with you? Children come from sex, which can’t be made illegal as it is private behavior. See: Teenage Pregnancy. Better education is really the only solution. Investing in children from an early age to ensure they have the ability to make the best possible decisions/be socially responsible, regardless of their parents is where my vote is going.
This sums up my take for the most part. The best solution to every conceivable "bad parenting" problem, taking into account all of the moral hazards present in every direction, is to support robust public institutions of learning that children are guaranteed access to as early in their lives as possible.
|
On February 14 2018 04:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 04:31 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 04:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 14 2018 04:21 Grumbels wrote: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. An AI would almost certainly decide that black people shouldn’t have children, because they are most at risk for poverty, violence etc. An AI reproduces existing biases. Then you remove the racial component and only look at family history and income, plus some other factors. It would find other biases or have other flaws. I don’t understand how we have this endless reserve of fiction and non-fiction about the hubris of making AI and relying on it to replace human judgment and people still advocate that we can solve that problem. How would it get the racial bias if it was removed? That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying AI is the way to go. AI can help make decisions, but it would ultimately have to be, as is now, on a case by case basis.
Because humans would create the data sets it would be working with and would design how to weight the values of those data sets. The AI isn’t observing people and collecting the data it feels is relevant to good parenting in an unbiased nature. Humans would decide what data it would value and what data it wouldn’t. And then they would decide how that data is collected and measured.
The AI isn’t responsible for anything, it just diffuses the responsibility for the decision making across a large number of people and through an obtuse system that humans can’t understand on their own.
|
|
|
On February 14 2018 04:39 Sermokala wrote:
was said
I thought we were talking in general minority terms. Now specifically black people? Or are we using black people as the catch all for minorities?
|
On February 14 2018 04:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 04:32 Lmui wrote:On February 14 2018 03:17 Grumbels 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? Did your parents ever have “the talk” with you? Children come from sex, which can’t be made illegal as it is private behavior. See: Teenage Pregnancy. Better education is really the only solution. Investing in children from an early age to ensure they have the ability to make the best possible decisions/be socially responsible, regardless of their parents is where my vote is going. This sums up my take for the most part. The best solution to every conceivable "bad parenting" problem, taking into account all of the moral hazards present in every direction, is to support robust public institutions of learning that children are guaranteed access to as early in their lives as possible.
How does this go on to solve childhood obesity? Let's say a parent goes to Walmart and fills their cart with Totinos pizza. How is that impact of that mitigated?
|
On February 14 2018 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 04:34 farvacola wrote:On February 14 2018 04:32 Lmui wrote:On February 14 2018 03:17 Grumbels 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? Did your parents ever have “the talk” with you? Children come from sex, which can’t be made illegal as it is private behavior. See: Teenage Pregnancy. Better education is really the only solution. Investing in children from an early age to ensure they have the ability to make the best possible decisions/be socially responsible, regardless of their parents is where my vote is going. This sums up my take for the most part. The best solution to every conceivable "bad parenting" problem, taking into account all of the moral hazards present in every direction, is to support robust public institutions of learning that children are guaranteed access to as early in their lives as possible. How does this go on to solve childhood obesity? Let's say a parent goes to Walmart and fills their cart with Totinos pizza. How is that impact of that mitigated?
Then teach the kid to be healthy and try to teach the parent too. Taking the kid away isn’t going to solve your problems, it will make more problems.
|
On February 14 2018 04:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 04:34 farvacola wrote:On February 14 2018 04:32 Lmui wrote:On February 14 2018 03:17 Grumbels 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? Did your parents ever have “the talk” with you? Children come from sex, which can’t be made illegal as it is private behavior. See: Teenage Pregnancy. Better education is really the only solution. Investing in children from an early age to ensure they have the ability to make the best possible decisions/be socially responsible, regardless of their parents is where my vote is going. This sums up my take for the most part. The best solution to every conceivable "bad parenting" problem, taking into account all of the moral hazards present in every direction, is to support robust public institutions of learning that children are guaranteed access to as early in their lives as possible. How does this go on to solve childhood obesity? Let's say a parent goes to Walmart and fills their cart with Totinos pizza. How is that impact of that mitigated? Then teach the kid to be healthy and try to teach the parent too. Taking the kid away isn’t going to solve your problems, it will make more problems.
More problems than developing diet-induced diabetes as a young age? Dying when they are 50 because they have the heart of a 90 year old? I think you are underappreciating the impacts of child obesity.
|
On February 14 2018 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 04:34 farvacola wrote:On February 14 2018 04:32 Lmui wrote:On February 14 2018 03:17 Grumbels 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? Did your parents ever have “the talk” with you? Children come from sex, which can’t be made illegal as it is private behavior. See: Teenage Pregnancy. Better education is really the only solution. Investing in children from an early age to ensure they have the ability to make the best possible decisions/be socially responsible, regardless of their parents is where my vote is going. This sums up my take for the most part. The best solution to every conceivable "bad parenting" problem, taking into account all of the moral hazards present in every direction, is to support robust public institutions of learning that children are guaranteed access to as early in their lives as possible. How does this go on to solve childhood obesity? Let's say a parent goes to Walmart and fills their cart with Totinos pizza. How is that impact of that mitigated?
By providing children with access to properly nutritious and well cooked foods at lunch and breakfast at the very least. I'll have to find them, but studies into free or reduced cost lunch/breakfast options at public schools show that they have a positive impact on the health and learning of students. These could be beefed up even more and over time, the upstream of nutritional information might even have an impact on parent health.
|
On February 14 2018 04:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 04:34 farvacola wrote:On February 14 2018 04:32 Lmui wrote:On February 14 2018 03:17 Grumbels 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? Did your parents ever have “the talk” with you? Children come from sex, which can’t be made illegal as it is private behavior. See: Teenage Pregnancy. Better education is really the only solution. Investing in children from an early age to ensure they have the ability to make the best possible decisions/be socially responsible, regardless of their parents is where my vote is going. This sums up my take for the most part. The best solution to every conceivable "bad parenting" problem, taking into account all of the moral hazards present in every direction, is to support robust public institutions of learning that children are guaranteed access to as early in their lives as possible. How does this go on to solve childhood obesity? Let's say a parent goes to Walmart and fills their cart with Totinos pizza. How is that impact of that mitigated? Then teach the kid to be healthy and try to teach the parent too. Taking the kid away isn’t going to solve your problems, it will make more problems. More problems than developing diet-induced diabetes as a young age? Dying when they are 50 because they have the heart of a 90 year old? I think you are underappreciating the impacts of child obesity.
My guy, foster services and being a ward of the state isn’t any better. There are plenty of loving parents that might serve their children garbage food. That is a problem that can be fixed and is far easier than undoing the damage of being taken away from your family.
|
I think I mentioned this a thousand pages or so ago, but this is where you get involved heavily in your community and local governments. That is the one thing you can do to try and affect the change you wish to see. The more politically involved you are, the more you will see that your concerns are being addressed but the pace at which the change occurs is just slow.
|
On February 14 2018 04:57 Plansix wrote:
My guy, foster services and being a ward of the state isn’t any better. There are plenty of loving parents that might serve their children garbage food. That is a problem that can be fixed and is far easier than undoing the damage of being taken away from your family.
Can't die of diabetes in your 50s when you succumb to mental health issues in your 20s and 30s.
|
I know quite a few people who I can consider theyre abusing their parenting skills. I'm talking about a 5 year old weighing as much as 100 pounds... That I technically consider child abuse, oh your child is crying so you feed them constantly so they don't cry.... Now your child has health issues because he/she is so fat and unhealthy - I definitely can consider that child abuse.
|
On February 14 2018 04:31 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:
The slippery slope fallacy still applies here. Not vaccinating a child is straight up child abuse. Schools around my country have had to change rules to prevent unvaccinated children from attending because they are a risk to other students. Just becomes someone calls it a “belief” doesn’t make it less risky or stupid. We had that fight in the early 1900s and it should have ended there. TBH I don't like vaccinations as the "bad parenting" example here because of the bolded part. Unvaccinated people are problematic because they are a public health risk. In a lot of cases, not vaccinating your kid does not increase their risk of infection to particular pathogens if they are not put in situations where they are at risk for exposure in the first place. It's just incredibly selfish because you are really just choosing to benefit from herd immunity while not contributing to it yourself, and increasing the risk of exposure for people who for various reasons cannot be vaccinated.
Yeah, like Disneyworld, Disneyland, or anywhere that has individuals from other countries visiting. Which is what likely caused the California measles outbreak-endemic measles country + carrier traveling = tons of kids exposed. By not vaccinating your kid but then not quarantining your kid, you put their life at risk. Not just the lives of other kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
