Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/index.php)
-   Political Palace (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Parental rights denied by 9th Circuit Court (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2621)

Wesker Mar 24, 2006 04:39 PM

Those of you who think this is no big deal and that the government knows better than parents in this case should realize that a decision like this can be a two edged sword. If the educational system were to take a hard right turn (a fantasy, I know) and your kids were bing taught how evil gays are and how wrong liberal ideas were, wouldn't you then want your parental authority back, or would you still be fine with your kids being taught morals that are in direct opposition to how you're trying to raise them??

Kensaki Mar 24, 2006 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AliceNWondrland
Oh. My. God. I think I just found my true political polar opposite.

Please tell me you're exaggerating your beliefs just a little to get a rise out of some of us. Please. If not, then at least set my mind at ease by assuring me that you really do live in Norway as your flag indicates, so I don't have to worry about you casting any votes any time soon.

I am from Norway yes, and I may or may not have spiced it up a little.:p

Quote:

yeah, much better to have a centralized gov't as a moral dictator. did your parents oppress you with their instruction Kensaki, or did they let you find your own way 100% on your own?
"I sense much hostility in this one."

And yes I don't think many parents know how to raise a child. I had a nice upbringing but more often than not I see parents messing up their kids over religion/political views ect. Or do you like the fact that little Aron learns the black people are the pest of the world. Or little Ali gets fed propaganda about how evil none muslims are. I am for that the government should have a right to say to parents that teaching children things like these will later be a hinder for their kids and that scociety wont accept such prejudice against certain groups.

Or to take another situation. Little Lisa has cancer but can be saved by modern medicine, she wants to live but as she is 13 her parents who believe western drugs are prohibited by their fate refuse her treatment and condemn her to die. Even though she wants to live. I believe everyone should have personal freedom to teach their children but I also believe the government has a responcibility to keep an eye on the child and make sure it is happy and well adjusted to scociety.

I could easily draw up many more senarioes, but that would be pointless.

Bradylama Mar 24, 2006 06:28 PM

Faith, Kensaki, the word you're looking for is Faith.

The government really shouldn't have a say in what parents teach their children. If Achmed wants to tell his eldest son that his sister is a harlot because she dresses up like all the other Western girls, that's their business. Whether or not Elder son buys all that crap is up to him.

Children are impressionable, yes, but who is to say who is right? The state, obviously, because that's what you're going for. If, however, we've assumed that only the state can dictate sound morals, then all children should be taken into custody by the state, as their parents can't be trusted.

Of course you have your racists, and your hotheads, but they're free to practice their religions and free to voice their opinions. When an addict teaches his kid how to coke meth, then you have a case for civil services, but you shouldn't be legislating thought.

Arainach Mar 24, 2006 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesker
Those of you who think this is no big deal and that the government knows better than parents in this case should realize that a decision like this can be a two edged sword. If the educational system were to take a hard right turn (a fantasy, I know) and your kids were bing taught how evil gays are and how wrong liberal ideas were, wouldn't you then want your parental authority back, or would you still be fine with your kids being taught morals that are in direct opposition to how you're trying to raise them??

Public schools don't teach morality. They leave that to the parents.

Watts Mar 24, 2006 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
The right to control education is not a fundamental right. It might be a DERIVATIVE right such as the ones granted under our Constitution, but it does not fall under the criteria listed above (and if they did, I would die a little on the inside).

So what you're saying is that parents have no fundamental right to raise or nurture a child as they see fit. Is that not the definition of a parent?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
The slippery slope is a complete myth, and for your help, here's the three basic criteria for a cause and effect relationship.

1) Spacial contiguity. There MUST be a physical connection between event A and event B.
2) Temporal Priority. X (a bat hitting a ball) must happen before Y (the ball going flying).
3) Repeatability. X causing Y must happen a statistically significant number of times.

You're essentially talking about mathematics, I'm talking about legal precedents. At any point in time this ruling could be used as justification to deny a parent the right to raise their child in any manner that they deem to be prudent.

Watts Mar 24, 2006 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devo
There have always been government laws that supercede a parent's right to raise their child how they "want to" though. One of the more obvious being education itself. Parents who do not let their child partake in some form of education; public, private,homeschooling or otherwise are prosecuted.

Of course, I cited that example much earlier in the thread. All I'm saying is that a government should not be able to legislate morals/ideas/etc because that is the parent's job.

Abuse violates the right's of the child. Which is why we laws against child abuse.

Watts Mar 24, 2006 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devo
and or education of anatomy/intercourse is in conflict with "morals."

"By informing them you're encouraging them to have sex! Which is wrong!"

Is that not the basic line that the conservative movement take's on such issues? It surely is the reason why sex education is so horribly outdated and uninformative.

Watts Mar 24, 2006 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devo
Which is just nonsense, since when is being educated about a subject encouraging people or kids to commit acts?

People are seriously retarded sometimes I swear.

Yeah I agree. Which is where my argument pretty much falls apart.

That still does not change reality with people who disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devo
We're educated about murder, rape, stealing, abuse, molestation all within history. Should we prevent kids from learning history too since apparently "informing" means education is prompting kids to commit illegal and immoral acts?

But not all sides of history are taught. Only the winner's story get's told. I could probably say something about how kids are being brainwashed with blind nationalism to inspire "justified" murder. But I'd be stretching a little too much.

Meth Mar 24, 2006 07:31 PM

In this specific case, there was a letter sent out to the parents supposedly informing them of the nature of the survey. The consent form said that it dealt with stuff concerning "early trauma" citing "violence" as an example, and in no way suggested anything specific about sexual behavior.

Any survey that could potentially make a kid uncomfortable to the point of needing a therapist afterwards is fucking dumb.

Alice Mar 24, 2006 07:37 PM

It may come as a shock to some of you, but not all first graders know that masturbation, self-mutilation, sexual abuse and excessive violent and gory movies and TV even exist. Why expose them to those concepts at such an early age? Sure, they're going to learn about all that stuff eventually, but doesn't anyone hold childhood innocence sacred anymore? Don't the parents have the right keep them innocent until they're a little older?

Wesker Mar 24, 2006 07:43 PM

"In fact, the survey asked seven year olds to “rate the following activities” among which were these:

8. Touching my private parts too much
17. Thinking about having sex
22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts
23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to
26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside

34. Not trusting people because they might want sex
40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
44. Having sex feelings in my body
47. Can’t stop thinking about sex
54. Getting upset when people talk about sex "

These are the actual questions. Seems a bit heavy handed to ask seven year olds this when the thing they think about the most is Spongebob. A survey like this, done at such an early age, doesn't just inquire, it provides. These type of questions to a 7 year old, in an authoritarian school setting will undoubtedly prompt the kid, who probably never thought about sex at all, to wonder if he should start. Should he touch himself? Should he think about touching others private parts? The survey opens doors way to early that should be opened when a parent deems fit.

As to the history argument..are we exposing 7 year olds to the full graphic horror of the holocaust or is that reserved for an older audience?

Again..the question at the heart of this is who has the ultimate authority over our children? The way the government runs most things the thought of them having exclusive control over the education of kids is frightening to say the least.

Kensaki Mar 24, 2006 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradylama
Faith, Kensaki, the word you're looking for is Faith.

The government really shouldn't have a say in what parents teach their children. If Achmed wants to tell his eldest son that his sister is a harlot because she dresses up like all the other Western girls, that's their business. Whether or not Elder son buys all that crap is up to him.

Children are impressionable, yes, but who is to say who is right? The state, obviously, because that's what you're going for. If, however, we've assumed that only the state can dictate sound morals, then all children should be taken into custody by the state, as their parents can't be trusted.

Of course you have your racists, and your hotheads, but they're free to practice their religions and free to voice their opinions. When an addict teaches his kid how to coke meth, then you have a case for civil services, but you shouldn't be legislating thought.

Thanks for the correction on faith.

Yes of course most of the time the system shouldn't interfere in a family situation. But doesn't hurt to keep an eye on that. Doesn't go to far from your sister is a harlot too your sister must die cause she has brought shame upon the family. I've seen alot of these cases.

I guess you could say I have little faith in the average persons ability to not impart their more dark traits what they may be racism, criminality or drugs. I am most likely being over zealous on this issue but as I have said before I've seen the results of situations that could have been avoided all togheter if the system had taken a step to correct it.

By the way I'm not directly talking about taking children away from parents, rather keep an eye on suspicious parents that could be gathered from tests like these. It may be a bit big brother but well... Small price to pay if you ask me.

Dan Mar 24, 2006 08:46 PM

It amazes me how people can link to a decisions quote a decision and still complete miss the point. Wisker, the decision does not weaken partial rights in the slightest parents have the exact same rights after the decision that they had before.

The decision only say parents do not have exclusive control over when a child is introduced to information. No where in that decision does it say that state knows more then the parents do about what good for the children, or that it has exclusive control. In fact it says the opposite:

In Prince v. Massa-
chusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Court recognized that par-
ents’ liberty interest in the custody, care, and nurture of their
children resides “first” in the parents, but does not reside there
exclusively, nor is it “beyond regulation [by the state] in the
public interest.”

Quote:

As to the history argument..are we exposing 7 year olds to the full graphic horror of the holocaust or is that reserved for an older audience?
Irrelevant did you even read the decisions. The question is: is it unconstitutional? not if it’s a good idea, not if right. Is it a good idea no, it is unconstitutional no it not. All this talk about weather it was a good idea to give the survey is a red herrings as it irrelevant to the decision

Quote:

Again..the question at the heart of this is who has the ultimate authority over our children?
No it not it about if parents have exclusive rights to control “introduction and flow of sexual information “. No they don’t, never have. Let me spell it out for you: if parents rights are exclusive then all public schools would have to, taking the idea to it’s logical extreme, stop teaching biology as well as many other classes. Because they deal with sex and a non-parent introducing the information would violate this supposed right. No such right has ever existed:

"It is clear, and the parents agree,
that no court has ever held that parents have a specific funda-
mental right “to control the upbringing of their children by
introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accor-
dance with their personal and religious values and beliefs.” In
fact, no such specific right can be found in the deep roots of
the nation’s history and tradition or implied in the concept of
ordered liberty."

The parents knew this and all the case really amounted to was a bunch of pissed off soccer moms trying to find loopholes in the law. The parents are the one who wanted to create precedent here Wisker by find a previously undiscovered constitutional right.

The judge made the right decision, following legal precedent. People over the internet then preceded to misinterpret it, end of story.

Radez Mar 24, 2006 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AliceNWondrland
It may come as a shock to some of you, but not all first graders know that masturbation, self-mutilation, sexual abuse and excessive violent and gory movies and TV even exist. Why expose them to those concepts at such an early age? Sure, they're going to learn about all that stuff eventually, but doesn't anyone hold childhood innocence sacred anymore? Don't the parents have the right keep them innocent until they're a little older?

Alice, the school respected that when they sent out consent forms.

Also, it's still kind of creeping me out that nobody's getting this, maybe it's just me. If parents have a fundamental right to control what their children learn, that means they can call upon the courts to take action against anyone who introduces anything to their kids which doesn't meet their approval. That sounds like a legal nightmare to me. I could sue the neighbors for letting their kids swear near mine.

I also want to make sure everyone is aware that nobody said anything about parents not having a say in raising their kids. The only thing that ruling said was that the rest of society has a right too. Since when has a child ever been raised without society's input? This doesn't seem new to me.

Further, I recall while I was in high school, everyone was bitching about parents having too much control over the school system. The school administration was tied up about so many things because the PTA/PTO had so much weight. So, it seems to me that if your kid hears/learns something you didn't want them too, you first present your viewpoint, with all the authority of parenthood behind it, and then you rally and kick the shit out of the place that allowed it.

Regarding childhood innocence, I agree, it's a wonderful ideal. I'll point out that in my experience, it was ruined by my peers, not by the administration. I'm certain this is the norm.

This is an affirmation of the status quo, why are we all up in arms about it now?

Wesker Mar 24, 2006 11:48 PM

Lack of exclusive control meaning that if I as a parent decide that little Jimmy not learn all about the birds and the bees until, oh lets say he's 9 years old, but the state, in its infinite wisdom, decides that innocent little Jimmy be introduced to sex and touching himself, and touching other people, or, lets go beyond the survey, since we're talking sexual matters not just the survey, condom usage, at age 7, then I am a parent am shit out of luck.
So little Jimmy comes home from school and being only 7 and not emotionally able to handle the new sexual knowledge he has, starts touching his little sisters vagina. This ruling is ludicrous and it is bad law.

Bradylama Mar 25, 2006 12:06 AM

Quote:

Yes of course most of the time the system shouldn't interfere in a family situation. But doesn't hurt to keep an eye on that. Doesn't go to far from your sister is a harlot too your sister must die cause she has brought shame upon the family. I've seen alot of these cases.
And you're right, in the case where there's a plausible reason to believe that a child is in danger, then the parents should be monitored at least somewhat. However, applying this logic to racism and extremist ideology is specifically infringing on the freedom of speech of the parents. Centuries of liberal thought have insisted that ideas aren't dangerous. If we willingly infringe on people's rights based on any criteria, then we've no claim to them.

Maybe you think the peering eyes over your shoulder is worth the avoidance of some childhood trauma, but I don't.

Quote:

By the way I'm not directly talking about taking children away from parents, rather keep an eye on suspicious parents that could be gathered from tests like these.
The thing about the survey was that it was anonymous for the participants. In the end, all we get is a bunch of numbers on charts, and parents have to answer awkward questions. No rescued children, no winners, except the surveyors.

The unmovable stubborn Mar 25, 2006 12:18 AM

Dear Wesker: "Bad Law" is a phrase with a specific meaning. It doesn't just mean "a law that I think is bad". Please be more careful.

Furthermore, if you think little kids aren't already naturally curious about the interior of their underpants, you're deluded. Little boys don't need a class to tell them that girls don't have a thing down there, you dumb spastic.

The Wesker Philosophy: "If anyone learns anything, they will probably use this knowledge to commit a crime!" If this is a reflection on the way YOUR brain worked at 7, Wesker, I feel kind of afraid of you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetheGelfling
Ok for all you kiddies who don't think that your parents know best, why don't you just divorce your parents and let the state have custody so you can have a good life and be raised right like good little fascists.

Because, you know, traditional parenting doesn't ever result in screwed-up lunatics who practice taxidermy on their mothers.

At some point, the line has to be drawn: "You cannot raise your child like that." You cannot raise your child by smacking his teeth out with a belt buckle. You cannot raise your child by chaining her to the basement radiator. You cannot raise your child by freely providing him with vodka from the age of 2. Doing any of these things to your children will result in a very dissatisfying visit from John Law. These are all reasonable restrictions: Why would anyone object to them? They are intended to protect the child from the sheer maliciousness or stupidity of the parent. As such, the child's well-being has had priority over "I'm his daddy so I can do what I want" for quite some time. Now, let's all be touchy-feely about moral beliefs, eh? For example, let's say I have a moral belief that only Jesus Christ can cure disease and injury, and that the use of medicines is an abominable sin. Let's say that for this reason I refuse to let my child receive any medical assistance although he has been disemboweled by a bear. Now, in the event that the kid miraculously survives, do you think the state will look fondly upon me as a responsible parent? No, of course not. But I didn't DO anything, I just imparted my moral beliefs on my child! I'm allowed to do that! I'm a PARENT! Don't parents have any rights in this godforsaken communist hellhole of a country anymore?!

Additionally, there's a little thing called psychological damage. Now, I know those of you who are fondly stroking your autographed thanks-for-donating letters from our President just chuckled over that one, but it's a significant matter of law. Rape, for example, need not cause any physical harm to the victim. But it's still illegal, even though you didn't really hurt anybody! What's up with that. And hey, if I rape my DAUGHTER, I mean, she's not actually hurt, and I'm a PARENT, god dammit. I was just imparting my moral value that the age of consent should be lowered to around 14!

Bradylama Mar 25, 2006 11:52 AM

You forgot about incest.

Night Phoenix Mar 25, 2006 12:27 PM

Quote:

Because, you know, traditional parenting doesn't ever result in screwed-up lunatics who practice taxidermy on their mothers.

At some point, the line has to be drawn: "You cannot raise your child like that." You cannot raise your child by smacking his teeth out with a belt buckle. You cannot raise your child by chaining her to the basement radiator. You cannot raise your child by freely providing him with vodka from the age of 2. Doing any of these things to your children will result in a very dissatisfying visit from John Law. These are all reasonable restrictions: Why would anyone object to them? They are intended to protect the child from the sheer maliciousness or stupidity of the parent. As such, the child's well-being has had priority over "I'm his daddy so I can do what I want" for quite some time. Now, let's all be touchy-feely about moral beliefs, eh? For example, let's say I have a moral belief that only Jesus Christ can cure disease and injury, and that the use of medicines is an abominable sin. Let's say that for this reason I refuse to let my child receive any medical assistance although he has been disemboweled by a bear. Now, in the event that the kid miraculously survives, do you think the state will look fondly upon me as a responsible parent? No, of course not. But I didn't DO anything, I just imparted my moral beliefs on my child! I'm allowed to do that! I'm a PARENT! Don't parents have any rights in this godforsaken communist hellhole of a country anymore?!

Additionally, there's a little thing called psychological damage. Now, I know those of you who are fondly stroking your autographed thanks-for-donating letters from our President just chuckled over that one, but it's a significant matter of law. Rape, for example, need not cause any physical harm to the victim. But it's still illegal, even though you didn't really hurt anybody! What's up with that. And hey, if I rape my DAUGHTER, I mean, she's not actually hurt, and I'm a PARENT, god dammit. I was just imparting my moral value that the age of consent should be lowered to around 14!
And I think the examples you've provided are things pretty much everyone thinks is wrong. However, using these examples as justification for the abbrogation of parental rights is simply absurd. In fairness, it's not that you are advocating that, but to say that parents don't have the right to educate their children in the manner they choose (within all legal reason) is absurd.

Misogynyst Gynecologist Mar 25, 2006 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AliceNWondrland
Don't the parents have the right keep them innocent until they're a little older?

You mean like the religious right who try to shut down television shows, movies and music for offensive material - but then bean the Bible which contains incest, gore, angels turning people to salt, guys fucking their wives handmaidens and gigantic wars?

Dan Mar 25, 2006 01:49 PM

Quote:

then I am a parent am shit out of luck.
No you are not, again the decisions does not say what you think it does. Non-exclusive doesn’t mean mandatory forced learning. The discussion effect the right of public schools:
You as a parents have a right to not sign the consent form.
You as a parent have the right to home school your child.
You have the right to send your child to private school.
You as a parents have a right to get the school board to change it’s curriculum

You are making a jump from non-exclusive to governmentally exclusive, this is not even close to reality. All the judge said in layman’s terms is if you chose to give your child to our school system you can’t to say we violate your 14 amendments rights because we made a bad call and said something you didn’t like. Your misinterpreting the legalese because believe it or not this is all this amounts to.

Quote:

So little Jimmy comes home from school and being only 7 and not emotionally able to handle the new sexual knowledge he has, starts touching his little sisters vagina.
Again with the red herrings, you are not getting it. This has nothing to do with whether it was a good or bad idea. Bad idea dose not equal unconstitutional. If this event occurred then it obvious the school made a horribly bad decisions and the parents could go try going for damages in a court of civil law, (not that I think they would win mind you but it illustrates a point) but that still has no bearing on the constitutionality of it. Do you consider teacher first grades the full horror of the holocaust unconstitutional or simply a horrible idea?

You are mad because of the word sex in the decision not it legality. Again the example you keep avoiding: all public schools following your ludicrous logic must be shut down because all public schools by definition violate this supposed right.
When YOU, the parent, send a child a child to a school to a public you are choosing to send them to someone else to be educated. If you are sending them to someone else you are no longer the exclusive means of information. You cannot simultaneously say that I want someone else to educated my child and demand exclusive control of said education. Again lots of people hate that their child is taught evolution in school and if parents have exclusive control then all biology programs in public schools are unconstitutional. Or not even evolution just pure biology that deals with reproduction. No it not different, Wisker exclusive means excusive, any program is suspect if you have this supposed exclusive right.

Read the decision again Wisker this isn’t “bad law” it the same law that has been in place this country inception. This doesn’t set a dangerous precedent it upholds existing precedent. Not having this right hasn’t caused any problem for our nations in the last 200+ years, I don’t see any reason why going to suddenly start cause problems. Again it amazing how many people are shocked when they actually read the law as written. The judge did make new precedent he upheld existing precedent. Let me ask: again did your parents have any problems raising you with out this exclusive right? Mine seemed to handle it just fine. (and just to make it redundantly clear the judge was quoting existing cases when he said parents did not have exclusive rights he was not making it up)
So wekser if the law is so bad please list for some of the horrors past generations have faced by not having this right.

Taterdemalion Mar 25, 2006 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetheGelfling
Geeze, I love this shit.

Ok for all you kiddies who don't think that your parents know best, why don't you just divorce your parents and let the state have custody so you can have a good life and be raised right like good little fascists.

Did you get the message of my post? Of course parents know what's best for their OWN kids, but not what's best for all kids. Did you read this line from my post?

Quote:

What is not allowed (and upheld by this court) is parents spreading their own agenda over all kids instead of just their own.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.