|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
My whole point in bring this issue up isn't sex education and the like...it is however the fact that a court has determined that parents have less rights in deciding their own kids education that does the state. It is frightening that the state has more rights over your kids than you do. The state says your kid need Ritalin or he's out of school...he goes on ritalin. Your a conservative Christian/Muslim/Jew and you believe homosexuality is a sin..tough shit cause the school says you're wrong...and the list can go on. I believe a ruling like this sets a dangerous precendent by establishing that the state has a greater rights than parents in regards to their children. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
_ |
In a world of fucked up parents, the state has a responsibility that children have a happy childhood and don't end up as psycho/mental patients because the system didn't pick up their unfortunate situation.
And yes denying a child medisin that helps them function in scociety(Yes I know someone in my family with ADHD and he doesn't function well at school without the drugs sad but true) or put them up against other parts of scociety cause they are sinners in the parents eyes. I'd wish children where allowed to find their own truth and not have oppressive parents force their fate down the childs throat. And yes I believe christianity ect. are wrong for putting the sinner stigma on certain groups of people like they do. But thats a discussion for another time. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
In other words - parents have no right to determine what medications their children take, where they go to school, and how and when they learn about sex?
Sounds like an argument that the government knows what's better for kids than their own parents do. Because once you make the argument for one set of parents, why not apply it to them all? I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
_ |
In one word yes.
I've seen enough parents making their children miserable/sick by their ill actions if intentional or not. I'm in short saying fix it before the shit really hits the fan. How ya doing, buddy? |
And people bitch when the government wants to control our video games.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
_ |
Never bitched about government control over games to minors myself.
How ya doing, buddy? |
Isn't it taking the ruling completely out of context to say parents have no determination on the disposition of their children? The ruling says:
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Last edited by Radez; Mar 23, 2006 at 11:04 PM.
|
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
That's why this is a slippery slope. If the State can deny a basic fundamental right for a child, it's just as easy to do it to an adult. But that's the point of socialization isn't it? Most amazing jew boots |
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. These are the ONLY three criteria. At best, they allow for something to be merely probable. There is never a necessary connection. Events can happen with a greater or lesser degree of probability, but there is never a 100% chance. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
And yet, the government is still playing the role of parent to everybody in the country. The government decides what we can or can't use, where we can live, what we can do with our money, and how we can conduct ourselves in our own homes (though this is hard to actually enforce).
The government is everybody's parent, because it's assumed for close to a century now that it knows what's best for us, despite the fact that since everything is politicized, "what's best for us" is usually decided by a vocal minority (prohibition). It's an authoritative oligarchy that has no need or consideration for any individualism or "fundamental rights." Bodily autonomy is already out the fucking window. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
True, it is more or less. At least for the issue of abortion, although I wouldn't be surprised if we started seeing it happening for other issues as well.
I was speaking idiomatically. |
(People are shitty and think they're exempt from rules for some reason. I don't fucking get it myself.) What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
The government definately plays the role of the parent on a lot of topics. Abortion isn't one of them. Most amazing jew boots |
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. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
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.
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
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??
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
_ |
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. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
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. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I was speaking idiomatically. |
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Abuse violates the right's of the child. Which is why we laws against child abuse. FELIPE NO |
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. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
That still does not change reality with people who disagree.
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
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. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Supreme Court to Look at 2nd Amendment | Ridan Krad | Political Palace | 33 | Dec 19, 2007 11:36 PM |
Tories want new US-Style Bill of Rights | Robo Jesus | Political Palace | 4 | Jul 3, 2006 04:44 AM |
Canadian Supreme Court Decides to Allow Kirpans in School | Locke | Political Palace | 64 | Mar 20, 2006 04:33 PM |