RE: Goverment attacks a family (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

mskathy39 -> RE: Goverment attacks a family (1/9/2008 6:15:19 AM)

If a child is involved, it is the land of the guilty and home of the social workers



Sanity -> RE: Goverment attacks a family (1/9/2008 6:26:05 AM)

That's it. All they need is a smirk, and they're coming in.


quote:

ORIGINAL: mskathy39

If a child is involved, it is the land of the guilty and home of the social workers



sexyteddibare -> RE: Goverment attacks a family (1/9/2008 7:05:40 AM)

so true when my son was a toddler he had gotten into some poision ivy i didnt know what it was jsut thouhg it was chigger bites he took a nap wearing a fishnet type t-shirt and when he woke i showered him and took him to the ER . wel he had welts on him from the poision ivy and the first thing the Dr asked him was " son did someone hit you" i freaked out ... but thankfull my son shook his head  no ..cause i knew even if he said yes cause his sister picked on him all the time the Dr would have reported me, being the parent ..and with him not talking much being only a toddler .....
somethimes the Dr's have good intention but then sometimes they jump to the wrong conclusion



Rushemery -> RE: Goverment attacks a family (1/9/2008 8:29:13 AM)

I have to agree with Gwynvyd



Owner59 -> RE: Goverment attacks a family (1/9/2008 9:00:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sexyteddibare

so true when my son was a toddler he had gotten into some poision ivy i didnt know what it was jsut thouhg it was chigger bites he took a nap wearing a fishnet type t-shirt and when he woke i showered him and took him to the ER . wel he had welts on him from the poision ivy and the first thing the Dr asked him was " son did someone hit you" i freaked out ... but thankfull my son shook his head  no ..cause i knew even if he said yes cause his sister picked on him all the time the Dr would have reported me, being the parent ..and with him not talking much being only a toddler .....
somethimes the Dr's have good intention but then sometimes they jump to the wrong conclusion


So in general,when UM`s have what looks like welts or injuries consistent w/ abuse,the ER folks shouldn`t look into it,at all.on any level?

Before this higher type of scrutiny was common,sending a child home to be abused, neglected or killed at the hands of a family member,was common.

That`s why things have gotten where they are.

I remember at first(20-30 years ago),"parents rights" groups,were upset that corporal punishments were being outlawed.As if punching kicking ,slapping ,and whipping a UM, was ever right,they would cry foul and bemoan the loss of their biblical right to abuse their UMs ,in these ways.

ER folks,teachers,police,preachers,and other leaders don`t have crystal balls or mind reading abilities.

What the hell do they do,when confronted?There are thousands and thousands of such cases happening every month,across our big nation.

Do they follow SOP or STFU?

How many UMs will suffer,if we go back to the days when they had no rights or protectors?

If there is an ass hole(s) who F`d up,that`s one thing.Sue their asses(before the republicans outlaw lawsuits).

I don`t think we want to go back to the old days though.

FandF, the claim the ERs don`t always call police over gunshot wounds,is bogus.Where did you get that from?



Mercnbeth -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/9/2008 9:48:00 AM)

quote:

So in general,when UM`s have what looks like welts or injuries consistent w/ abuse,the ER folks shouldn`t look into it,at all.on any level?
Before this higher type of scrutiny was common,sending a child home to be abused, neglected or killed at the hands of a family member,was common.
That`s why things have gotten where they are.
I remember at first(20-30 years ago),"parents rights" groups,were upset that corporal punishments were being outlawed.As if punching kicking ,slapping ,and whipping a UM, was ever right,they would cry foul and bemoan the loss of their biblical right to abuse their UMs ,in these ways.
ER folks,teachers,police,preachers,and other leaders don`t have crystal balls or mind reading abilities.
What the hell do they do,when confronted? There are thousands and thousands of such cases happening every month,across our big nation.
Do they follow SOP or STFU?
How many UMs will suffer,if we go back to the days when they had no rights or protectors?


There it is. I respect Owner59's opinion as much as I disagree with him, but he does provide an exact snap shot which then becomes a choice.

You know I could go on for paragraphs as the choices taken away because there is a large group of people who don't trust their own decisions or the decisions of their neighbors and truly belief that a government knows better. The desire to be taken care of and have as many decisions as possible removed from the individual seems to be a driving force of a new generation seeking nanny care for themselves. It's one goal that fits into governmental goals seeking more control. What better way to gain that control than to have the citizens begging for it and rationalizing it is "good" based upon exceptional occurrences?

quote:

If there is an ass hole(s) who F`d up,that`s one thing.Sue their asses(before the republicans outlaw lawsuits).
And this describes the carrot. Orwell had the 'Lottery' for the proletariat that nobody really won. If he could foresee the US Tort system his placating the masses would have been replaced by our current system of the 'lawsuit lottery'.

If more only knew or had the ability to learn how much the lawsuit lottery costs each of us, you'd appreciate that the return is as a percentage not allowed by those monitoring the percentage of payouts for Vegas slot machines. Unless you are a John Edwards, or of his ilk of ambulance chasers, its a game that creates only losers; while the vast majority of us pay. The US Tort system inflates the price of everything more than you can imagine.

The movement to surrender more, and rationalize the use of more government intervention is viewed as a good thing because it had 'good intent'. After all the government has a fantastic record of success in solving every day problems by creating bureaucracy. Maybe in my lifetime right after birth a bureaucrat will come in and assume control and bring back your UM raised and programed properly. But you'll get to sue the service if during the trip to the government facility the van gets hit from behind; except of course if its an illegal alien with no insurance. Even John Edwards can't collect in that case.



luckydog1 -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/9/2008 11:57:11 AM)

I am in general agreement with Owner here.  This case sounds exceptional, but children do need advocates.  And some parents horribly abuse thier kids.  Merc you are really taking it to far.  The fact is that some kids would be better off with the Gov for a nanny.  The reason we do not trust our neighboors to do anything they want with thier children, and when there seems to be a problem take a look, is based on facts and history.  For every case like this or Sanitys there are a thousand horribly suffering abused Children.  That will grow up damaged and not achieve thier full potential.  That hurts society and is immoral.  To me this is just law enforcement.  Several of the people here do not seem like they would mind the fammily being held at gunpoint if they refused to allow an investigation (with a warrant) when there is evidnce there is crack being sold out of a home.  And just the reality of enforcing the law (any Law) is that things go haywire sometimes.  This specific case sounds haywire.

Perhaps one of our legal experts can tell us, but I don't think this guy can sue.  The state was acting in good faith, even had a warrant.  Just like with "Don't taze me Dude" guy...It doesn't matter if you like the law or not, you have to obey it. 



Mercnbeth -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/9/2008 12:29:18 PM)

quote:

I am in general agreement with Owner here.  This case sounds exceptional, but children do need advocates.  And some parents horribly abuse thier kids.  Merc you are really taking it to far.  The fact is that some kids would be better off with the Gov for a nanny.  The reason we do not trust our neighboors to do anything they want with thier children, and when there seems to be a problem take a look, is based on facts and history.  For every case like this or Sanitys there are a thousand horribly suffering abused Children.  That will grow up damaged and not achieve thier full potential.  That hurts society and is immoral.  To me this is just law enforcement


LD,
Disagree but with similar respect for your opinion as I do for Owner's. I only request one thing -consistency and avoiding hypocrisy. With that - one question...

I take it you and Owner fully support the Patriot Act? Applying the exact same standard, especially the last bold underlined sentence, and I take it you would. Although implementation of the Law was more recent and came about as a knee jerk reaction versus evolving as have our 'child' protection laws. The Patriot Act is a Law for all based upon a similarly rare exception. Except in the case of the Patriot Act instead of one child being the focus of the nanny government, they'd say they are protecting a city full of them.

Is it ideal for your government to create and enforce laws to account for every rare occurrence in order to protect people? It is the trend. One child hurt playing on 'monkey-bars' - no more monkey bars in playgrounds. One child in 100,000 with an allergy to peanuts, no peanuts throughout the school system. One person 'allergic' to smoke on the first floor of an apartment building, the entire building - none smoking.

It doesn't always work that way though. For instance thousands of people die, and tens of thousands are injured due to drunk drivers; yet alcohol is still legal. Not only that, but bars are allowed to exist with parking lots. People do die from 1st hand smoke (leaving the proof of 2nd hand aside for now). Yet both drinking and smoking are legal and government supported.

Why is anyone supportive of a selective or schizophrenic 'nanny' government?

Am I still taking it too far?



DragonLadysFire -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/9/2008 12:57:01 PM)

Is it ideal for your government to create and enforce laws to account for every rare occurrence in order to protect people? It is the trend. One child hurt playing on 'monkey-bars' - no more monkey bars in playgrounds. One child in 100,000 with an allergy to peanuts, no peanuts throughout the school system. One person 'allergic' to smoke on the first floor of an apartment building, the entire building - none smoking.

It doesn't always work that way though. For instance thousands of people die, and tens of thousands are injured due to drunk drivers; yet alcohol is still legal. Not only that, but bars are allowed to exist with parking lots. People do die from 1st hand smoke (leaving the proof of 2nd hand aside for now). Yet both drinking and smoking are legal and government supported.

Why is anyone supportive of a selective or schizophrenic 'nanny' government?

I'm with you on that.



luckydog1 -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/9/2008 12:59:05 PM)

Yeah I do think you are taking it too far.  I do suport the Patriot act (owner probably does not), and think it, like all law needs constant tuning and refinement.  I think Child protection laws need constant tuning and refinment.  Trying to force an unrelated absolutinst positon on to me is simply a red herring and poor logic.  That would be as bad as if I tried to say you must be against any and all form of law in anyway, because you don't these paticular ones.  It just doesn't make sense.  I just dont see anypoint to the drinking analogy at all?  bars exist, people can drive, they can't drive drunk...People have kids, parents can raise thier kids, Parents can't criminaly abuse the kids....I see no problem.

I don't think criminal abuse of children is rare, I think abuse of the innocnet by the state is.  Thats where our disagreement really lies.  If child abuse were rare, there would be no need for any sort of child services.  That would be a great thing, but it ain't reality.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/9/2008 1:36:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Yeah I do think you are taking it too far. Trying to force an unrelated absolutinst positon on to me is simply a red herring and poor logic. I just dont see anypoint to the drinking analogy at all?  bars exist, people can drive, they can't drive drunk...People have kids, parents can raise thier kids, Parents can't criminaly abuse the kids....I see no problem.
 
I don't advocate any abolitionist position. I only seek consistency and lack of hypocrisy. "Red herring & poor logic"? Lets look at the numbers and see if your position stands up.
quote:

Presently 25,000 people are killed each year in alcohol related accidents.
500 people are killed each week in alcohol related accidents.
71 people are killed each day in alcohol related accidents.
One American life is lost every 20 minutes in alcohol related auto crashes.
Source: http://www.duipictures.com/statisti.htm 

 
quote:

An estimated 1,500 children were confirmed to have died from maltreatment; 36% of these deaths were from neglect, 28% from physical abuse, and 29% from multiple maltreatment types.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/cmfacts.htm  

 
The same source give a number of 906,000 being "maltreated" however, by current standards, I was "maltreated" in childhood. You also have a major self fulfilling prophecy regarding that number. In a bureaucracy the first goal is to legitimize that bureaucracy. "Maltreated" can mean they didn't get a Wii for Christmas and ran away from home.
 
Looking only at the death rate, you have 25,000 versus 1,500. Its much more difficult for the government to put a camera in every house to monitor child abuse than it would be to pass a law concerning alcohol. It was done before. As a result 25,000 fewer people would die. You don't see a relevance? You discount the importance or legitimacy of those numbers? 
 
Maybe you'll see the relevance of a straight oranges to orange comparison. 
quote:

2,335 children died in car crashes involving drinking drivers. Source: http://www.madd.org/Parents/Parents/Programs/View-Program.aspx?program=2

That means that more of the children you want to protect are killed by accidents involving drunk drivers than are killed by abuse.

I'll stipulate to your position that criminal abuse of children is not rare. However my "red herring" and "poor logic" example kills more. Why the selective advocacy? More in question, why the selective requirement of a government 'nanny' in one instance when numbers indicate a better, and more impacting, target?
 
Too far?



Alumbrado -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/9/2008 3:42:17 PM)

quote:

"Maltreated" can mean they didn't get a Wii for Christmas and ran away from home.


It 'can mean' a lot of things. Too bad your bigotry blinds you to what they might be, else I would suggest you read Otnow-Lewis and see what a few untreated bumps on the head 'can mean' in other contexts.

And the hypocrisy lies in your standard trollage of attacking people who suggest that there might be three dimensions to a story (instead of your knee jerk and unproven assertions), by manufacturing an absurd position, and claiming they must support it.

Straw man, red herring, cherry picking, whatever one wants to call it, when it is used in the promotion of ignorance it deserves to be shouted down by thinking members from any side of the discourse.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/9/2008 3:51:50 PM)

quote:

Too bad your bigotry blinds
What the hell does that mean or have to do with anything being discussed? No tangible argument or contrary reference to the ones I raised so you left to name calling? At least put it in context.

As you say, maltreated "'can mean' a lot of things." But it makes me concerned that you agree with me.



Gwynvyd -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/9/2008 4:33:09 PM)

boy didnt I just open up a big ol can of worms..

Seesh.  I love these forums.. *smiles* It makes people think and debate.

I have been on both sides of this.. first as a foster sister, and my mother and I taking in abused children who were wards of the state. Oh the stories I heard, and things I saw. This helped solidify my want to be a law officer. So I did that later on in life. I got to see and help the abused children get out of those homes.

For those of you who have been harrased by DCF yes it sucks.. but until you see a dead, broken child because the neighbors "didnt want to get involved" Or were "afraid to get involved" or "it wasnt any of thier business" You have very little to bitch about.

A lot not a few children are abused each and every day.. ( no not getting a Wii is not concidered abuse) Each and every call into DCF has to be investigated. and Thank The Gods it does. Parental rights are paramount... and I have seen crack heads get thier children back just to pimp them out. One baby my mother and I took care of who had no will the thrive untill we nursed him back to health went back to his crack head mother after being with us for a year. She went back to drugs, and her druggie boyfriend bashed the babys head in a week after he went to her.

If you get checked on or investigated yes it sucks.. yes it takes time out.. but if you give two shits about kids.. yours or any one elses.. arent you glad there is someone out there doing that job?

My son's father who isnt worth the shit he is made of sent in a false report on me because the state hit him hard for child support. *I* have been investigated. I opened up my house, smiled at the nice lady.. and knew exactly who sent her. Was I mad at her or the Govt? No... I was mad at the jackass for sending in a false report. And you bet your ass he spent some time explaining to some nice officers why he did a false report.

People are much too touchy on child abuse.. and fear reporting it.. saying it is not thier problem. It is all of our colective problem. Those abused children will grow up and either be progressive contributing members of our society, because they got help and some one gave a shit about them. Or they may turn out to be the worst about society because no one ever cared. We each have that power to be aware of what is going on in our communites, and in our very own families even, and break these cycles. Children who are abused are much more likely to grow up to be abusers. It has to stop somewhere. In fact 1/3 will abuse thier own children.

http://www.childhelp.org/resources/learning-center/statistics

Gwyn,
who isnt for the govt at all... she is for keeping children safe.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/9/2008 4:55:04 PM)

I hear your argument Gwyn. Child abuse is a crime and should be punished. It's the reliance on the government as the first line of child welfare determination where we disagree. 

Would you support requiring a government issued 'license' before being allowed to have a child with ongoing periodic child counseling and home environmental review?

That's not a facetious or baiting question. It represents an ultimate logical solution and would provide the protection you and I agree that, in theory, should be in place.

It is my position that every exceptional disastrous situation can not be solved by government intervention. I don't believe a government should attempt to be preemptive protector. After the fact enforcement is their responsibility. Granted, that doesn't take away the pain or bring any child back to life. However writing laws abdicating responsibility and putting faith in a government to judge what is and isn't appropriate concerning child rearing isn't a solution. Storm trooper DCF tactics shouldn't be given carte blanche approval. The examples you cite seem to be indicative of a broken system, not a working one. But is it representative of the majority and a reason that all should be painted with a guilty until proved innocent, and then still a suspect, brush?

quote:

A lot not a few children are abused each and every day..
I defer to your first hand experience. You would say child abuse occurs routinely and the numbers are larger than cited in my reference?

Maybe licensing and review IS a good idea.



luckydog1 -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/9/2008 5:11:44 PM)

Merc, I apologize for my spelling error.  "absolutinst"  Isn't a word.  I meant Absolutist...not abolitionist as you seem to have thought.  And yeah there is no logical reason to asign an absolutist position on my part to a completely unrelated law.  Death could be considered merciful compared to what some kids are put through.  My perception of things is that way more kids need help than get it. 

Drunk driving is a crime of selfishness not malice, I do not think it compares to the torture of children.  The drunk Driver does not sit there thinking, "I am going to kill someone tonight".  Child abuse is often a long term planed crime of malice.  That being said, I am glad that Police attempt to stop drunk drivers, even though I like to have a drink or 2 at the bar sometimes.  Where do you see me advocating Drunk Driving?  Or demanding the Gov not attempt to stop it?  Why are you trying to pin that on me?  My father was killed by a drunk driver when I was 8.  My uncle sexually abused my brother and familly for years, I was kicked out for refusing to submit to him.  I hate my Uncle far more than the drunk who killed my Dad by accident.  I just don't see any hypocrisy on my part here.  I have experienced the state looking and walking away, and wish it would never happen to a single other child.  I do have a personal dog in this issue.  Using your logic, does that mean you support the criminal abuse of Children and drunk driving?  When someone actually advocates having a camera in every home, I will agree with you.  For you to pretend that is what is on the table is simply way over the top and not reality based.



luckydog1 -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/9/2008 5:16:47 PM)

"Child abuse is a crime and should be punished. It's the reliance on the government as the first line of child welfare determination where we disagree. "  Not to speak for Gwen, but I disagree completely with this description.  Government is the last line of defense for kids, not the first line.  A concerned neighboor reported this kid in the first place.  The state did not pick this guy at random and go check his kids, lets stay reality based here.



Stephann -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/9/2008 5:52:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gwynvyd

boy didnt I just open up a big ol can of worms..

Seesh.  I love these forums.. *smiles* It makes people think and debate.

I have been on both sides of this.. first as a foster sister, and my mother and I taking in abused children who were wards of the state. Oh the stories I heard, and things I saw. This helped solidify my want to be a law officer. So I did that later on in life. I got to see and help the abused children get out of those homes.

For those of you who have been harrased by DCF yes it sucks.. but until you see a dead, broken child because the neighbors "didnt want to get involved" Or were "afraid to get involved" or "it wasnt any of thier business" You have very little to bitch about.

A lot not a few children are abused each and every day.. ( no not getting a Wii is not concidered abuse) Each and every call into DCF has to be investigated. and Thank The Gods it does. Parental rights are paramount... and I have seen crack heads get thier children back just to pimp them out. One baby my mother and I took care of who had no will the thrive untill we nursed him back to health went back to his crack head mother after being with us for a year. She went back to drugs, and her druggie boyfriend bashed the babys head in a week after he went to her.

If you get checked on or investigated yes it sucks.. yes it takes time out.. but if you give two shits about kids.. yours or any one elses.. arent you glad there is someone out there doing that job?

My son's father who isnt worth the shit he is made of sent in a false report on me because the state hit him hard for child support. *I* have been investigated. I opened up my house, smiled at the nice lady.. and knew exactly who sent her. Was I mad at her or the Govt? No... I was mad at the jackass for sending in a false report. And you bet your ass he spent some time explaining to some nice officers why he did a false report.

People are much too touchy on child abuse.. and fear reporting it.. saying it is not thier problem. It is all of our colective problem. Those abused children will grow up and either be progressive contributing members of our society, because they got help and some one gave a shit about them. Or they may turn out to be the worst about society because no one ever cared. We each have that power to be aware of what is going on in our communites, and in our very own families even, and break these cycles. Children who are abused are much more likely to grow up to be abusers. It has to stop somewhere. In fact 1/3 will abuse thier own children.

http://www.childhelp.org/resources/learning-center/statistics

Gwyn,
who isnt for the govt at all... she is for keeping children safe.


See, I think your story is a much stronger support for creating a system where people don't have the 'right' to reproduce.  This is a dangerous can of worms, but I don't think a woman should have the right to bear a child, purely by virtue of being born with a functioning womb.

It's clear that children have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Being born to parents who aren't either willing or capable of caring for those children denies them all of those rights.  At present we have a piss poor system that allows a mother to destroy her body in any way she likes before and during pregnancy, but the moment that child is born there is a whole new set of laws that apply to how she must provide for her child, regardless of if she's capable of it or not.

I'm an advocate of welfare laws that require mandatory supervised clinical birth control of the mother's choice, be it the shot, IUD, or tubal ligation (which has a high rate of success for reversal.)  Personally, I'd like a system in place not unlike China's that punishes people who choose to have children, but clearly no means to care for that child.  This wouldn't prevent all abuse cases, but it would certainly reduce them drastically.  Having children isn't a 'right' in my mind, so much as a responsibility that we must clearly be prepared to accept.  Those who are unable to fulfill their responsibilities as parents, shouldn't be parents.

I will admit this is a notable exception to my usual stance in that the government should keep the hell out of our lives.  I hold this view, because children aren't simply 'lifestyle choices'; they have no power to vote for themselves, and thus the State should play an important role in their safety.  That we have reached such a sorry social state that milllions of children are abused, indicates that this is one area where action is warrented.

Stephan



domiguy -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/9/2008 6:05:12 PM)

I'm so far to the left that I think abortion should be mandatory. Problems such as this would never arise.



luckydog1 -> RE: Government attacks a family (1/10/2008 12:26:40 PM)

A very dangerous can of worms indeed Stephan, but there is a huge problem, that is undeniable. 



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875