CreativeDominant
Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee
quote:
ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
maria, that's an important and essential aspect to the argument here and puts lie to the notion of that the worlds full of perverts waiting behind trees ready to pounce.
aylee---id be skeptical that anyone would lose jobs over this, even independent from immunity. my guess is they were all following laws and regulations.
and that's another one of the scary things too. I remember having a conversation with a friend once who was advocating for the process of legislation. "if you don't like a law, you can work with your legislator to get it changed." and "if they wont cooperate, you can vote them out and someone else in next time." never mind that those options are glacial, if effective.
while most people are going about their daily lives working, being married, raising children, and spending time with friends, the government's making laws that we never hear about until we run afoul of them, which we all too often do.
It also puts lie to the argument that parents,in all instances,know best.
Or didn't that occur to you ?
Do all parents know best in every case? No. Of course not. That is an impossible standard.
Do they most often know best for THEIR child? Yes.
Should almost all child rearing decisions be left to the parent? Yes. Let me give an example. . . NYC is doing their best to force women to breastfeed instead of using formula. That seems like a rather personal family choice to me.
I do think that there is way TOO MUCH state interference in raising children.
Okay so if we can agree that in some cases there are some parents who have no business at all raising children then it follows that we would also agree that communities need to set standards in order to protect those children at risk,no ?
Now if ,as I assume ,we are still in agreement than the issue is the heavy handeness of those same standards,right ?
In this case the law is a little bit fuzzy,it states IIRC that no child under the age of thirteen(or was it twelve)should be left alone to fend for themselves.The law was intended to,and I believe written,more to deal with cases of leaving children unattended in the home...so the walk home from the local park is a bit fuzzy on that.
My objection here,in this particular case ,is that these parents were warned,and than decided to use their children to make a political libertarian leaning point.
One) that is awful narcissistic of them .Two) any parents who would subject their children to such an event in order to make a political point....need state supervision in the raising of said children
Basically,from where I sit....it was more important for these assholes to make their own political point than it was to ensure that the state did not take their children away,
In that light I think it is imperative that these children be removed from the custody of these two assholes.
Or...it could be that they are not making a point, they are raising their children as they see fit. NOT as the state sees fit.
Perhaps they felt the state had no business dictating to them and should instead concern itself with children in real danger such as the cases I cited above...And hundreds, if not thousands, more?
|
RE: Free Range Parenting - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread