Parental rights

[MaskedOne]

Re: Parental rights


Enough.
In the tossing around of less than complimentary titles, people have forgotten three important facts.

1) PaganForum is a privately owned dictatorship that members are guests in.
2) Directly insulting each other is not considered permissible by the benevolent overlords of this site.
3) I am a tyrant that will happily end threads without warning.

This discussion is dead. Have a nice evening.



- - - Updated - - -

...............

[Thothur]

Re: Parental rights

LOL - you, sir, are a major ass.

Dost thou not suspect my place? Dost thou not suspect my years? O that he were here to write me down an ass! but, masters, remember that I am an ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass. No, thou villain, thou art full of piety, as shall be proved upon thee by good witness. I am a wise fellow; and, which is more, an officer; and, which is more, a householder; and, which is more, as pretty a piece of flesh as any in Messina; and one that knows the law, go to; and a rich fellow enough, go to; and a fellow that hath had losses; and one that hath two gowns, and everything handsome about him. Bring him away. O that I had been writ down an ass!

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Parental rights

As they said in Watership Down, "Great Frith In A Pond!!!" LOL

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parental rights

Ah, I see how this works B. The sky is pink with purple polkadots because you say it is and want it to be. Gotcha boss. If I wasn't laughing so hard, I might type a more in depth reply. But what's the use, it's not like I'd chip through the adamantium...

My feelings about you, exactly.

[Thothur]

Re: Parental rights

Ah, I see how this works B. The sky is pink with purple polkadots because you say it is and want it to be. Gotcha boss. If I wasn't laughing so hard, I might type a more in depth reply. But what's the use, it's not like I'd chip through the adamantium...

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parental rights

When you take the middle of the road, you tend to get hit by cars going both ways.

I said nothing about people having the freedom to kill their children. You seem to want the freedom to obliterate people's rights based upon what YOU think is best. That's a dangerous road to walk down. Your post, and others, are filled with quite a few false assumptions. No one is killing anyone. You are going about this the entirely incorrect way because you seem to be emotionally involved in it somehow.

LOL - you, sir, are a major ass.

This entire thread is about people killing their children. Please read to original post.

And yes, I admit to the total shame of caring about children, and child abuse.

I could say the same thing, were I so inclined. Legend in your own mind much there, B? Sorry, I don't mean that offensively. But you seem to think that you know what's best for everyone, and are willing to put people at gunpoint to have your beliefs enforced. But it's by proxy. You and people like you don't even have the huevos to do it yourself.

When have we ever met? What do you know of me? Would it surprise you to find out that I have no trouble pointing a gun at somebody's head to prevent them from harming a child?

P.S. you are being intentionally offensive, even with your little kiss-ass disclaimer, so don't imagine you're fooling anyone here... ("I suspect that you are somewhat used to strongarming people with your pseudo-intellect. I'm also sorry to report that it won't work here..." When I see something from you that is other than bullying, and insult, and pseudo-intellect, and juvenile black/white distinctions, I'll start taking you seriously).

Well, that was unnecessarily uncouth and highly presumptive. But then again that's typically what happens when people operate from a point of emotion. There is no real debate when something is a hot button for someone, just endless back and forth swordplay.

Get off your high horse. "Uncouth"? "Presumptive"? It's what YOU said...

Are you even trying to be coherent, or do you just figure if you have enough attitude you can say whatever you want without getting called out on it?

Whenever you decide that you'd actually like to debate this issue with facts, and not just engage in endless emotional mental masterbation, I'll be here.

No thanks. I think you've indulged in enough public masterbation for the lot of us...

- - - Updated - - -

And with one paragraph, Monster owns the thread.

In his (and your) imagination.

[Thothur]

Re: Parental rights

And with one paragraph, Monster owns the thread.

[Monster]

Re: Parental rights

For any of you history buffs, do you remember what Stalin said about "useful idiots?" If not, you need to do a little research and let it sink in real good before you put forth the idea that the *State* knows better and can make decisions better than individuals.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Parental rights

When you take the middle of the road, you tend to get hit by cars going both ways.

Not to make light of any part of this thread, but this made me remember something someone said once - "If you sit on the fence, eventually you're gonna get a fencepost up your a#$." LOL

[Thothur]

Re: Parental rights

So it's either black or white, with nothing in the middle? If don't people have freedom to kill their children, then freedom is impossible?

When you take the middle of the road, you tend to get hit by cars going both ways.

I said nothing about people having the freedom to kill their children. You seem to want the freedom to obliterate people's rights based upon what YOU think is best. That's a dangerous road to walk down. Your post, and others, are filled with quite a few false assumptions. No one is killing anyone. You are going about this the entirely incorrect way because you seem to be emotionally involved in it somehow.

Wanting to jail someone for killing their child makes me a hypocrit? In what way?

I said:

So... do we value our liberty and freedom, or don't we? You see, none of this applies 'sometimes'. It either applies ALL OF THE TIME, or not at all. You can't pick and choose when to apply it and when not to apply it based upon what you agree with and don't agree with.

This, in a word, is called hypocrisy. We don't want our rights and beliefs stomped upon, but we seem to have no problem stomping upon other's rights and beliefs if they run contrary to ours on a hot button topic.

I think that was pretty clear and straighforward. If not, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite definition 1.

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

By the way, I hadn't targeted you in any way B. It was a generalized statement based upon what I read in the thread. Some people would state something in one sentence and completely contradict themselves the next. But I didn't target anyone, and I didn't name names. Ye feeling a bit, oh I dunno... guilty?

Strange land you inhabit...

I could say the same thing, were I so inclined. Legend in your own mind much there, B? Sorry, I don't mean that offensively. But you seem to think that you know what's best for everyone, and are willing to put people at gunpoint to have your beliefs enforced. But it's by proxy. You and people like you don't even have the huevos to do it yourself. You'll just get servants of the state to do it FOR you, and enforce what you feel is right. You'll make sure your beliefs get passed into so called 'law', and cheer when others are enforced upon. That's the worst kind of tyranny. When you don't even have the conviction of your beliefs to be able to make them stick, but rather rely on others to strongarm people into submission by proxy. In essence, that is the very definition of cowardice. And intellectual cowardice is far worse than turning tail on the battlefield. I can understand that. The fear that grips someone when the bullets are flying... the shell shock. That, I can accept. But passing socialistic measures to have hired goons put guns in peoples faces to enforce YOUR beliefs? That's just plain yellow...

OK, you may be your parent's chattel, but my children own themselves. I (and they) prefer it that way.

Well, that was unnecessarily uncouth and highly presumptive. But then again that's typically what happens when people operate from a point of emotion. There is no real debate when something is a hot button for someone, just endless back and forth swordplay. (Cut, thrust, parry, riposte, repeat...) I suspect that you are somewhat used to strongarming people with your pseudo-intellect. I'm also sorry to report that it won't work here.

Also I'd like to point out that if your children truly did 'own themselves', then neither the state nor society can possibly own them. What this means, is that in short, other folks like you can't pass so called (color of) laws to say "Gee, we don't like the way Mr. Corbin raises his kids... I think we'll just step in and decide FOR them what WE think is best!" They either own themselves, or they don't. The reality of it is that if YOU don't own them until they are 18, then the STATE will. You may think they own themselves. THEY may think they own themselves, but that doesn't make it so.

Oh wait, you just effectively obliterated your own arguement entirely, didn't you...

Whenever you decide that you'd actually like to debate this issue with facts, and not just engage in endless emotional mental masterbation, I'll be here.

The decision here involves life and death, not whether to eat string beans or not. And yes, all the laws our (my?) society uses to prevent one person from killing another work that way. I'm all for it. Laws without consequences don't amount to much...

There is a very large difference between a law that is enacted for the good of society, such as a law which prohibits murder, and a law enacted to protect someone from themselves, which is the nanny state at it's finest.

And no, withholding a certain service that YOU, in your infinite wisdom think is necessary, but which a family due to it's religious beliefs does not want, is not murder. Driving a stake through someone's skull, that's murder.

Does that make me a fluffy bunny? Oh, goody goody.

No, it makes you extremely socialistic, highly disconnected from what's known as 'reality' and also a petty tyrant. You asked.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parental rights

So... do we value our liberty and freedom, or don't we? You see, none of this applies 'sometimes'. It either applies ALL OF THE TIME, or not at all. You can't pick and choose when to apply it and when not to apply it based upon what you agree with and don't agree with.

This, in a word, is called hypocrisy. We don't want our rights and beliefs stomped upon, but we seem to have no problem stomping upon other's rights and beliefs if they run contrary to ours on a hot button topic.

I don't mean this offensively, but rather reflectively. Think upon it, don't try to fire back a denial. It's all over this thread.

So it's either black or white, with nothing in the middle? If don't people have freedom to kill their children, then freedom is impossible? Wanting to jail someone for killing their child makes me a hypocrit? In what way?

Strange land you inhabit...

We have no right whatsoever to tell any parent what is 'best' for THEIR child. It's the product of the parents which spawned it, and not the property of the state or the public.

OK, you may be your parent's chattel, but my children own themselves. I (and they) prefer it that way.

I've noticed people paying lip service to, say, religious freedom, supporting it whole heartedly, and then in the very next sentence saying essentially that when it comes to a child, if you aren't making the right decisions, then some one else should be making those decisions FOR you. At gunpoint. Because that's the only way any such 'enforcement' happens is through violence at the point of the gun. That's the only way ANY law is ultimately enforced. Someone shoves a gun in your face and says, essentially, do this or ELSE.

Is this really the road that folks want to go down? Is this really what they think should happen?

The decision here involves life and death, not whether to eat string beans or not. And yes, all the laws our (my?) society uses to prevent one person from killing another work that way. I'm all for it. Laws without consequences don't amount to much...

Does that make me a fluffy bunny?

Oh, goody goody.

[Thothur]

Re: Parental rights

I can tell this is a very hotbutton issue for ye. What exactly 'is' a right, anyway? And what creates a right? Nature? The divine? Both? Neither? Man?

You say people have a right to live. What about an animal, does it have a right to live? Or does that 'right' exist only until YOU decide to eat it? What about a plant, does it have a right to live? Or does that 'right' exist only until YOU decide to eat it/mow it down? Do only people have a right to live, and if so, what makes us so goram special and the rest of all existence not so special?

These are things that deserve contemplation... and usually such contemplation is best done without the knee jerk emotional responses that seem to run most people's lives.

In order to protect the majority, we must first protect the smallest minority. And that is the minority of one. And protect does not mean violate things because WE think that WE know better.

I certainly don't have all the answers, nor have I claimed thus. But what I do know is that claiming that the state needs to stomp over the religions of people to 'do what's right' is definitely not a path that I'd support. The concept that the state knows what's 'best', is what has led to atrocities. People with zero knowledge of, or reverence for, history will tend to make that mistake again... and again... and again...

[DanieMarie]

Re: Parental rights

Just because Germany did sh*tty things in the past doesn't mean it has to let everyone do anything they want at the expense of other citizens and residents in the country.

The point is, lines have to be drawn. Personal freedom shouldn't come at the expense of other people, even if those people are your own children. The law needs to create a balance between personal freedoms and the collective freedoms of everyone else in society. Religion is part of that just like everything else. Religion doesn't give you a free pass to take away other people's rights, especially the right to live.

[Thothur]

Re: Parental rights

Germany is a different matter all together. The state frequently makes calls on health care issues with little regard to anyone's religious beliefs. They've pissed off most groups in recent years, and they don't really care.

I wouldn't exactly be using historical precedence of what the state does and does not do as justification or a clarion call for anything, especially since it's Germany. Most atrocities are state sanctioned. And historically when a state doesn't give a rip about anyone's religious beliefs leads to all kinds of unfun things. Russia and Germany should be the first to remember that.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Parental rights

Ye and the prior poster who made comment on this couldn't have missed the point I was making any further if ye tried. :P Not only did ye miss the point entirely, yer like on the next planet over.

I originally said

I was referring to Pagans in general, and how they've been persecuted throughout the ages. And how this was a place for such people to find refuge, companionship, and friendship. I wasn't referring specifically to YOU or any other individual member who may or may not feel 'persecuted'. If you aren't being persecuted, then feel blessed. Try wearing a Pagan themed t-shirt in the south in any major city and see how long it takes for someone to walk up to you and say something.

I know that you weren't specifically referring to anyone, but not everyone takes past persecutions that seriously or comes here to find religious acceptance. Some just want to talk shop and ask a few questions.

I don't think it's persecution if you hold the same beliefs for ALL people. I for one think that neglect to provide life-saving medical care to your child should be illegal for everyone, regardless of what their beliefs are. This includes if you give your kid a non-tested, non-founded herbal remedy and your kid dies. I might believe herbal remedies are better in some cases, but I also don't think it's a good idea to rely on them when it comes to life and death, and to do so with my child. I don't think anyone else should either.

I may be biased based on the fact that I'm not from the US....people tend to see personal rights very differently here and in Canada (where I grew up). In Canada parents do have the right to decide medical care, based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; however, this can be overruled in cases of life or death in the name of child welfare. Children in Canada also have the right and ability to see doctors and get prescriptions on their own without a parent or guardian present. In these cases, the doctor makes the call and decides if the child understands risks and consequences of medication and treatments.

Germany is a different matter all together. The state frequently makes calls on health care issues with little regard to anyone's religious beliefs. They've pissed off most groups in recent years, and they don't really care.