Logan, I think you misunderstand me. Even if someone has no money, they could still get a license to raise their kids. They just have to show up, take the training, and pass the exam. Mostly it would involve social workers and such making sure they weren't pieces of shit. The only money anyone would have to pay would be if they had kids, and they were also douchebags who would just raise more douchebags. To make this deal even sweeter, we can take the money from douchebags, rich or poor, who shouldn't be raising kids, and give it to poor people who passed the exam.
Honestly, I think parents should be given some sort of incentive to attend a parenting seminars or classes yearly, maybe an additional tax break. I also think year round schooling would help. It not only provides more constructive learning time and compensates some for bad parenting by continually providing strong role models, daily behavior coaching, and close monitoring of needs throughout the day.
We already have a system that can remove children from parents who are negligent and/or abusive. I would contend that a parent who doesn't encourage their child's education, or is actively counter-productive in said child's education, is effectively being a negligent parent. Should we remove children from parents who create an environment that is counter-productive to that child's education, even if they're in all other respects a "good" parent?
We already have a system that can remove children from parents who are negligent and/or abusive. I would contend that a parent who doesn't encourage their child's education, or is actively counter-productive in said child's education, is effectively being a negligent parent. Should we remove children from parents who create an environment that is counter-productive to that child's education, even if they're in all other respects a "good" parent?
The system in place for the children once removed is horrible. Would you take children from a somewhat stable (if not enlightened) environment and place them in a much less stable environment? We first need to fix our child and family service programs that seems structured to screw people that want to help and rob children of what little stability they once had.
Well, take a look at what happened in Nebraska. They, accidentally, gave people the opportunity to get rid of their kids, and a surprising number took advantage of it. Some, understandably.
We use to have asylums and orphanages. We decided to get rid of those things because of how horrible they were. And believe me, they were horrible. The result is that now people with mental problems are now homeless and roam the streets. Kids with problems, or kids with problem parents, have almost nowhere to go.
We need orphanages, asylums, etc. to take care of these people. It was a huge mistake to close them. Instead, we should have just fixed them. Asylums don't have to be horrible places full of abuse. Orphanages don't have to be horrible nasty places where kids are fed gruel. They can be nice places, if we pay for it. From the looks of what happened in Nebraska, we seriously need them.
One would think that incentives would be a good way of doing this, however I'm not sure if this would breed more corruption (and child abuse) into the system then it's worth. "You got a B, it's time for the belt young man because you worthless ass lost me 500 dollars (or a six pack of beer)".
These were my thoughts. These incentives would mainly be aimed at the 'bad parents' who don't care. It's not that much of a stretch to imagine these same parents abusing their children if they don't get the grades (or whatever) so that the parents can get these benefits.
I'm not complaining, merely observing. It's a fun word.
A douche is just a shower though. I never saw the fun in the 'derogatory' usage.
I like the idea of a Child Safety course akin to a Driver Safety course. You don't have to go, but it's a good idea if you do. You can teach about more then just parenting. Things like how to deal with diaper rash and what are some signs that your child may have something serious. Once they get older deal with other more complicated topics. A tax rebate would be a good incentive.
You can do it every 5 years and have each class designed for the age group you're parenting(0-4, 5-9,10-15, 16-20). This way you give out some new information and get a chance to check in to see how the parents are doing. Make people fill out of test. Also, have the test written by a child psychologist to see if they are just faking it. If they fail the test, then have someone from Child Protective services do an on site visit.
Personal note: People who drive like D-bags with kids in their car should be charged with Child Endangerment. F*ing seriously, I work near a hospital and yesterday I had some ass clown pull out to cut around both lanes to cut me off for no good reason. I get that all the time. Albany is full of jack offs. BUT he had a new born in the back seat. That pissed me off...
We already have a system that can remove children from parents who are negligent and/or abusive. I would contend that a parent who doesn't encourage their child's education, or is actively counter-productive in said child's education, is effectively being a negligent parent. Should we remove children from parents who create an environment that is counter-productive to that child's education, even if they're in all other respects a "good" parent?
The system in place for the children once removed is horrible. Would you take children from a somewhat stable (if not enlightened) environment and place them in a much less stable environment? We first need to fix our child and family service programs that seems structured to screw people that want to help and rob children of what little stability they once had.
Oh, I know Child Protective Services is all manner of fucked up.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we could devise a child protection system that wasn't terrible. Would you then support using such a system to move a child from a less "enlightened" environment to a more "enlightened" one? Assume that financial stability and care capacity are the same; the only difference between the original parents and the foster parents would be the degree of enlightenment. Would such a variable be sufficient grounds for removal?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we could devise a child protection system that wasn't terrible. Would you then support using such a system to move a child from a less "enlightened" environment to a more "enlightened" one? Assume that financial stability and care capacity are the same; the only difference between the original parents and the foster parents would be the degree of enlightenment. Would such a variable be sufficient grounds for removal?
We would have to define a level of enlightenment that counts as a "sufficient". I would say it is ok to move kids from insufficient conditions into sufficient ones. If a kid is in a sufficient situation, it would not be necessary to move them to a more sufficient situation. The hope would be that over time, these kids would become parents. And thus, over the generations we could raise the bar of sufficiency.
We need orphanages, asylums, etc. to take care of these people. It was a huge mistake to close them. Instead, we should have just fixed them. Asylums don't have to be horrible places full of abuse. Orphanages don't have to be horrible nasty places where kids are fed gruel. They can be nice places, if we pay for it. From the looks of what happened in Nebraska, we seriously need them.
Orphanages (now called youth homes) and asylums (now called mental hospitals, group homes, and therapy facilities) still exist - and a lot of them are still horrible. One of the worst things that can happen to any kid is going to a youth home. The problem isn't a lack of these facilities, it is the fact that these facilities suck and that in home foster care is usually a better option. Lack of decent people willing to be foster parents (owing to issues with children and the minimal financial aid they receive to help care for the kids) and the fact that kids in various child protection services just disappear is a bigger problem. The biggest problem is that the parents can't afford children, aren't educated enough to raise them well, have illnesses, or are in some way unfit to care for their own children. Cure the disease rather than catering to symptoms exclusively.
Orphanages (now called youth homes) and asylums (now called mental hospitals, group homes, and therapy facilities) still exist - and a lot of them are still horrible. One of the worst things that can happen to any kid is going to a youth home.
I agree. But they don't have to be horrible. They can be good. We just don't make it happen for whatever reason.
The biggest problem is that the parents can't afford children, aren't educated enough to raise them well, have illnesses, or are in some way unfit to care for their own children. Cure the disease rather than catering to symptoms exclusively.
Absolutely. However, in this case I feel that curing the symptoms does sort of cure the disease, in a way. The shitty parents of the future are the children of shitty parents today. If we prevent shitty people from being parents today, that's fewer shitty parents in the future.
We would have to define a level of enlightenment that counts as a "sufficient". I would say it is ok to move kids from insufficient conditions into sufficient ones. If a kid is in a sufficient situation, it would not be necessary to move them to a more sufficient situation. The hope would be that over time, these kids would become parents. And thus, over the generations we could raise the bar of sufficiency.
I agree. Defining "sufficient" is always the tricky part. I can only imagine some sort of government regulation as to what constitutes "sufficient," and you'd get a huge backlash trying to implement something like that. Everybody think they're a good parent, so defining any level of "sufficiency" is going to piss people off.
The biggest problem is that the parents can't afford children, aren't educated enough to raise them well, have illnesses, or are in some way unfit to care for their own children. Cure the disease rather than catering to symptoms exclusively.
I would say not being able to afford children and not being educated enough are somewhat related; generally speaking, if you're educated enough to raise children, you'd be educated enough to know when you can't afford them. The real question is whether or not it's possible to turn "bad" parents into "good" ones. Can we educate a full-formed adult enough to understand how to raise a child properly, or do we need to instill this knowledge from an earlier age?
EDIT: What Scott said. You have to start somewhere.
Orphanages (now called youth homes) and asylums (now called mental hospitals, group homes, and therapy facilities) still exist - and a lot of them are still horrible. One of the worst things that can happen to any kid is going to a youth home.
I agree. But they don't have to be horrible. They can be good. We just don't make it happen for whatever reason.
The biggest problem is that the parents can't afford children, aren't educated enough to raise them well, have illnesses, or are in some way unfit to care for their own children. Cure the disease rather than catering to symptoms exclusively.
Absolutely. However, in this case I feel that curing the symptoms does sort of cure the disease, in a way. The shitty parents of the future are the children of shitty parents today. If we prevent shitty people from being parents today, that's fewer shitty parents in the future.
While I see your point, I do not think that an institution can ever compare to a decent parent/home-life. Class reform combined with greater incentives to become a foster parent or adopt would achieve far more. Unless we make those facilities the equivalent of expensive boarding schools, those kids will be doomed. If we make them the equivalent of expensive boarding schools, then we can afford to do more to work with the parents to improve them and to improve the public education system (which would help even more kids than those with the shittiest of parents).
That article raises a question for me: Are atheists attempting to "convert" believers? For me the answer would be "No, but I will not hide my views if someone else shoves theirs in my face or life."
What this seems to say to me is that the Asshole Christians (That is to say the ones that ruin it for everyone else by being assholes and screaming that because they don't preform Seppuku in the name of our holy biscuit or whatever means they're going to hell or where ever) couldn't get their way when people were complaining about Christmas not being politically correct so now they've decided to aim their targets at Atheists because it's easy to shout at someone who wasn't even fighting in the first fucking place.
That article raises a question for me: Are atheists attempting to "convert" believers? For me the answer would be "No, but I will not hide my views if someone else shoves theirs in my face or life."
Yea, I think it's more of a christian insecurity problem. For example, if a christian asks you what kind of christian you are, and you say "I'm a atheist" suddenly they are going to ask questions, in the end your going to come off like you are trying to convince them that they are incorrect merely by stating your belief because it directly opposes their world view.
Regardless, I am usually trying to subversively convince people when I talk to them ;-p so they are right.
The big thing I see with all this child-rearing business is that all of the solutions presented here aren't practical: in America, at least, one cannot legally enforce that much control over the lives of others. Nor should they. The fact remains that unless we become a stricter, more controlled society, which I know many of us, including myself, are not willing to do, there is no way any of this can possibly happen. A test to raise kids? It would be shot down before the law was drafted. A board to put kids in "better" homes? They'd be viewed as the Gestapo, and rightly so.
The real problem is that you have to think of a solution that would fit into the society we have created. As Rym is always pointing out on the show, with civil liberties comes the possibility of harm. Sure, we could take away the right to have children, or limit it, but again, the exchange we make to have the right to raise a child is the possibility of people raising kids poorly. One must offer incentives, as MacRoss is championing, so that more douchebag parents stop their douchebaggery, but you cannot force it. Would you be willing to embrace a fascist society to eliminate bad parenting? Because that is what it would take to make these ideas feasible.
As far as Mrs. Macross' question is concerned, I find it typical that the Church continues to persecute and destroy any threats to their power. Things haven't really advanced since the time of the Plague in that regard.
I actively try to convert. The difference between evangelical religion and evangelical atheism is that one is demonstrably harmful.
This is funny. Evangelical religion causes all sorts of bad, the least of which is people giving money to scam-artist preacher people on TV. The worst that ever happened from pushing atheism is an argument or two.
Is there really an atheist "War on Christmas" or war on any other holiday? I thought the actions that instigated Fox's coining of the term was that "Happy Holidays" was being used in businesses rather than "Merry Christmas." This isn't a product of atheists that do not have organized holidays (as far as I know), this is a result of other major religions having holidays around the same time and not wanting to offend those customers.
Does any atheist here really want to war against any particular holiday? I like Christmas, personally. Heck, I like any excuse to celebrate with my family. It isn't even about religion for a lot of people any more, it is just a fun tradition with food gifts, music, and a touching bedtime story about a baby in a barn and the idea that humans should aspire to be kind, loving, and persevering.
The worst that ever happened from pushing atheism is an argument or two.
Actually, I believe the worst that ever happened from pushing atheism would have been the violent suppression of religion that occurred under various communist regimes (Mongolia, the USSR), several of which attempted to enforce state atheism with a zeal matching that of the theocracy of your choice.
The problem is the method, not the ideology behind it. If there were some form of evangelical scam-artist atheists asking for your money, they'd be just as bad as the evangelical scam-artist Christians.
Any politician, activist group, public figure, or anyone really suggesting that in Australia would be absolutely dragged over hot coals - if you just swap "religion" for "race/culture" then you've got the Stolen Generations.
I didn't even know about that. That is horrendous. It is weird that the article says that the reasoning of the program is in question, particularly since it ended in the late sixties. A lot of those people and kids are alive, why can't you just ask them?
The worst that ever happened from pushing atheism is an argument or two.
Actually, I believe the worst that ever happened from pushing atheism would have been the violent suppression of religion that occurred under various communist regimes (Mongolia, theUSSR), several of which attempted to enforce state atheism with a zeal matching the theocracy of your choice.
The problem is the method, not the ideology behind it. If there were some form of evangelical scam-artist atheists asking for your money, they'd be just as bad as the evangelical scam-artist Christians.
I think this is not rooted in atheism but Stalin's hatred of the clergy. Atheism does not decree any adverse behavior against theists in any manner while many religions do just that against non-believers. Stalin adopted both atheism and a deep hatred of the clergy after his tenure at a seminary from which he was expelled.
I think this is not rooted in atheism but Stalin's hatred of the clergy. Atheism does not decree any adverse behavior against theists in any manner while many religions do just that against non-believers. Stalin adopted both atheism and a deep hatred of the clergy after his tenure at a seminary from which he was expelled.
Atheism doesn't decree anything. Period. It is not a doctrine or a dogma.
Comments
We use to have asylums and orphanages. We decided to get rid of those things because of how horrible they were. And believe me, they were horrible. The result is that now people with mental problems are now homeless and roam the streets. Kids with problems, or kids with problem parents, have almost nowhere to go.
We need orphanages, asylums, etc. to take care of these people. It was a huge mistake to close them. Instead, we should have just fixed them. Asylums don't have to be horrible places full of abuse. Orphanages don't have to be horrible nasty places where kids are fed gruel. They can be nice places, if we pay for it. From the looks of what happened in Nebraska, we seriously need them.
You can do it every 5 years and have each class designed for the age group you're parenting(0-4, 5-9,10-15, 16-20). This way you give out some new information and get a chance to check in to see how the parents are doing. Make people fill out of test. Also, have the test written by a child psychologist to see if they are just faking it. If they fail the test, then have someone from Child Protective services do an on site visit.
Personal note: People who drive like D-bags with kids in their car should be charged with Child Endangerment. F*ing seriously, I work near a hospital and yesterday I had some ass clown pull out to cut around both lanes to cut me off for no good reason. I get that all the time. Albany is full of jack offs. BUT he had a new born in the back seat. That pissed me off...
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we could devise a child protection system that wasn't terrible. Would you then support using such a system to move a child from a less "enlightened" environment to a more "enlightened" one? Assume that financial stability and care capacity are the same; the only difference between the original parents and the foster parents would be the degree of enlightenment. Would such a variable be sufficient grounds for removal?
The problem isn't a lack of these facilities, it is the fact that these facilities suck and that in home foster care is usually a better option. Lack of decent people willing to be foster parents (owing to issues with children and the minimal financial aid they receive to help care for the kids) and the fact that kids in various child protection services just disappear is a bigger problem. The biggest problem is that the parents can't afford children, aren't educated enough to raise them well, have illnesses, or are in some way unfit to care for their own children. Cure the disease rather than catering to symptoms exclusively.
EDIT: What Scott said. You have to start somewhere.
For me the answer would be "No, but I will not hide my views if someone else shoves theirs in my face or life."
Regardless, I am usually trying to subversively convince people when I talk to them ;-p so they are right.
The real problem is that you have to think of a solution that would fit into the society we have created. As Rym is always pointing out on the show, with civil liberties comes the possibility of harm. Sure, we could take away the right to have children, or limit it, but again, the exchange we make to have the right to raise a child is the possibility of people raising kids poorly. One must offer incentives, as MacRoss is championing, so that more douchebag parents stop their douchebaggery, but you cannot force it. Would you be willing to embrace a fascist society to eliminate bad parenting? Because that is what it would take to make these ideas feasible.
Does any atheist here really want to war against any particular holiday? I like Christmas, personally. Heck, I like any excuse to celebrate with my family. It isn't even about religion for a lot of people any more, it is just a fun tradition with food gifts, music, and a touching bedtime story about a baby in a barn and the idea that humans should aspire to be kind, loving, and persevering.
The problem is the method, not the ideology behind it. If there were some form of evangelical scam-artist atheists asking for your money, they'd be just as bad as the evangelical scam-artist Christians.