Advice and Support from Thousands of Users Just Like You

Politics Left? Right? Liberal? Conservative? How does politics and the social values you hold affect dating and relationships?

Reply
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
notyet notyet is offline
notyet's Avatar

notyet it's alive!

Virtuoso

Join Date: Nov 2008

Posts: 3,225

See profile

............
Last edited by notyet; November 3rd, 2009 at 02:57 pm. Reason: duplicate posting because of moderation- see below
- November 2nd, 2009, 08:13 am
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#11   Reply With Quote
notyet notyet is offline
notyet's Avatar

notyet it's alive!

Virtuoso

Join Date: Nov 2008

Posts: 3,225

See profile

meri75 wrote :
...I do believe government intervention is sometimes necessary...
sorry meri- we need less government intervention in the lives of citizens and more citizen intervention in the operation of government.

meri75 wrote :
...it could be used in situations where the child is clearly at risk due to the neglect or abuse of the parent(s)...
the problem with this approach is that the government is the one defining "clearly at risk" and "neglect" and "abuse." i am not anti-child. but having gone through the @n@! exam offered by cps in new york state because of the contentious divorce laws there and having watched the abuse of my children at the hands of the system- i'd say government has no clue as to what truly defines child abuse.

at the end of the day, most of the time the parent family knows what is best for the child. those in government are paid to "care." and at the end of the day they do what they do for a pay check. i do what i do for love. and if you want to take a biological view- the continuation of my dna.

i had more than one bureaucrat (educational, social worker, pick one/another) tell me how much they cared for my child and only wanted what was best for them. "they" were there for my child. but they got payed to care. i told more than one. "you may or may not be involved in the life of my child for a year or two- i will be involved, god willing, until i die."

and in the end, bureaucrats need clients- they need people in the system. no (or fewer) abused children- no agency or fewer jobs. do not kid yourselves. these people need "abused children" to stay in a job.

yes i have an axe to grind and yes it is a sore point. i am bitter and have no intention of ever letting this go. again- we need less government interference in the lives of the people and more people interfering in the "affairs" of government.
Last edited by notyet; November 2nd, 2009 at 08:14 am. Reason: had a word hang in moderation...
- November 2nd, 2009, 08:14 am
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#12   Reply With Quote
notyet notyet is offline
notyet's Avatar

notyet it's alive!

Virtuoso

Join Date: Nov 2008

Posts: 3,225

See profile

graceventually wrote :
.....aaand, speaking of marriage licenses, the fiance and I are getting ours within the week
congrats- but that is another government control that has outlived its usefulness- if it was ever useful...

but i do hope again one day to be where you find yourself now.

sincerely, good luck and best wishes to you and the lucky man. let me be the first to kiss the bride... mwah!

<):-X
- November 2nd, 2009, 08:22 am
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#13   Reply With Quote
D_Lion D_Lion is offline
D_Lion's Avatar

D_Lion - Ladies want to wring my neck - you have been warned!

Sage

Join Date: Aug 2008

Posts: 11,059

See profile

justme27 wrote :
These kind of ideas, regulating human behavior by limiting human behavior, are not new but are a reflection of a current trend in the states, especially by individuals who feel they are being burdened by the actions of others. Intuitively, I know the solution and the cause of the solution are unrealistic, self-serving, and at times delusional.

A driver's license exists not to prevent people from driving but to ensure that adequate driving exists on the roadways. Also, a driver's license exists because it is enforceable. Also, a driver's license is equitable meaning that regardless of social class, ethnicity or religion someone can attain it. A marriage license exists not to prevent marriage but to ensure that both parties are aware that their commitment is a legally enforceable contract. Also, a marriage contract is enforceable. Also a marriage license is becoming equitable more and more people are being included in the process. Any good license at it's chore is not preventative, rather it serves the purpose of ensuring some sort of societal conduct will be upheld as well as being enforceable as well as being equitable.

A parent license would by its very definition be preventative--that would be it's sole purpose. Adequate financial means, two-parent home, or some sort of competency test will not and has not been proven scientifically to guarantee children will be raised properly--if being a law-abiding productive citizen is considered proper. The purpose would be to exclude people from the process based again on measures that serve one segment of the community but not all segments of the community.

A parent license is not enforceable morally or legally. Without forced sterilization, forced abortion or forced adoption there is no way to ensure that people will be able to abide by the law.

Finally, a parenting license is not equitable as it will exclude by social class and maybe other factors.


You do realize you failed to make a single point undermining the OP?

Every single idea expressed in this post supports the "child license" more, not less, than it supports other accepted forms of licensing.
- November 2nd, 2009, 04:41 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#14   Reply With Quote
justme27 justme27 is offline
justme27's Avatar

Quick Study

Join Date: Feb 2009

Posts: 100

See profile

D_Lion wrote :
You do realize you failed to make a single point undermining the OP?

Every single idea expressed in this post supports the "child license" more, not less, than it supports other accepted forms of licensing.
You say that but don't prove it. So, prove it. Otherwise, your post lacks the substance necessary to defend itself.
- November 2nd, 2009, 05:41 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#15   Reply With Quote

ADVERTISEMENT

Jacquesne Jacquesne is online now
Jacquesne's Avatar

Jacquesne knows the answer...42

Volunteer Community Leader

Join Date: May 2008

Posts: 1,287

See profile

Are you sure Lion? I thought those points were pretty clear.

Point 1) You can't regulate human behavior. Trying to outlaw procreation without a license is a hopeless endeavor. Heck China couldn't do it with threat of death.

Point 2) Drivers licenses are available to everyone who has a car and insure basic operation knowledge of the vehicle and basic understanding of road rules. I'll take this argument further and add having a driver's license does not prevent bad drivers nor criminal behavior by drivers which is why over 30% of all deaths in vehicles are alcohol related...and alcohol is repeatedly taught to be illegal while driving in order to get a license. Why would having a "parent license" make anyone a better parent? Because they took a class on how to properly measure baby formula?

Point 3) What criteria would determine who gets to reproduce? Adequate financial situation? So only those with money can have children? So in other words poor people are worse parents? Can you prove that? How is this not discriminatory?

Point 4) How do you enforce such a law? Arrest parents for having a kid without a license? How does that help the kid? Do we give up rights, such as the right to choose whether or not to have a choice to have a child, for such a license? It's a bit easier to take away someone's car than their kid. The car will be fine. The kid not so much.

Point 5) Parenting licenses would be discriminatory by definition because they would exclude certain people from being able to have children. Either that or everyone could get it and it would just be a "child tax."

Oh well. My argument would be that trying to enforce a parent license would be sort of like trying to enforce a "proper bathroom use" license that would train guys how to hit the toilet when drunk or women to avoid clogging toilets with too much toilet paper. Without the license they can't use the bathroom.

Good luck with your "natural human process" license. Just sayin'

Jacquesne
- November 2nd, 2009, 05:55 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#16   Reply With Quote
Rand_011 Rand_011 is offline
Rand_011's Avatar

Enthusiast

Join Date: Jan 2008

Posts: 779

See profile

A license to have children?! Talk about invasion of the bedroom! Either that or forced abortions (which may result in a lot of injured governmental enforcers), or a tax applied (which just hurts the middle class and lower-middle class) ...

In any case ... Such an idea should never come to pass.

If the goal is to weed out people having children for federal support, then just remove the support offered, and they will stop repoducing for said purpose (though I pray that the number of individuals that abuse the system in such a manner currently is miniscule)
- November 2nd, 2009, 06:09 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#17   Reply With Quote
tweet37 tweet37 is offline
tweet37's Avatar

tweet37 has all the tools and can.....satisfy.

Virtuoso

Join Date: Sep 2008

Posts: 3,231

See profile

OK...I'll be the lone dissenter with all of you and side with D_L.

Maybe a solution would be to implant some state of the art lifetime-effective birth control pill when each person is born. Then, upon reaching legal age, you can apply to have it removed after passing a competency test. D_L and I will be the administrators of the test. And saul. That takes the government out of it. Of course the liberals would never go along with this.

I can actually see something like this working. It's not much different from the screening couples would go through with an adoption agency. Why should it be acceptable for people to go through rigorous screening to adopt a child, yet allow incompetent, societal misfits to reproduce willy-nilly?
Last edited by tweet37; November 3rd, 2009 at 05:02 am.
- November 3rd, 2009, 05:00 am
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#18   Reply With Quote
graceventually graceventually is offline
graceventually's Avatar

graceventually is getting ready for the Nov. 28 wedding, and so won't be posting much!

Virtuoso

Join Date: May 2008

Posts: 3,050

See profile

Too true, Jacquesne.

tweet, let's remember that some of the adoption screening is about following the laws of another country. China, for instance, is discouraging single people, gay couples, and overweight people from adopting. Some criteria. I raised a fabulous college freshman as an overweight single parent, and I challenge anyone who thinks they could have done it any better.
- November 3rd, 2009, 06:54 am
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#19   Reply With Quote
meri75 meri75 is offline
meri75's Avatar

meri75 is tired of the freaky weather! :(

Veteran

Join Date: Mar 2009

Posts: 2,264

See profile

notyet wrote :
sorry meri- we need less government intervention in the lives of citizens and more citizen intervention in the operation of government.

Well, the government is made up of citizens. People who work in the government sector are no different to people working in the private sector. I mean, in that we all have aspirations, ambitions, opinions and a personal set of values. Which also means that the laws and processes the government employees are operating with were put in place by citizens.

the problem with this approach is that the government is the one defining "clearly at risk" and "neglect" and "abuse." i am not anti-child. but having gone through the @n@! exam offered by cps in new york state because of the contentious divorce laws there and having watched the abuse of my children at the hands of the system- i'd say government has no clue as to what truly defines child abuse.

I'm not a parent and so do not have first hand experience. Is it possible that the issue you experienced was not so much with the government per se, but with the representatives you got lumbered with for the duration?

Abuse is going to be a tough one, dependant on people's circumstances and experience. My parents believed in physical punishment. Some of the punishments I received are considered abuse today and yet, I don't believe I was abused and I don't feel abused.

But the government needs somewhere to start when it comes to abuse.

at the end of the day, most of the time the parent family knows what is best for the child. those in government are paid to "care." and at the end of the day they do what they do for a pay check. i do what i do for love. and if you want to take a biological view- the continuation of my dna.

I agree. My concern is not for those children who have loving, concerned parents - but for those who do not. For example, if one of your children had been hurt in any way by the government workers, I find it very hard to believe that you would have remained silent. There needs to be a voice for those children whose parents fail them in this regard. And with the complete separation of religion and state - that voice is the government.

i had more than one bureaucrat (educational, social worker, pick one/another) tell me how much they cared for my child and only wanted what was best for them. "they" were there for my child. but they got payed to care. i told more than one. "you may or may not be involved in the life of my child for a year or two- i will be involved, god willing, until i die."

and in the end, bureaucrats need clients- they need people in the system. no (or fewer) abused children- no agency or fewer jobs. do not kid yourselves. these people need "abused children" to stay in a job.

Unfortunately, there are always going to be abused children in the system. Therefore, there needs to be both a system and employees in place to help them.

yes i have an axe to grind and yes it is a sore point. i am bitter and have no intention of ever letting this go. again- we need less government interference in the lives of the people and more people interfering in the "affairs" of government.
This is why although I do not like D_Lion's overall premise, it is tempting to look at it as a hypothetical. I can see both merit and pitfalls.
Last edited by meri75; November 4th, 2009 at 01:03 pm.
- November 3rd, 2009, 02:03 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#20   Reply With Quote

ADVERTISEMENT

Reply
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Bookmarks

« Barak Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize | Array | Prepare to be angry. »
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“I have two family members with celiac, so we've made a lot of accomodations as a family for that. It really hasn't been that difficult, though, since there are so many resources out there now for ... ” – neardc

Join the “Living Gluten Free” discussion

“I like to wrassle with elephants, race ants and swing from vines.  Also I climbed Mt Everest on my lunch break while writing a 7,000 page thesis for Al Gore.  When I'm not reading the whole ... ” – roguewolf1

Join the “To Be Interesting, Have Some Interests” discussion

“It sounds like you are having to "ASK FOR HIS PERMISSION / APPROVAL and that is just not right in my humble male opinion. That makes me think he has little or no respect for you at all. He may be ... ” – Laughingdaily

Join the “Conflict over TV/movie habits.” discussion

“ LOOK OUT!” – PY_2

Join the “Ten Days Of Gratitude - Days 5 and 6” discussion

“ lol i was just pulling your leg. Looks like you guys had a great time. Relax. Just enjoy it.” – PY_2

Join the “always so paranoid” discussion

“Hi Looking, You'll get more of a response if you start a new thread called something like "profile review please" and post the whole thing there. More people will look at it. I like your profile ... ” – Sassafras54

Join the “eHarmony Profile Workshop: Question 1: "What Are You Most Passionate About?"” discussion

“*sigh* Had a great date. Feeling smitty. Whose smitty?” – bigfincat

Join the “Monday November 23rd weekend & date roundup!” discussion

“Wonderwoman, your questions actually brought tears to my eyes. I had to really think about your questions. I really think if this guy hadn't said he was commitment phobic and that he doesn't fall ... ” – charity8987

Join the “Can you prevent yourself from falling for someone?” discussion



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:58 pm.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0