Loyalty to the State

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 03:34
VIEWED: 19263
PAGE 26 of 27

PREV PAGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
IF we had universal health insurance.... which we don't... we could have well-baby nurse visits: at one moth, six months, and yearly until the age of 5.

This will be mandatory, of course, and include a (warrantless) search of your home for possible dangers to the child (the definition of 'dangers' being left up to the government). And if you miss a couple of appointments, or ask a nurse to leave because you don't like their attitude, the SWAT team shows up and takes your child. So now you're a registered child abuser and, if not jailed, subject to 24/7 monitoring and restricted from living too close to schools or having any contact with your kids. You know you've done nothing wrong, but you don't complain because, after all, it's for the children.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:25 PM

Hey Geezer, thanks for stepping in and trying to divert the discussion away from the question. Which, I note, so far nobody has had the BALLS to answer directly except Rue and myself:

Are you willing to do something to prevent young children from being abused by their parents? Yes or no?

From YOUR tactic I think your view is "No, not willing to do anything." You're just too chicken shit to say it out loud.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

RUE

Sunday, March 30, 2008 2:22 PM

The more interesting thing - which puts his reply into the category of 'phony outrage' as far as I'm concerned - is that this snit over government comes from a guy who's got no problem with any other type of government intrusion or power - the US PATRIOT Act, illegal wiretaps, torture, tasers - it's all good as far as he's concerned.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 30, 2008 2:52 PM

Sarge, Frem, CTS, BDN et al. Let me be clear about the point of this question: Are you willing to do something to prevent young children from being abused by their parents? Yes or no?.

It's not a trick question. If you answer "Yes, we should do something" that doesn't mean that you automatically agree to anything that anyone has proposed. That simply opens up the discussion to "What, how much, and why?"

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Are you willing to do something to prevent young children from being abused by their parents? Yes or no?
From YOUR tactic I think your view is "No, not willing to do anything." You're just too chicken shit to say it out loud.

Sarge was right, this isn't a simple black and white issue like you seem to want to frame it.
I would assume that all Posters want to prevent child abuse. However, I thought you and Rue would be able to see the end of the slippery slop better than most, given your dislike of the present administration.
Let's pretend that there is a U.S. anti-child abuse act much like the U.S. Patriot act. At it's inception, most hail it as a much needed tool in the fight against the scourge that is child abuse. Then slowly but surely, those among us who think they know better, add to and tweak this act so the Government can have more intrusive powers over your family.
You seem to think any amount of time and or money should be used to prevent child abuse. Other's think any amount of time and or money should be used to prevent terrorism. Both involve the deaths of innocents. Does that mean I can peg you as a frothing at the mouth fundamentalist like you have done to others in past discussions? Are you too close to this discussion to see the other side of the coin? Am I a monster because I am not willing to sacrifice my liberty because of the small minority of bad parents? Are you a monster for not wanting to sacrifice your liberty to spare the small minority of lives lost to acts of terrorism? Or are there simply more than two ways of looking at things and more than two ways of achieving those stated goals?

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:45 PM

I'm not trying to frame it as black or white, my last post explicitly says so. YOU'RE the one who keeps framing it as an either/or issue. So, let's all start with the assumption that

1) All posters WANT to prevent child abuse. The question is: Are you willing to DO something about it? And I don't mean "any" amount as in "endless" amount, I mean "some" amount.

2) Furthermore, let us stipulate that no system is perfect.

The question remains: If so, what, how much, and why or why not?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

GEEZER

Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hey Geezer, thanks for stepping in and trying to divert the discussion away from the question. Which, I note, so far nobody has had the BALLS to answer directly except Rue and myself:

Are you willing to do something to prevent young children from being abused by their parents? Yes or no?

The answer to your question is, as usual, "It depends." In this case it depends on what the 'do something' is. Also depends on whether your interpretation of 'do something' is 'do anything possible.' Your line of argument seems to be that anyone not willing to do absolutely everything to prevent abuse supports doing nothing at all. I was giving an example of what doing 'everything' could lead to.

A more apt question would be, "What steps do you think we, as a society, should take to prevent young children from being abused by their parents (or others)?"

Or, "What actions can we take to identify possible abuse without unduly interfering with non-abusive parents' right to raise their own children as they see fit?"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:58 PM

Quote:
The answer to your question is, as usual, "It depends." In this case it depends on what the 'do something' is

And what is YOUR answer to that question?

Quote:
It also depends on whether your interpretation of 'do something' is 'do anything possible.'

WHAT did I just write, Geezer? Can you not read?I said

Quote:
I don't mean "any" amount as in "endless" amount, I mean "some" amount.

Now, will someone have the balls to answer the question?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, March 30, 2008 5:47 PM

Are you willing to do something to prevent terrorists from attacking america? Yes or no?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?

It's the same exact bullshit, from the same playbook.

And it doesn't even deserve an answer.

It's not even a question, just another lead-in to yet another rant about how we should hand over our rights, responsibilities and sacred duties to the almighty State, which historically, you know, does such a GOOD job of them, right ?
(*sarcasm*)

Ain't no one willing to discuss it with you, cause you chose to engage in the exact same 'dishonest debate tactics' you spent so much time vilifying.

And now you're facing the Anarchist response to such problems, to simply refuse to communicate, associate, or trade with someone who has so offended them.

RUE

Sunday, March 30, 2008 5:49 PM

Now how did I know you were going to say this ?

This is a post I wrote a long time ago, just waiting for someone to step up with the usual:

No doubt they would like to say this an unfair question like "when did you stop beating your wife?" The thing is the question "when did you stop beating your wife" becomes a fair question if, in fact, the person really did beat their wife. So this is the conundrum they are up against. If they answer the question "well, as a matter of fact I stopped beating her a year ago yesterday" it's a backhanded admission. OTOH if they say "I'm still beating her, and I'll beat her tomorrow if I want" it's an admission.

Or to be more specific, if they say "we need to do something like - community involvement and parental support" it's a back-handed admission that leaving it as an individual choice doesn't work. OTOH if they say "kids will be abused today and kids will be abused tomorrow and I don't care to do anything about it" it's an admission of a different kind of failure.

***************************************************************
You see Frem, it IS a fair question if it addresses a fact, as it very much does. Just b/c it's an uncomfortable question for which you don't have an answer doesn't make it unfair.

PREV PAGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NEXT PAGE