Senators line up to tell U.N. to leave kids alone 31 already committed to oppose treaty giving world

reply to post by oniongrass


Does it help if I say that the State is analogous to a foster parent? Or are foster parents and adoptive parents illegitimate? I assume that you will find this much more agreeable.

I have no idea what youre talking about when you mention strawmen.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by oniongrass

 

Does it help if I say that the State is analogous to a foster parent? Or are foster parents and adoptive parents illegitimate? I assume that you will find this much more agreeable.

I have no idea what youre talking about when you mention strawmen.

I don't have a lot of opinions of the rights of foster parents. I've been fortunate that they have not had a role in my family. I'm sure ther are many who do a lot to help kids who are in a tough spot. But I'm not a foster parent to my children and don't try to equate me to one.

I'm not surprised that you have no idea about the strawmen. But it wouldn't hurt you to find out. Be prepared for a paradigm-shattering experience once you start to understand it. Our legal system is somewhat like a big amusement park!

Originally posted by oniongrass

Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

Its the same old codsbogglers. Wait until the anti gun Lobbyists read the treaty, it can be read so many ways to suit. ...

I love the way you use the English language!

Yes that is a problem if, under the treaty, children have to have gun rights if parents do. That would create an impossible situation, a real nose under the tent that could upend the 2nd Amendment. Clever aren't they?

well thank you I am sure there is some slippage.

yes very smart cookies no?
lets see what some of those noble senators will read into it when it suits such as protecting children AGAINST armed conflict even in times of peace.

regarding child sex abuse,
Questions regarding known paedophiles in the House of Commons

In 1999 a UK operation (ORE), targeting online paedophiles was enacted and resulted in finding thousands of suspects. In early 2003, British police began to close in on some top suspects in the Operation Ore investigation, including senior members of Blair's government. However, Blair issued a D-Notice, resulting in a gag order on the press from publishing any details of the investigation. Blair cited the impending war in Iraq as a reason for the D-Notice. Police also discovered links between British Labour government paedophile suspects and the trafficking of children for purposes of prostitution from Belgium and Portugal (including young boys from the Casa Pia orphanage in Portugal).

Oh yes thats right Tony Blair ...nice man no?

reply to post by BANANAMONTANA


They don't get to those positions if they are normal decent human beings. They don't have the same reactions you and I do. They have different masters. If you prick them I suppose they bleed, but that's about the extent of the similarity.

reply to post by oniongrass


Do you think that foster/adoptive parents should have the same rights as biological parents?

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by oniongrass

 

Do you think that foster/adoptive parents should have the same rights as biological parents?

As I more or less said already, I don't have a well thought out opinion on it, but I guess my view is that adoptive parents are the same as biological parents. Legally they are approximately the same. They've taken on the lifetime responsibility as the parents of the child.

Foster parents are not the same. A foster home is considered a temporary stopping place for the kid until a more permanent arrangement can be found, for example return to the biological parents, or adoption. Some foster parents eventually adopt the kids. I've read the heartbreaking tale of foster parents who were tricked into believing they would be able to adopt the kid they had bonded with, but for reasons that sounded pretty corrupt, the child was ripped away once they had, for example, helped cure the kid's drug addiction it had received from its biological mother. Foster parenting is a different situation, a tough spot.

Maybe the UN rules should apply to foster parents. I don't really know, and I don't know much about foster parenting.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by oniongrass]

reply to post by oniongrass

Then I ask you again: if biological or adoptive parents should have rights over their children, like power of attorney, shouldn't the state have rights over their citizens?

If you are defending the right of parents to dictate their children's lives, then you are an authoritarian. If you do not support the state's right to dictate their own dependents' lives, then you shouldn't support the parent's rights against the child.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


The third time, and the answer is the same. The state is not to a human, as a biological parent is to a child.

No matter how you try to reframe it, and solicit tentative opinions peripheral to the subject to twist as if they were firm opinions about the subject itself, that's my answer.

Now stop trying any more times and go read about strawmen. You're on a conspiracy website here, there should be plenty of good stuff and links.

reply to post by oniongrass


I'm not arguing that the state deserves parental rights. I am saying that if you do not want children to have rights guaranteed by law, to protect them from the parents to whom they are utterly subject, then you should not want citizens to have rights under law to protect them from the state to whom they are utterly subject. The same moral principle underlies each.

I want you to see that children do deserve to be protected from their parents by law, although your children may not need to exercise that protection. I suppose I could be wrong in assuming that you have a certain rationale for opposing state authoritarianism. Maybe you think that only the state should exercise its power responsibly. That would explain why you seem to reject children's rights.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by oniongrass

 

I'm not arguing that the state deserves parental rights....

Actually you were, but I'm glad if you are not any more.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Please. How petty and childish. Do you really believe someone making an argument for a point of view is trying to do your thinking for you?

No. This is what you said:

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

It sure doesnt take much for the politicians to distract the public, does it?

The more important issue, of allowing corporations to fund presidential elections with impunity, goes right under the radar of all these politicians so concerned with protecting American liberties. And of course your average American cant prioritize what is important to our society unless the TV tells them whats important.

"Oh noes Americans! The International community wrote up something years ago that we havent ratified, but this is an EMERGENCY and we 30 politicians who just so happen to need your vote are all over it, several years later but conveniently right before the election. Disregard the fact that we are allowing things to pass that legitimately threaten the very democracy you live in, and undermine your legitimate Constitutional rights! THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!"

You belittle and patronize with this:

And of course your average American cant prioritize what is important to our society unless the TV tells them whats important.

Telling us that we are unable to think for ourselves without a TV (which I don't have, which is why I need YOU in the world), and set our proper priorities here:

The more important issue, of allowing corporations to fund presidential elections with impunity

Thanks for that, but I believe I'll set my own priorities, and that ain't one of 'em.

Funny, that particular prioritization has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread ("Senators line up to tell the U.N. to leave kids alone...") either...

Isn't there an election finance thread anywhere? If there isn't you could always start one!

reply to post by oniongrass


I was arguing that, if you think children should not be protected from their parents by law, then you should not think that citizens should be protected from their government by law. Because you obviously believed the one but not the other, I was pointing out that your positions contradicted each other and that you should change your opinion about one or the other.

Should tomatoes be protected from onions by law? It matters what the protector and protectee are when you fill in the blanks in the sentence. Now can we stop this silliness?

[edit on 24-8-2010 by oniongrass]

reply to post by nenothtu


Was I talking to you? Was my post in reply to you? I dont think so. But you sure did take it personally, didnt you. Most people who didnt fit that category would not have gotten so hot about it. Clearly, this struck a chord with you.

Im sorry you felt condescended too. Put me on ignore and you wont have to feel that way. Or just dont read my posts. But dont expect me to modify my writing style to suit you. It aint gonna happen.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


No, your post was ABOUT me. I'm an American, and average American, which is the people you were lambasting. Maybe someone at ATS will welcome your prioritization of issues for them, but I'm not one of those people. You don't like that, don't generalize in an open forum.

Now if you were saying about me things that you wouldn't say to me, per your questions of "was I taking to you?", then that's fine. We have a name for folks like that where I'm from, but I won't bore you with it. We do, however, generally avoid them, unless they have something to say about us. Then we speak our peace and go on.

Which I'm doing.

I'm not here to indulge your anger management issues. You want a fight, find a bar - if you're old enough to do so, that is.

And STILL you have managed to avoid the topic of the thread, so I'm pretty much done with you now.

reply to post by oniongrass


Why do you think the state should not have absolute authority over its subjects?

reply to post by TarzanBeta

However, the reason should not be based on whether he is at an age of reason. The age of reason crap is just that - crap. It doesn't matter whether someone KNOWS they are doing something wrong or not - especially murder.

Ok. I guess I can respect your opinion but you know science and doctors really need soem sort of parameters and so they come up with this stuff based on careful studies of many average children. Of course there are exceptions but for purposes of the courts and the laws and so people can arrive at judgments and determine whether or not a person can be deemed morally and legally responsible...this is what we have.
I am not arguing with you but telling you what the law says and the law will typically be based on some verifiable or provable fact.

reply to post by TarzanBeta

I believe you have a good heart to the extent that you want people to think you have a good heart and you do all these things selfishly and without thought.

Thank you for this. I wish I were that altruistic or even cared what people thought. I do not. It is a problem for companions who do however.

I understand what tears a person down, what hurts and is physically or mentally harmful. I do not go too far if I recognize pain, and hope to spare others from it.
If someone or something is being hurt I can sometimes drag myself away so as not to get involved but I cannot watch someone take a whipping without feeling the whip myself.

I think this is just "being human" and if you do not feel pain when another person is experiencing pain right in front of you.... you are less than human... emotionally.

Look what happened to the Music Insustry when they gave kids all the power.....

There is a reason 8,9,10 year olds don't make important decisions...

It's because 99% of them don't make the correct ones....

o why give power to all children.....that is like giving power to the dumb of the dumb....

Awful idea and it's their way of controlling the parents now.

they will manipulate kids into thinking they have tons of power and are being wronged and kids will start getting parents in jail for grounding them or not letting them go to prom or stay out late..

Kid B " my mom only got me a honda" ......Gov " well Mr.A...i see you make $500,000 a year. surely you can afford more than a honda....you must by her a Cadillac or you will go to jail for 90 days "


This WILL happen........rich kids will abuse this and bring their whole families empires down........Rich families on outskirts of being "in" will be brought down..

Bad kids will be given power.......kids will lie to get their way...

People will stop having kids..........The population will decrease...

They think this will work....do you see how dumb THEY are ?????????