It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 



But if you dare try to enforce your beliefs on me or my child, you will be ignored.


Unfortunately this is the line a lot of self proclaimed Baptist preachers and ministers use to molest their own daughters from the time they are three until they are old enough to learn sex education in high school and finally realize what is happening is wrong. By then they are too ashamed to tell anyone and the cycle is continued because they will unconsciously look for a husband just like daddy and he will do the same to their daughters.

Too bad ignorance isn't painful.




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


As I said in my previous post, I will always accept advice.

I will not accept anyone to -enforce- their beliefs on me.

I'm not sure why you would accept people to enforce their own beliefs on you. But that's not me...



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rusethorcain

Originally posted by Starbug3MY


The age of reason is eight.



Really?

I think that human beings start developing reason pretty quickly... my son is 8 months old and he can reason whether he should climb the coffee table because everytime he does he bonks his head.......so now he usually doesn't do it anymore.

As well, humans never EVER develop the full ability to reason because even full grown adults have a hard time realizing that murdering someone is not a reasonable thing to do.

I am curious about your source for that little snippet of information. I want to know so I can attempt to instill(irony, just in case it needs to be said) some honest thought into what is otherwise an apparently successful scientific institute of some sort.

Edit to fix my quotes.

[edit on 8/23/2010 by TarzanBeta]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Because you live in a legal society and are obliged to follow the laws if you expect others to do the same. Seems like a good reason to me!



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 

Stating the age of reason is 8 is not the case of most 8-year-olds. Many times especially with boys, it takes longer for them to see reason as it should be seen. I would place the true age of reason at about 10 years old these days, or even a little older.
And with all the rampant secular humanism and moral relativity that is forced on them mostly by the public school system, it is probably a miracle that a child can reach the 'tween ages with their conscience in a fairly good state of normalcy.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Because you live in a legal society and are obliged to follow the laws if you expect others to do the same. Seems like a good reason to me!


You don't know where I live or how I live.

As well, I am not obliged to do anything. Everything I do is of my own choice.

If you need to be watched all the time because you don't have a filter in your mind to keep you from doing stupid things, then maybe the legal society is for you.

No one is perfect, but neither will a totalitarian government make people perfect... it will just punish people needlessly...

Mainly because people have a natural right to make mistakes!

I wonder how many mistakes you've made in your life... I wonder how many mistakes these totalitarian suits have made in their own lives?

Who is going to taddle on the suits if they are above everyone else?

This sandbox gets old quick. Back to the grass, man. (Pun not intended as it would seem.)



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Are there laws in your country? Are you expected to follow them? That is a legal society. I assume tht since you can read and write in English, you live in a country that has laws and law enforcement.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
Now that I've read the whole Convention on the Rights of the Child, I will state my opinions:

I find nothing in the convention which would contradict the generally accepted views, policies, or practices already in effect in the United States.


Well then, we've already got it covered. No need to sign on to this thing which in effect sets us to begging for yet another layer of "higher powers" to override the ones we already have.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Are there laws in your country? Are you expected to follow them? That is a legal society. I assume tht since you can read and write in English, you live in a country that has laws and law enforcement.


You could look on your left to see what general area I'm in.....

It doesn't matter what is -expected- of me. Again, it only matters what I choose.

Just because a form of government has developed laws and pays law enforcement, it doesn't mean that the people who live within those districts are like robots with a programmed code and if those robots somehow err from the code that the executioner bot comes by and crushes it with an anvil... that's now how it works.

We are humans with our own minds, own beliefs, own choices, own responsibilities, own consequences, own selves.

The government serves us because we as humans attempt to preserve these natural facts and keep other humans from owning us or being over us.

Of course, what happens is that a few humans require that someone be over them and a few humans want to be over some others. So a few changes take place and then voila - the many have been punished for the few. This is the ironically democratic thing to do because those who want the power will convince the majority that what they're doing will have "these" positive benefits, so WE should do it! And then "We the People" say, "dude. You're like, so right. We never thought of it that way. It could save our lives someday? Word. Let's do it, man." And then everyone has "legally" separated themselves from their natural-born self which was a human with the automatic right to think, feel, and act anyway one chooses and to reap automatically the consequences of those actions.

So... you can learn to prevent a spill by choosing not to be clumsy, but a law saying, "don't spill" is not going to prevent people from spilling...

It will just prevent them from spilling while no one is watching.

What a good heart and conscience the law provides! Good people being pumped out of an assembly line! Alright!

Wait... haven't we learned that products that come off of assembly lines are cheaper and less efficient?

Ouch.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by oniongrass


And some of the other provisions are not really US standard, for example my state allows corporal punishment in the home. And parents are allowed to take their kids to church or pass on their own religious views. Except for school activities, I think the US standard is still that kids are supposed to listen to their parents until they are of age. And I think that's about the best way. It promotes diversity of views and experiences. It gives family traditions a chance to make it into the next generation. It produces a generation that governments cannot count on to toe the line -- and that's good.



Article 29
1(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

The early articles do uphold the parents as the primary responsible parties for the upbringing of children. Provisions made to keep families together as much as possible.

The two subparagraphs I quote gives priority to the parents' cultural identity (including religion, I would assume) and respect for other cultures and civilizations.


Article 28
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:

(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;

(b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;

There's provision for vocational schools.

I didn't copy out the portion concerning punishment, but the impression I got was that the dignity of the child is to be maintained. I think something like a bare-butt spanking in public would be excluded, as demeaning.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Starbug3MY


Stating the age of reason is 8 is not the case of most 8-year-olds. Many times especially with boys, it takes longer for them to see reason as it should be seen. I would place the true age of reason at about 10 years old these days, or even a little older.

I was a boy. As I recall, pretty much a wild animal until about 10, slowly increasing in reason until 12, then a bump at 16. It's alot like physical development. An additional bump at 40.

From my own experience, 18 seems a reasonable external standard for accountability. I would say also 12 or 13 for a child to begin the choosing of her own religion.

Under most circumstances 40 seems appropriate for elder status, after self-examination of late 20s behavior.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu


Well then, we've already got it covered. No need to sign on to this thing which in effect sets us to begging for yet another layer of "higher powers" to override the ones we already have.

In the same way that the Bill of Rights does not confer these rights, but holds government responsible to recognize their existence, and gives a standard for individuals to recognize violations, so too, the passage of C.R.C. would give the people an objective standard upon which to hold their own governments accountable.

That's my view of the matter. It would be much easier for government to violate us without the Bill of Rights, so too, it would be easier for government to ignore children's rights without the existence of the treaty. I want all the tools I can get to hold government accountable.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by nenothtu


Well then, we've already got it covered. No need to sign on to this thing which in effect sets us to begging for yet another layer of "higher powers" to override the ones we already have.

In the same way that the Bill of Rights does not confer these rights, but holds government responsible to recognize their existence, and gives a standard for individuals to recognize violations, so too, the passage of C.R.C. would give the people an objective standard upon which to hold their own governments accountable.

That's my view of the matter. It would be much easier for government to violate us without the Bill of Rights, so too, it would be easier for government to ignore children's rights without the existence of the treaty. I want all the tools I can get to hold government accountable.


That then is where we differ. I already have all the tools I need to keep government accountable. Any more are merely excess baggage, something more to have to be kept up with, another layer of the onion that has to be watched.

To be honest, US law is good enough for US citizens within the US. I don't really need the approval of yet another pseudo governmental body from OUTSIDE the US to tell me whether I'm right or wrong.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

I agree with your statements exactly. We are doing not fine, but ok by ourselves as Americans. If we allow the UN to start enforcing any laws whatsoever, on American soil then America will be no more the great land of liberty that she still is today.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

It's nice that the document reiterates some things that basically go without saying for most Americans. It gets one nodding one's head, reading along ...

But then later comes the worse stuff. It says that all religions must be taught. Where are the boundaries? It makes things very complicated, it defines a decision making process where previously there was perhaps just consensus within a society.

So it's not just an affirmation of what's good. It's an entry for the UN process into sovereign, separate societies.

I'm not saying there's a definite smoking gun there. But it gives the UN jurisdiction in an area where it should not have any control.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu


That then is where we differ. I already have all the tools I need to keep government accountable. Any more are merely excess baggage, something more to have to be kept up with, another layer of the onion that has to be watched.

To be honest, US law is good enough for US citizens within the US. I don't really need the approval of yet another pseudo governmental body from OUTSIDE the US to tell me whether I'm right or wrong.

The differences cut to the core of political theory, then. If I had been alive during the American Revolution, I would have argued against it. If I had managed to survive the lynchings done against the Tories, I would have then embraced the new revolutionary movement, democratic constitutional republic as opposed to government at the whim of the royal, or even the elite class.

I now support the revolution and want to see it continue, extending the rights and privileges accorded to the noble class in the Magna Carta to all classes of citizens, so that we are no longer the subjects of anyone but collectively the final authority over our own form of government.

Corruptions have entered in. If not for the sidetracking of the revolution into institutions allowing a new aristocracy of wealth and influence to arise, diverting the public's properties into the hands of the few, we would still see ourselves as moving in revolution.

Any slogans such as "Take back our country" are empty and hollow words that lead to chaos and anarchy, without clear and rational objectives. Anarchy, I say, in the most derogatory use of the word available, for we each are and should be the ruler of our own individual moral compasses. Mob rule is destructive only, it can never build stable conditions for human society.

Education is the key to any lasting stability. An informed and intelligent base of voters is key. All too much of late representatives have been elected based on ignorant slogans and hate filled pandering to xenophobia with the ignorant voters eating it up.

Therefore, in order to insure the continuance of revolution, I take the counter revolutionary stance of appealing to a derivative authority to force decent domestic levels of education. Not that there is any force built into the treaty, but it is a gesture at least.



[edit on 23-8-2010 by pthena]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


I'm sorry, it may be the lack of coffee I'm suffering at the moment, but I'm not quite on top of my game, apparently. For example, the logic escapes me of how "we each are and should be the ruler of our own individual moral compasses" by means of "appealing to a derivative authority", which is by necessity external to ourselves.

How can I be my own moral compass by inviting a foreign influence to set that compass for me?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
... Anarchy, I say, in the most derogatory use of the word available, for we each are and should be the ruler of our own individual moral compasses. Mob rule is destructive only, it can never build stable conditions for human society.

This does not make sense. Anarchy is precisely the condition where there is no external ruler, so that each is the ruler of their own individual moral compass.


Education is the key to any lasting stability. An informed and intelligent base of voters is key. All too much of late representatives have been elected based on ignorant slogans and hate filled pandering to xenophobia with the ignorant voters eating it up. ...
And what is hate? Of all undefined terms ...

Why is xenophobia uneducated? The "law of comparative advantage" is respected by educated economists, but it describes a situation where we don't export all our jobs to foreign countries, don't import foreigners to take all our jobs, etc.

Those who are fortunate to be well educated would not want a bunch of UN slogans and half truths to limit the scope of our thought. What I gave was just one example. Those slogans may sound convincing -- but only to those who are not educated in the relevant disciplines.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu


I'm sorry, it may be the lack of coffee I'm suffering at the moment, but I'm not quite on top of my game, apparently. For example, the logic escapes me of how "we each are and should be the ruler of our own individual moral compasses" by means of "appealing to a derivative authority", which is by necessity external to ourselves.

How can I be my own moral compass by inviting a foreign influence to set that compass for me?

I take a nap then start a fresh pot of coffee between rants.

Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler").

A group of individuals, each of whom is guided by his own moral compass that agrees upon a certain idea is not an anarchic group, but rather, a group of kings. Such is the American ideal. The government they construct is a derivative authority, deriving its authority from the group of kings (voters in an informed democracy). The UN is another derivative authority, deriving from the authority vested in it by the several governments represented.

A group of people, each of which lacks self control and without a unique intelligent thought between them is a mob, true anarchy.

The "by means of" was not implied. The UN, as a derivative authority is in fact external, being once removed from the US in which we the people as kings have vested representative authority. The individual moral compass logically, though not necessarily chronologically, precedes the vesting of authority in the governing body.

I should have included the definitions within the rant. Sorry.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starbug3MY

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


www.wnd.com

First of all, this is from WND, not a very "trustworthy" or "factual" news site.

Second of all, somehow these posts were overlooked by a bunch of people, ...
reply to post by MrSpad
 

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 

reply to post by MrSpad
 

This thread would/should have been a lot shorter, at least in my opinion, if their posts where read.


[edit on 8/23/2010 by Keyhole]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join