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: 9
29
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 



So. You are above the law. Is that all law or just the laws of man?

If someones belief makes a whole lot of sense and it rescues another human being from cruelty, no matter how tiny that human being...not only will I accept it, I will enforce it on others whenever I have the opportunity. If this means calling child welfare or the police on a cruel or abusive parent...The phone is already in my hand....I am not part of that "we parents, protect other parents" club.

I will always fight to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

And it doesn't matter from betwixt whose thighs they fell.


I am not above the law - I am equivalent to it, as are we all. The law serves us but it is also by us. The law represents us. No one is -under- the law.

On that note, I do believe in God's law more than man's law. However much man's law attempts to reflect God's law, it pales in comparison because man's law is about enforcement and God's law is about love.

The reason we follow God's law is because we already know it because we feel it. Our all-together knowing tells us what is happening when we do something.

The reason we follow man's law is fear of retribution... (of course, a lot of people are conned into believing that man's law is God's law and therefore believe they are following God in fear of retribution...)

Allow me to make my case more apparently rational. I personally have no need for anyone to force me to do anything for me and my family. I do well as it is. I believe in discipline... and I don't mean punishment. I mean discipline. The word discipline has been greatly twisted over the years - but discipline is not necessarily supposed to mean a form of corporal punishment.

Discipline means allowing your child the opportunity to learn the many virtues by allowing him/her to deal with each situation appropriately. In the event that the child (and/or adult!) does not respond to a particular situation using one of the many virtues, then the child does not succeed. For example, when your parents tell you to do something, you do it. You can question it later, but when it is told to you, do it. The virtue is humility. IF a child does not learn humility, the child grows up thinking that they are entitled to everything and will make friends with other people who feel the same way - eventually causing a severe stint in society.

I agree - put the child in the room by his/her self to sort out their own dilemma and walk away.

But I do not agree that the neighbors won't hear the kid screaming, because kids can and will be brats sometimes.

Lunch is ready so I gotta go. Enjoy.




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rusethorcain
I am not a good one to argue with.
I am a big proponent of children and child welfare. I once recommended my sisters 6 year old get a lawyer, told him indeed he could... but I did try to present her side as well and eventually was able to talk him down from a litigious ledge.
I even think these commercials are wrong. Very wrong and abusive to use children for advertising purposes.
The children are not acting. Producers are trying to capture their pure emotional dissappointment and frustration on film.
I think it is shameful we use children like this to prove a stupid point about a bank servicing it's customers. I wouldn't use a bank that put children through these humiliating motions.


I agree whole-heartedly with everything here besides the insanity of bringing law in between the mother and child. 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.

These are things you wish you had to protect yourself as a child and now you're taking it too far.

I was treated way worse than what you've described so far and I'm not so foolish as to believe that the things I went through didn't make me stronger -- it all made me stronger, regardless of my parent's intentions.

Time to grow up and get over it.

ON the side note, I agree that children shouldn't be used for anything commercial at all.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 

You're entitled to your opinions about whether I love my children. As a parent it's my call as to whether the child has done something dangerous. Do you assume children never do anything dangerous, or the parents are deluded if they think their children are about to do something dangerous?

While there are no perfect parents, nor perfect children, your response shows the foolishness of having a lot of rules. Parenting is a job that requires judgment, many times every day.

The UN rule tries to turn the home into a type of daycare. It's not.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
OK let me be honest here, USA besides Somalia are the last two countries to ratify this.

It has and may be used out of context when people have other agendas as seen in the UK and Sweden

Signing it will make no difference to the maltreatment of children as can be evidenced with crimes committed against children and the laws in situ at present.

The UK and USA in Iraq committed horrific war crimes against children. Considering the recent ruling with Omar Ahmed Khadr does it matter what they sign ?, it means nadda, they will reword, rewrite to suit. Ironic really considering the UK have ratified this and the USA signed and help draft.

histronics re child abuse will not help

Its a load of old codsbogglers and it's a litigation nightmare.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
You have got to be kidding
if this is real
the world is doomed
kids carry guns in the open, while their parents
have to have a piece of paper to do so, and then
only if the government says they can carry one for
protection...

damm as I said if this true and passes into law
the human race is in for a world of hurt...

RKL



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by oniongrass
to your opinions about whether I love my children.


"Love" is too ephemeral a term for law. Which is why the UN is attempting to elaborate specifically what people can and cannot do to their children. Men who "love" their wives kill them in violent fits of rage. "Love" means a lot of things to a lot of people, and your response is precisely why specifics are needed.

You can "love" your child but you dont have the right to have sex with them. You can "love" you child, but you dont have the right to kill them to prevent them from being taken by the other parent. We have already made many specific laws about what parents can and cannot do out of "love" for their child. These are just more rules.



Originally posted by oniongrass
As a parent it's my call as to whether the child has done something dangerous. Do you assume children never do anything dangerous, or the parents are deluded if they think their children are about to do something dangerous?


I dont know if you are deliberately distorting my response, or if you really lack the reasoning skills to see it, but your answer here is totally off the point. In my response, I did not questions AT ALL whether or not the child in fact did something dangerous. You are arguing against a point I did not make. In fact, I assumed the child DID do something dangerous. My point was, beating the child does nothing whatsoever to undo a dangerous act. All beating a child after that child after he/she has done something dangerous does is release YOUR anxiety.

And you would not do that to another persons child, nor would you do it to another adult. You would find another way to instruct that person not to do the dangerous thing, and find a more mature outlet for your own anxiety. You beat a child in those circumstances for purely selfish reasons, and the beating teaches the child nothing of value. It teaches the child to hide things from you to avoid beatings. Nothing more.



Originally posted by oniongrass
While there are no perfect parents, nor perfect children, your response shows the foolishness of having a lot of rules. Parenting is a job that requires judgment, many times every day.


There are no perfect drivers or perfect cars. Do you suggest we should have no traffic laws? There are no perfect employers or perfect employees, do you suggest we have no workplace safety regulations? There are no perfect manufacturers or perfect consumers, do you suggest we have no standards to ensure that poisons arent sold in food products?

Parenting IS a job that requires judgment. Absolutely. The problem is that we allow every idiot with genitals to have them, whether they have judgment or not. The act of squeezing sperm or babies out of your genitals does not imbue you with wisdom, judgment or common sense, or even love and concern for your child. That is abundantly clear. If it did, we would not need to make laws to protect children from sometimes horrific abuse, and even rape and murder at the hands of their parents.



Originally posted by oniongrass
The UN rule tries to turn the home into a type of daycare. It's not.


Yes. It is. You do not own your children. They are your responsibility to care for. Not yours to do with as you will. We already have restrictions on what parents can and cannot do, and as the long term physical effects of emotional abuse become more and more quantifiable, (thanks to neuroscience and brain imaging) expect more limits in the future. Not less.

Instead of just defending bad parenting, perhaps you could learn some better skills, and you wouldnt have to worry about the UN passing some pretty common sense laws.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


OK rereading it I see you did not question whether I would know that my child had done something dangerous. Something about your saying "if you really love your children ..." made me give less credence to what you said in the rest of that post.

And in all your other posts too by the way.

The fact that you say a home is a daycare is all we need to know about you. Those with that view would also have all your other opinions.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by oniongrass

The fact that you say a home is a daycare is all we need to know about you. Those with that view would also have all your other opinions.


More poor argument from you. So my views on this one issue tell people everything they need to know about me? How so? Or are you just right because you are?

By the same argument, your lack of reasoning skills and poor sense of justice tell "us" all we need to know about your parenting skills too. Is that the case? Or is your argument just a little too simplistic a way to view people and issues?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Starbug3MY
 


'Cause World Net Daily is our go-to-place for factual dissemination about the events of the world, through a non-biased and analytical lens!


As another poster pointed out, the story is crap. The Child Rights treaty has been out there for two decades, most of the world has signed on except the US and Somalia (and at least Somalia has the excuse of not having a government!) and nothing that the WND story says is true at all.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Well all we need to know for the purpose of this issue. I doubt I would want to know much more on other issues, but whatever.

Poor argument possibly, but at least this poor argument comes from one who knows a parent's love for his children. I think your more PC argument leaves out a fact that can only be known by experience.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


www.cnsnews.com...

Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children’s Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights ‘Over to International Community’

“We believe we need to take clear action here in Congress to protect the rights of parents to raise their children," DeMint said at a Wednesday panel discussion. "This treaty would, in fact, establish a precedent that those rights have been given over to the international community."

DeMint is lead sponsor of S. Res. 519, a resolution to protect parental rights, which is co-sponsored by 30 senators total. Only four more senators need to sign on to inform President Obama that he does not have enough votes in the Senate to ratify the treaty, DeMint said.

DeMint has also introduced a joint resolution, proposing a constitutional amendment to protect parental rights.

www.parentalrights.org...



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


www.cnsnews.com...

Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children’s Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights ‘Over to International Community’

“We believe we need to take clear action here in Congress to protect the rights of parents to raise their children," DeMint said at a Wednesday panel discussion. "This treaty would, in fact, establish a precedent that those rights have been given over to the international community."

DeMint is lead sponsor of S. Res. 519, a resolution to protect parental rights, which is co-sponsored by 30 senators total. Only four more senators need to sign on to inform President Obama that he does not have enough votes in the Senate to ratify the treaty, DeMint said.

DeMint has also introduced a joint resolution, proposing a constitutional amendment to protect parental rights.

www.parentalrights.org...


Jim DeMint for President!



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by oniongrass
 


'Protecting parents' rights' is analogous to protecting the State's rights over its own dependents. I hope that you can see that these are parallel structures, that supporting one means supporting the other. I am sure that, as an anti-statist and parental authoritarian you would find this repellant, but the state is a good thing; it provides materially and spiritually for its dependents and nurtures them, just as a parent provides for and nurtures a child.

You know that the state is capable of abusing its citizens; so too can a parent abuse their children. Shouldn't there be laws against this? Shouldn't there be oversight to ensure that these laws are enforced? Shouldn't the federal government ensure that the states obey the bill of rights and do not abuse their citizens? Shouldn't the government ensure that parents obey the law and do not abuse their children?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Why would you call the convention foreign when it was drafted mainly by Americans in America?

If it is foreign indeed it is foreign for all other countries too. As I said, the rest of the world already has joined and implimented it yet nothing bad has come of it.


The bylaws of my local Rotary Club were also drafted "by Americans, in America". That does not, however, mean that they should carry the weight of federal law.

The crux of my problem with this is that it is promulgated by a foreign governing body, regardless of who "wrote it", or where. An UNELECTED foreign government. I did not, nor has an American citizen, vote for these officials. Their laws and "conventions" have no business here.

You are correct in saying that the UN is foreign for all other countries, too, but that is irrelevant. They can run their own countries as they see fit, and if that means the invitation of foreign master, that is their problem, not mine. That argument has no bearing on how THIS country is supposed to be run.

Ditto for the fact that "the rest of the world" has already signed off on it. This is not "the rest of the world", and so the argument is irrelevant here.

If my neighbor starts shooting his bullets through my house, he may be able to do that several times without hitting any one, so nothing bad comes of it. When the one time comes that he DOES hit someone, it's too late to undo it.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by BANANAMONTANA
 


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!"




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

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.



Or, apparently, unless Illusionsaregrander defines what is important for us.

It's awfully nice that we have folks like you and the TV to do our thinking for us.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
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.

One can see the emotions are high, child abuse, smacking, foreign laws taking over, all feeding into the frenzy to the delight of the spin doctors.



Look what is happening in Europe with the Roma all those glittering treaties hanging on the walls.

blah blah blah, it's not worth the paper it is written on..

EU turning blind eye to discrimination against Roma, say human rights groups

"The EU under the Lisbon Treaty...has the responsibility to address human rights within the 27 member states," said Amnesty's executive officer for legal affairs in the European Union, Susanna Mehtonen. Campaign groups say the EU's failure to intervene calls into question its commitment to the Charter of Fundamental Rights that came into force with the passage of the Lisbon Treaty last year, and was heralded as a "new dawn" for human rights in Europe.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by oniongrass
 


'Protecting parents' rights' is analogous to protecting the State's rights over its own dependents. I hope that you can see that these are parallel structures, that supporting one means supporting the other. ...

No, we've been through this before. It's as if you didn't read what I wrote the first time, now you're trying again.

The parents bring the child into the world. The parents, in a real sense, create the child.

The state does not bring the people into the world. The state does not create the people.

However, amazingly you're right in the following sense. The state does create the ALL CAPS STRAWMEN. Then it teaches theories like you've learned that are predicated on the idea that we are indeed children of the state. But I want to bring the benefits of being recognized as a human even to people who are legally represented by strawmen. After all they make it very complicated to get along here without the strawman, so we should be entitled to use it where we choose to -- since the state likes it so much.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   

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?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Or, apparently, unless Illusionsaregrander defines what is important for us.

It's awfully nice that we have folks like you and the TV to do our thinking for us.


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? What an intelligent human being would do if they disagreed would be to make an argument for THEIR position, not whine about the fact that I made an argument for mine.

Its so funny that some people think that someone who will take the time to present them with logic is doing so because they want to "tell them what to do," or "tell them what to think." Anyone who takes the time to argue with you, (in the formal sense) at least respects you enough as a human being to address you. Your leaders dont bother to.

The dont even bother to try and argue with you. They tell you what you want to hear, they promise you what you want, and they do whatever the hell they want to do anyway. Dont they? Yes they do. They dont waste their time providing reasoning or argument to cattle.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join