MSNBC Host: Your Kids Belong to the Collective

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

and yet, at the end of the day, you still don't own your children. Despite your claim of ownership.

It is a simple matter of semantics to be sure. But important, as owning other humans is an aberration.

I don't consider belonging to be the same as actual ownership. But perhaps you're right, semantics.

Originally posted by nothingwrong

Originally posted by Visitor2012

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Children aren't actually "owned" by ANYONE. They are people and as such, have rights in this country. They are not belongings.

I understand what MHP is saying and don't have a problem with it. It takes a village to raise a child. And the child will be healthier and happier if it's respected and raised as a PERSON; a contributing member of society, instead of a belonging.

I'm not going to try to explain what she said because clearly, some think she's Hitler. But I see nothing wrong with what she said.

Sorry, my kids belong to ME and me only. I wouldn't trust them to any of you self-medicating maniacs. Just sayin' what needs to be said. And Yes , my children have turned out to be wonderful human beings. Mostly because I've stood between them and ALL of you.

Really? You think you own your children? Like you own a car, or a TV? Something which you reduce to just property?

Possessions which you make decisions for, standing between them and that which, in your opinion, is 'bad' in some way. Not good enough, morally lacking - again, according to your standards, not any opinion you have taught your possessions to think up for themselves....

I never said I 'owned my children', I said they belong to Me. I don't consider those two to be the same, maybe you do.....I don't.

Kids belong to the parents. They are the parents responsibility or they should be. In a sense, kids do belong to a collective because they are members of society. We all belong to the collective if you think about it. Semantics at play, I suppose.

The "it takes a village" method is ineffective IMO. The parents/guardians should be the sole upbringers of the children. There are too many inconsistencies when you rely on others to "help" raise children and children strive on consistency and structure. In essence, when you have constant "help" raising your children you really aren't providing your child/ren with consistency and/or structure. Naturally there are exceptions. Asking for help is ok but one shouldn't have to rely on neighbors and friends to raise their kids unless you're working extremely long hours or what have you. When I let my kids play outside I'm not relying on my neighbors to watch after them. With the "it takes a village" mentality people often do rely on neighbors, I've seen it first hand. And I've watch and witnessed many children get hurt because the parents were relying on others to watch their children. They see an adult and figure "oh, there's a grown up out there, s/he'll watch after my kid"

"It takes a village" is actually a primitive method of child rearing dating back to the days when families lived in huts and little villages or what ever, The men would hunt and the women would get together and watch the children together or vice versa, you get the point, hunter gatherer type stuff. It doesn't work today in most circumstances, we're beyond the hunter gatherer era. I'm sure there are exceptions, there always is but I'm talking in general for the collective . I think us as humans in 2013 are beyond that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

reply to post by kimish


We are well beyond that as a society currently. I suppose devolving could happen in severe crisis.

I don't want anyone else involved in the final direction given my children other than my wife and I (we "rule" as a true single entity).

And it isn't because I want them to learn "wrong headed" ideas. It is because I raise my kids to be strong willed while still being tolerant of other people and their trials. A dissimilar attribute to those we live amongst here.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Well put my good sir, well put. Of course there are those that will disagree, and they may have good reasons. Regardless, I'm anxious to read some thoughts from the opposite end of the spectrum on the topic.

I may get flamed for this and I don't care but myself and my children attend church. My oldest is extremely intelligent for his age and my youngest absolutely loves sunday school. What I bring up to them is simple and cliche` but it works... What would Jesus do? Honestly lol. My friends laugh at me when I tell them that. But they aren't getting complimented on how respectful and considerate their children are

One of my favorite sayings:

"I've seen the village and I don't want it raising my child".

reply to post by Bioshock


She says that once we see children as parts of the group rather than extentions of households then we start making better investments. She says this is why we havent spent as much as we should have or have had on education. Thus "we" need to break through the home syndrome.

First off this is a lot of rhetoric nonsense. I dont know how seeing my child as a member of the community, and I already do, is going to help me pay anymore than I are paying now for public education. Cant even see how "breaching the home/family unit barrier" is going to help or how spending to breech the home barrier would even be implemented to that end. Its all clearly a bunch of gobbledygook.

Its clear she sees the home unit as somehow holding up larger spending in education but doesnt bother to spell that out even a little. But its liberal psychobabble which is always emotive and vague so as not to open itself up to real world review.

It boils down to this, once deciphered, we dont have perfect communities because we dont have perfect education and we need more money to make that happen. In other words let the public school system be the main training ground for children and not the home.....and you are going to pay for it. The idea of the home being the primary teacher of ethics and human interaction is outdated and its going to cost you more money to upgrade. Dont worry about the curriculum they will take care of that for you. In fact dont even call. They are already sick and tired of trying to "educate" around whats being taught at home. Oh and give us more money.

Originally posted by kimish
The parents/guardians should be the sole upbringers of the children.

... Which is pretty impossible in practice. You dont want to send children to school?

I dont agree with how she said it but I do believe there is a point to be made... Its in all our interest that a kid turns out alright. Todays society is incredibly decadent. Do we really want obese lazy soda popping kids plonking away at their keyboards while struggling to breathe or do we want educated, athletic kids in our society?

I have seen some seriously bad parents that I just want to smack on the head. I am fairly sure her statement isnt exactly about the model parent...

reply to post by Bioshock


Obama believes in collective salvation. Here is the link: Collective Salvation It's the same idea to the Islamic reasoning behind the Mahdi rising from the collapse of society. Many ideologies around the world are trying to engineer the collapse of society so that it can then be re-engineered. See this thread: Novus Ordo Seclorum Additionally, it's the idea of the Masons raising a new temple for mankind. Additionally, the Christian mindset says that the world will descend into chaos shortly before Christ returns. Between the three, there is only one source that both provides the accurate story with evidence and a benevolent foundation for what is being accomplished. The other two are copies and counterfeits. How do we know? Thieves come to steal, kill and destroy. The savior is the one that stands against the thieves. Know them by their fruit.

Both videos sound sincere. What is the evidence from actions?

Originally posted by Raxoxane
Idk,this is a short clip,so i cannot get the full context of what she was trying to get across.To me it seemed like she meant the "it takes a village to raise a child" type sentiment? Not that your children do not belong to you anymore,as in:They can be "confiscated" by the state or your community at any time-but that people should look at children in general as our future,and care about the education and welfare of All children.

Maybe i got it wrong,but i will have to look at this some more,see what she is about in general,before i comment further.

Thats what I took from it as well. I just went to look up the origins of "it takes a village to raise a child", as I've heard it mostly in 1st Nations circles.
I was hoping it was them, would make a nice twist: "If you're touting Native customs, then you'll have to stop raping the planet, as well."
It appears the true origin is not known - at least thats what I found.

I did see where Mrs.Clinton has also written a book with that same title.

~ Note - they've been privatizing everything left right and centre, yet the world "private" is used as a bad one, here. The word "private" is stated what- 3 or 4X? Can't help but question this stuff.

reply to post by Bioshock

May I correct your statement, you mean this is the mindset of "Progressives", not necessarily Liberals. There is a difference.

reply to post by CrypticSouthpaw


Please, CrypticSouthpaw, tell us more about the pleiades coming for our children.

Now THAT is the stuff ATS keeps making me come back for!

Originally posted by Bioshock
reply to post by olaru12

 

Considering O'Reilly has the leading numbers on television (that includes all television media by the way), I'd say yes, he is very vocal when it comes to conservatives or the GOP in general. That doesn't mean you should get your information from Fox News, simply that, of the television media, O'Reilly is literally King going by viewers.

But see you still think this is a Republican vs Democrat thing. This isn't a damn football game, we are not choosing a team here. You should be listening to and voting for people based on who can do the job instead of who has a D or R next to their name.

Are you sure about those numbers?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Bioshock




Do aborted children belong to the community?


Hypocrites........

I personally don't care for the idea that my kids somehow belong to the collective, at least while they are kids. Unless I misunderstood Hillary, the old 'it takes a village thing' essentially says that it's just fine to have a bunch of children you can't support because the government is going to take care of them. Breeding more social parasites is not a good thing to me. It's also not a good thing for parents to become detached from the factors that determine their children's personality and sense of responsibility. The OP's video was actually very telling. Anybody who subscribes to an ideology like that is a lemming.

Look at the numbers. The federal extortionist takeover of public education is evidence of how it's not a good thing. We spend more money per child on public education than almost any country in the world, yet our kids don't stack up very well when compared to other countries. At one time, parents could discipline kids, but now even parents have to worry about the gestapo-like supposed child protective services (or whatever your state calls it) taking their children away.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Actually, the schools are fully capable of teaching critical thinking and do but such lessons are restricted to a specific educational program. Lessons in critical thinking for this group begin in the third grade and continue throughout schooling. Colleges and universities try to teach critical thinking skills but, as one professor put it, it's often too late. So they do know how to teach it, they simply choose not to teach these lessons to every child in the schools. They reserve it for perhaps 1-2% of the population when it's something that the bulk of the population could use. However, critical thinking doesn't mesh well with unquestioning obedience. This is how the educational system has been since the late 1950's, if not earlier, and it's the ideas of great educators who also were tainted with the stain of eugenics.

Agreed about the corporate aspect of your post. Ever since the Citizen's United decision, I've thought that our politicians should start wearing logos on their suits like Nascar drivers so we at least have the decency of knowing who sponsors who. In terms of commercialism, because let's face it, we are a heavily commercialized culture, I've taught my children to be content with what they have, to be practical, and not prone to excess or hype. I've also had school staff suggest that my eldest buy more than one winter coat--maybe 2 or 3 to "change it up a bit". If the community were to raise my kids, they'd be screaming for iPods, iPhones, iPads, and McDonald's...Thankfully, they listen and are capable of comprehending that a mp3 player is a mp3 player regardless of who made it.

That lady is a leftist nut. She is kinda hot though.

I don't believe anyone owns children. But after raising three, it would have been better for them if they had had grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, a community. We traveled around for most of their childhood with construction jobs and we all missed out on that feeling that comes from roots, family, and friends. Especially at holidays. The only gifts that were under our tree were the ones my husband and I could afford. When they got old enough to notice, I had to explain why our family was different.

As I have been catching up on this thread this morning, a few thoughts came to my mind...First Parents don't "own" thier children....but we LOVE them and they LOVE us, a Family belongs to each other.....

Think about this from a childs point of view, most babies I have ever known, including mine, will go through a stage at about 8 mns. to a year...where they do not want to be held by anyone but thier Mommy or Daddy, possibly a main caregiver. The child has made the connection they are safe with thier family...lol...some people even say kids pick thier parents....maybe they "own" us !?

If a child gets sick or hurt at school, who is the first person/s that child wants? Who is the first person/s the school will call? If a child gets scared at night who's bed do they crawl in? As kids get older who do they need or want when thier feelings get hurt, thier hearts get broken...and even when they do something wrong...Yup...Mommy and Daddy......shoot I had a fluke health scare a few years ago and ended up in the hospital in my 40's...and who was there for me...my Mom and Dad and Family...my BF too....but I mostly wanted my Mom, I was scared and once she got there I knew things were going to be OK.

I have known alot of wonderful teachers, we have some here on ATS...but through my experiences with my own child, my sister and friends children...a teacher's scope of influence is heavily mandated by what I believe is an "agenda" from the Fedearal Government...I was outright told by my daughter's 3rd grade teacher that she didn't have "time" to answer silly questions or interact with kids in a way that would distract from the lesson plan, it was all about how "she" would be evaluated based on how well her class did with the "Star" testing...hopefully Smyleegrl, or other teacher's will chime in and speak to this.

Once they hit Junior High, Parents are no longer welcome in the classroom...our job was to "pip" candy, wrapping paper and magazines...that's when we pulled her out a sent her to Private School...I don't know what the answers are...but no one will convince me that strong family units aren't part of the solution......♥

reply to post by MountainLaurel

How Ironic,the American Indians did use this logic as the lady described to raise its children but apparently did so in an inclusive method rather that a control measure it has been corrupted into.
We used to have neigborhoods to be the "village" but to say a state is the complete authority of children is a path to conflict in this country.The problem with this Hillary led indoctrination is it creates dysfunctional sociopathic prodigies who, at their best possible outcome would attend ivy league schools and completely disconnect from the common man under the illusion they are superior and perpetuate the lie.