dropkick parents.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Exactly.

Kids need challenge and the experience of succeeding and failing through their own efforts. They need to realize that hard work brings success or at least drastic improvement if not outright victory.

Instead, these days, everyone gets a trophy so no one feels bad, but that robs them of building coping skills and it doesn't foster the desire to get in there and improve for the next challenge so they do better next time.

A child who grows up watching in very close repetitive quarters drug/alcohol /dealing/stealing/caniving etc to get by learns coping skills but not the type we need.
Quite the opposite. The challenge there is just plain getting by without predujice. They don't "foster the desire to improve for the next challenge", they just look for the loophole/corner cutting ways to get what they want.
Some will break the mould and turn it around for sure but if we put those from looser parents who made it on a scale with those who keep the family looser tradition alive i have no doubt which way the scales would tip.

originally posted by: ATruGod

I know but these kids raised by "monkeys" often influence good kids into making very bad mistakes sometimes even life changing mistakes ie- ending up in prison by association in crimes etc.

Kids raised by Monkeys? Were all the same damn thing so if They are Monkeys You are a Monkey!

a reply to: CthruU

So Your saying that licensing People would solve the Parenting Problem? HAHAHAHA Just like licensing People to drive makes Them better drivers and follow all traffic laws?

Aren't Group homes actually Licensed? Hows that work out for most of them?

I didnt say they were monkeys i was quoting Bluntone22, i actually said they were loosers.
Did you not recognise the " "?

When people want a drivers license it is mandatory to get lessons and still as you so rightly say people still drive poorly etc.
When people want children it is just a case of go for it.

People under the influence are NOT allowed to drive but do, people under the influence ARE allowed to have children unreservedly.

Its not as simple as that analogy it?

originally posted by: MerkabaTribeEntity
a reply to: CthruU

This thread reminds me of Katie Hopkins for some reason;

Maybe but when you see druggies robbing, homless on the streets, home invasions on the news, stolen car chases or politicians asking for more tax payers dollars for prisons, rehabs, psyc wards etc what does that remind you of?

a reply to: solve

Well i guess i expected as much.
Maybe in one form or the other it's to close to home for some perhaps.
As per usual greed and the wealth dictate the terms.
Im not joking. Kinda

a reply to: solve

a reply to: solve

So what happens to the kids whose parents don't have a "licence"?. What about those that have a licence whose kids grow up to be drug addicts? Licence revoked? In this little utopia is everyone successful and if not can they perhaps be re-educated? And will the loosers know that loosers is actually spelled losers?
These are the things that keep me awake at night....

a reply to: BlackIbanez

Like i said earlier this is not about enforcement, thats a whole other issue.
I only was asking opinions on the idea of trying to make sure newborns are born into capable hands through an idea expressed in op.

If a licenced parent had a child who became a drug addict then I'll take a wild guess and assume thrn the parents would be fine but the kid would not pass the means test so therefore be denied the licence. DUHHH.

As for implying im a loser for a spelling mistake then you better hope most other posters don't pick up on that as as far as i can see most have posted spelling errors from time to time.

Frequently. Usually when I see stupid people who (for some reason) thought having kids was a bright idea. The poor kids are probably in for a rough ride. Both growing up and as adults. If they don't end up in prison they will often end up leading a pointless life as a wage slave. Probably working a dead end job making barely above min wage. Especially in poorer areas where it's a miracle if someone with a low IQ can even get a job at all.

You usually don't even have to meet them, talk to them or know them to know they're morons. You can take one look and just know.

originally posted by: CthruU

originally posted by: MerkabaTribeEntity
a reply to: CthruU

This thread reminds me of Katie Hopkins for some reason;

Maybe but when you see druggies robbing, homless on the streets, home invasions on the news, stolen car chases or politicians asking for more tax payers dollars for prisons, rehabs, psyc wards etc what does that remind you of?

It reminds me that society is sick, unfortunately.

Everyone is on their own path through life, and people get lost and find their way. Finding one's way inevitably entails helping others find theirs, but you can't get there from here if you "don't even have to meet them, talk to them or know them to know they're morons. You can take one look and just know."

a reply to: CthruU

But it does in a way, don't you see?

The tragedy for them is that all it does is foster skills to cope in the extreme short-term on a survival basis. Watching mom or dad struggle to beat down addiction to find the next fix is a survival crisis (maybe not, but the symptoms make it seem like that). Many of the situations it thrusts the kids into are short-term survival situations.

I'm talking about earning good grades, learning how to practice for and succeed at a competitive endeavor like a sport - things that are healthy expressions of those skills.

a reply to: CthruU

You're wrong; it's all about enforcement. It's a dangerous idea in the first place.

Who decides who is fit and who is not fit? Who makes the rules? The rich and powerful whose children can themselves grow up to be monsters, even though they were raised in a state of privilege. How many from poverty or broken homes grow up to be outstanding people themselves? I think it's many of them.

This is far from an original idea or argument and the world has seen what happens when it's acted upon and backed up by government action. Take a look at Mao and the Red Guard.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: CthruU

But it does in a way, don't you see?

The tragedy for them is that all it does is foster skills to cope in the extreme short-term on a survival basis. Watching mom or dad struggle to beat down addiction to find the next fix is a survival crisis (maybe not, but the symptoms make it seem like that). Many of the situations it thrusts the kids into are short-term survival situations.

I'm talking about earning good grades, learning how to practice for and succeed at a competitive endeavor like a sport - things that are healthy expressions of those skills.

Agreed if their supported enough to be enrolled in these activities, transported to and from these activities and posses the mind set to understand how to play well with others. Hard to earn good grades when you don't relate and fit in more often than not due to ratty school/unafordabilityto supply sporting uniforms incompatible mind sets etc.

Something i think the kids falling through the cracks we're discussing here more often than not do not have access to.

Im sorry i really am but i fail to see how that only harbors " short term effects."

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: CthruU

You're wrong; it's all about enforcement. It's a dangerous idea in the first place.

Who decides who is fit and who is not fit? Who makes the rules? The rich and powerful whose children can themselves grow up to be monsters, even though they were raised in a state of privilege. How many from poverty or broken homes grow up to be outstanding people themselves? I think it's many of them.

This is far from an original idea or argument and the world has seen what happens when it's acted upon and backed up by government action. Take a look at Mao and the Red Guard.

What rules-- it's as simple as 1- can you support yourself therefore a child.
2- are you psychologically competant therefore able to raise a well adjusted
Child.

It may not be an original idea but very few threads are. I didn't realise the t&c's say only original ideas allowed.

The individual themselves decide if their fit through their history/behaviour/actions.

This has nothing to do in the slightest with being rich and powerful.

I dont know how many turn it around and become outstanding people. Can you give me a number?

But end of day there's no enforcement required everyone scientifically/medically just before puberty would be reproductively blocked and those who pass the means test would have the block lifted.

Simple yet like most alternative ideas, uncomprehendable to some initially until they actually physically see the benefits in the flesh.

However forgive me the opposing posters I'm just really hurting in my heart and soul when i see some of the kids that get around, and the way they are treated. Those poor little souls. Who's helping them.

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

Obviously your replying to BrianFlanders so ill let that one past the keeper.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Also whats dangerous about it, it would certainly solve the abortion issue, abortions would be a thing of the past which would have a domino calming effect on alot of societys and religions troublesome and seemingly unrectifiable divisions on that issue.

It would only be dangerous if implemented by the kind of heads that tend to be the decision makers in life.

In depth level headed evaluation would prove this to be more than feasible.

That's one example, i have many, can you not see now how this simple act could change more than it may suggest at face value.

a reply to: CthruU

His post was on the screen when I began a generic reply. I was reading and writing at the same time, and that's how it went down.

On topic, I am of the mind that requiring potential parents to obtain a license to start a family is draconian and smacks of "soft eugenics". More practically, too many people wouldn't comply, and then what?

I agree that newborns should be greeted by caring and responsible parents but I think we could go far as a society in reducing negative outcomes by reflecting on how our average lifestyle gradually eroded strong families.

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

Its not about desirable heritable genetics or controlled breeding in the slightest, its about protecting humanities future through ensuring no soul is delivered into undesirable and for the most part undeserved shackles.
But sure i can see why people strongly oppose.
After all if the system was in place 60 years ago i wouldn't be here (in this form anyhow). Not that thats not appealing but I'm more than happy to agree to disagree .
Maybe I'm just to emotionally connected to what i saw at times or maybe I'm just ahead of my time.
Regardless I'm not trying to alienate anyone or their beliefs.

originally posted by: CthruU

I didn't realise the t&c's say only original ideas allowed.

That's an odd thing to inject into the debate? I obviously meant that historically your idea is not a new one and links back to some dark times in human history.

The individual themselves decide if their fit through their history/behaviour/actions...

...But end of day there's no enforcement required everyone scientifically/medically just before puberty would be reproductively blocked and those who pass the means test would have the block lifted

You contradict yourself there. You say they decide and then say they would be made reversibly sterile until they prove to whoever holds the keys to their chastity belt decides they are allowed to have children. Of course they don't decide themselves. You are talking forced population control are you not?

Simple yet like most alternative ideas, uncomprehendable to some initially until they actually physically see the benefits in the flesh.

You give one segment of society that kind of power over another, it will be abused. All manner of bigotry will come into play. One thing you can be certain of is that the self appointed elite will never be denied the right to reproduce.

You do understand that that's very similar to Hitlers ideas? Different only in that he would simply euthanize the undesirable, while your idea would make sure they were never born. You give the State that kind of power, the end result will be a very, very bad one.

It would only be dangerous if implemented by the kind of heads that tend to be the decision makers in life.

Who do you think would decide? The rich and powerful would dictate who gets to reproduce. Do you really think anyone would deny them the right? Scary stuff indeed.