Jump to content

Ontario budget to focus on child poverty


Recommended Posts

I'm not seeing how it is any less of a personal invasion than vetting potential adoptive parents. There are many areas where the state intervenes without requiring prior cause. I've already given you the example of driver's licenses. The state now has imposed stricter rules on who can take a mortgage, it doesn't wait for proof that you are a bad borrowerer. The state forbids you from driving drunk, it doesn't require previous history of running someone over.

Mortgages and drivers' licenses aren't the same thing. We're talking about somehting that is deeplyhuman, biologcal, mysterious. I really can't see the analogies...for one thing (as you correctly noted elsehwere) children aren't property.

But a family is far more sacred than property. A state that can take your property, you call a form of tyranny; a state that can take your children (based on merits you concede you haven't begun to think through)--that's a million times worse.

As a libertarian, I'm not very happy with state intervention, but I can see some justification when it may be necessary to intervene to prevent an even worse outcome.

no, no, that's not what ypiu're saying. Everyone agrees with you that there is justificaiton for the state to intervene. What you are saying is that the state can ALWAYS intervene, automatically.

I can think of few more important influences on the child's development that the parents. Do you agree that parents have obligations toward their kids and should be required to live up to those obligations?

I agree completely. And when and if you mess up badly enough, THEN the government can intervene.

While it may be preferable that a child grow up in poverty rather than a foster family, it may be even more preferable that either the child be never born into the situation to begin with or alternatively that the child be placed with an adoptive family. As far as I am aware, there seems to be little trouble placing babies up for adoption. The placement of older kids is a somewhat different story.

So, let's forcibly rip babies away from the poor and give them to the affluent?

Forget it. That's repugnant to me right to the core of my soul.

Now you are talking about how such a standard would be implemented, when I don't think you have agreed that there should be a standard at all.

Because I thought your idea SO bad that I should explain everything I thought wrong with it.

anyway, ultimately, even IF I thought the theroy was sound...the very reasons I posted here was to explain how it would be an impossibility anyway.

What is included in the standard is up for debate. IMV, history of violence, or child abuse, and financial fitness to support a child should all be part of the standard. I would agree that there is probably lots of areas which are up for debate, but the point is to start with a basic standard and refine it with time. I imagine that even with the first drivers licences, the state had to guess what skills were required of a fit driver. It refined that standard with time.

So...the first little while will be guinea pigs, presumably with some catastrophic and ruinous errors, but it will later be refined?

As to the other situations you describe. (ie fit parents who with time become unfit, and unfit parents who later become fit), a standard doesn't guarantee outcome. A driver's licence doesn't guarantee you won't crash. Lack of a driver's licence dosen't guarantee you will. However given that parents are undertaking an obligation toward their kids, and parents seem to expect support from the state in bringing up their kids, I think it is reasonable that the state have a voice in deciding who is an adequate parent.

no; it's not an either/or, personal, "you owe me" relationship.

You do not owe something to "the state" because of, say, financial help. It's not a business transaction.

Well, I don't really think my position is contradictory if you consider parenting a contract, but feel free to point out contradictions.

It is a contract in a euphemistic sense; it is not a legal contract between state and prosepctive parent, signed by both parties.

Parenting is not a business transaction, so such metaphors are inappropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mortgages and drivers' licenses aren't the same thing. We're talking about somehting that is deeplyhuman, biologcal, mysterious. I really can't see the analogies...for one thing (as you correctly noted elsehwere) children aren't property.

But a family is far more sacred than property. A state that can take your property, you call a form of tyranny; a state that can take your children (based on merits you concede you haven't begun to think through)--that's a million times worse.

"Sacred"? That is a completetely subjective term. All you have said is that it isn't the same without explaining (in objective terms) why it is different. I get that YOU consider it different. I don't get why the state should except for purely emotional reasons.

I'm not saying that the children are property and should be taken away as property to punish the trangressing parents. I'm saying a contract is held between the parents and the kids. The state should act before the contract is executed to ensure that both sides are capable of living up to their obligations, and after the contract is enforced to ensure that they do. It is especially because the kids have no power of enforcement themselves, that state intervention is required.

no, no, that's not what ypiu're saying. Everyone agrees with you that there is justificaiton for the state to intervene. What you are saying is that the state can ALWAYS intervene, automatically.

What I'm saying is that the state ALWAYS intervene to set the prequisites for parenthood, just like the state ALWAYS intervenes to set a standard on who can perform surgery on you.

I agree completely. And when and if you mess up badly enough, THEN the government can intervene.

When the consequences of your screw up are bad enough the state intervenes before you screw up. Should the state wait until after a surgeon has killed someone before preventing him from operating on people? It would seem that you are comfortable even with proven child-molesters having kids, and would wait until their child was molested before acting, even when it is completely obvious that it will occur.

So, let's forcibly rip babies away from the poor and give them to the affluent?

Forget it. That's repugnant to me right to the core of my soul.

So we finally come to the core of your argument. It is simply because the idea is repugnant to you. A very emotional response. You have not been able to justify it in rational terms.

Personally I don' t find it repugnant at all. I find it sensible that babies be placed with families who can live up to their parental obligations rather than irresponsible ones who take on responsibilities they cannot fulfill.

Because I thought your idea SO bad that I should explain everything I thought wrong with it.

anyway, ultimately, even IF I thought the theroy was sound...the very reasons I posted here was to explain how it would be an impossibility anyway.

So...the first little while will be guinea pigs, presumably with some catastrophic and ruinous errors, but it will later be refined?

Is there any standard you can think of that hasn't evolved that way?

no; it's not an either/or, personal, "you owe me" relationship.

You do not owe something to "the state" because of, say, financial help. It's not a business transaction.

You do not owe the state anything, and neither does the state owe you. What I'm suggesting is that the very same reasons for which the state is looked to in order to provide social services for kids, are the same reasons the state has in interest in the parental situation in which the kid is placed.

It is a contract in a euphemistic sense; it is not a legal contract between state and prosepctive parent, signed by both parties.

Parenting is not a business transaction, so such metaphors are inappropriate.

The "contract" is not between state and parent, it is between parent and child. It is not currently a legal contract but it could be. There are many obligations of parenthood which are already codefied in law. What I am saying is that it likely makes good sense to qualify the parties to the contract before they enter it. That you find such qualification "repugnant" doesn't seem like a rational justfication not to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sacred"? That is a completetely subjective term. All you have said is that it isn't the same without explaining (in objective terms) why it is different. I get that YOU consider it different. I don't get why the state should except for purely emotional reasons.

:) You cannot extricate emotion from human endeavours. Period. It is intrinsic to what we are. In every single argument. Without exception.

And your idea IS an emotional argument at it's core.

So why you'd hold my argument to a different standard than your own...well, you don't elaborate on that.

It would seem that you are comfortable even with proven child-molesters having kids, and would wait until their child was molested before acting, even when it is completely obvious that it will occur.

A child molester is already undert scrutiny from the law.

But just so you know (since evidently you don't)--child molestation crosses all socio-economic boundaries. This might be hard for you to believe, but children in affluent families are not safer from child molestation. Further, the vast, overwhelming number of child molesters are totally unknown except by their victims. So early state intervention would not turn up all these child molesters.

Oh, by the way...I don't think you need to lower yourself to the rather greasy, shutting-down-debate standards of insinuating that I"m somehow ok with child molestation. ("It would seem you're comfortable with....") It's beneath you.

So we finally come to the core of your argument. It is simply because the idea is repugnant to you. A very emotional response. You have not been able to justify it in rational terms.

The statism you propose is not "rational," either. It's predicated on servility to Power.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not provide any suggestions of what those barriers might be in either case. I will adopt your assumptions and make the following recommendation: reduce income taxes for both the rich and the poor.

Reducing taxes on the poor will lead them to rise above poverty and approach the rich. Ergo, they have less children.

Reducing taxes on the rich will make it easier for them to give up working time and choose having children time. Ergo, they have more children.

Exactly! The best anti-poverty program is lower taxes, and a strong job-producing economy. So far, they're still 0 for 2. But I still have my fingers crossed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, you state that if parents can not look after children they should not be parents:

By this, do you mean:

a) If they fail to adequately provide support for their child (without government support), the children should be confiscated? If so, should those children be placed into government care? Or, should they be immediately adopted out?

B) Do you favour reinstating a system of eugenics, whereby those deemed unfit to be parents are sterilized?

c) We make it illegal for non-desirables (and I am sure you are able to define this category) to have children, and we force abortions on anyone who tries, that does not meet your parenting requirements?

Are these the barriers you speak of that you want put in place?

Secondly, you seem to suggest that there is a much greater probability that the wealthy will make better parents (as defined by the money their children are likely to make) and that we should remove barriers for them to have children?

What barriers are you talking about?

Infertility? Do you propose free fertility and egg donors for all infertile rich people?

Careers getting in the way? Do you propose to give large amounts of money to mothers who have children, providing they have proven themselves capable of having children?

I mean really, if these people are fit to be parents (which means they are wealthy, using your only mentioned determinant), then they should have no need for money to help them?

Perhaps you are referring to free will as a barrier. Should we perhaps force wealthy females of child-bearing age to give birth to multiple children?

I would really like to understand the specifics of your ideas to eliminate child poverty, as it seems like you have given this a lot of careful consideration.

Edited by KeyStone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) You cannot extricate emotion from human endeavours. Period. It is intrinsic to what we are. In every single argument. Without exception.

And your idea IS an emotional argument at it's core.

So why you'd hold my argument to a different standard than your own...well, you don't elaborate on that.

The intent of putting rational rules in place is to extricate emotion from decisions such as parenting. I don't propose rules based upon emotion, I propose that we debate the rules for what constitutes the responsibilites of a parent supported by hard evidence.

You say my idea is "emotional argument at it's core". Which part? What emotion? I have no idea what you mean. I hold my argument to the same standard as yours. So if you believe my ideas are driven by emotion. I'm all for exploring it, but I don't see it.

A child molester is already undert scrutiny from the law.

But just so you know (since evidently you don't)--child molestation crosses all socio-economic boundaries. This might be hard for you to believe, but children in affluent families are not safer from child molestation. Further, the vast, overwhelming number of child molesters are totally unknown except by their victims. So early state intervention would not turn up all these child molesters.

Oh, by the way...I don't think you need to lower yourself to the rather greasy, shutting-down-debate standards of insinuating that I"m somehow ok with child molestation. ("It would seem you're comfortable with....") It's beneath you.

At least part of what you said I agree with (ie child molestation crosses all socio-economic boundaries). I already know that the state scrutinizes child molesters. My example was if there is an individual who had a history of molesting children (including his own), should the state prevent him from having more? This has got nothing to do with wealth or socio-economic boundries. It can be a wealthy child molester just as easily as a poor one.

I didn't imply that you are ok with child molestating, I implied that you are ok with known child-molesters becoming parents and thus being given additional opportunity to molest again. If this is not an accurate reflection of your position, please feel free to correct me.

The statism you propose is not "rational," either. It's predicated on servility to Power.

Show me that it is not rational. It is predicated on two premises. That first premise is that parents knowingly take on an obligation to their children and should be held accountable by the state to fulfill this obligation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to agree with this. The second premise is that it is justified for the state if there is reasonable cause that the obligations will not be met, to intervene in allowing the individual to undertake those obligations.

All of my ideas are rational outcomes of these premises. If you believe otherwise show it. To date, all you have demonstrated are your emotional responses ("you're disgusted", "repugnant to you"). You seem to claim emotionalism in my responses, I challenge you to point it out.

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a) If they fail to adequately provide support for their child (without government support), the children should be confiscated? If so, should those children be placed into government care? Or, should they be immediately adopted out?

Actually I would suggest a prevenative approach. Eg Parenting should be licenced so that only qualified individuals should be given official sanction to be parents. If individucals undertake parenting without regard to licensing requirements, then they should be assessed, and if deemed incapable or unsuitable, yes they risk that the child woudl be immediately placed in adoption.

Do you favour reinstating a system of eugenics, whereby those deemed unfit to be parents are sterilized?

No. I don't think even unfit parents should be forcibly sterilized. However in extreme cases, where an indivdual repeatedly trangresses and is never likely to ever become a suitable parent, then sterilization may be the only option.

We make it illegal for non-desirables (and I am sure you are able to define this category) to have children, and we force abortions on anyone who tries, that does not meet your parenting requirements?

At at brutal level of enforcement, yes it does. Your question is somewhat like asking if we shoot all potential bad-drivers, would be have safer roads? The answer is yes, however it is a loaded question. I believe a system to qualify parents can enforce compliance can be implemented so that in the vast majority of cases doesn't need to rely on forced abortions.

Secondly, you seem to suggest that there is a much greater probability that the wealthy will make better parents (as defined by the money their children are likely to make) and that we should remove barriers for them to have children?

No I am not saying that the wealthy make better parents. In fact in some cases they may be worse parents. (For example the parents may be so busy with jobs that they really have no time to parent). I am suggesting that ONE of the obligations of parenting necessitates a finanical commitment and the wealthy by definition are able to fulfill this commitment, however there may be others they do not fulfill.

Infertility? Do you propose free fertility and egg donors for all infertile rich people?

Careers getting in the way? Do you propose to give large amounts of money to mothers who have children, providing they have proven themselves capable of having children?

No I don't propose free fertility nor do I propose giving any additional funding to "qualifed" parents. I am not suggesting that the government intervene to encourage population growth.

I mean really, if these people are fit to be parents (which means they are wealthy, using your only mentioned determinant), then they should have no need for money to help them?

The economic barriers the government imposes aren't a deterrent to the rich. They are a deterrent to the middle class who except for government interference would be able to fulfill their parental obligations. The type of interference I am referring to is for example, the government imposes rules which makes it difficult and expensive for a middle class family to hire a foreign nanny or child-care worker. In many countries middle-class families rely on easy and cheap access to these domestic workers to help deliver on the obligations of parenting. The government has introduced barriers which make this option only available to the wealthy.

Perhaps you are referring to free will as a barrier. Should we perhaps force wealthy females of child-bearing age to give birth to multiple children?

No. You seem to assume I am out to encourage wealthy people to have kids. I am not and nor should the government. It should be up to individuals to decide of their own free will whether or not they will assume the obligations of parenthood. However, if they do, they should be held to those obligations.

I would really like to understand the specifics of your ideas to eliminate child poverty, as it seems like you have given this a lot of careful consideration.

Hopefully I've helped answer. If not, please ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright,

So, other than financial qualifiers, what else would render a person unfit to have children?

Also, given that this plan would reduce the number of children born in Canada, and given that birth rates are already low, and given that the aging baby-boomer population dictates a need for us to have an even greater population to sustain this aging population, I can only assume that you also plan to greatly increase immigration levels to compensate. Is that accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intent of putting rational rules in place is to extricate emotion from decisions such as parenting. I don't propose rules based upon emotion, I propose that we debate the rules for what constitutes the responsibilites of a parent supported by hard evidence.

Now I know youi're not even reading your OWN posts, much less rationally trying to think things through:

You have not suggested what any of this "hard evidence" is--not for exactly WHAT constitutes the potential guidelines drawn up for parents, nor how any of it could be conceivably enforced.

I can't believe you here summon the notion of "hard evidence" when you repeatedly shy way from any explicit matters: on exactly wHAT the rules would be (sans your repeeated and meaningless platitiudes); how they could be enforced (think: millions of children. Millions.); you won't even go into the absolutely crucial, deal-breaking matter of how a licence could be devised...precisely what criteria would be included. You claim it could be "refined" as we go along...but refined from what? You offer zero informaiton to support your view, as if these are trivial details that don't much matter. On the contrary, the details are everything; they are the very crux of any discussion on such a topic.

I didn't imply that you are ok with child molestating, I implied that you are ok with known child-molesters becoming parents and thus being given additional opportunity to molest again.

There is no substantive difference.

If this is not an accurate reflection of your position, please feel free to correct me.

I already corrected you, and gave you an opportunity to back away from this misconcieved, degenerate little insult. Yet you insist upon remaining a real dick on this point. This is just a pantywaisted, bullying little attempt to "win" a debate, because your failure to talk about specifics (which, again, are everything to this argument) is exposing how ill-thought out your statism really is.

Since you are insisting on implying that I'm ok with child molestation, I feel compelled to invite you to perform a difficult and possibly dangerous sex act upon your own person. Enjoy.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I know youi're not even reading your OWN posts, much less rationally trying to think things through:

You have not suggested what any of this "hard evidence" is--not for exactly WHAT constitutes the potential guidelines drawn up for parents, nor how any of it could be conceivably enforced.

I can't believe you here summon the notion of "hard evidence" when you repeatedly shy way from any explicit matters: on exactly wHAT the rules would be (sans your repeeated and meaningless platitiudes); how they could be enforced (think: millions of children. Millions.); you won't even go into the absolutely crucial, deal-breaking matter of how a licence could be devised...precisely what criteria would be included. You claim it could be "refined" as we go along...but refined from what? You offer zero informaiton to support your view, as if these are trivial details that don't much matter. On the contrary, the details are everything; they are the very crux of any discussion on such a topic.

I'd be happy to debate what the details of the standard should be, by why even bother since you don't even agree that there should be a standard. If you agree that there should be a standard, then lets move to the next step of examining the details of the standard.

I already corrected you,

Actually you did not. You simply took offense at my statement. That is not the same as correcting it.

... and gave you an opportunity to back away from this misconcieved, degenerate little insult. Yet you insist upon remaining a real dick on this point. This is just a pantywaisted, bullying little attempt to "win" a debate, because your failure to talk about specifics (which, again, are everything to this argument) is exposing how ill-thought out your statism really is.

Since you are insisting on implying that I'm ok with child molestation, I feel compelled to invite you to perform a difficult and possibly dangerous sex act upon your own person. Enjoy.

I have to hand it to you, you really do give me a chuckle. I've asked you to explicitly deny that your are ok with a policy that permits even child-molester to have children and potentially molest again. You refuse to deny it and talk around the issue. If it is not your position, all you need to say "No, that is not my position" and explain how you would prevent such an occurance. You inability to do, leads me to conclude that it IS your position.

I thank you heartly for your invitation, and I may take you up on it, but whether I do or don't will reamain a private matter.

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, other than financial qualifiers, what else would render a person unfit to have children?

There are at least a couple I can think of.

An individual should achieve a minimium age before becoming a parent.

A parent is responsible from keeping a child safe from harm. A history of child negligence or violence could render a individual unfit to be a parent.

Continued illegal drug use could render a individual unfit to be a parent.

Not having mental competance to undertaing the role of parent. For example through a medical condition such as dementia.

Also, given that this plan would reduce the number of children born in Canada, and given that birth rates are already low, and given that the aging baby-boomer population dictates a need for us to have an even greater population to sustain this aging population, I can only assume that you also plan to greatly increase immigration levels to compensate. Is that accurate?

The issue of why population growth is requred is tied to how social programs are structured. They are structured as pay-as-you-go pyramid schemes which depends upon ever larger populations. Sooner or later, that is not sustainable because the population cannot grow indefinately. The real solution is to fix the social programs so that they don't depend upon population growth.

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be happy to debate what the details of the standard should be, by why even bother since you don't even agree that there should be a standard. If you agree that there should be a standard, then lets move to the next step of examining the details of the standard.

I did. So did another poster.

You ignored all of them.

I have to hand it to you, you really do give me a chuckle. I've asked you to explicitly deny that your are ok with a policy that permits even child-molester to have children and potentially molest again. You refuse to deny it and talk around the issue. If it is not your position, all you need to say "No, that is not my position" and explain how you would prevent such an occurance. You inability to do, leads me to conclude that it IS your position.

I wouldn't have thought it necessary to deny that I am ok wiht child molestation. I think elementary notions of civil discourse would help all of us to assume better of one another.

But ok, we'll play it your way--if you insist upon being a mean-spirited little pussy:

I'm not ok with child molestation.

Now I have been clear enough even for thunderously ignorant knuckledraggers like yourself.

I note well, however, that YOU have not stated outright YOUR opposition to child molestation. (Implying it is not, according to you, sufficient.) Therefore, we can only conclude that you DO support child molestation. By your standards, mind. Congratulations.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did. So did another poster.

You ignored all of them.

You did what? Agree that there should be a standard before people are allowed to be parents? Yes, I know you agree that parents should be held to a standard, AFTER they are parents, but that is not what I'm asking. Your two-word sentences, do very little to clarify your position.

I wouldn't have thought it necessary to deny that I am ok wiht child molestation. I think elementary notions of civil discourse would help all of us to assume better of one another.

But ok, we'll play it your way--if you insist upon being a mean-spirited little pussy:

There is a wonderful irony when the poster who relishes in calling me such terms such as "mean-spirited little pussy", "thunderously ignorant knuckledraggers" starts giving lectures on what constitues civil discourse. Keep it up, it really adds amusement to my day.

I'm not ok with child molestation.

Great, but you haven't addressed the rest of the question. How do you propose to prevent it? I mean in situations where a known child-molester who has history of child-abuse to his or other kids, proposes to have more kids. Please explain.

I note well, however, that YOU have not stated outright YOUR opposition to child molestation. (Implying it is not, according to you, sufficient.) Therefore, we can only conclude that you DO support child molestation. By your standards, mind. Congratulations.

Hey, unlike me, you never asked me my position. Since you asked I will tell you. I am against allowing known child-molesters having access to additional kids including their own through procreation. I think I have already stated that, but I have no problem stating it again. I am fine with a policy which uses the power of the state to preemptively prevent such an indiviudal from becoming a parent again and thus having access to additional kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did what? Agree that there should be a standard before people are allowed to be parents? Yes, I know you agree that parents should be held to a standard, AFTER they are parents, but that is not what I'm asking. Your two-word sentences, do very little to clarify your position.

I listed a whole raft of pertinent questions about implementation, and questioned how these rules could ever be specifically designhed and agreed-upon (including the matter of how millions (literally) of individual enforcements could be done.)

Your reply--evidently "clariy[ing] your position" in a way that I do not--was...well, there WAS no reasonable reply. You dismissed these matters as trivial details to be figured out at later. Somehow. But without thinking these "details" through, you HAVE no argument. Because they are EVERYTHING to such an argument. That is,. your argument is 100% useless and meaningless without addressing the complexities in real detail.

There is a wonderful irony when the poster who relishes in calling me such terms such as "mean-spirited little pussy", "thunderously ignorant knuckledraggers" starts giving lectures on what constitues civil discourse. Keep it up, it really adds amusement to my day.

If you are going to make implications--and then, explications--about a posters' stance on child molestation, of course you are going to receive insults.

In fact, that's WHY you said what you did. You successfully tried to provoke me, by stating something ugly, mean-spirited, unfair, and absolutely inimical to any civil argument. You were looking to make the debate uncivil. Obviously you know this, so why be coy about it?

Great, but you haven't addressed the rest of the question. How do you propose to prevent it? I mean in situations where a known child-molester who has history of child-abuse to his or other kids, proposes to have more kids. Please explain.

I would support such a rule. But convicted child molesters are already registered, including their crimes and their place of residence. So we don't need to come up with some brand new method of enforcement on this matter; the mechanisms arer already in place.

Hey, unlike me, you never asked me my position.

So what? You KNOW it is an unfair question. Just because I didn't directly answer a ridiculous question (or even a good question, for that matter) doesn't mean that you are somehow forced to "conclude" that the worst possible answer must be the correct one. It's a logical fallacy...used in service of trying to provoke another poster through the worst of all insults.

I'm surpised I even have to inform you of this. Though in fact, I find it dificult to believe you're not already aware of it...and that you simply don't care. Anything goes, when trying to score a debate "point."

Since you asked I will tell you. I am against allowing known child-molesters having access to additional kids including their own through procreation. I think I have already stated that,

No, you didn't. You implied it very strongly...but that's apparently not good enough.

However, now we have both stated outright our antipathy towards child molestation. Since that was so, so necessary, just in case one or both of us were big fans of the practice.

Now, we have a whole boatload of other moral issues which we need to explicate in absolute terms, lest one of us believes the other supports terrorism, genocidal wars of conquest, domestic abuse, police brutality, political corruption, forced sodomy, and child abuse (I mean the non-sexual kind, since we have painstakingly discovered each other's moral conclusions on that particular horror.)

but I have no problem stating it again. I am fine with a policy which uses the power of the state to preemptively prevent such an indiviudal from becoming a parent again and thus having access to additional kids.

Fine, then we have at least a single point of agreement. Using the surveillance methods already in place, and thus leaving the non-convicted out of the picture, we could conceivably prevent known child-rapists from having children.

Completely apart from your idea as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listed a whole raft of pertinent questions about implementation, and questioned how these rules could ever be specifically designhed and agreed-upon (including the matter of how millions (literally) of individual enforcements could be done.)

Your reply--evidently "clariy[ing] your position" in a way that I do not--was...well, there WAS no reasonable reply. You dismissed these matters as trivial details to be figured out at later. Somehow. But without thinking these "details" through, you HAVE no argument. Because they are EVERYTHING to such an argument. That is,. your argument is 100% useless and meaningless without addressing the complexities in real detail.

Look, I'm not trying to avoid going into details. In fact I'd be happy to have that discussion. I simply want to clarify where you stand. So as I understand, you objection to having in standard is that you don't believe it is implementable. Did I get that correct, or are there other objections I should be aware of? If there are others, let's get the on the table. If not, let's get into the details.

If you are going to make implications--and then, explications--about a posters' stance on child molestation, of course you are going to receive insults.

In fact, that's WHY you said what you did. You successfully tried to provoke me, by stating something ugly, mean-spirited, unfair, and absolutely inimical to any civil argument. You were looking to make the debate uncivil. Obviously you know this, so why be coy about it?

I'm looking for you to take a position. It took a while but you finally did. Unfortunately you had to lose your temper before you did. If you are explicit about takeing positions, I will no longer have to interpret your position.

I would support such a rule. But convicted child molesters are already registered, including their crimes and their place of residence. So we don't need to come up with some brand new method of enforcement on this matter; the mechanisms arer already in place.

It is great that you support such a rule, but there is no current mechanism to prevent them from having kids. Registering their place of residence doesn't prevent them from procreating. So what happens in the current system when they procreate?

So what? You KNOW it is an unfair question. Just because I didn't directly answer a ridiculous question (or even a good question, for that matter) doesn't mean that you are somehow forced to "conclude" that the worst possible answer must be the correct one. It's a logical fallacy...used in service of trying to provoke another poster through the worst of all insults.

No, just trying to get a straight answer out of you.

No, you didn't. You implied it very strongly...but that's apparently not good enough.

If you don't think I have anwered explicitly, all you need to do is ask a direct question. No, an implication is not the same as a direct answer.

Fine, then we have at least a single point of agreement. Using the surveillance methods already in place, and thus leaving the non-convicted out of the picture, we could conceivably prevent known child-rapists from having children.

Completely apart from your idea as a whole.

So your position is to use "surveillance methods already in place" to prevent known-child molesters from having kids? Actually I am not aware "surveillance methods already in place" watch a child-molester in his bedroom with his partner and somehow prevent them from becoming parents. Are you aware of such surveillance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to address another issue. It seems based upon some of the conversations I've had that some posters believe that society categorically rejects the idea of controlling who becomes a parent. I would submit that society has no such aversion and actually historically has implemented such a mechanism, however historical mechanisms are ineffective today due to a changed environment.

The historical mechanism I refer to is a Marriage License. There are likely a number of reasons for state sanction of marriage, however one of them is it sought to restrict who could marry and thus procreate. One example was to establish the couple didn't pass on gentic defects, and the they couple was capable of consent. The disconnect between such a mechansim and current society is that while in the past,extreme soceital pressure was excerted to force parents to also be married, today very little such presure exist. Thus today even the most unfit individual can become parents with the only minimal requirements being set by nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I'm not trying to avoid going into details. In fact I'd be happy to have that discussion. I simply want to clarify where you stand. So as I understand, you objection to having in standard is that you don't believe it is implementable. Did I get that correct, or are there other objections I should be aware of? If there are others, let's get the on the table. If not, let's get into the details.

The details are part and parcel of the objection. you cannot separate the idea from how it could be implemented. You're creating a false dichotomy between an abstract idea and its rules and methods of implementation.

For example, I think violent criminals should be incarcerated. (Most people agree.) But exactly WHAT constitutes a violent offense; what are the differeing degrees of violent offense; what are the particulars of a specific case that should be taken into account; these all matter so much that they render the original notion ("violent criminals should be incarcerated") close to meaningless without the other attributed immediately taken into account.

We don't say, "throw them all in prison and then we'll figure out the details later"; the details are intrinsic to the problem, from the severity of the prosecution, back to the behavior of the police, back to what specific laws and punishments and problem-solving are instituted in the first place. There's no separation there.

I'm looking for you to take a position. It took a while but you finally did. Unfortunately you had to lose your temper before you did. If you are explicit about takeing positions, I will no longer have to interpret your position.

You interpret a difference in opinion on state intervention with being okay with child molestation?

I don't buy it. I think you were frustrated into throwing this bomb at me, which common sense and common decency informs you immediately is bad behavior. In other words, I don't think you actually wondered if I was okay with child molestation.

And look, this is exactly the sort of hysterical accusaitons that are used incorrectly in all sorts of controversial debates:

You support the right to choose? Then you support babykillers;

You are pro-life? Then you support the repression of women.

This is exactly what you're doing: "You don't support MY hypothesis about the need for greater government intervention into pre- and post-procreation? Then you are fine with child molesters behaving as they do."

The argument is a "do-you-still-beat-your-wife" equation, and it is thoroughly unfair.

It is great that you support such a rule, but there is no current mechanism to prevent them from having kids. Registering their place of residence doesn't prevent them from procreating. So what happens in the current system when they procreate?

Since there are often ALREADY rules in place about staying a certain distance away from children, it could be enforced in this situation too. If the mother doesn't comply with the rule, she is subject to losing her children in the same way that abusive or neglectful mothers already are subject to it.

It's not a gigantic step; your proposal is.

No, just trying to get a straight answer out of you.

And you find it difficult to assume that your political opponent doesn't support child molestation?

I would assume it about you, sans evidence to the contrary; and ignoring a pointed question is not even faintly evidence to the contrary...as specific questions are ignored all the time by debaters. Including yourself. Is each instance of your not answering a direct question a kind of concession? I don't think so.

I don't see why you can't hold yourself to the same elementary level of civility that I do on such matters. It's not difficult.

Insults are one thing; some simply go too far, and can have no effect beyond provocation.

So your position is to use "surveillance methods already in place" to prevent known-child molesters from having kids? Actually I am not aware "surveillance methods already in place" watch a child-molester in his bedroom with his partner and somehow prevent them from becoming parents. Are you aware of such surveillance?

Again: you cannot prevent them from procreating; you can prevent them from being parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to address another issue. It seems based upon some of the conversations I've had that some posters believe that society categorically rejects the idea of controlling who becomes a parent. I would submit that society has no such aversion and actually historically has implemented such a mechanism, however historical mechanisms are ineffective today due to a changed environment.

The historical mechanism I refer to is a Marriage License. There are likely a number of reasons for state sanction of marriage, however one of them is it sought to restrict who could marry and thus procreate. One example was to establish the couple didn't pass on gentic defects, and the they couple was capable of consent. The disconnect between such a mechansim and current society is that while in the past,extreme soceital pressure was excerted to force parents to also be married, today very little such presure exist. Thus today even the most unfit individual can become parents with the only minimal requirements being set by nature.

But you here cite a relatively recent and temporary phenomenon: throughout the majority of human civlization, "marriage"as we know it was often a private affair, in a way that wouldn't even be recognized as "marriage" in contemporary parlance.

Also, there was not some conscious laws developed about "Marriage Licenses" enacted specifically to protect children from harm. That had nothing to do with it.

And as for "consent"...well, I hope you're aware that thta has historically not been too clear. A woman, after all, was effectively the property of her father, later "given" to a husband. (The form of this property-transference is still traditionally in place with the father handing over his daughter.)

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The details are part and parcel of the objection. you cannot separate the idea from how it could be implemented. You're creating a false dichotomy between an abstract idea and its rules and methods of implementation.

Ok then, it seems that is your only objection. Fine I have proposed some ideas before. I will repeat them here:

An individual should achieve a minimium age before becoming a parent.

A parent is responsible from keeping a child safe from harm. A history of child negligence or violence could render a individual unfit to be a parent.

Continued illegal drug use could render a individual unfit to be a parent.

Not having mental competance to undertaing the role of parent. For example through a medical condition such as dementia.

Perhaps you can tell me which of those are not implementable and I'll be happy to withdraw them. Is it your contention that none of them are implementable as a standard. If you don't agree that they are measurable or implemntable, please tell me why.

The argument is a "do-you-still-beat-your-wife" equation, and it is thoroughly unfair.

How about we save ourselves a whole lot of typing on arguing the rules of "fair" debate if we just stick to responding to points directly? Agreed?

Since there are often ALREADY rules in place about staying a certain distance away from children, it could be enforced in this situation too. If the mother doesn't comply with the rule, she is subject to losing her children in the same way that abusive or neglectful mothers already are subject to it.

It's not a gigantic step; your proposal is.

So your position is that the state pre-emptively remove a baby from a known child-molesting parent (even if there is no proof that they have molested this particular baby), using EXISTING rules specficing that child molesters stay away from children. Did I get that right?

Insults are one thing; some simply go too far, and can have no effect beyond provocation.

Really bloodyminded, a poster who demonstratably uses name-calling wants to define debate civility? Give me a break!

Again: you cannot prevent them from procreating; you can prevent them from being parents.

Please tell me how. By taking away their kids?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you here cite a relatively recent and temporary phenomenon: throughout the majority of human civlization, "marriage"as we know it was often a private affair, in a way that wouldn't even be recognized as "marriage" in contemporary parlance.

Depends upon what you mean by "recent". Marriage Licenses have been issued since the Middle Ages. Before that the Church (which at the time had many of the elements of government) sanctioned marriages no later than 1215. Marriage licence

The vast majority of our laws are "recent" by scales, so I woudl argue that state intervention in parenting has at least as long a history as many of our other interventionist policies.

Also, there was not some conscious laws developed about "Marriage Licenses" enacted specifically to protect children from harm. That had nothing to do with it.

True, nor did I claim as such. The laws didn't prevent them from phyiscal harm from parental actions, but what it sought to do was preemptively prevent them from genetic harm due to parental inbreeding.

And as for "consent"...well, I hope you're aware that thta has historically not been too clear. A woman, after all, was effectively the property of her father, later "given" to a husband. (The form of this property-transference is still traditionally in place with the father handing over his daughter.)

Yes, traditionally the daughter was thought of as property of the father. If we agree at the time the state sanctioned this position, it was the father who had to agree to let his get married. The question of consent becomes was the father able to consent. Nature dictates that the father woudl be an adult of at least in his 20s. So even if we use age as the only criteria to determine that an individual can consent, the indivudal agreeing to marriage, was able to consent.

Today, as the idea of a daughter being a father's property has been rejected, we still need to look at whether the person entering a marriage is capable of consent. Most state marriage laws have minimium ages for marriage. There was a historical correlatoin between marriage and parenthood. As this correlation weakens, their is no minimium age of consent for parenthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends upon what you mean by "recent". Marriage Licenses have been issued since the Middle Ages. Before that the Church (which at the time had many of the elements of government) sanctioned marriages no later than 1215. Marriage licence

The vast majority of our laws are "recent" by scales, so I woudl argue that state intervention in parenting has at least as long a history as many of our other interventionist policies.

But if you read down a little further in the very cite you source, you'll see that it says just what I was saying.

In your citation.

Yes, traditionally the daughter was thought of as property of the father. If we agree at the time the state sanctioned this position, it was the father who had to agree to let his get married. The question of consent becomes was the father able to consent. Nature dictates that the father woudl be an adult of at least in his 20s. So even if we use age as the only criteria to determine that an individual can consent, the indivudal agreeing to marriage, was able to consent.

But again, since marriage was so commonly a private practice, of a couple declaring themselves married to one another in which the State was entirely absent, this is virtually irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you read down a little further in the very cite you source, you'll see that it says just what I was saying.

In your citation.

Perhaps you should quote what you mean. What it says is that "For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families." And that may be true, but that doesn't preclude the fact that the contract was sactioned by the state of the church.

"Marriage licence application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-1800s with many available dating from the 1600s in colonial America."

Even if you hold that marriage licenses are a "recent" phenomena, for the last several hundred years they have been accepted in modern socitey.

But again, since marriage was so commonly a private practice, of a couple declaring themselves married to one another in which the State was entirely absent, this is virtually irrelevant.

Well even if what you say is true, since in today's society the state DOES interevene in setting the standard on who can enter into a contract, what the state did (or in this case didn't do) in the past is virtually irrelevant.

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should quote what you mean. What it says is that "For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families." And that may be true, but that doesn't preclude the fact that the contract was sactioned by the state of the church.

Exactly. The "sanction" was for already-existing actions that had nothing whatsoever to do with state intervention. The contract was sanctioned in a way that Canada sanctions some of my behaviors that have nothing to do with their enforcement, or lack thereof.

The Church was not decreeing who could and could not get married. People just got married, and the church nodded its benign head.

"Marriage licence application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-1800s with many available dating from the 1600s in colonial America."

Even if you hold that marriage licenses are a "recent" phenomena, for the last several hundred years they have been accepted in modern socitey.

I never said they weren't accepted; I said they weren't necessary.

Well even if what you say is true, since in today's society the state DOES interevene in setting the standard on who can enter into a contract, what the state did (or in this case didn't do) in the past is virtually irrelevant.

Sure, it's a bit of a separate argument---which you summoned. Not me. In a typical conservative formulation, you implied that it "used to always be done this way, and it worked great, so let's bring back the old-timey methods."

When, in fact, such matters are more important NOW than they were in the "olden days."

Good lord...you bring up an argument...and when it's demolished, you say that the argument (YOUR argument) is "irrelevant."

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...