If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RedState)   MSNBC host films a commercial saying that children don't belong to their parents or their families, but to their communities at large. This is an outrage, apparently   (redstate.com) divider line 457
    More: Interesting, MSNBC, Melissa Harris-Perry, state ownership, soylent greens, families  
•       •       •

2890 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Apr 2013 at 6:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



457 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-08 11:59:05 PM

sendtodave: skullkrusher: badhatharry: She is very smart and very clear. She believes we need to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents because it is not in the best interest of the collective. This is an old, bad idea.

I don't think she's saying that. If she is, she is welcome to this bag of dicks I save for just such occasions.

But... It takes a village to raise a child!


Hillary will have her turn in 3 years, don't worry
 
2013-04-08 11:59:09 PM

gaspode: Children belong to themselves. Their parents do not own them, the state does not own them, the local community do not own them.

The cult of parental ownership which dominates many cultures leads to a lot of terrible things from the obvious and direct (abuse and exploitation) to the less obvious and/or indirect (poor or perverted education, indoctrination etc), though it also has benefits.. but a balance must be struck.  The community does not OWN children, but it has responsibilities to them and the right to make laws and institute systems which govern how children are raised.


The community has interests in children, not responsibilities.  Its right to make laws and govern arise from its power to do so.

You might Kahlil Gibran's "On Children."  It's addressed to parents.
 
2013-04-09 12:00:55 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: The obvious problem is that since the government wants to take your guns as well as your kids they have NOT specified how they will make sure that the kids are not going to be playing with the guns.

Unless of course the government really doesn't care if they do...probably because they are buying up all the ammo.


Nah, they both get dumped in the grinder.  The guns are the iron supplement.  The kids are "meat by-product".
 
2013-04-09 12:07:33 AM

FlippityFlap: The amount of comments I can't see almost makes me want to turn off the filters....

/Almost.


This thread brought all the Usual Suspects to the yard. And a couple of headscratching new ones.
 
2013-04-09 12:09:07 AM

Mrtraveler01: maxalt: Yea they were socialists, they often said "By each according to his needs to each according to his deeds". That was a common refrain among their friends who were almost all teachers.

For being a bunch of socialist teachers, they sure did a piss poor job at accurately quoting Marx.


They had to make it rhyme so it would sink in with teh kiddies.
 
2013-04-09 12:12:43 AM

skullkrusher: badhatharry: She is very smart and very clear. She believes we need to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents because it is not in the best interest of the collective. This is an old, bad idea.

I don't think she's saying that. If she is, she is welcome to this bag of dicks I save for just such occasions.


I think that is exactly what she is saying.  She is the social worker that shows up at the front door with the sheriff to take your kid.  Simply, because you dare swat your kid on the bottom at walmart for throwing a fit, as they will do from time to time.

Somewhere between a bowl of dicks and a .380 to the forehead is precisely what this woman deserves.
 
2013-04-09 12:14:58 AM

pxsteel: skullkrusher: badhatharry: She is very smart and very clear. She believes we need to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents because it is not in the best interest of the collective. This is an old, bad idea.

I don't think she's saying that. If she is, she is welcome to this bag of dicks I save for just such occasions.

I think that is exactly what she is saying.  She is the social worker that shows up at the front door with the sheriff to take your kid.  Simply, because you dare swat your kid on the bottom at walmart for throwing a fit, as they will do from time to time.

Somewhere between a bowl of dicks and a .380 to the forehead is precisely what this woman deserves.


Haha, look at you three idiots, sucking each others' dicks.
 
2013-04-09 12:15:27 AM
My idiot brother-in-law is probably shiatting in his pants right now. (or he did whenever Glenn Beck covered it.)

On the bright side, maybe he'll finally stop shutting up about Common Core.  He was all whaarrgarbly over Easter weekend. "There was a question on a public school exam that asked why 9/11 was America's fault!"

I googled it.  This is the question Beck was pissing his pants about:

"Why might the United States be a target for terrorism?"  The answer? "Decisions we made in the United States have had negative effects on people elsewhere."

*facepalm*
 
2013-04-09 12:18:30 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: pxsteel: skullkrusher: badhatharry: She is very smart and very clear. She believes we need to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents because it is not in the best interest of the collective. This is an old, bad idea.

I don't think she's saying that. If she is, she is welcome to this bag of dicks I save for just such occasions.

I think that is exactly what she is saying.  She is the social worker that shows up at the front door with the sheriff to take your kid.  Simply, because you dare swat your kid on the bottom at walmart for throwing a fit, as they will do from time to time.

Somewhere between a bowl of dicks and a .380 to the forehead is precisely what this woman deserves.

Haha, look at you three idiots, sucking each others' dicks.


Bowls of 'em.

I liked the "someone should hurt them for trying to stop me from hurting my kids" angle.
 
2013-04-09 12:23:19 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: pxsteel: skullkrusher: badhatharry: She is very smart and very clear. She believes we need to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents because it is not in the best interest of the collective. This is an old, bad idea.

I don't think she's saying that. If she is, she is welcome to this bag of dicks I save for just such occasions.

I think that is exactly what she is saying.  She is the social worker that shows up at the front door with the sheriff to take your kid.  Simply, because you dare swat your kid on the bottom at walmart for throwing a fit, as they will do from time to time.

Somewhere between a bowl of dicks and a .380 to the forehead is precisely what this woman deserves.

Haha, look at you three idiots, sucking each others' dicks.



Hey, I pay 5 bucks a month to watch that action.
 
2013-04-09 12:23:31 AM

Satanic_Hamster: You know the same sort of person will claim it's the states/schools responsibility to teach kids values/morals/religion.


The meanspirited part of me wants to draw a comparison to dry drunks, and how maybe given the morality, values and religion of America, it might be the most appropriate course of action. Of course, since the people in the states and schools teaching are also Americans, so you're back where you started. Hrm.
 
2013-04-09 12:24:55 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: pxsteel: skullkrusher: badhatharry: She is very smart and very clear. She believes we need to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents because it is not in the best interest of the collective. This is an old, bad idea.

I don't think she's saying that. If she is, she is welcome to this bag of dicks I save for just such occasions.

I think that is exactly what she is saying.  She is the social worker that shows up at the front door with the sheriff to take your kid.  Simply, because you dare swat your kid on the bottom at walmart for throwing a fit, as they will do from time to time.

Somewhere between a bowl of dicks and a .380 to the forehead is precisely what this woman deserves.

Haha, look at you three idiots, sucking each others' dicks.


yeah except I said that she probably didn't mean what they think she did. They didn't teach readin' in armchair revolutionary college?
 
2013-04-09 12:26:47 AM

nocturnal001: Are things like being against gay marriage really halmarks of conservative ideology? I've just never viewed true conservatism as having anything to do with cultural norms.


Eh?! True conservatism has always been to do with encouraging cultural norms; where it can go wrong -- since every human ideology, being human to begin with, has its weak point -- is in enforcing those norms when it is not morally and/or pragmatically necessary to do so. (For example, putting homosexuals in prison was never just or necessary).

Now as it happens, I really don't think the issue of gay marriage is important in itself; only 2-3% of the population is homosexual and of those, how many actually want to get married? We've had gay marriage in my country for years and relatively few have bothered to avail themselves of it. I personally am only opposed to the creation of yet another class of entitlements in an increasingly bankrupt society; but whether two men or women want to call themselves married is in itself of little importance to me. But I think that the issue itself is being promoted and vastly over- exaggerated in its importance in an attempt to marginalize organized religion and its adherents. In Denmark for example it has been announced that clergy of the state church would be compelled to perform gay wedding ceremonies. I can't imagine that it will be very long before it is deemed discriminatory for Catholic, Orthodox and fundamentalist Protestant denominations in most western nations to refuse to do the same in the face of punitive sanctions (Islam will likely be exempted), and I also can't help but feel that this was the point of the whole exercise to begin with. Look at how individuals who speak out against gay marriage are being viciously denounced, after all; there is a kind of witch-hunting imperative behind it in many quarters.

RE GW, when he was brought forward, he was championed as being the perfect conservative.

By who? Citation needed! Really, it's like saying that Obama was championed as the perfect liberal -- regardless of how many people may have felt that way, there remain others (though perhaps fewer in number) who criticize Obama from a left-wing perspective, because he is insufficiently radical, etc. The political spectrum is wide.

Now, maybe that was marketing used to win the election but still. I literally saw him called a champion of conservatism to being brushed off as "he really was just a liberal" in a span of 8 years.

Not by the same people, you didn't. I think this is a common error that people on the Left make; they assume that pretty much anyone who disagrees with their opinions can be dismissed as belonging to a monolithic bloc of opinion called "right-wing" or "conservative". And truth be told, people on the Right feel that same way about those on your side. When I used to subscribe to "Harper's" magazine for example I was always astonished (and impressed) that such an august left-wing publication would dare to criticize the repression of the Castro regime in Cuba; I'd always assumed that lefties automatically closed their ranks on that issue.

His father had much of the same complaints, and I think Reagan would share that space as well if people really knew what he did. Lefties may have celebrated Clinton and Obama for being "good" presidents or whatever, but they are not heralded as being paragons of liberalism.

Obama isn't being heralded as a paragon of liberalism?! He is treated by mainstream American left- liberals as somebody who is practically beyond criticism. Again, I know that there are those who attack him from the left, but I don't think they're typical.
 
2013-04-09 12:27:20 AM

KarmicDisaster: You are an unfit mother. Your children will be placed in the custody of Carl's Jr.


Welcome to COSTCO. I love you.
 
2013-04-09 12:31:23 AM

pxsteel: Somewhere between a bowl of dicks and a .380 to the forehead is precisely what this woman deserves.


If you had any sense, you'd be asking the mods to delete this comment - or at the very least, pretending that it was posted as a prank by someone other than you.
 
2013-04-09 12:36:53 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Again, I know that there are those who attack him from the left, but I don't think they're typical.


Buh?

Do you mean by those in office, those in punditry, or your average fark liberal?

Because there isn't many people to the left of him in office, pundits are morons, and Fark liberals criticism him often.

The defense is only "He's still waaaaaay better than the alternatives."
 
2013-04-09 12:38:58 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: sendtodave: Huggermugger: ater on, in the 1970s, I knew several kids in my high school who lived in the orphanage in Raleigh, which was a snakepit of a place where kids had the shiat beat out of them, and several of them were even pimped out to local pedophiles.

Those were simpler times.  Freer times.

Nowadays social workers just place the kids in foster care instead, where the same kind of abuse takes place. Nothing has changed.


A lot has changed. Ask the thousands of survivors of Irish Catholic orphanages in the 1940s and 1950s if they enjoyed the complete absence of accountability. Those institutions were completely free to torture children in the most cruel and depraved manner. While there are a lot of problems with the current foster care system (almost entirely due to the shortage of foster parents and the crushing workloads of social workers) most children are infinitely better off in a foster situation than in the cruelties of the past.
 
2013-04-09 12:41:45 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: nocturnal001: The reality is that private enterprise never developed the interstate system, didn't develop a railroad system without serious government help, didn't develop the internet etc. etc.

I've already established that I'm a conservative rather than a libertarian, but I'd just like you ask you a question: where do you think the all- benevolent State got the money from to pay for all these wonderful innovations? It is, regrettably, capitalist free enterprise that generates the wealth, that in turn creates the tax-base, that in turn makes government spending (whether well-directed or not) possible to begin with. And here's another question: what great enterprises has the government given us recently? And if there are fewer great enterprises in the US -- such as dams and power plants and space programmes, etc. -- than there have been in the past, why do you think that might be?

And that doesn't even touch on the insane levels of transaction costs that would be imposed upon every single transaction in society without government intervention. Sure the free market will make sure ultimately that Soda Brand X doesn't contain poison, but glazing over the few people killed for the market to learn that,

In reality, a vanishingly small number of people have ever died from drinking poison soda. But over the past one hundred years alone something like 125 million people have been directly murdered by their governments. This is why the idea of regarding governments as inherently benevolent entities whose only mission is to save us from ourselves is dangerously naive. Again, I am not a libertarian and I am not opposed to the reasonable regulation of foodstuffs -- but if you think the free market is anywhere near as great a danger to your health as uncontrolled levels of government, you are completely ignorant of history.

I'm sadly old-fashioned, so I tend to look at these issues from a moral perspective. I assume that individual human beings are naturally fallible and co ...


I'm saddened that you are so pants shiatingly frightened of collective action in society.  Yes, government and government like entities have been responsible for the vast majority of large scale repression and organized murder.  But you will also find that those that did operated with a complete lack of transparency.  We are fortunate to not live under such conditions.  That being said, without an organized society we'd still be a marginal species on the African savanna.  Without those structures, rules, and enforcement, we'd still be Thog and Ogg, hoping to live long enough to reproduce.  100s of millions wouldn't have been killed, billions would never have lived.

And the free market does darn little to stem poisoning.  You are only thinking of a near instant toxin.  Try looking at what "free enterprise" did to NJ until the clean water act and the creation of the superfund cleanups.  The Passaic river burned regularly.  Fish kills washed up regularly.  To the point it wasn't even news.  And the problems continue today - it's damn expensive to dredge the Hudson river waterways because down in the sediment on the bottom of the river is layer upon layer of heavy metals - somewhat safe now because they are covered by more recent sediment - but disturbed you get another fish kill.  And all those heavy metals went into the food chain - sometimes directly into the local residents.  How about all the asbestosis sufferers from John's Manville and Co.?  Half of Manville NJ suffered from it.  Where does the free market help them?  The free market would have said "tough shiat, die".  And kept right on killing.  Same with lead.  Same with nearly any toxic, useful substance.

You live in a state of ignorance about how things work.  Left to their own devices humans will maim and kill their fellow man for purely short term gain.  Only collectively, in a transparent manner, with continual engagement, yelling and screaming at each other in a messy, socially connected system do we have any hope of ending that.

That means government, and lots of it.  Instead of being frightened of it - get involved.  Do you know your local government officials on sight?   Have you ever written your legislative representatives at the state, local or federal level?  Are you on all their mailing lists?  Do you write to the various government agencies when they have open public comments on things they do?  Do you actively support a political party? With more than just a check?  Do you support other groups in public advocacy?

I think you will answer no to most of these.  You sound like you want the government to be some perpetual motion machine - no friction and no inputs.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  As with most things in life, you get out what you put in.
 
2013-04-09 12:42:23 AM

Huggermugger: EvilRacistNaziFascist: sendtodave: Huggermugger: ater on, in the 1970s, I knew several kids in my high school who lived in the orphanage in Raleigh, which was a snakepit of a place where kids had the shiat beat out of them, and several of them were even pimped out to local pedophiles.

Those were simpler times.  Freer times.

Nowadays social workers just place the kids in foster care instead, where the same kind of abuse takes place. Nothing has changed.

A lot has changed. Ask the thousands of survivors of Irish Catholic orphanages in the 1940s and 1950s if they enjoyed the complete absence of accountability. Those institutions were completely free to torture children in the most cruel and depraved manner. While there are a lot of problems with the current foster care system (almost entirely due to the shortage of foster parents and the crushing workloads of social workers) most children are infinitely better off in a foster situation than in the cruelties of the past.


The cruelties are just as cruel, but they are far rarer and shock the collective conscience now. In the old days, they were not considered cruel.
 
2013-04-09 12:45:47 AM
MadHatter500:

Left to their own devices humans will maim and kill their fellow man for purely short term gain. Only collectively, in a transparent manner, with continual engagement, yelling and screaming at each other in a messy, socially connected system do we have any hope of ending that.

Damned right - Fark is the only thing standing between civilization and savagery!
 
2013-04-09 12:45:48 AM

MadHatter500: Yes, government and government like entities have been responsible for the vast majority of large scale repression and organized murder.


And they have been responsible for civilization.

That being said, without an organized society we'd still be a marginal species on the African savanna.  Without those structures, rules, and enforcement, we'd still be Thog and Ogg, hoping to live long enough to reproduce.  100s of millions wouldn't have been killed, billions would never have lived.

Oh.

That was your point.  Fine, fine, I'll read your whole post.  Geez.

...

Good post.
 
2013-04-09 12:49:15 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Huggermugger: EvilRacistNaziFascist: sendtodave: Huggermugger: ater on, in the 1970s, I knew several kids in my high school who lived in the orphanage in Raleigh, which was a snakepit of a place where kids had the shiat beat out of them, and several of them were even pimped out to local pedophiles.

Those were simpler times.  Freer times.

Nowadays social workers just place the kids in foster care instead, where the same kind of abuse takes place. Nothing has changed.

A lot has changed. Ask the thousands of survivors of Irish Catholic orphanages in the 1940s and 1950s if they enjoyed the complete absence of accountability. Those institutions were completely free to torture children in the most cruel and depraved manner. While there are a lot of problems with the current foster care system (almost entirely due to the shortage of foster parents and the crushing workloads of social workers) most children are infinitely better off in a foster situation than in the cruelties of the past.

The cruelties are just as cruel, but they are far rarer and shock the collective conscience now. In the old days, they were not considered cruel.


It's interesting how the value of human life has increased exponentially in the last few decades.

Well, in the west, at least.
 
2013-04-09 12:49:27 AM

sendtodave: I liked the "someone should hurt them for trying to stop me from hurting my kids" angle.


A couple of years back I was talking to a 30-ish man who as an adolescent had been taken away from his single mother and placed in foster care; he told me that she had a serious gambling problem and, since they were fairly poor to begin with, there was rarely enough food in the house as a result. He had no particular complaint about the foster care that he received, but when I asked him how he felt about it all he claimed that even with the neglect he still wished that he could have remained with his mother, who he loved more than anyone else.

The vast majority of parents do not hurt, abuse, or neglect their kids. But even in those cases where the parent or parents have a problem -- with drinking, gambling, drug abuse, or whatever else -- the child's instinctive preference is that the family remain intact. A parent would have to hurt his or her kids very badly to make them prefer, at an emotionally vulnerable age, a new life with complete strangers; and those cases are so vanishingly rare that is laughable to take them as sufficient pretext for the State to assume that its child-raising skills are superior. So no, even "hurting" your kids, rare as it is -- and let's face it, to some fanatics even traditional corporal punishment is now tantamount to child abuse -- is not always enough to justify agents of the government breaking up the basic ties of family.
 
2013-04-09 12:49:27 AM
Interesting and disturbing news item. Interesting and disturbing thread.

On the one hand, there are a lot of unfit parents. It runs the gamut from neglect and psychological abuse to physical and sexual abuse. The causes range from cluelessness of what children need to psychosis to deliberate sadism and sociopathic behavior. As with anything else, there is a Bell Curve of behavior and issues. 50% of parenting is going to be sub-par. 2% is going to be horrible.

Then again, 50% of parenting is going to be over-par. 2% is going to be outstanding.

In genetics and evolution, a wide range of genetic characteristics helps preserve the longevity of the species. A single plague, for example, will have a tougher time wiping out every single individual. Variation, then, is a survival trait.

Perhaps the same applies to different styles/types of parenting...?

Perhaps a "community creche" model where are children are subjected to the same parenting philosophy might have unintended consequences of mental uniformity and mediocrity...?

Also, a progressive thought seems to be that The State could probably do a better job of parenting than the sub-par 50%. But wait a minute. The State is made up of people. and the Bell Curve is everywhere. So 50% of those people will also be sub-par.

I can see that a few measures would be effective, just and moral. These would be in the area where being a parent has an effect on the community - other people. And, curiously, I say this as someone who has Libertarian leanings.

For example, I don't really see a "right" to have a child. Children effect other people, perhaps very negatively. Genetic issues aside, it's probably true that a sufficiently abused child can grow up to be a sociopathic monster. Perhaps, then, childbirth should be licensed, and licenses granted only to couples who take and pass parenting courses. Non-licensed children would become wards of The State and adopted out to licensed infertile couples.

Thoughts?
 
2013-04-09 12:54:13 AM
sendtodave:

It's interesting how the value of human life has increased exponentially in the last few decades.

Kinda puzzling, given the explosion in supply and the skyrocketing marginal costs of creating and maintaining human life.
 
2013-04-09 12:58:20 AM

Majick Thise: Can I sue my community for child support?


In a way, you can.    Google 'the Alinsky Method'.   It takes a long time.  Begin your community organizing.   Follow the steps.

No matter what the problem is........ the answer is to disperse Government funds.

Take from the Haves

give to the have-nots.


/Two very famous people studied this method,  and have gone far.
 
2013-04-09 01:00:11 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Huggermugger: EvilRacistNaziFascist: sendtodave: Huggermugger: ater on, in the 1970s, I knew several kids in my high school who lived in the orphanage in Raleigh, which was a snakepit of a place where kids had the shiat beat out of them, and several of them were even pimped out to local pedophiles.

Those were simpler times.  Freer times.

Nowadays social workers just place the kids in foster care instead, where the same kind of abuse takes place. Nothing has changed.

A lot has changed. Ask the thousands of survivors of Irish Catholic orphanages in the 1940s and 1950s if they enjoyed the complete absence of accountability. Those institutions were completely free to torture children in the most cruel and depraved manner. While there are a lot of problems with the current foster care system (almost entirely due to the shortage of foster parents and the crushing workloads of social workers) most children are infinitely better off in a foster situation than in the cruelties of the past.

The cruelties are just as cruel, but they are far rarer and shock the collective conscience now. In the old days, they were not considered cruel.


Nonsense. Everyone knew that they were cruel: the perpetrators knew it, the victims knew it, the enablers knew it, and the people who worked to change it knew it. What was different was that the perpetrators knew that they could get away with it, either because of the legal system or because there were segments of society that were either complicit or indifferent, or too frightened of challenging the status quo.
 
2013-04-09 01:04:01 AM

Huggermugger: Nonsense. Everyone knew that they were cruel: the perpetrators knew it, the victims knew it, the enablers knew it, and the people who worked to change it knew it. What was different was that the perpetrators knew that they could get away with it, either because of the legal system or because there were segments of society that were either complicit or indifferent, or too frightened of challenging the status quo.


Why was cruelty, if it was known to be cruel, the status quo?

Cruelty is good?  We like cruelty?
 
2013-04-09 01:05:54 AM

Huggermugger: A lot has changed. Ask the thousands of survivors of Irish Catholic orphanages in the 1940s and 1950s if they enjoyed the complete absence of accountability. Those institutions were completely free to torture children in the most cruel and depraved manner.


Well, let's not get carried away with exaggerations. There is no question that wherever adults enjoy a great degree of authority over the children of strangers, abuse cases will occur; in our own day for example this is most notably true in the mainstream public education system -- after all, how many Fark stories involve teacher- student sex? -- and those teachers accused of molesting students can often count on the support of their unions to help them. On the other hand, these situations are by no means universal; just as there are many decent public school teachers with no inappropriate interest in their students, there were many officials at Catholic orphanages who also meant well by their charges.

While there are a lot of problems with the current foster care system (almost entirely due to the shortage of foster parents and the crushing workloads of social workers)

How would a shortage of foster parents and overworked social workers cause rampant sexual abuse in foster care? It's foster care itself that is the dangerous environment for kids.

most children are infinitely better off in a foster situation than in the cruelties of the past.

Again, since sexual and physical abuse continues to be a serious problem in foster care, I would have to conclude that not much has really changed at all -- and no wonder, because human nature itself has not changed since the time of the orphanages. The regrettable but unchanging truth is that wherever you have adults or older children placed in a position of power over younger children who are not genetically related to them, there is a much greater chance that abuse will occur than would be the case in a family setting.
 
2013-04-09 01:10:42 AM

BarkingUnicorn: sendtodave:

It's interesting how the value of human life has increased exponentially in the last few decades.

Kinda puzzling, given the explosion in supply and the skyrocketing marginal costs of creating and maintaining human life.


To be fair, the explosion in supply happens mostly in countries where life is cheap.


I guess I should rephrase that as "the perceived value of first world lives has increased exponentially."
 
2013-04-09 01:15:03 AM

sendtodave: Huggermugger: Nonsense. Everyone knew that they were cruel: the perpetrators knew it, the victims knew it, the enablers knew it, and the people who worked to change it knew it. What was different was that the perpetrators knew that they could get away with it, either because of the legal system or because there were segments of society that were either complicit or indifferent, or too frightened of challenging the status quo.

Why was cruelty, if it was known to be cruel, the status quo?

Cruelty is good?  We like cruelty?


Yes, I'm afraid we do like cruelty.  If not, how do you explain our multiple millennia history of cruelty?
 
2013-04-09 01:15:26 AM

jpo2269: Fart_Machine,

I might be willing to accept your assertion had Ms. Harris not preceded your quote with her proclamation that "children don't belong to families..."


I suppose if you quote something it helps if the person actually said that.
 
2013-04-09 01:17:12 AM

Biological Ali: If you had any sense


You just answered your own question.  He really doesn't.
 
2013-04-09 01:28:50 AM

sendtodave: Huggermugger: Nonsense. Everyone knew that they were cruel: the perpetrators knew it, the victims knew it, the enablers knew it, and the people who worked to change it knew it. What was different was that the perpetrators knew that they could get away with it, either because of the legal system or because there were segments of society that were either complicit or indifferent, or too frightened of challenging the status quo.

Why was cruelty, if it was known to be cruel, the status quo?

Cruelty is good?  We like cruelty?


I suppose I should have said, "they were not considered intolerably cruel by society in general."  Farkers tend to fill in the blanks if you leave any.  Pity they use derp for filler.
 
2013-04-09 01:28:50 AM

rohar: sendtodave: Huggermugger: Nonsense. Everyone knew that they were cruel: the perpetrators knew it, the victims knew it, the enablers knew it, and the people who worked to change it knew it. What was different was that the perpetrators knew that they could get away with it, either because of the legal system or because there were segments of society that were either complicit or indifferent, or too frightened of challenging the status quo.

Why was cruelty, if it was known to be cruel, the status quo?

Cruelty is good?  We like cruelty?

Yes, I'm afraid we do like cruelty.  If not, how do you explain our multiple millennia history of cruelty?


Then why the (very) recent change?  Why is cruelty bad all of a sudden?

Are these decades where we believe in human rights, and life having high value just a ... well, a rounding error?  A blip?

Or, is it really a trend, progression?

/or maybe just wealthy people/nations feeling self-important?
//need more beer to figure this one out
 
2013-04-09 01:29:29 AM

Huggermugger: maxalt: Why is it that always when some one sees something that says government isn't the be all end all they go crazy? My son was MY RESPONSIBILITY, I do not want someone who was indoctrinated by the state ie teachers telling me how to raise my children. So you take the most brain dead path, what about child abuse?  Child abuse is already illegal and is punishable by up to life in jail. My son is well adjusted and smart has a well paying job and independent. He only spent the last two years of high school in public abuse buildings. The public schools do not teach ANYTHING!!! They teach "feel good". When over 50% of inner city school kids cannot read at a 2nd grade level when they graduate high school you people want more of public education? I had my son doing algebra when he was in the 3rd grade. Take responsibility and work hard to raise you child to be ready to face the world. Leave the government out of the picture, just because someone works for the government does NOT make them an angel or smart, just someone who failed at all else. My parents who were both teachers used to say "Those who can do, those who can't teach". And yes I truly loved my parents and miss them every day.

If it wasn't for liberal do-gooders, child abuse would not be illegal.


Look at his handle dude Maxalt....Max (short for maximum) and alt (short for alternate).
 
2013-04-09 01:30:39 AM

rohar: sendtodave: Huggermugger: Nonsense. Everyone knew that they were cruel: the perpetrators knew it, the victims knew it, the enablers knew it, and the people who worked to change it knew it. What was different was that the perpetrators knew that they could get away with it, either because of the legal system or because there were segments of society that were either complicit or indifferent, or too frightened of challenging the status quo.

Why was cruelty, if it was known to be cruel, the status quo?

Cruelty is good?  We like cruelty?

Yes, I'm afraid we do like cruelty.  If not, how do you explain our multiple millennia history of cruelty?


Goddam bleeding-heart liberals.

One man's cruelty is another's foreplay.
 
2013-04-09 01:31:07 AM

BarkingUnicorn: sendtodave: Huggermugger: Nonsense. Everyone knew that they were cruel: the perpetrators knew it, the victims knew it, the enablers knew it, and the people who worked to change it knew it. What was different was that the perpetrators knew that they could get away with it, either because of the legal system or because there were segments of society that were either complicit or indifferent, or too frightened of challenging the status quo.

Why was cruelty, if it was known to be cruel, the status quo?

Cruelty is good?  We like cruelty?

I suppose I should have said, "they were not considered intolerably cruel by society in general."  Farkers tend to fill in the blanks if you leave any.  Pity they use derp for filler.


Not sure how that changes the premise.  They're considered (intolerably) cruel now, and they weren't then, what changed?  Why was cruelty, know cruelty, tolerable just a few decades ago, and it's right out now?
 
2013-04-09 01:33:59 AM

sendtodave: rohar: sendtodave: Huggermugger: Nonsense. Everyone knew that they were cruel: the perpetrators knew it, the victims knew it, the enablers knew it, and the people who worked to change it knew it. What was different was that the perpetrators knew that they could get away with it, either because of the legal system or because there were segments of society that were either complicit or indifferent, or too frightened of challenging the status quo.

Why was cruelty, if it was known to be cruel, the status quo?

Cruelty is good?  We like cruelty?

Yes, I'm afraid we do like cruelty.  If not, how do you explain our multiple millennia history of cruelty?

Then why the (very) recent change?  Why is cruelty bad all of a sudden?

Are these decades where we believe in human rights, and life having high value just a ... well, a rounding error?  A blip?

Or, is it really a trend, progression?

/or maybe just wealthy people/nations feeling self-important?
//need more beer to figure this one out


Meanwhile, people are breathing air that's made of coal in China, not soot, the air is actually made of coal.  In much of the middle east, our country is killing off wedding parties for points on the Sunday morning funny shows.  Pakistan is a pit of death and Saudi Arabia still thinks beheading is cool. We still think the death penalty is cool right here in the grand old U,S. of A.  The noose in Montana has only been unused for a few short years.  As a species, I'm not sure we're advancing much.
 
2013-04-09 01:37:34 AM

sendtodave: BarkingUnicorn: sendtodave: Huggermugger: Nonsense. Everyone knew that they were cruel: the perpetrators knew it, the victims knew it, the enablers knew it, and the people who worked to change it knew it. What was different was that the perpetrators knew that they could get away with it, either because of the legal system or because there were segments of society that were either complicit or indifferent, or too frightened of challenging the status quo.

Why was cruelty, if it was known to be cruel, the status quo?

Cruelty is good?  We like cruelty?

I suppose I should have said, "they were not considered intolerably cruel by society in general."  Farkers tend to fill in the blanks if you leave any.  Pity they use derp for filler.

Not sure how that changes the premise.  They're considered (intolerably) cruel now, and they weren't then, what changed?  Why was cruelty, know cruelty, tolerable just a few decades ago, and it's right out now?


Like I said above:  goddam bleeding-heart liberals.  They've always been rocking the boat.

/NTTAWT
 
2013-04-09 01:39:21 AM

rohar: Meanwhile, people are breathing air that's made of coal in China, not soot, the air is actually made of coal. In much of the middle east, our country is killing off wedding parties for points on the Sunday morning funny shows. Pakistan is a pit of death and Saudi Arabia still thinks beheading is cool. We still think the death penalty is cool right here in the grand old U,S. of A. The noose in Montana has only been unused for a few short years. As a species, I'm not sure we're advancing much.


What's your hurry?
 
2013-04-09 01:41:02 AM

rohar: Meanwhile, people are breathing air that's made of coal in China, not soot, the air is actually made of coal.  In much of the middle east, our country is killing off wedding parties for points on the Sunday morning funny shows.  Pakistan is a pit of death and Saudi Arabia still thinks beheading is cool. We still think the death penalty is cool right here in the grand old U,S. of A.  The noose in Montana has only been unused for a few short years.  As a species, I'm not sure we're advancing much.


Well, that's kinda what I'm getting at.  Why all the hand waving about people's rights being infringed, or children's well being, etc.?  Cruelty is the norm, the LACK of it is the aberration.

First world problems?
 
2013-04-09 01:41:24 AM

BarkingUnicorn: rohar: Meanwhile, people are breathing air that's made of coal in China, not soot, the air is actually made of coal. In much of the middle east, our country is killing off wedding parties for points on the Sunday morning funny shows. Pakistan is a pit of death and Saudi Arabia still thinks beheading is cool. We still think the death penalty is cool right here in the grand old U,S. of A. The noose in Montana has only been unused for a few short years. As a species, I'm not sure we're advancing much.

What's your hurry?


I've got no hurry by comparison, but I've got a hell of a lot more to work off.  Saddly, I'm Viking.  I've got a whole lot more generational guilt.
 
2013-04-09 01:43:21 AM

sendtodave: rohar: Meanwhile, people are breathing air that's made of coal in China, not soot, the air is actually made of coal.  In much of the middle east, our country is killing off wedding parties for points on the Sunday morning funny shows.  Pakistan is a pit of death and Saudi Arabia still thinks beheading is cool. We still think the death penalty is cool right here in the grand old U,S. of A.  The noose in Montana has only been unused for a few short years.  As a species, I'm not sure we're advancing much.

Well, that's kinda what I'm getting at.  Why all the hand waving about people's rights being infringed, or children's well being, etc.?  Cruelty is the norm, the LACK of it is the aberration.

First world problems?


On the up side, I have never raped or plundered even though I'm apparently predisposed to such shenanigans.  Maybe we are advancing as a people...
 
2013-04-09 01:45:51 AM

BarkingUnicorn: sendtodave: BarkingUnicorn: sendtodave: Huggermugger: Nonsense. Everyone knew that they were cruel: the perpetrators knew it, the victims knew it, the enablers knew it, and the people who worked to change it knew it. What was different was that the perpetrators knew that they could get away with it, either because of the legal system or because there were segments of society that were either complicit or indifferent, or too frightened of challenging the status quo.

Why was cruelty, if it was known to be cruel, the status quo?

Cruelty is good?  We like cruelty?

I suppose I should have said, "they were not considered intolerably cruel by society in general."  Farkers tend to fill in the blanks if you leave any.  Pity they use derp for filler.

Not sure how that changes the premise.  They're considered (intolerably) cruel now, and they weren't then, what changed?  Why was cruelty, know cruelty, tolerable just a few decades ago, and it's right out now?

Like I said above:  goddam bleeding-heart liberals.  They've always been rocking the boat.

/NTTAWT


Do you think this trend will continue?  I mean, we just kind of take it for granted that things get better and better, that people have value...

But, well, maybe that's not true?
 
2013-04-09 01:47:28 AM

rohar: I have never raped or plundered even though I'm apparently predisposed to such shenanigans.


Oh, you're missing out!

Nothing stirs the blood like a good rape, followed by plundering, and rape.
 
2013-04-09 01:50:58 AM

sendtodave: rohar: I have never raped or plundered even though I'm apparently predisposed to such shenanigans.

Oh, you're missing out!

Nothing stirs the blood like a good rape, followed by plundering, and rape.


Lo before me I see my mother and father.
Before me I see my sister and brother
...and the call to me, from the halls of Valhalla
asking "What the fark is wrong with you, you socially acceptable Vike!?":
 
2013-04-09 01:53:29 AM

sendtodave: BarkingUnicorn: sendtodave: BarkingUnicorn: sendtodave:

Not sure how that changes the premise.  They're considered (intolerably) cruel now, and they weren't then, what changed?  Why was cruelty, know cruelty, tolerable just a few decades ago, and it's right out now?

Like I said above:  goddam bleeding-heart liberals.  They've always been rocking the boat.

/NTTAWT

Do you think this trend will continue?  I mean, we just kind of take it for granted that things get better and better, that people have value...

But, well, maybe that's not true?


Do I  think the goddam bleeding-heart liberals will keep winning?  Absolutely.

Do I think things keep getting better and better?  Being a half-assed Buddhist, I give half a rat's ass and don't give the other.

Do I think people have value?  That's a really personal, subjective question.  Total strangers on the other side of the world have no value to me.  My only child has a lot.
 
2013-04-09 01:55:56 AM

BarkingUnicorn: sendtodave: BarkingUnicorn: sendtodave: BarkingUnicorn: sendtodave:

Not sure how that changes the premise.  They're considered (intolerably) cruel now, and they weren't then, what changed?  Why was cruelty, know cruelty, tolerable just a few decades ago, and it's right out now?

Like I said above:  goddam bleeding-heart liberals.  They've always been rocking the boat.

/NTTAWT

Do you think this trend will continue?  I mean, we just kind of take it for granted that things get better and better, that people have value...

But, well, maybe that's not true?

Do I  think the goddam bleeding-heart liberals will keep winning?  Absolutely.

Do I think things keep getting better and better?  Being a half-assed Buddhist, I give half a rat's ass and don't give the other.

Do I think people have value?  That's a really personal, subjective question.  Total strangers on the other side of the world have no value to me.  My only child has a lot.


Funny thing, if your government sponsors attacks on foreign lands killing those that "have no value" their friends and family might get a little cranky and do something stupid like fly a 747 into a building.  Ain't you happy as hell your son wasn't in that building?
 
2013-04-09 02:01:04 AM

MadHatter500: I'm saddened that you are so pants shiatingly frightened of collective action in society.


I'm saddened that you can pretend to claim that you know the secret emotions of a complete stranger over the internet. If you are possessed of clairvoyant abilities, why are you wasting time posting on Fark? Get out there and make a fortune with your magic powers.

Yes, government and government like entities have been responsible for the vast majority of large scale repression and organized murder. But you will also find that those that did operated with a complete lack of transparency.

Ha! Ha! Yes, because if the US government is renowned for anything, it's transparency.

We are fortunate to not live under such conditions. That being said, without an organized society we'd still be a marginal species on the African savanna. Without those structures, rules, and enforcement, we'd still be Thog and Ogg, hoping to live long enough to reproduce. 100s of millions wouldn't have been killed, billions would never have lived.

Of course society needs structure and rules -- whoever said otherwise? You're arguing with a strawman. But you seem to be going well beyond that to suggesting that if the State giveth, it's fine if the State taketh away; i.e., you appear to be saying that a hundred million dead from totalitarian violence is somehow excusable because without the heavy hand of government, two hundred million parents would never have had sex and given birth to those one hundred million people to begin with (!) Is this really your position? The fact is that it is small groups of ordinary people who ultimately create governments -- not vice versa.

[snip more strawmen]

You live in a state of ignorance about how things work.  Left to their own devices humans will maim and kill their fellow man for purely short term gain.

Individuals might kill other individuals for short term gain. When it comes to the mass killing of large numbers of people, however, that is normally done for an ideological reason and it is where governments come in.

Only collectively, in a transparent manner, with continual engagement, yelling and screaming at each other in a messy, socially connected system do we have any hope of ending that.

Fine words, but what you are ultimately proposing is the same old bullsh*t: rule of the many by the few who believe that they are superior to the many -- because all of the "engagement", "yelling and screaming", etc. is useless to accomplish anything without the rule of force to silence inconvenient dissent.

That means government, and lots of it.  Instead of being frightened of it - get involved.  Do you know your local government officials on sight?   Have you ever written your legislative representatives at the state, local or federal level?  Are you on all their mailing lists?  Do you write to the various government agencies when they have open public comments on things they do?  Do you actively support a political party? With more than just a check?  Do you support other groups in public advocacy?

Aw, you still believe in representative democracy! How quaint. Let me ask you something: how closely do the opinions of elected politicians track with their constituents? In the US it is probably higher than anywhere else in the western world (for the time being), but I can assure you that in other alleged democracies the wishes of the majority on many issues are practically ignored if they do not answer to the needs of the multi-party political elite.

I think you will answer no to most of these.  You sound like you want the government to be some perpetual motion machine - no friction and no inputs.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  As with most things in life, you get out what you put in.

I suppose you'd prefer that I "put in" slavish obedience, or at the very least active resignation to the fact that my individual liberties are incrementally slipping away year after year -- in order to get what in return, exactly? What I want more than anything is to be free to live my life as I see fit. What exactly is it that you want the State to do with my life, by contrast?
 
Displayed 50 of 457 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report