DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on November 22, 2006, 03:50:26 PM
-
All I can say is that it is a step in the right direction and one that should be enacted IMMEDIATELY here in the states.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/21/unanny121.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/21/unanny121.xml)
Blair proposes network of 'Supernannies'
By Ben Quinn
Last Updated: 1:55am GMT 22/11/2006
Where the 'Supernannies' will be sent
Tony Blair has unveiled plans to introduce nearly 80 “Supernannies†to help parents tame unruly children.
Up to £4 million is to be spent on creating a network of experts in a bid to tackle the roots of anti-social behaviour, according to the Prime Minister.
advertisementUnder the measures, courts will also be encouraged to order compulsory lessons in a wider number of cases, while classes may also be given to parents whose children have engaged in anti-social behaviour rather than in crime.
Laying the ground for the publication of proposals to force more fathers and mothers to attend parenting classes, Mr Blair said that an "overwhelming majority†of people would welcome outside assistance.
“This should be no surprise given the huge popularity of all those television programmes in which experts help parents with their problem kids,†he added.
“So I don’t believe any government, particularly one determined to tackle anti-social behaviour, can ignore parents’ cry for help.â€
He added: “The nanny state argument applied to this is just rubbish. No-one’s talking about interfering in a normal family life.
“But life isn’t normal if you’ve got 12-year-olds out every night drinking and creating a nuisance on the street with their parents either not knowing or not caring.
“In these cases, a bit of nannying with sticks and carrots is what the local community needs.â€
However, the proposals failed to impress Nacro, the crime reduction charity, which said that blaming parents was “unproductiveâ€.
Its chief executive, Paul Cavadino, said that many parents were at their wits’ end to know how to control their children’s behaviour, and needed support rather than a “punitive approachâ€.
“Parenting courses have a proven track record in helping parents to exercise more effective control over their children’s behaviour,†he added.
“However, a voluntary approach is usually more likely to engage parents than compulsion, which can run the risk of breeding resentment.
“We should be cautious about extending compulsory powers to other types of anti-social behaviour without the procedural safeguards of a youth court hearing.â€
The Home Secretary, John Reid, defended compulsory classes for the parents of undisciplined children, claiming that the measures would “change lives†and ultimately save thousands of pounds.
He said that the alternative to such orders would be to do nothing about the families of such children, with a future cost to society including thousands of pounds in court and social care fees.
“Getting the problem earlier and a combination of being robust on those parents who will not face up to their responsibilities and helping those who want to through these parenting classes is one of the elements - it is only one of the elements of tackling this,†he told GMTV.
Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright
-
Government enforced behavioral control. Wow. How sad.
-
Government enforced behavioral control. Wow. How sad.
What would you call a prison? Or a police force? Or laws for that matter?
It seems they are all forms of government enforced behavioral control.
-
What would you call a prison? Or a police force? Or laws for that matter?
It seems they are all forms of government enforced behavioral control.
Those are only supposed to be used when one person has violated the rights of others.
Or would you approve of locking someone up because someone thought they were going to commit a crime in the future?
-
What would you call a prison? Or a police force? Or laws for that matter? It seems they are all forms of government enforced behavioral control.
Those are only supposed to be used when one person has violated the rights of others. Or would you approve of locking someone up because someone thought they were going to commit a crime in the future?
Minority Report?
-
What would you call a prison? Or a police force? Or laws for that matter?
It seems they are all forms of government enforced behavioral control.
Do you not see the difference between putting someone in jail for stealing and a government program for disciplining supposedly anti-social children? But after a fashion, you do make a point. Just not the one that you probably intended to make. Prisons, law enforcement and legislation are routinely used in this country for ridiculous levels of behavioral control. Example: the "war on drugs". But I'm not blaming the government. Nope, I'm blaming the people.
The people, us, the voters, we demand that government do something to fix this or that problem, as if life can be made fair and good via legislation. We demand that what we believe should be made into law to protect us from our neighbors and, naturally with all the best of intentions, to protect our neighbors from themselves. And I have little doubt that soon enough America will come to demand government run parenting classes mandated by law. Or perhaps Congressman Rangel's draft legislation will simply be expanded to include some language from Senator Kerry's idea to mandate volunteerism in schools. And who knows but that maybe some Republicans will get back on the mental health bandwagon and push again for all children to receive mental health examinations in schools so that the children can get the proper medications. All of this will be for the children, of course, so anyone who objects will be just a mean bastard who cares nothing about our children.
Yes, letting government decide what is proper social behavior and what is anti-social behavior, what is the proper mental attitude toward society and what is anti-social thinking will do wonders for our society. Think of the crime that we might stop by having our children trained and medicated properly from a young age. Yes indeed, I never cease to be amazed that the folks who holler the loudest about oligarchies and the wealthy elites seem to be so eager to have government interfere in life. It's almost as if they were complaining about arson and demanding to know why the government hasn't come to set their houses on fire. Or at least their books.
-
UP,
It seems that Blair is targeting kids and parents who have already run afoul of the law or are making trouble in schools and the like. He's not sending supernannies door-to-door to force their way in to tell parents what they are doing wrong.
It's not like the British are going to have to deal with supernannies like the IRS.
It strikes me as the same as Vermont's offering support to brand new mothers and allowing those mothers to accept the support or decline.
As my wife is part of this world in her daily job, it is more than sensible to suggest (or even compel) mothers or parents (in the odd case of an actual couple showing up to JC, most are single mothers) to avail themselves of some basic child rearing skills or even basic conflict resolution or communication classes.
This is not just kids making D's and not buckling down to bring their grades up. This is kids staying out all night and drinking and lord knows what else. And the mother is either powerless or unwilling to bring the child to heel. This is breakdown of society kind of stuff. This cycle must be broken.
So, get your panties all twisted if you like or you can go down and sit in JC court for a few days and get a real feel for how things are here in reality.
-
It seems that Blair is targeting kids and parents who have already run afoul of the law or are making trouble in schools and the like.
According to your article: "Under the measures, courts will also be encouraged to order compulsory lessons in a wider number of cases ... whose children have engaged in anti-social behaviour rather than in crime."
Doesn't sound like they've run "afoul of the law." The kids are just doing stuff that others don't like.
-
It seems that Blair is targeting kids and parents who have already run afoul of the law or are making trouble in schools and the like. He's not sending supernannies door-to-door to force their way in to tell parents what they are doing wrong.
The article says, "Under the measures, courts will also be encouraged to order compulsory lessons in a wider number of cases, while classes may also be given to parents whose children have engaged in anti-social behaviour rather than in crime." And "Laying the ground for the publication of proposals to force more fathers and mothers to attend parenting classes, Mr Blair said that an 'overwhelming majority' of people would welcome outside assistance." Words like "compulsory" and "force" sure make it look he wants the government to force its way into telling parents what to do.
As my wife is part of this world in her daily job, it is more than sensible to suggest (or even compel) mothers or parents (in the odd case of an actual couple showing up to JC, most are single mothers) to avail themselves of some basic child rearing skills or even basic conflict resolution or communication classes.
Sensible to suggest, yes. To compel by law, no.
This is not just kids making D's and not buckling down to bring their grades up. This is kids staying out all night and drinking and lord knows what else. And the mother is either powerless or unwilling to bring the child to heel. This is breakdown of society kind of stuff. This cycle must be broken.
Cycle? What is the cycle? If the child is breaking the law, then punish the child. I'm not even opposed to punishing the parents. But having the government decide what is and is not anti-social behavior and then to compel conformity, this is not the correct solution. If it were Pat Robertson and his pals trying to accomplish this, I think you would not be so gung-ho about it.
So, get your panties all twisted if you like or you can go down and sit in JC court for a few days and get a real feel for how things are here in reality.
Ah yes, the old "here in reality" bit. It's a dumb bit. No one said there were no problems or no children with behavioral problems. But that there is a problem does not make government and legislation the best and/or only solution. Because here in reality, that "solution" more often than not causes more problems than it solves, if it solves anything at all. I'm all for there being parenting classes and for encouraging parents and prospective parents to attend. Compelling attendance to such classes and attempting to legally mandate conformity to some group's preferred behavioral standards is, however, a really bad idea. Unless one likes fascism. And I don't.
-
Cycle? What is the cycle? If the child is breaking the law, then punish the childreferred behavioral standards is, however, a really bad idea. Unless one likes fascism. And I don't.[/color]
Dude, if a kid winds up in front of a judge then he's done something but not necessarily committed a crime. That is how judges can compel and force people to do stuff. MY wife is part of that system.
As for the cycle, it is a continuous cycle that doesn't just begin when a kid throws a rock through a window or gets into fights at school. The parents are responsible and it may be that they weren't properly instructed as a child. It could be that they never even learned how to communicate from their own parents. This is what a lot of people don't understand about the juvenile court system. A lot of people think it is solely a prison system for kids who commit crimes. IT AIN'T, chuckles. It ain't just a jail for kids. There is a difference between "troubled kids" and "child criminals".
In the end, the parent is responsible for the kid that is underage. IF that parent is not equipped to raise a child, then a judge may instruct the "system" to equip that parent. If that means a refrigerator or a paying the rent for a month, that can be done, but the "system" is about teaching people to fish rather than giving them a fish now.
Ignorance is the problem not malice. People are not born to steal.
This idea that Blair wants to just tell people the best way to raise a kid is simply wrong. What they will be doing is helping parents who had parents who couldn't communicate with learn to communicate with their own kids so those kids aren't out looking for communication and connections with, say, gangs. So, before you get all wacky with the "force" and "compel", think how much better life would be if everyone had a decent childhood instead of just some and then the rest having crappy ones that lead to people being sociopaths who think that the rules don't apply to them and they can carjack you a block from your house. It's in your own interest.
Just punishing crimes never works. Ask any parent.
-
Dude, if a kid winds up in front of a judge then he's done something but not necessarily committed a crime.
Yes, because we know that someone who is innocent is never brought before a judge. There is no such thing as false arrest, ever.
That was sarcasm, BTW.
-
Dude, if a kid winds up in front of a judge then he's done something but not necessarily committed a crime.
And not necessarily something for which he should face a judge.
As for the cycle, it is a continuous cycle that doesn't just begin when a kid throws a rock through a window or gets into fights at school.
I got into a couple of fights in high school. What about it?
The parents are responsible and it may be that they weren't properly instructed as a child. It could be that they never even learned how to communicate from their own parents. This is what a lot of people don't understand about the juvenile court system. A lot of people think it is solely a prison system for kids who commit crimes. IT AIN'T, chuckles. It ain't just a jail for kids. There is a difference between "troubled kids" and "child criminals".
In the end, the parent is responsible for the kid that is underage. IF that parent is not equipped to raise a child, then a judge may instruct the "system" to equip that parent. If that means a refrigerator or a paying the rent for a month, that can be done, but the "system" is about teaching people to fish rather than giving them a fish now.
Ignorance is the problem not malice. People are not born to steal.
You seem to have an idealized view of it. But I do not share your confidence that the government is the best fishing tutor.
This idea that Blair wants to just tell people the best way to raise a kid is simply wrong. What they will be doing is helping parents who had parents who couldn't communicate with learn to communicate with their own kids so those kids aren't out looking for communication and connections with, say, gangs. So, before you get all wacky with the "force" and "compel", think how much better life would be if everyone had a decent childhood instead of just some and then the rest having crappy ones that lead to people being sociopaths who think that the rules don't apply to them and they can carjack you a block from your house. It's in your own interest.
Just punishing crimes never works. Ask any parent.
Before you get all wacky with "think how much better life would be", consider that not everyone agrees on what constitutes a decent childhood. Some people think a decent childhood means being raised by God-fearing people, by a man and woman only, no same-sex couples, no questioning the Bible. Passing through a room where my father was watching the O'Reilly show, some fellow was on the screen explaining that teaching evolution was partly to blame for the Columbine school shootings. While I have no doubt life would be better if every person had a decent childhood, I do simply do not trust government to be the best decider of what is and is not a decent childhood. I almost hate to bring this up, but if we are to follow this through, the Nazis had a plan for children having a decent childhood as well. Just wanting children to have a decent childhood is not good enough. And while I realize there is a notion that we can somehow make utopia happen where everyone has a decent childhood and food, et cetera, if we just pass enough laws, but I don't believe that notion is anything other than naive. No, there is nothing wrong with wanting to put an end to the bad things that happen in life, and nothing wrong with trying to accomplish that. But we won't accomplish that by trying to control life, no matter how good our intentions might be.
-
Well, then just sit in the backseat and try not to f it up for those of us who want to help and think that using the government as a tool to help all of society is a good thing.
Ok?
-
Well, then just sit in the backseat and try not to f it up for those of us who want to help and think that using the government as a tool to help all of society is a good thing.
What if we don't want you to f up our lives by using police state tactics of "mandatory parental training"?
Sounds like brainwashing to me...
-
How would you define ANY schooling you have had? Is Home Economics brainwashing? How about A+ Certification? Is Sunday School brainwashing? What about that nefarious US History? Would you consider the directions that flash on the screen at the ATM as you withdraw money brainwashing?
The idea that training Americans how to communicate with their children as brainwashing is ludicrous. I wish someone had offered my own parents classes in child-rearing. It would have helped me a lot.
With more training in child-rearing, you would see a marked DECREASE in teen pregnancy and child abuse. Prevention goes a long way. The only people out to put the brakes on this kind of stuff are either stockholders in the prison industry or not really interested in a better society to live in.
-
The idea that training Americans how to communicate with their children as brainwashing is ludicrous. I wish someone had offered my own parents classes in child-rearing. It would have helped me a lot.
That's fine if you want it.
I don't want it mandatory.
Taking a course that's offered voluntarily is different than being forced to take a course. Can you not see the difference?
-
Well, then just sit in the backseat and try not to f it up for those of us who want to help and think that using the government as a tool to help all of society is a good thing.
Ok?
Um, no. As in, no fu--ing way. You know, the Nazis thought using government as a tool to help all of society was a good thing. The folks who want Christian fundamentalists to take "back" the government and/or who want government ban abortion and pornography and the like, they all think using the government as a tool to help all of society is a good thing. So that you think using government as tool to help all of society is a good thing does not make me want to sit by and do nothing to stop you. It just makes you harder to distinguish politically from those other folks.
-
The idea that training Americans how to communicate with their children as brainwashing is ludicrous. I wish someone had offered my own parents classes in child-rearing. It would have helped me a lot.
That's fine if you want it.
I don't want it mandatory.
Taking a course that's offered voluntarily is different than being forced to take a course. Can you not see the difference?
So, then where is your post bitching about the horrors of children being FORCED to learn algebra? Or that dreadful GRAMMAR!!!
Forcing people to take a class in how to change a diaper and wash their child without drowning it or how to childproof their house is just common sense.
-
Forcing people to take a class in how to change a diaper and wash their child without drowning it or how to childproof their house is just common sense.
I think they teach that in home ec or whatever it is called now. It might be an elective.
-
It should be compulsory.
If it was, you'd see a marked decrease in teenage pregnancy.
-
So, then where is your post bitching about the horrors of children being FORCED to learn algebra? Or that dreadful GRAMMAR!!!
No one is forced to learn algebra. Nor grammar.
-
So, then where is your post bitching about the horrors of children being FORCED to learn algebra? Or that dreadful GRAMMAR!!!
No one is forced to learn algebra. Nor grammar.
Uuummmmm, yeah. :-\
-
Uuummmmm, yeah. :-\
Well, let's get some evidence.
Please present the names of the states that require you to learn algebra or grammar.
Because my daughter has been in 3 high schools in three different states (Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina) and while all three had testing requirements for graduating from high school, none of the three states' competency tests tested algebra or grammar skills. All three states just tested for basic math and reading skills (less than 8th grade level).
-
Uuummmmm, yeah. :-\
Well, let's get some evidence.
Please present the names of the states that require you to learn algebra or grammar.
Because my daughter has been in 3 high schools in three different states (Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina) and while all three had testing requirements for graduating from high school, none of the three states' competency tests tested algebra or grammar skills. All three states just tested for basic math and reading skills (less than 8th grade level).
Let's just do one.
Graduation Requirements
Core Curriculm | University Path | Technical Path | Gateway Exams
REQUIRED COURSEWORK
There are 20 total credits required for high school graduation. These 20 total credits consist of core curriculum units, specific path (university or technical) requirement units and electives.
Core Curriculum
English 4 units
Math* 3 units
Science ** 3 units
Social Studies 3 units
Health, Physical Fitness, and Wellness 1 unit
Total 14 units
*Mathematics Requirements:
All students must complete one of the following: Algebra I, Integrated Math I, or Technical Algebra (formerly Math for Technology II).
NOTE: Students who enter high school in 2005-06 and later must also complete one of the following: Algebra II, Geometry, Integrated Math II, or Technical Geometry.
**Science Requirements
All students must complete one of the following: Biology, Biology for Technology, or the equivalent in an integrated science curriculum.
All students must complete one course in the physical sciences.
http://www.state.tn.us/education/gradreq.shtml
Sure, you can make a big deal out of the OR but in the end students are FORCED to complete subjects in order to graduate. That is fact.
-
Here's the state of Oregon's required (forced) subjects.
Required Subject Area Courses
College Preparatory Subjects Minimum units Grades received must be C- or above in each class.
English 4 years
Mathematics 3 years Culminating at the Algebra II level or higher
Social Studies 3 years
Science 2 years One year each of two different sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc.)
Foreign Language 2 years May be met in any one of these ways:
Completing two years of the same high school-level foreign language
Earning grade of C- or higher in the third year of high school-level foreign language
Completing two quarters of the same college-level foreign language
Earning a satisfactory score on an approved assessment of foreign language knowledge
Demonstrating proficiency in American Sign Language (ASL)
Completion of grades 1-7 at a school in which all courses are taught in a language other than English. (Documentation is required.)
-
Indiana
http://www.doe.state.in.us/core40/pdf/Core40DiplReqsComp.pdf (http://www.doe.state.in.us/core40/pdf/Core40DiplReqsComp.pdf)
General High School Diploma
English/Language Arts 8 credits 8 credits 8 credits
Mathematics 4 credits 6-8 credits 8 credits
Core 40 Diploma** Academic Honors Diploma***
Credits in literature, composition and speech Credits in literature, composition
2 credits: Algebra I
2 credits: Geometry
2 credits: Algebra II
(or Integrated Math I, II, and III for 6 Credits)
Additional credits in:
Pre-Calculus/Trigonometry, AP Calculus,
Discrete Mathematics, Probability and
Statistics, or AP Statistics
2 credits: Algebra I
2 credits: Geometry
2 credits: Algebra II
(or Integrated Math I, II, and III for
2 credits: Additional credits in
Pre-Calculus/Trigonometry, AP Calculus,
Discrete Mathematics, Probability
Statistics, or AP Statistics
Must include 2 credits in: Algebra I or
Integrated Mathematics I
Indiana High School Diploma Requirements*
I guess this is where semantics starts playing a huge part in your argument.
-
I have it in my head that you are in Minnesota (or Pennsylvania).
Here is MN's high school requirements for graduation.
http://www.education.state.mn.us/mde/static/001068.pdf (http://www.education.state.mn.us/mde/static/001068.pdf)
Mathematics
3 credits
(encompassing at least algebra,
geometry, and statistics and
probability)
-
Um, no. As in, no fu--ing way. You know, the Nazis thought using government as a tool to help all of society was a good thing. The folks who want Christian fundamentalists to take "back" the government and/or who want government ban abortion and pornography and the like, they all think using the government as a tool to help all of society is a good thing. So that you think using government as tool to help all of society is a good thing does not make me want to sit by and do nothing to stop you. It just makes you harder to distinguish politically from those other folks.
The British, the Netherlands, the Swiss, the Costa Ricans, the Canadians and so forth also use government as a tool to help all of society. Seems to be working pretty good for them for the most part. Don't remember them killing a bunch of Jews or forcing religion on anyone. Canadians like their strips clubs and social medicine.
I call shotgun! Sit in the back, UP.
-
I have it in my head that you are in Minnesota (or Pennsylvania).
Here is MN's high school requirements for graduation.
http://www.education.state.mn.us/mde/static/001068.pdf (http://www.education.state.mn.us/mde/static/001068.pdf)
Mathematics
3 credits
(encompassing at least algebra,
geometry, and statistics and
probability)
Was, now I'm in North Carolina.
Like I said, they're not required to LEARN it. Just take the courses. The requirements for what they need to LEARN is encompassed by the competency tests that the various states use to qualify people for graduation - which does not include algebra in any state I've lived in.
If people would actually learn math in high school, they wouldn't say stupid things like "it's obvious that half the population has below average intelligence."
And I wouldn't have problems explaining maxima and minima to (college educated) coworkers.
Now, getting back to semantics - had you said "forced to STUDY algebra" rather than "forced to LEARN algebra" you might have had a point.
But then you probably learned "grammar" in public school, right?
-
Now, getting back to semantics - had you said "forced to STUDY algebra" rather than "forced to LEARN algebra" you might have had a point.
I'm glad you can admit it.
-
You all are blowing this way out of proportion. First of all, you have to understand that Britain and British society is not like the United States. First, it is far more urban, especially if you exclude the northern half of Scotland and currently this program only affects England - which is very urban. Second, the yob and chav culture in England produces a real problem with youth crime and youth gang related crime. The majority of people (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat) tend to focus their blame upon the parents of those youth who allow them to roam the streets, drink, smoke, gamble, etc at a very young age.
Therefore, Blair has offered this plan which is mostly voluntary as a way for poor parents to gain access to expert help. Where it is not voluntary is where a child has committed offences. Anti-social behavior orders (ASBO) in Britain are activities set by local councils that include things like vandalism, theft, flyposting, bullying, harassment, etc. This is no different than cities who fine parents or bring criminal charges against them for their children missing too much school or being criminally negligent in some other way. In other words, we do it here as well. The difference is that Blair is offering what he terms a "carrot and stick" approach as opposed to a flat out criminalising approach.
The philosophy behind this is that no one is simply a good parent just on virtue of having conceived and birthed a child. While some parents have the virtue of falling back to their parents or guardians for advice or memories of how to handle being a parent or perhaps they can purchase books, meet church officials, hire nannies, etc - not everyone has that luxury. In that case the government should step in to at least provide the possibility that these parents and children will have an improved opportunity to succeed at life.
The other option is to offer no support and allow the continuance of the status quo. Clearly that is not what Tony Blair finds suitable. Also remember that the British do not tolerate the levels of crime that Americans do.
I really don't see this as a case of nasty infringement on civil liberties. It certainly does not merit a discussion on Nazism.
-
I'm glad you can admit it.
No problem. I'm always happy to point out your factual errors.
-
No problem. I'm always happy to point out your factual errors.
I think you mean "barely technical errors".
-
The British, the Netherlands, the Swiss, the Costa Ricans, the Canadians and so forth also use government as a tool to help all of society. Seems to be working pretty good for them for the most part. Don't remember them killing a bunch of Jews or forcing religion on anyone. Canadians like their strips clubs and social medicine.
Not religion, just their dogmatic politics. Which amounts to the same thing. As for working pretty well, I think you're largely mistaken. For example, if it is working so well in Britain, why the need for squads of government super-nannies and mandatory classes?
-
Yes, JS, I know the plan has good intentions to help struggling parents. I do not fault the intentions at all. Having good intentions about helping society is not sufficient justification for a government program.
-
The British, the Netherlands, the Swiss, the Costa Ricans, the Canadians and so forth also use government as a tool to help all of society. Seems to be working pretty good for them for the most part. Don't remember them killing a bunch of Jews or forcing religion on anyone. Canadians like their strips clubs and social medicine.
Not religion, just their dogmatic politics. Which amounts to the same thing. As for working pretty well, I think you're largely mistaken. For example, if it is working so well in Britain, why the need for squads of government super-nannies and mandatory classes?
So, a country that leans socially should never ever have any problems of any kind every again in order to be considering working pretty well? Jeez, I wish you felt that way about America and capitalism.
I never said those countries were perfect just that they seem to be going along pretty well. Better if not at least equivalent to America.
-
Yes, JS, I know the plan has good intentions to help struggling parents. I do not fault the intentions at all. Having good intentions about helping society is not sufficient justification for a government program.
Then we should disband the army and pay for our own private police and fire services. That'd be a GREAT idea! A way for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Yay capitalism!
-
So, a country that leans socially should never ever have any problems of any kind every again in order to be considering working pretty well?
No, that isn't what I said. You listed those countries as examples of countries that use the government as a tool to help all of society. And you said it seems "to be working pretty good for them for the most part." Seems to me that if it were working pretty well in Britain, they wouldn't need to propose government super-nannies and to lay "the ground for the publication of proposals to force more fathers and mothers to attend parenting classes". That just doesn't sound like they're doing well. I'm not saying they have to be perfect or that they should never have any problems. I'm just saying that the problem supposedly addressed by Prime Minister Blair's plans indicates to me that it isn't going nearly so well as you proclaim.
I never said those countries were perfect just that they seem to be going along pretty well. Better if not at least equivalent to America.
And I never said they had to be perfect. Amazing how that works out, i'n'it? As for better than America, that probably depends on how you want to measure 'better'.
-
Yes, JS, I know the plan has good intentions to help struggling parents. I do not fault the intentions at all. Having good intentions about helping society is not sufficient justification for a government program.
Then we should disband the army and pay for our own private police and fire services. That'd be a GREAT idea! A way for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Yay capitalism!
Hold on there, Einstein. I didn't say a word about eliminating anything. I didn't even say that using government as a tool to help society was inherently wrong. What I did say is that having good intentions about helping society is not sufficient justification for a government program. The folks who want a government program to teach abstinence-only sex ed have good intentions about helping society. The folks who want to ban homosexual marriage have good intentions about helping society. I doubt very much that you're going to rally behind those folks or even "just sit in the backseat and try not to f it up" for those folks. Or are you telling me you're okay with those people trying to use government as a tool to help society? You're not going to object to what they want to do because they're trying to use government as a tool to help society? No, think you will protest. I think you'll say they're not going to help society that way. So what I want to know is, who the f--- are you to tell me I'm just suppose to "sit in the backseat" and shut up about you wanting to do something that I don't believe is going to help society. Your attitude is the same attitude the abstinence-only folks have: to object to your plan is to advocate the downfall of society. Well, you're both wrong.
And since we're talking about society, I happen to believe that society is made better and stronger through voluntary cooperation rather than coerced compliance. Yeah, that is right, I do think there is a better way to help society, it's just not the way you advocate. But it is interesting to watch people like you who rail and wail about Bush and conspiracies and the unfair rule by the wealthy and all that nonsense then turn and complain about people voluntarily working together. You bitch and moan that oil companies or corporation or Republicans or someone is trampling all over the poor people, the middle class, the working Americans, and yet you despise the very idea of allowing the poor, the middle class, the working Americans to decide for themselves how their lives should be spent. You want to take their money, you want to punish people who begin to achieve financial success and stability, who get ahead in trying to provide a better future for their families (yay socialism). And I'm not supposed to f--- it up for you? You're one of the folks trying to f--- it all up for the rest of us. You're damn right I'm going to object.
Your limited thinking apparently cannot comprehend a plan to improve society that does not involve using government to enforce compliance by society to make it be and do the things you want, hence your childish "yay capitalism" sarcasm, but that does not mean people who object to your preferences do not want to help society or to see society improve. It just means they don't agree with you on how to accomplish the betterment of society. This is a simple and uncomplicated concept that I think even you should be able to grasp. That you apparently do not indicates an unwillingness to consider other points of view that, quite honestly, only gives me further reason not to go along with your way of thinking.
-
What I did say is that having good intentions about helping society is not sufficient justification for a government program. The folks who want a government program to teach abstinence-only sex ed have good intentions about helping society. The folks who want to ban homosexual marriage have good intentions about helping society. I doubt very much that you're going to rally behind those folks or even "just sit in the backseat and try not to f it up" for those folks. Or are you telling me you're okay with those people trying to use government as a tool to help society?....Your limited thinking apparently cannot comprehend a plan to improve society that does not involve using government to enforce compliance by society to make it be and do the things you want, hence your childish "yay capitalism" sarcasm, but that does not mean people who object to your preferences do not want to help society or to see society improve. It just means they don't agree with you on how to accomplish the betterment of society. This is a simple and uncomplicated concept that I think even you should be able to grasp. That you apparently do not indicates an unwillingness to consider other points of view that, quite honestly, only gives me further reason not to go along with your way of thinking.
Amen