Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It really is 'just because you say so' JR, from the confines of the cozy metaphorical armchair no less. The real world is rather different and way more nuanced than your subjective flights of biased fancy.
End of Roe Vs Wade?
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
By the way, if your position is defeated by "hyperbole and soundbite," then maybe your position isn't all that you crank it up to be.
That is exactly what you promote, whether you recognize it or not. When the government steps in, it teaches parents that they can rely on the government to pick up the slack that they themselves should be picking up.
Appeal to the stone.
In YOUR ideology, parents would rely on the government to take care of their children, instead of doing it themselves, which takes up most if not all of the government's bandwidth, leaving very little room to manage infrastructure or criminal justice.
In my ideology, parents take care of their children, while the government takes care of the infrastructure and criminal justice needed to make society a safe enough place for the parents to do so.
Which of our ideologies matches what is currently reality?
That's all you seem to do.
Yes they do.
But needs are not rights. No one, not even children, have "the rights to essentials."
False.
False.
As someone who lives in the real world, and not some socialist ideology, I recognize that humans are inherently wicked, and need motivation to do the right thing. That motivation often comes in the form of punishment for breaking the law.
However, if the law only enforces bad behavior, then the humans who live under that law will continue to become more and more wicked as time goes on.
You didn't answer my question. Here it is again:
How about I quote something else then?
Do you agree with the following statements/sentiments:
"The government must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people."
"The government's concern belongs more to the child than to the adult."
"The government's financial irresponsibility turns the blessing of children into a curse for the parents."
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
If you're resorting to hyperbole and soundbite then that only shows a want of a strong opposing argument, it certainly doesn't defeat anyone else's position.
It's not what I promote, it's the law and it makes far more sense than you. Most people, when planning to have a family are going to take care of their children's needs. That there are child protection services to step in when irresponsible parents aren't meeting those needs or neglecting/abusing their children isn't promoting what you suggest at all. A loving parent isn't going to want such services getting involved at all, nor would they give them any need to.
It's not "my ideology" and once again you're reduced to ridiculous hyperbole. Most parents, with the law as it in place, look after their children without any state intervention, that's the reality. Your ideology suggests that most parents rely on the government to do their job which is patently false and unsupportable. So, with that in mind my position reflects actual reality and yours doesn't at all.
Children have the rights to essentials among other things, as it should be and that's the law. So it should be.
Ah, the self righteous judgement of people being inherently wicked, haven't heard that before and that's just arrogance JR. Nobody's perfect but the way you talk sometimes you'd think the majority of people are wannabe muggers or whatnot and the only thing that stops them is a deterrent. Clearly not the case and if you took a step down from that high horse you'd notice that most people are simply trying to get by in life. If you think that most people need motivation to do the right thing then you can't have met that many people.
With regards to your question.
No, not especially.
Right Divider
Body part
Nobody has those "rights" no matter how many times you repeat your opinion.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Sure they do, its the law no matter how many times you repeat your opinion.
Right Divider
Body part
Government laws do not always represent the truth.
There is no such thing as a "right" to food and shelter.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Rights come from the government, right?
Right Divider
Body part
Some people think so. They are not too bright.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Rights come from voting!
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
True enough on the first but regarding children's rights it's not solely "government" regardless and laws protecting children and giving them inalienable rights are right on the money.
Yes, there is and if you deny such to children then don't pretend that you care about any once they've exited the birth canal frankly.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
The irony is too far gone to even raise a smile...
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Those who argue the contrary are often found to be supporting the concept of a guaranteed minimum income.
Right Divider
Body part
Nope, we certainly want them to have all the best. But it's not a "right" no matter how much you screech.
And your answer is to murder them instead. So sweet.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
What better way is there to protect children from a difficult life, than to kill them? Then they're safe. How does this not make sense to people?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Am I drawing a connection between school shooting massacres and Roe vs. Wade? :Think:
You're just in denial.
Yes, it is.
So what?
A righteous man regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. - Proverbs 12:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs12:10&version=NKJV
That shows that they are responsible, at least to that extent.
Yes, it does.
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. - 1 Timothy 1:8-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy1:8-11&version=NKJV
Yes, it is.
That you seem unable to respond to other than dismissing it.
That's called an appeal to the stone.
Supra.
Prior to whenever the first welfare check was ever sent out, how many women relied on their husbands to take care of them and their children?
Compare that to how many women today who even have a husband to rely upon.
Yes, that's my point. Your position has resulted in what we see today, single mothers sending their children off to God-less government schools while they go off to work to support themselves and their child, and a divorce rate over 45%, all while the child's father has abandoned them, because she doesn't need him, and he can just go off and do whatever he wants, because she doesn't need him.
No, they don't.
Needs are not rights.
No, it shouldn't be that way, else Paul was wrong when he said "if a man does not work, he shall not eat."
It's a wicked law.
No.
1) It's not self righteous. It's an acknowledgement of reality which includes oneself.
2) Man is, in fact, basically (at the lowest level) evil. History's record shows this, through man's inhumanity towards man.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
One Man WAS perfect. His name was Jesus Christ.
This is called a straw man.
Again, the law is not for the righteous, but for the wicked.
| Deterrence is an act of preventing or controlling actions or behavior through fear of punishment or retribution. It is the primary theory of criminology shaping the criminal justice system of the United States and various other countries. Deterrence can be divided into two separate categories. General deterrence manifests itself in policy whereby examples are made of deviants. The individual actor is not the focus of the attempt at behavioural change, but rather receives punishment in public view in order to deter other individuals from deviance in the future. Specific deterrence focuses on the individual deviant and attempts to correct his or her behavior. Punishment is meant to discourage the individual from recitivating(sic). Both forms of deterrence assume rationality on the part of deviants and criminals, and that crime can ultimately be prevented through altering the cost benefit ratios of such behaviour. |
Deterrence
Deterrence is an act of preventing or controlling actions or behavior through fear of punishment or retribution. It is the primary theory of criminology shaping the criminal justice system of the United States and various other countries. Deterrence can be divided into two separate categories...
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.
Then the law isn't for them, is it?
I don't need personal anecdotes to know that man is inherently wicked. I have all of history that shows it.
Good, because I would question your sanity. Those quotes are from Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.
They are some of the most despicable things he ever said.
However, that's where your thinking leads, Arty, because there aren't many steps between "Children have the rights to essentials [provided by the government if the parents don't supply them]" and those above sentiments.
But that's where your thinking leads, because you think parents will fail in their responsibilities, and want to provide a safety net for the children.
The best way to protect children is to encourage parents to be responsible and care for their children. Having the government be responsible for and care for the children does not do that.
Then you don't know what "rights" are.
The government cannot give rights. It can only either protect those rights (through criminal justice), or it can ignore those rights (e.g. Hitler)
Rights are inherent from conception.
If the government could give people rights, then there would be no guarantee that the government would not take those rights away, and if they did, you would have no recourse.
No, they're not, no matter how many times you say it.
False.
Then we probably care more about the child than you do, because we think that the parents should be the ones to provide those things, not the government.
We're not pretending anything.
We DO care, and enough to not be cruel.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Hypocrisy is everywhere.
Take, for example, those who oppose the wholesale killing of puppies. The anti-puppy-killing crowd is loud and obnoxious, self-righteously declaring themselves to be "pro-life."
Yet their love for the puppies only goes so far.
See, they want to defend puppies from being killed when they're very young, but do you see them offering to adopt every dog on the entire planet?
I didn't think so. These pro-puppy activists are only in support of dogs when people are killing them, but once they grow up, they're all on their own. What are we supposed to do with all these dogs if not heinously kill them? I don't see you pro-puppy people offering to take on more than one or two of them!
I'll state it very clearly: you are not allowed to call yourself "pro-puppy" unless you agree to adopt every dog on the planet.
It's just that simple.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Denial of what? Frankly, I'm not wading through yet another parsed to bits response by you as explained prior. There's no need for it. I'll respond to the salient without ending up with a post the size of New York...You're just in denial.
Yes, it is.
So what?
A righteous man regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. - Proverbs 12:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs12:10&version=NKJV
That shows that they are responsible, at least to that extent.
Yes, it does.
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. - 1 Timothy 1:8-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy1:8-11&version=NKJV
Yes, it is.
That you seem unable to respond to other than dismissing it.
That's called an appeal to the stone.
Supra.
Prior to whenever the first welfare check was ever sent out, how many women relied on their husbands to take care of them and their children?
Compare that to how many women today who even have a husband to rely upon.
Yes, that's my point. Your position has resulted in what we see today, single mothers sending their children off to God-less government schools while they go off to work to support themselves and their child, and a divorce rate over 45%, all while the child's father has abandoned them, because she doesn't need him, and he can just go off and do whatever he wants, because she doesn't need him.
No, they don't.
Needs are not rights.
No, it shouldn't be that way, else Paul was wrong when he said "if a man does not work, he shall not eat."
It's a wicked law.
No.
1) It's not self righteous. It's an acknowledgement of reality which includes oneself.
2) Man is, in fact, basically (at the lowest level) evil. History's record shows this, through man's inhumanity towards man.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
One Man WAS perfect. His name was Jesus Christ.
This is called a straw man.
Again, the law is not for the righteous, but for the wicked.
Deterrence is an act of preventing or controlling actions or behavior through fear of punishment or retribution. It is the primary theory of criminology shaping the criminal justice system of the United States and various other countries.
Deterrence can be divided into two separate categories.
General deterrence manifests itself in policy whereby examples are made of deviants. The individual actor is not the focus of the attempt at behavioural change, but rather receives punishment in public view in order to deter other individuals from deviance in the future.
Specific deterrence focuses on the individual deviant and attempts to correct his or her behavior. Punishment is meant to discourage the individual from recitivating(sic).
Both forms of deterrence assume rationality on the part of deviants and criminals, and that crime can ultimately be prevented through altering the cost benefit ratios of such behaviour.
Deterrence
Deterrence is an act of preventing or controlling actions or behavior through fear of punishment or retribution. It is the primary theory of criminology shaping the criminal justice system of the United States and various other countries. Deterrence can be divided into two separate categories...psychology.fandom.com
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.
Then the law isn't for them, is it?
I don't need personal anecdotes to know that man is inherently wicked. I have all of history that shows it.
Good, because I would question your sanity. Those quotes are from Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.
They are some of the most despicable things he ever said.
However, that's where your thinking leads, Arty, because there aren't many steps between "Children have the rights to essentials [provided by the government if the parents don't supply them]" and those above sentiments.
But that's where your thinking leads, because you think parents will fail in their responsibilities, and want to provide a safety net for the children.
The best way to protect children is to encourage parents to be responsible and care for their children. Having the government be responsible for and care for the children does not do that.
Then you don't know what "rights" are.
The government cannot give rights. It can only either protect those rights (through criminal justice), or it can ignore those rights (e.g. Hitler)
Rights are inherent from conception.
If the government could give people rights, then there would be no guarantee that the government would not take those rights away, and if they did, you would have no recourse.
No, they're not, no matter how many times you say it.
False.
Then we probably care more about the child than you do, because we think that the parents should be the ones to provide those things, not the government.
We're not pretending anything.
We DO care, and enough to not be cruel.
Children have rights, adults have rights and any functioning society affords its citizens rights, whether it be the right to food or a fair trial. You say "So what?" and the exact same can be reversed, so you disagree, so what? Your opinion can be dismissed because that's all it is. There's a reason why laws become established over time and that's because in the main they make sense and for the mutual good. You can consider laws we have wicked all you want, so what? Nobody else is obliged to.
Applying Bible verses is all well and good but not so much when they don't support your position. A righteous man would raise the alarm if he suspected parents of abusing/neglecting their child and notify appropriate authorities. He sure wouldn't leave the child to the "tender mercies" of the parents without taking action. It is also not kidnapping when authorities investigate said cases and when appropriate remove the child from neglect and abuse and see they get the care they need. Your quote from Paul is entirely irrelevant to children as newborns can hardly work for their supper can they?
I'm hardly responsible for what you seem to think so woeful for society. Frankly, women having way more independence than times past is a good thing and it's telling that you emphasize the reliance a woman should have on a man anyway. Entirely up to women if they want a traditional marriage or other.
Seriously, if you're reduced to comparing my agreement with the law that children should have rights with Hitler then that's clutching at straws that have already escaped your grasp. As has already been explained to you multiple times, most parents will responsibly take care of their children's needs not because of some perceived obligation or fear of penalty if they don't but simply because they want to raise a family and do well by them. Having services that are there for children who are unlucky to have abusive parents is responsible. How you construe supporting laws that protect children in instances like that with wanting the government to provide rather than the parents is either dishonest or betrays a complete want of reading comprehension on your part. It's not an 'either/or' which frankly, should be obvious.