Yet again U.K. Children Fall Victim To Cruel Parenting

a reply to: Granitebones

Science still has a lot to learn where the human condition is concerned.

Never build a perfect human because we are such an imperfect animal.

originally posted by: Granitebones
You fancy me dont ya.

You betcha

I definitely see where you're coming from. Eugenics really did make an ugly name for itself. I see reasonfor your logic, however humans sometimes defy that logic.

With that logic my kids (all well adjusted - self supported adults) most likely wouldn't have been born.

The first born to an unwed mother at 19 who was abandoned by her fiance. 2 more children from the same mother, with the youngest born in the cardiac unit (mom had heart problems).

Soon all three were left fatherless after her new fiance passed suddenly. (when they were 5, 3 and 6mos old). Within 8 months mom needed a heart surgery.

Most would say the kids didn't have a chance and she shouldn't have been a mother, or allowed to retain custody.

I was lucky enough to stumble into her life and become her best friend. I later had the privilege to marry her, and received the best gift of my life. A ready made family with three beautiful kids and a best friend for a wife.

That was 24 years ago. Today we're still best friends and there children are bright, successful and happy.

Humans don't always fall into categories, or the little boxes people like to stuff them in. Logic doesn't always apply with humans.

Although I do feel anyone who choses to truly neglect or abuse a child deserves far worse than sterilization. Some people just weren't many to be parents.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: Granitebones

Don't be fooled, this is happening all over the world all the time. It's just exposed through the media now more than before.

If I were conspiracy minded I'd think the progressives are pushing this narrative to justify reduced birthrates and State Controlled Child Care.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: Granitebones

Don't be fooled, this is happening all over the world all the time. It's just exposed through the media now more than before.

Yup. There''s likely been a small rise due to lockdown measures in the UK making it a lot harder to report things to social services and for them to do inspections.

The stories sell papers and trends are used/manipulated - crimes againt children or missing children are seen as a goldmine in news (second only to wars) as every parent will be glued to the story or a few weeks guarantering a boost in audience/revenue

I've not checked but I suspect there's been some form of change in the courts or the Editors Code of Practice and Jounalists Code of Practice and ethics which has led to a lot more horific footage and descriptions of abuse that have always been self censored in the UK until these recent cases due to how abhorrent and inhumane such actions are.

There's been a debate for years in press/journalism whether it's better/more ethical to show the true reality of war, genocide, abuse, paedophilia etc..or if including such things is gratuitous, provides no aditional information or method of action/response for the reader and can harm the audience.

It seems there's been a switch to the latter which understandibly leads to kneejerk reactions - Eugenics is a ridiculous notion with no scientiic basis - it has caused the worst crimes against humanity in history and killed tens of millions over the world.

It's a ridiculous overreactions to three recent cases when 99.9999999% of parents don't abuse or kill their kids but it's the reactions the red tops in the UK are trying to manipukate the audience to follow.

a reply to: bastion

I've not checked but I suspect there's been some form of change in the courts or the Editors Code of Practice and Jounalists Code of Practice and ethics which has led to a lot more horific footage and descriptions of abuse that have always been self censored in the UK until these recent cases due to how abhorrent and inhumane such actions are.

When they started printing dead people, open wounds, smoker lungs etc on cigarette packs here, I think that was the start of the slippery slope. I mean, little kids at the cashier see this. It's out in the open you can't hide it from them. They are exposed to pictures of people in caskets, bloody wounds... Need to traumatize the children to keep them from getting smokers? I think that's not the solution.

There's been a debate for years in press/journalism whether it's better/more ethical to show the true reality of war, genocide, abuse, paedophilia etc..or if including such things is gratuitous, provides no aditional information or method of action/response for the reader and can harm the audience.

I can't settle on a conclusion on this. I am an advocate of truth and direct words. Adults should be able to either switch channel or look away (with ample warning) if they can't stomach reality. But then there are the children. They pick up everything.

I know that for example I was shamed as a kid when I did not empty the dish. Even if I didn't scoop it up myself. "In Africa the children are starving". I had no idea about the optics until next Christmas the Charity ads began to run. I was not even out of elementary school and had pictures of little starving children with flies on their faces walking around, in my head, from TV. That didn't traumatize me but it made sure I was always reminded that this fate could hit my family too. It left a deep impression.

My brother was more of a demanding kid, so I stuck back for the family although I did not have to. When my mother asked me if I want something new or what I wanted for Christmas I said nothing. And she would look out for us to be treated correctly and just went out and brought new clothes to make it even. And that stressed me out even more. In fear we would starve and have flies on our faces. It went worse when my parents had to give up their mom&pop store a few years later. Fear of loosing base of existence.

Until today I am a cheapskate, use-it-twice and do-I-really-need-that person with a few exceptions. Seeing these starving kids sure left an impression on me. And around a decade later when I was barely adult, I got to know what hunger really means. It was my own fault though.

That's why I can't settle on a yes or no to this. It's complicated.

originally posted by: Granitebones
I am beginning to think that all people in my home nation should be steralised at birth and only those that pass a series of tests in physical, mental, and financial competence can apply to get it reversed.
Two sets of twins left alone to die.
My sympathy goes out to the medics and firefighters that tried so hard to save these poor children.
www.bbc.co.uk...

What?
Who creates the tests? What is the standard? What if the adults pass the tests then later on.....something changes.

That is a dumb thing to say.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe

originally posted by: Granitebones
You post like one.
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

And you post like an ultra right wing looney.

We all know....the further right you go, you turn into a leftist

originally posted by: Granitebones
All of what you say would not happen with compulsory sterilisation reversible on meeting the criteria of suitability.

a reply to: generik

You propose something w/out even a developed plan on WHO creates this criteria of suitability and what happens when it fails in and of itself. You have already failed in your fantasy world. DOA

Me
a reply to: shaemac

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I have exactlythe same views and have never been able to come to a conclusion on whether it's ethical or not to show such things.To be honest I'd not considered the effect this could have on kids -

When training as a journo we had to watch a lot of footahge of war crimes, paticularly the practice of 'necklacing' in Africa where captured people would have a car tyre placed around their neck then filmed as the tyre was set on fire and they slowly died - I did get quite desensitised to it but there were a few clips where the person being necklaced maintained eye contact with the camera and a blank facia expession for the entire duration (a few minutes) which was incredibly powerful but haunting.

The situation you describe with starving children in Africa is a concept known as 'oh dearism' in journalism as a lot of the aid for these causes fell into the wrong hands and killed more people than the initial crisis. It leaves the audience powerless to do anything where the only reaction is to go 'oh dear' and move on with life.

Adam Curtis made a couple of great shorts on the subject explaining how it's a newly designed system of political control over populations.

When I started this thread I made a bet with myself. Yesterday I found out that I won it.