Senators line up to tell U.N. to leave kids alone 31 already committed to oppose treaty giving world

reply to post by oniongrass

And what is hate? Of all undefined terms ...

en.wikipedia.org...
René Descartes viewed hate as an awareness that something is bad combined with an urge to withdraw from it. ... Aristotle viewed hate as a desire for the annihilation of an object that is incurable by time.

Descartes' definition seems rational. Aristotle's definition would be the one that fits the context in which I used the term, in that rational thought is not required.

Why is xenophobia uneducated?

I suppose that I did imply that. Xenophobia actually seems to me to be a natural reaction to the "other" in that the reaction is reflexive and physical even. Education doesn't alleviate it. Cultural exposure and acclimation is what ameliorates it. My position is that it is a condition to be overcome, not pandered to. Pandering means indulging, comes from the word Pander, basically a pimp, as one who provides for a base desire.

The "law of comparative advantage" is respected by educated economists, but it describes a situation where we don't export all our jobs to foreign countries, don't import foreigners to take all our jobs, etc.

I'm not an economist but I will say that I do favor a certain amount of protectionism, in that manufacturing companies should stay in the country, and US companies outside the US for the purpose of lower labor costs should have their products slapped with import tariffs. But that's not in any way addressed in the CRC under discussion.

Those who are fortunate to be well educated would not want a bunch of UN slogans and half truths to limit the scope of our thought. What I gave was just one example. Those slogans may sound convincing -- but only to those who are not educated in the relevant disciplines.

You may have actually tripped me up on "law of comparative advantage" because I'm not well educated in that discipline.

I don't think that the UN is in the business of making up those slogans. From my observation, global economic policy seems to be driven in meetings like G8, G20, IMF, WTO, groups operating away from public view and outside of the control of democratic oversight.

Politicians returning from these meetings are the people coming up with slogans. IMO

reply to post by pthena


OK. Thanks for explaining your position to me. I think I understand it better now. I don't quite understand WHY you feel a need to get yet another layer of authoritative approval on what you would already know to be right, and a foreign one at that, but I'm not really required to understand it - since it's not MY position.

I maintain that for me and mine, domestically produced law, brought forth from the people of this nation, is sufficient to rule within it's borders. I have no need, and will actively oppose, any sort of requirements that involve rule by a foreign body, however "slight" and craftily worded it may be.

Heck, it's my understanding that's what we fought an entire revolution over all those years ago!

Well personally, other things being equal, I happen to like my base desires. They were probably put there in the lower part of my personality (whatever that means) for my protection and enjoyment. Aren't we here to satisfy our desires and thereby make the world a better place? Are desires bad just because they feel really good?

Xenophobia is the fear of the unknown. It's a rational fear. It's one reason I'm still alive. I approach new things cautiously, with heightened alertness. When I've violated that rule, I have tended to get in trouble.

And sometimes I conclude that the new thing is harmful and then avoid it. Maybe you still call that xenophobia. I call it a decision I've made. I've had enough experience in the parent business that I've concluded I want to make the decisions. I also had experience in the child business and looking back, I can say I'm glad my parents were making the decisions. Now certainly I've been very lucky, but I don't think getting the UN involved will make children luckier in general. Their parents love them more than the UN does.

By the way, there are some things I hate too. Aristotle may need a different word for it, because I'm not dissatisfied with most of my hates. I hate our recent wars -- does that hatred fit Aristotle's definition? When I hate a thing I may appear to others to be xenophobic about it.

It's simple political incorrectness. I revel in it.

reply to post by nenothtu


Why would you call the convention foreign when it was drafted mainly by Americans in America?

If it is foreign indeed it is foreign for all other countries too. As I said, the rest of the world already has joined and implimented it yet nothing bad has come of it.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Why would you call the convention foreign when it was drafted mainly by Americans in America?

If it is foreign indeed it is foreign for all other countries too. As I said, the rest of the world already has joined and implimented it yet nothing bad has come of it.

Has it had a positive effect, negative effect or no (overall neutral) effect in those implementing countries? How do we know?

Maybe some CPS-like agencies have been removing kids from homes in other countries faster than they would have otherwise done. It's happened in the USA without the treaty -- not good but things could only be worse with additional rules parents must follow and more justifications for stepping into families.

reply to post by oniongrass


The convention states that is the fundamental right of a kid to be raised by its parents. Doesn't that kind of make it hard to use the convention to seperate a child from its parents?

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by oniongrass

 

The convention states that is the fundamental right of a kid to be raised by its parents. Doesn't that kind of make it hard to use the convention to seperate a child from its parents?

I guess it means you can't separate them without a reason. But it also gives a laundry list of possible reasons.

reply to post by oniongrass


Yes - reasons that are plausible and that no human being with respect and love for children would disagree with.

But of course, that is not a guarantee that no one will ever use this law unadvisedly or for ulterior motives. But that would reinforce my point that the language of the convention is not nefarious at all - people may try to use it for their pre-conceived schemes - but the convention itself is very clear and commendable.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by oniongrass

 

Yes - reasons that are plausible and that no human being with respect and love for children would disagree with. ...

Really -- children have to be given a religious choice because you love them? You can't spank them even if they've just done something dangerous, because you love them?

You don't have kids do you?

Originally posted by oniongrass

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by oniongrass

 

Yes - reasons that are plausible and that no human being with respect and love for children would disagree with. ...

Really -- children have to be given a religious choice because you love them? You can't spank them even if they've just done something dangerous, because you love them?

You don't have kids do you?

As I did raise a daughter, I'm qualified to respond according to your criteria.

...My conscious goal in raising my child was to raise a responsible, conscientious, educated, ethical, free-thinking individual - NOT a mindless puppet.

So I used every opportunity to teach her to think for herself - including encouraging her to make her own choices.

Because I love her - and because I love the idea of a free world.

Yes to choice, no to spanking. Yes to guidance, no to force.

What does spanking teach besides "might is right"? What choice does it offer besides the ultimate one: to be a victim or abuser?

reply to post by TarzanBeta

I am curious about your source for that little snippet of information

AGE OF REASON www.highbeam.com...

The age at which a child is considered capable of acting responsibly. Under common law, seven was the age of reason. Children under the age of seven were conclusively presumed incapable of committing a crime because they did not possess the reasoning ability to understand that their conduct violated the standards of acceptable community behavior.

More snippets for your reading pleasure...8-Year-Old Boy Accused of Killing Father Faces Court Today www.wowowow.com...

The killings happened in Arizona — a state where an eight-year-old could be prosecuted in adult court.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by TarzanBeta

I'm not sure why you would accept people to enforce their own beliefs on you. But that's not me...

So. You are above the law. Is that all law or just the laws of man?

If someones belief makes a whole lot of sense and it rescues another human being from cruelty, no matter how tiny that human being...not only will I accept it, I will enforce it on others whenever I have the opportunity. If this means calling child welfare or the police on a cruel or abusive parent...The phone is already in my hand....I am not part of that "we parents, protect other parents" club.

I will always fight to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

And it doesn't matter from betwixt whose thighs they fell.

I am not a good one to argue with.
I am a big proponent of children and child welfare. I once recommended my sisters 6 year old get a lawyer, told him indeed he could... but I did try to present her side as well and eventually was able to talk him down from a litigious ledge.
I even think these commercials are wrong. Very wrong and abusive to use children for advertising purposes.
The children are not acting. Producers are trying to capture their pure emotional dissappointment and frustration on film.
I think it is shameful we use children like this to prove a stupid point about a bank servicing it's customers. I wouldn't use a bank that put children through these humiliating motions.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
If someones belief makes a whole lot of sense and it rescues another human being from cruelty, no matter how tiny that human being...not only will I accept it, I will enforce it on others whenever I have the opportunity. If this means calling child welfare or the police on a cruel or abusive parent...The phone is already in my hand....I am not part of that "we parents, protect other parents" club.

I will always fight to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

And it doesn't matter from betwixt whose thighs they fell.

I applaud your principles, with all sincerity and no sacarsm.

Do allow me to indulge you with a simple test on the application of your principle and the 'enforcement' of it. Just a simple test, and not those terribly difficult ones when a child grows older in a rebellious teen and the conundrums becomes even more confusing with your high principles.

- A young child refuses to eat his greens. His concerned parents cajoled, warned and then threatened him with punishments -either go to his room hungry or banging on the tables with their palms. The child continues to ignore and rebell, cries and then screams out.

1. Will you then call out the authorities and file a charge sheet against your neigbours for infringing on the 'rights' of this child?

2. Should the child be then 'protected' from his parents by being taken into foster care, at public expense, without even being sure that the child would be properly taught, as there would certainly be too many children there for the rehabilitator or social worker to bother or care enough with?

Do not reply in haste, but consider the implications of my post a bit longer. The road to hell is often paved with good intentions, more so when such intentions had NOT been thoroughly debated and deliberated with possible eventual consequences in mind.

Peace.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
concerned parents cajoled, warned and then threatened him with punishments

The parents need a bit of education and some serious training in effective communication - cajoling, warning and threatening are a circular trap going nowhere.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


I would sit for hours looking at a plate of mashed potatoes. I have had my face smashed in mashed potatoes. Little bro, sis, mom and dad left the kitchen and I was not allowed to start washing the dishes (my evening chore from 8 years old on) until AFTER I ATE THOSE MASHED POTATOES.
There are many instances I can think of where a court might have intervened in my family situation and protected me from my parents ridiculous rules.
This I am happy did not happen and so I think in all small matters, where there is no desperate and long (by long I mean days long) depression or acute pain inflicted on the child, the child should remain with parents.

Because IF a child care worker had taken me away from my parents or intervened to usurp their authority
1) It would have cost my parents more money in lost work time and atty's fee's to get me back
2) this in the long run would only take food off my table.
3) it would have made me lose respect for their parental authority which as I say (whenever it is not excessive abuse) should rule the roost.
4) It would have uprooted my parents firm belief they were doing the right thing, and if there is anything worse than mean parents, it is useless, ineffective and helpless parents.
5) And as you point out it would have cost's the state money to put me in foster care
6) Some foster care homes are like leaving the fry pan and entering the fire.

However... (as Sofiacrow points out above) a family counselor stopping by to tell the Btch - a kid won't starve to death if they don't eat this particular food item, you should not try to shove it down their throats, would have been a Godsend.

I think we should recognize child rearing is a challenge and people get no training. Some techniques work better than others. It is no crime to share information. You do not ever need to be abusive to teach to train or to guide.
You do need patience, without that, you should never enter the motherhood club in the first place but a child, like a dog will do things just because they think it makes you happy.
What more can you want from a being? Work with it.
When they shift out of the "pleasing the authority figure mode" as I know they do...you give them a quiet time out, in a place by themselves.
This way... the neighbors don't hear screaming from your house.

Kids will straighten up quickly because life is still so new to them. All they really want is to be able to get back in the game and play again.







[edit on 24-8-2010 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by wcitizen
This is an election propaganda ploy.

These same US Senators have not stood up to American's right NOT to be arbitrarily assassinated abroad without due process or any reasonable grounds for suspiciion.

Agreed. Total self promotion propaganda on the part of some self interested politicians who want to get their herd...............errr...........voters afraid and outraged so they can be directed more easily.

Besides, what makes anyone think anything the UN does will have any impact on the US? We just ignore them completely when we want to do something, and the only time we really pay attention to them is when we want to use their rulings to justify our attacking someone else or when we want to shift the blame for something.

The fact that children are not the personal property of their parents should be self evident. Children are a responsibility, not a right. Someday, that will be self evident. If we survive as a species long enough.

Originally posted by oniongrass

Really -- children have to be given a religious choice because you love them? You can't spank them even if they've just done something dangerous, because you love them?

Yes, really, if you loved your children you would allow them to choose their religious beliefs. You would expose them, but not indoctrinate them, to religions.

And yes, their are other healthy ways to deal with YOUR fear after your child has just done something dangerous other than spank them. Thats YOU letting off your anxiety on them. You can calm yourself down without using violence. You know, like you would if your spouse or another adult, or someone elses child did something dangerous. You dont beat the child because it is helpful to the child. You do it because you can and it makes you feel better in the short run.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by TarzanBeta

 

AGE OF REASON www.highbeam.com...

The age at which a child is considered capable of acting responsibly. Under common law, seven was the age of reason. Children under the age of seven were conclusively presumed incapable of committing a crime because they did not possess the reasoning ability to understand that their conduct violated the standards of acceptable community behavior.

More snippets for your reading pleasure...8-Year-Old Boy Accused of Killing Father Faces Court Today www.wowowow.com...

The killings happened in Arizona — a state where an eight-year-old could be prosecuted in adult court.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by rusethorcain]

If an 8 year old killed his father, he should certainly be taken away. He does not have a chance at a normal life for a very long time.

However, the reason should not be based on whether he is at an age of reason. The age of reason crap is just that - crap. It doesn't matter whether someone KNOWS they are doing something wrong or not - especially murder. If a child commits murder, literally, at any age, they have just ruined their chances for a normal life for a long time. I don't understand why there would be this stupid semantic age of reason crap even thrown in the mix?

And, like I said, adults murder as well. IF only they had all been caught before they were 8.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Thanks for your honest reply, and may society's directiion be in the mannaer as you described so eloquently and with experience, and not in the manner of law/treaty imposition.

:-)

PS: green is really good for you, and I am a meat eater too.