Melissa Harris-Perry: 'I Stand By' 'Kids Belong to Whole Communities'

reply to post by dominicus


I think it's ironic that she is advocating child slavery.

reply to post by seagull

Originally posted by seagull
"Belonging" to a community?

Or...

"Belonging" to a family?

Which is more likely to teach a child to actually think for themselves, develop a sense of individuality?

I disagree with your assessment. Belonging to a family (a small community), with their own traditions, one religion, usually one race, one way of thinking, would tend to foster a child who thinks like this particular family, and be less willing to accept others in their community. Belonging to a community, where there are different races, religions, sexual orientations, and different views on life, would tend to foster a child who has a more open mind and the ability to be an individual and be comfortable doing so.

It's all semantics, anyway. People who are getting offended at this statement are taking the entire thing out of context.

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

Kahlil Gibran

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I don't really disagree with you, BH. Odd as that may seem, at times.

It does, of course, depend largely upon the family, or community, too, I suppose; one is raised in.

My family, both close and extended; are for the most part, free thinkers; and encouraged, even demanded that I become one.

I remember only too clearly, communities that in many ways enforce a brand of conformity. Act this way, or you're "bad"...to be "good" you must act in the fashion we demand.

It does depend very largely upon the environment. All too often all we want is conformity to a certain ideal... Family or community.

I'm not even clear on the basics of this. (Mr. Confusion checking in again.)

What authority or power is the "community" claiming? Sure, preventing serious child abuse, but we're not talking about protecting against crime here.

Is the "Community" claiming the authority to set standards that children must meet (productive members of society) or they can be removed? The authority to monitor children's attitudes to see if they're sufficiently "socialized?" The authority to inspect homes over dietary issues? Check for exercise time? Make sure they're religiously accepting? What authority do they want?

And, what responsibility does the "Community" have to the children? Make sure they have sufficient food, clothing, housing, schooling, medical care, child care, internet connection, spiritual development, etc. In short, does the "Community" have the responsibility to replace the parents?

It is, of course, good if you can count on your neighbor for help if you ask for it. But is it good if the "community" requires each member to help?

See my confusion?

reply to post by dominicus


That is NOT WHAT SHE SAID.

Read what she said!
She's talking about the fact that our children will inherit this country, and we have a responsibility to them as a cohort. She made herself very clear.

“This is about whether we as a society, expressing our collective will through our public institutions, including our government, have a right to impinge on individual freedoms in order to advance a common good. And that is exactly the fight that we have been having for a couple hundred years,” she said.

She said a budget debate, after all, is “a conversation about finding the balance between rights and responsibilities — private earnings and public investments.”

“Our kids who will inherit our nation belong to all of us and we have a collective responsibility to them. I hit a nerve with a 30-second promotional ad, and the nerve that I hit is connected to the central nervous system of our democracy, at the synapses of civic engagement is the electrical current that forges our more perfect union.”

It's no different than saying, "No, you can't drive 120 miles per hour on the lane that is meant for opposite-bound traffic. No, you can't drive drunk."

Or "no, you can't keep your children out of school, lock them in a closet, refuse to feed them or speak to them, and beat them when you want."

lol its funny how people take the meaning wrong.

No wonder she laughed at all those people getting mad from her comment.

Its like a child arguing without understanding the meaning. Cute.


Without interaction from the community, the child will be mentally weak.

Its the putting a newborn in a glass room, concept. You let it out, it dies within days.

reply to post by luciddream

Originally posted by luciddream
lol its funny how people take the meaning wrong.

The only way people can be "outraged" by what she said, is to add some sinister meaning to her words. And since she's part of the progressive movement in this country, it's very important that she's demonized and criticized for her "outrageous" views, to show that progression is evil and NOT the way to go (according to some).

Many people would prefer that we go backwards, to the day when ancient religious views dictated the law, a man's woman and family were his property and gay people were safely controlled in the closet, etc.

The odd thing is that being part of the community seems like something those on the Right would embrace...especially being part of a Church community.

And isn't a bit hypocritical of Glenn Beck to be outraged by this when he is proposing to build a commune where people can send their kids to be "de-programmed"...or in other words...indoctrinated to his standards???

I had always thought that the Right were outraged by the break down of the community and that we aren't as close a community as we once were. But now that a "liberal" is saying it...it is now become evil. It is quite interesting how some people can reverse their thinking just by hearing someone else advocate what they previously believed in.

reply to post by LogicGrind


Coming from a rural backround and present, I agree totally. People helped take care of everyone, if I see one of the neighbor's kids do something stupid, I am gonna give em a wop upside the head and bring 'em home. Done it before, had it done to me when I was a kid, etc. Willingness to protect everyone else in the community.

Oh sorry, meant to hit general reply, not reply to post

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
I completely agree with her. If the community around the child supports and helps in that child's development, we would have far fewer brats and thugs running around with an overblown sense of entitlement and apathy.

Lmao, the only reason we have so many "brats" and "thugs" is because of over entitled liberals with a God complex who think they know everything. The whole "it takes a village" marxist garbage is pathetic. First lefties do everything they can to sabotage the family, then they use that as an excuse to further bash the family on their quest for global marxism.

Originally posted by LogicGrind
The odd thing is that being part of the community seems like something those on the Right would embrace...especially being part of a Church community.

And isn't a bit hypocritical of Glenn Beck to be outraged by this when he is proposing to build a commune where people can send their kids to be "de-programmed"...or in other words...indoctrinated to his standards???

I had always thought that the Right were outraged by the break down of the community and that we aren't as close a community as we once were. But now that a "liberal" is saying it...it is now become evil. It is quite interesting how some people can reverse their thinking just by hearing someone else advocate what they previously believed in.

People aren't stupid. More and more know all about "Rules for Radical's", and the pathological nature of leftists. Leftists are the ones who gutted any sense of community in America because they used and abused the American sense of community to peddle their poisons since the 60's.

reply to post by korathin

People aren't stupid. More and more know all about "Rules for Radical's", and the pathological nature of leftists. Leftists are the ones who gutted any sense of community in America because they used and abused the American sense of community to peddle their poisons since the 60's.

This is so poisonous and erroneous that I don't have time to respond to it appropriately.

You are going by McCarthyesque "cold war" thinking...it was in the mid 1950s that "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance.....as well as adding "In God we Trust" to currency. Why? Because of the commie(witch)-hunt after WWII.

The "leftists" are NOT pushing for Communism.
You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. I'll keep saying that you're wrong.

reply to post by doclec




It takes a family to raise a child. Not a village.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by korathin

 

People aren't stupid. More and more know all about "Rules for Radical's", and the pathological nature of leftists. Leftists are the ones who gutted any sense of community in America because they used and abused the American sense of community to peddle their poisons since the 60's.

This is so poisonous and erroneous that I don't have time to respond to it appropriately.

You are going by McCarthyesque "cold war" thinking...it was in the mid 1950s that "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance.....as well as adding "In God we Trust" to currency. Why? Because of the commie(witch)-hunt after WWII.

The "leftists" are NOT pushing for Communism.
You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. I'll keep saying that you're wrong.

Not to get in the way of typical leftist libel, McCarthy was more or less right, and justified in the actions he took.
rense.com...

Leftists aren't pushing for communism? What world do you live in? I guess gun ban's, thought crimes, nationalized healthcare as a way to regulate what people eat, and all the marxism leftist's surround themselves in shows what outstanding capitalists they are. After all, the Current lefty President didn't want to associate with Communist's in college and didn't appoint a single communist or hire a single communist, who am I kidding?

Your post borders on outright fraud in trying to say that leftists in America are not pushing for communism.

Originally posted by Hopechest
I believe Plato was the first to recognize that children should ideally belong to a community and not individual parents.

In the Republic he writes about the creation of the Just City where everyone will have sex with everyone else so nobody knows who the children belong to. They will then be raised by the community and separated later as they are determined to fit into one of the three classes based on ability.

And it depends on how we philosophize on what the The Republic was stating. Some say it is the perfect state, others can argue that it highlights how planned chaos never works given the immense oversight that would be needed.

To be clear though, Socrates philosophized about shared spouses and children and that depending on their status, sex; along with child-bearing, will only occur at certain times. It was up to the Guardians to determine who the child belonged to, to reduce "incest".

Such a philosophy would only work in a planned society as one dictated in The Republic (which would never work on a large scale as depicted by Socrates.)

It was only the Guardian caste I believe, that met this fate.

Not a new concept at all and one which has been put forth by some of the greatest thinkers in our history.

Definitely not new, but I wouldn't put this lady in the same plane as Plato....

Originally posted by LogicGrind
The odd thing is that being part of the community seems like something those on the Right would embrace...especially being part of a Church community.

And isn't a bit hypocritical of Glenn Beck to be outraged by this when he is proposing to build a commune where people can send their kids to be "de-programmed"...or in other words...indoctrinated to his standards???

I had always thought that the Right were outraged by the break down of the community and that we aren't as close a community as we once were. But now that a "liberal" is saying it...it is now become evil. It is quite interesting how some people can reverse their thinking just by hearing someone else advocate what they previously believed in.

Community and Communism have two different meanings. (although when a Progressive says community they mean Communism, just like when they say Democracy they mean Socialism) Conservatives decry the breakdown of the moral values of a community, while liberals demand the community become whatever the State demands. And who is in charge of the State? Usually people who have power and control issues.

Funny, even Jon Stewart made a comment about Obama's executive move to make it easier for Washington officials to do insider trading.
People in Washington seem to think they should be exempt from all the rules they put on everyone else. Whatever happened to being "fair"? Some people are just more equal than others?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Hopechest
I believe Plato was the first to recognize that children should ideally belong to a community and not individual parents.

In the Republic he writes about the creation of the Just City where everyone will have sex with everyone else so nobody knows who the children belong to. They will then be raised by the community and separated later as they are determined to fit into one of the three classes based on ability.

And it depends on how we philosophize on what the The Republic was stating. Some say it is the perfect state, others can argue that it highlights how planned chaos never works given the immense oversight that would be needed.

To be clear though, Socrates philosophized about shared spouses and children and that depending on their status, sex; along with child-bearing, will only occur at certain times. It was up to the Guardians to determine who the child belonged to, to reduce "incest".

Such a philosophy would only work in a planned society as one dictated in The Republic (which would never work on a large scale as depicted by Socrates.)

It was only the Guardian caste I believe, that met this fate.

Not a new concept at all and one which has been put forth by some of the greatest thinkers in our history.

Definitely not new, but I wouldn't put this lady in the same plane as Plato....

Someone ( egh egh clears throat) just told me recently that our Founding Fathers based their ideas on Plato's communistic society.



Yet, our Founding Fathers did not whisk the children away to be raised by the State. One could argue they were raised by the nanny, but I argue it wasn't the Nanny State....

I also suggest that some cannot tell the difference.

reply to post by korathin

Leftists aren't pushing for communism? What world do you live in?

I live in the educated world.
I suggest you try it.
NO ONE in America is "pushing for communism".
How very frustrating that you won't even look at the actual platforms, but instead spout "Glenn Beck rhetorical" hatred as "reality."

The govt is going to help us? I don't have children or I would be in jail by now,no doubt having dragged a teacher across their desk for revisionist history lessons or some counselor for trying to liberally radicalize them against traditional values.
Why do they need more Infragard graduates?
At least my step daughter moved to England with her son so perhaps they can survive this madness in Nottingham England.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by korathin

 

Leftists aren't pushing for communism? What world do you live in?

I live in the educated world.
I suggest you try it.
NO ONE in America is "pushing for communism".
How very frustrating that you won't even look at the actual platforms, but instead spout "Glenn Beck rhetorical" hatred as "reality."

David Horowitz, the publisher of RealNewsBlog.com — former radical himself. You were a guy — if I read history in the 1960s, you were part of all of these people that we're now talking about, all of the radicals, progressives, revolutionaries.
David, any doubt in your mind that a guy like Van Jones wants to, not just transform America into something, but I mean a very radically different America that Americans would not even begin to understand.


DAVID HOROWITZ, PUBLISHER, REALNEWSBLOG.COM: He's what I call a neo- communist. You know, we have neo-conservatives, neo-fascists, but somehow, we don't have neo-communists. These are people who have the same vision that communists — I grew up, of course, in a communist community. My parents were communists.
Van Jones will not disappear. He's a fellow at the Center for American Progress —

BECK: We have to chase these people and keep a spotlight on them all the time.


HOROWITZ: Yes.


Well, you know, the old communists are revived by this progressive movement. It is a movement and it's a culture. You know, the Rosenbergs are still innocent.


Read more: www.foxnews.com...

And this Van Jones talking about "REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH" and getting rid of Capitalism and replacing with "eco Capitalism" and "transforming of :all society"

yes maam he's pushing COMMUNISM




And my goodness, how frustrating it is when it's right in everyone's face that all these "educated" people cannot see it....