i don't know who the darn that is, but i like the message if i understand it. my kids go to school for 8 hours or so, they go to tennis practice, soccer practice, piano lessons, and whatever the darn else they do. i'm not tim tebowing them.
so, for a large part of the week, they really aren't just my kids, but they also belong to many other people so it's important for all of those people to have a proper investment in them.
why, what do rightwingers think, that obama is taking all of their kids away or something?
0
i don't know who the darn that is, but i like the message if i understand it. my kids go to school for 8 hours or so, they go to tennis practice, soccer practice, piano lessons, and whatever the darn else they do. i'm not tim tebowing them.
so, for a large part of the week, they really aren't just my kids, but they also belong to many other people so it's important for all of those people to have a proper investment in them.
why, what do rightwingers think, that obama is taking all of their kids away or something?
i don't know who the darn that is, but i like the message if i understand it. my kids go to school for 8 hours or so, they go to tennis practice, soccer practice, piano lessons, and whatever the darn else they do. i'm not tim tebowing them.
so, for a large part of the week, they really aren't just my kids, but they also belong to many other people so it's important for all of those people to have a proper investment in them.
why, what do rightwingers think, that obama is taking all of their kids away or something?
Kind of like the right wingers who attacked HRC for her statement 'it takes a village' whilst dropping their children off at school, after-school activities, recreational sports, childcare, music lessons, or to a friend's house.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
i don't know who the darn that is, but i like the message if i understand it. my kids go to school for 8 hours or so, they go to tennis practice, soccer practice, piano lessons, and whatever the darn else they do. i'm not tim tebowing them.
so, for a large part of the week, they really aren't just my kids, but they also belong to many other people so it's important for all of those people to have a proper investment in them.
why, what do rightwingers think, that obama is taking all of their kids away or something?
Kind of like the right wingers who attacked HRC for her statement 'it takes a village' whilst dropping their children off at school, after-school activities, recreational sports, childcare, music lessons, or to a friend's house.
belong implies ownership to me. If this is the case then other peoples children belong to me as well. That's a good thing, for uncle john has some behind whippings to hand out
0
belong implies ownership to me. If this is the case then other peoples children belong to me as well. That's a good thing, for uncle john has some behind whippings to hand out
rick, i wasn't referring to you with that comment.
while of course my kids are ultimately my responsibility, what the video seems to say, as i understand it, is that my kids are not physically, emotionally, intellectually, etc mine for much of the week because they are in school, practice, etc. for that reason, i share responsibility of them with whomever has custody of the during those times. and because they are young and impressionable, it is important for those other responsible people to be, well responsible.
captain, i'll send mine right over.
0
rick, i wasn't referring to you with that comment.
while of course my kids are ultimately my responsibility, what the video seems to say, as i understand it, is that my kids are not physically, emotionally, intellectually, etc mine for much of the week because they are in school, practice, etc. for that reason, i share responsibility of them with whomever has custody of the during those times. and because they are young and impressionable, it is important for those other responsible people to be, well responsible.
it's not a notion of collective responsibility meaning as a parent i can blame someone else if my kid turns out to be a fuckup. i may be misunderstanding her. i've never heard her talk before and the video is only about 390 seconds. but if she's saying that a lot of different people have responsibility of my kids in their formative years so we need to invest in them i.e. teachers, guidance counselors, coaches, instructors, then i agree with it. during the week, i see my kids for about 2 hours a day. my wife see s them more but there's at least 8 hours a day when neither me nor her have any control over what they are doing or how they are being influenced. in that respect, a lot of people are responsible for my kids.
0
it's not a notion of collective responsibility meaning as a parent i can blame someone else if my kid turns out to be a fuckup. i may be misunderstanding her. i've never heard her talk before and the video is only about 390 seconds. but if she's saying that a lot of different people have responsibility of my kids in their formative years so we need to invest in them i.e. teachers, guidance counselors, coaches, instructors, then i agree with it. during the week, i see my kids for about 2 hours a day. my wife see s them more but there's at least 8 hours a day when neither me nor her have any control over what they are doing or how they are being influenced. in that respect, a lot of people are responsible for my kids.
just another piece of s h i t cut from the same freak-show leftist "you didn't build that" pie...
control, control, and more control... always at the root and center of nearly every message from the extreme left...
to affect the kind of change they want, they can't come right out and just say it because its so batshit crazy and scary, so instead you get this kind of crap...
open your eyes people
0
just another piece of s h i t cut from the same freak-show leftist "you didn't build that" pie...
control, control, and more control... always at the root and center of nearly every message from the extreme left...
to affect the kind of change they want, they can't come right out and just say it because its so batshit crazy and scary, so instead you get this kind of crap...
it's not a notion of collective responsibility meaning as a parent i can blame someone else if my kid turns out to be a fuckup. i may be misunderstanding her. i've never heard her talk before and the video is only about 390 seconds. but if she's saying that a lot of different people have responsibility of my kids in their formative years so we need to invest in them i.e. teachers, guidance counselors, coaches, instructors, then i agree with it. during the week, i see my kids for about 2 hours a day. my wife see s them more but there's at least 8 hours a day when neither me nor her have any control over what they are doing or how they are being influenced. in that respect, a lot of people are responsible for my kids.
This post sums it up and brings up the same question I was thinking (and that you raised in the post above).
What if this was said from a Faux News commentator? Or was said by Breibart or The Heritage Foundation.
Don't many right wingers criticize school institutions for 'left leaning' teaching? Or attack teachers unions because they allow unfit teachers to continue employment? Aren't they conceeding by those criticisms the impact on children?
I completely agree with the notion that parents cannot blame coaches, teachers, instructors, etc. for the failings of their children.
But who as a parent doesn't want great teachers, or fantastic rec programs, or safe neighborhoods and bus stops.
Who as a parent isn't hopeful of someone, anyone, be it the police or a concerned citizen, from intervening when some wacko felon is walking around with a gun near a school because he was able to buy it at a gun show.
I guess I don't understand the mindset of admitting that parents raise children, with the assistance of others.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
it's not a notion of collective responsibility meaning as a parent i can blame someone else if my kid turns out to be a fuckup. i may be misunderstanding her. i've never heard her talk before and the video is only about 390 seconds. but if she's saying that a lot of different people have responsibility of my kids in their formative years so we need to invest in them i.e. teachers, guidance counselors, coaches, instructors, then i agree with it. during the week, i see my kids for about 2 hours a day. my wife see s them more but there's at least 8 hours a day when neither me nor her have any control over what they are doing or how they are being influenced. in that respect, a lot of people are responsible for my kids.
This post sums it up and brings up the same question I was thinking (and that you raised in the post above).
What if this was said from a Faux News commentator? Or was said by Breibart or The Heritage Foundation.
Don't many right wingers criticize school institutions for 'left leaning' teaching? Or attack teachers unions because they allow unfit teachers to continue employment? Aren't they conceeding by those criticisms the impact on children?
I completely agree with the notion that parents cannot blame coaches, teachers, instructors, etc. for the failings of their children.
But who as a parent doesn't want great teachers, or fantastic rec programs, or safe neighborhoods and bus stops.
Who as a parent isn't hopeful of someone, anyone, be it the police or a concerned citizen, from intervening when some wacko felon is walking around with a gun near a school because he was able to buy it at a gun show.
I guess I don't understand the mindset of admitting that parents raise children, with the assistance of others.
I actually liked HRC's comment at the time and felt it made a lot of sense at the time.
I think we should hold parents more accountable for their kids bad behavior than we currently do.
My sister has a son that's a year older than my twin boys and I have chosen to keep my boys away from him ever since they were 6 or 7 years old.
My boys don't even care, he is a loser and a lazy bum that I've personally caught rummaging through a bar parking lot looking for half smoked cigarettes to smoke because he's too lazy to get a job so he could buy his own.
I feel a lot of his problems stem from some of the core values she did or didn't instill him with from the beginning. His approach to making friends was completely wrong IMO and he only gets along well with the EMO crowd.
I've come to know a few of his friends in the EMO crowd and I think they are actually decent kids who unfortunately had major Fookups for parents.
I don't trust the community to influence my boys the way I would like...unless they were all people like Rick.
0
I actually liked HRC's comment at the time and felt it made a lot of sense at the time.
I think we should hold parents more accountable for their kids bad behavior than we currently do.
My sister has a son that's a year older than my twin boys and I have chosen to keep my boys away from him ever since they were 6 or 7 years old.
My boys don't even care, he is a loser and a lazy bum that I've personally caught rummaging through a bar parking lot looking for half smoked cigarettes to smoke because he's too lazy to get a job so he could buy his own.
I feel a lot of his problems stem from some of the core values she did or didn't instill him with from the beginning. His approach to making friends was completely wrong IMO and he only gets along well with the EMO crowd.
I've come to know a few of his friends in the EMO crowd and I think they are actually decent kids who unfortunately had major Fookups for parents.
I don't trust the community to influence my boys the way I would like...unless they were all people like Rick.
I didnt freak out because I think I understand what she is trying to say...
basically it is not saying that you have to give up your kids... but that its gives people choices and options...
Certain families probably could greatly benefit from a collectivist approach in the proper context...
I know a family that has many challenges... single mother, multiple children, one with special needs... and she has a screwed up family and lacks a solid support system... she is a nice woman who works hard, but struggles to make her family work...
So there is a collectivist view at her church... and the mantra is that she is not alone... the collectivist view of the congregation is that its "Our family" and people help her because it is the compassionate thing to do...
especially because there are many good male role models at church... the males take a collectivist view rather than an individualistic view in keeping an eye out for this family and helping them out in situations that a man would be helpful...
I am not a part of their church, but I really respect the collectivist view point looking out for other families, especially because they need the help and with many able and capable hands it is light work to help her family...
Perhaps it is the christian thing to do... perhaps it is just being human...
Sure the congregation would choose to Shun her and her family... honestly the children are okay, some issues ofcourse with the stress of growing up in that situation...
but the autistic Son comes across weird... and ofcourse the congregation can choose to call him a weirdo, and keep their families away from him and Shun him and his family because they are fooked up...
But that is where I support their choice for collectivism... So dont get me wrong I am not saying I agree with this woman and her agenda behind this... but I am saying that in this certain situation I am impressed by the collectivism and the help they receive... but actually not just the help, but the grace and compassion the congregation shows rather them shunning because their family and the autistic child is fooked up...
0
rick...
I didnt freak out because I think I understand what she is trying to say...
basically it is not saying that you have to give up your kids... but that its gives people choices and options...
Certain families probably could greatly benefit from a collectivist approach in the proper context...
I know a family that has many challenges... single mother, multiple children, one with special needs... and she has a screwed up family and lacks a solid support system... she is a nice woman who works hard, but struggles to make her family work...
So there is a collectivist view at her church... and the mantra is that she is not alone... the collectivist view of the congregation is that its "Our family" and people help her because it is the compassionate thing to do...
especially because there are many good male role models at church... the males take a collectivist view rather than an individualistic view in keeping an eye out for this family and helping them out in situations that a man would be helpful...
I am not a part of their church, but I really respect the collectivist view point looking out for other families, especially because they need the help and with many able and capable hands it is light work to help her family...
Perhaps it is the christian thing to do... perhaps it is just being human...
Sure the congregation would choose to Shun her and her family... honestly the children are okay, some issues ofcourse with the stress of growing up in that situation...
but the autistic Son comes across weird... and ofcourse the congregation can choose to call him a weirdo, and keep their families away from him and Shun him and his family because they are fooked up...
But that is where I support their choice for collectivism... So dont get me wrong I am not saying I agree with this woman and her agenda behind this... but I am saying that in this certain situation I am impressed by the collectivism and the help they receive... but actually not just the help, but the grace and compassion the congregation shows rather them shunning because their family and the autistic child is fooked up...
I guess part of this is I. What I see as a collectivist approach in local schools. Nobody can pray because some don't pray. Many districts don't allow parents to send packed lunches and force the kids to eat unhealthy GMO. When you give up your parental sovereignty you end up with a kid that thinks pizza is a vegetable.
Just a couple examples.
0
I guess part of this is I. What I see as a collectivist approach in local schools. Nobody can pray because some don't pray. Many districts don't allow parents to send packed lunches and force the kids to eat unhealthy GMO. When you give up your parental sovereignty you end up with a kid that thinks pizza is a vegetable.
well i certainly agree with not praying but that's a religious issue. i'm not a big fan of forcing kids to eat a certain lunch when we all know the school probably has no clue what a healthy lunch is.
0
well i certainly agree with not praying but that's a religious issue. i'm not a big fan of forcing kids to eat a certain lunch when we all know the school probably has no clue what a healthy lunch is.
Lets cut to the crap shall we? I see some bright posters in here seemingly missing the core of her message.
There is a reason her message didn't sound anything like post #10. Know what that this? That's because she wasn't trying to say that. At all. And yes, post #10 is a good one.
The words "collective" and "private" are stressed in her little spiel. One is said with a positive connotation, the other isn't. Why is that? The logic in post #10 isn't found in rocket science books. So why didn't' she just say that instead?
Which leads us to the core of the modern day liberal agenda. Equality. Know what the greatest source of inequality in America is today? Parents.
Yep, parents are one of society's most enduring sources of inequality. If you have two parents who stay married and are invested in your upbringing, you've hit life's lottery. That the family is so essential to the well-being of children has to be a constant source of frustration to an egalitarian freak show like Melissa Harris-Perry.
If the left wants to equalize investments in children that matter the most, it should promote intact families and engaged parents. Even if it means embracing old fashioned private child rearing. You know those awful nasty things called "family values."
0
Lets cut to the crap shall we? I see some bright posters in here seemingly missing the core of her message.
There is a reason her message didn't sound anything like post #10. Know what that this? That's because she wasn't trying to say that. At all. And yes, post #10 is a good one.
The words "collective" and "private" are stressed in her little spiel. One is said with a positive connotation, the other isn't. Why is that? The logic in post #10 isn't found in rocket science books. So why didn't' she just say that instead?
Which leads us to the core of the modern day liberal agenda. Equality. Know what the greatest source of inequality in America is today? Parents.
Yep, parents are one of society's most enduring sources of inequality. If you have two parents who stay married and are invested in your upbringing, you've hit life's lottery. That the family is so essential to the well-being of children has to be a constant source of frustration to an egalitarian freak show like Melissa Harris-Perry.
If the left wants to equalize investments in children that matter the most, it should promote intact families and engaged parents. Even if it means embracing old fashioned private child rearing. You know those awful nasty things called "family values."
This is a dangerous mindset -- that one's children really belong to the "community" as opposed to the parents. Somewhat of an extension of the Hillary Clinton "it takes a village" mindset. While there is some truth to that, what is the take-away? It minimizes the role of parents in the development in their child. If a child is "bad" or unsuccessful, then it is not the parents' fault, but rather it is because the community failed. What's the reason most people on the left would say a community failed? Lack of resources, mostly monetarily.
I tend to think that if you have terrible parents, you are going to be a crappy kid. If your parents are great and interested, you will be a successful kid. Everything else is completely and wholly secondary IMO
0
This is a dangerous mindset -- that one's children really belong to the "community" as opposed to the parents. Somewhat of an extension of the Hillary Clinton "it takes a village" mindset. While there is some truth to that, what is the take-away? It minimizes the role of parents in the development in their child. If a child is "bad" or unsuccessful, then it is not the parents' fault, but rather it is because the community failed. What's the reason most people on the left would say a community failed? Lack of resources, mostly monetarily.
I tend to think that if you have terrible parents, you are going to be a crappy kid. If your parents are great and interested, you will be a successful kid. Everything else is completely and wholly secondary IMO
This is a dangerous mindset -- that one's children really belong to the "community" as opposed to the parents. Somewhat of an extension of the Hillary Clinton "it takes a village" mindset. While there is some truth to that, what is the take-away? It minimizes the role of parents in the development in their child. If a child is "bad" or unsuccessful, then it is not the parents' fault, but rather it is because the community failed. What's the reason most people on the left would say a community failed? Lack of resources, mostly monetarily.
I tend to think that if you have terrible parents, you are going to be a crappy kid. If your parents are great and interested, you will be a successful kid. Everything else is completely and wholly secondary IMO
good stuff here too
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
This is a dangerous mindset -- that one's children really belong to the "community" as opposed to the parents. Somewhat of an extension of the Hillary Clinton "it takes a village" mindset. While there is some truth to that, what is the take-away? It minimizes the role of parents in the development in their child. If a child is "bad" or unsuccessful, then it is not the parents' fault, but rather it is because the community failed. What's the reason most people on the left would say a community failed? Lack of resources, mostly monetarily.
I tend to think that if you have terrible parents, you are going to be a crappy kid. If your parents are great and interested, you will be a successful kid. Everything else is completely and wholly secondary IMO
"Know what the greatest source of inequality in America is today? Parents.
Yep,
parents are one of society's most enduring sources of inequality. If
you have two parents who stay married and are invested in your
upbringing, you've hit life's lottery. That the family is so essential
to the well-being of children has to be a constant source of frustration
to an egalitarian freak show like Melissa Harris-Perry.
If
the left wants to equalize investments in children that matter the
most, it should promote intact families and engaged parents. Even if it
means embracing old fashioned private child rearing. You know those
awful nasty things called "family values.""
TILTO may be wrong about some things, but this is not one of them.
0
"Know what the greatest source of inequality in America is today? Parents.
Yep,
parents are one of society's most enduring sources of inequality. If
you have two parents who stay married and are invested in your
upbringing, you've hit life's lottery. That the family is so essential
to the well-being of children has to be a constant source of frustration
to an egalitarian freak show like Melissa Harris-Perry.
If
the left wants to equalize investments in children that matter the
most, it should promote intact families and engaged parents. Even if it
means embracing old fashioned private child rearing. You know those
awful nasty things called "family values.""
TILTO may be wrong about some things, but this is not one of them.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
kool story bob
Hot Forum Topics
