user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
In a sense, children are. Parents are the child's legal guardians, and the child cannot do a lot of things without parental permission. Once you turn 18, you're free. But sadly some people abuse this authority. I worked in a tomato field a few summers back, and a Mennonite had all 8 children (even a 4 year old girl) out there working to make money. The girl was crying and saying she wanted to go home, but her mom said "do what i tell you to"
see my ballot #32361
Well, unless they are being used as slaves (which is sadly true in many parts of the world), I'd say no. With, b2tq's example - I'm just not sure.
forget it, they're not!!!! The sooner they realize they're induviduals, that they own themself, the better! Children out there! Your parents are not your masters! Be smart!
When a child is only 2 years old, who takes care of them? They certainly can't take care of themselves! When a child is 6 years old and commits a crime, whose responsibility is it, the child or their parents? When a child is 12 years and murders another child (which has happened way too often in Japan), whose responsibility is it?
It seems that the only ones saying that children should be their own masters have never had their own children, and are unwilling to accept the responsibity that raising a child requires.
the voting trend on this ballot scares me...
"It took some time before the significance of what I was looking at sank into my "civilized" mind. I had spent more than two years living in the jungles of South America with Stone Age Indians. Little boys traveled with us when we enlisted their fathers as guides and crew, and we often stayed for days or weeks in the villages of the Yequana Indians where the children played all day unsupervised by adults or adolescents. It only struck me after the fourth of my five expeditions that I had never seen a conflict either between two children or between a child and an adult. Not only did the children not hit one another, they did not even argue. They obeyed their elders instantly and cheerfully, and often carried babies around with them while playing or helping with the work.
Where were the "terrible twos"? Where were the tantrums, the struggle to "get their own way," the selfishness, the destructiveness and carelessness of their own safety that we call normal? Where was the nagging, the discipline, the "boundaries" needed to curb their contrariness? Where, indeed, was the adversarial relationship we take for granted between parent and child? Where was the blaming, the punishing, or for that matter, where was any sign of permissiveness?"
There's an alternative. There's always a third way, and it's not a combination of the other two ways--it's a different way.
You do notÂ…cannot posses even yourself. How can you hope to posses anyone or anything else
yeeeeeeeehaa grandma
hmmmmmm.
If you put Why Do Kids Kill Parents in the google i wonder what'll turn up
No, just because you give birth to them, doesn't mean you own them.
The problem however for saying that children are not the property of their parents is that it means by default the children will be treated as the property of the state. What happens then? As we've seen too often, state authorities frequently abuse the power that they have by taking away children from parents on false pretences - often because the parents were members of an unpopular religious group, or because of false accusations.
The other problem with the premise that children are not property of their parents is that according the logical extension of that, parents are not in any way responsible for providing free food, clothes, home, or paying for an education since the children are their private citizens. So, it is perfectly okay for a mother to dump her baby in the street because the little 1 month old private citizen hasn't been able to pay the rent.
Maybe mothers should give babies a bill for the cost of supporting them for nine months at birth, then leave the newborn at the hospital on the premise that now he's a free citizen he should start trying to earn a wage.
Of course, these days parents could simply patent their genes and require their kids to pay for the use of their genetic inheritance too.
Yes. And Women are the property of MEN!
CRUSH THE COLONIAL-SHITS
Smash the State
Stuff you Grapost!
lol this is a stupid question, doesn't even make sense.
A property is something that you can buy, sell and use.
In some part of the world children are property.
I agree with bow_2_the_queen. On another point, I think as a kid gets older parents should give them some degree of independence (without letting the kid run amok, or course). If parents act like they own their kid and don't give them any independence, the kid could end up loathing them or turning 18 and hitting a huge hurdle in their lives when they realise they have no idea how to look after themselves in the big wide world.
by Dot on Sat Sep 11, 04 9:14am
[+]
"It took some time before the significance of what I was looking at sank into my "civilized" mind. I had spent more than two years living in the jungles of South America with Stone Age Indians. Little boys traveled with us when we enlisted their fathers as guides and crew, and we often stayed for days or weeks in the villages of the Yequana Indians - bla, bla, bla, Where were the tantrums, the struggle to "get their own way," the selfishness, the destructiveness and carelessness of their own safety that we call normal? Where was the nagging, the discipline, the "boundaries" needed to curb their contrariness? Where, indeed, was the adversarial relationship we take for granted between parent and child? Where was the blaming, the punishing, or for that matter, where was any sign of permissiveness?"
by bigmonkeynuts on Aug 24, 2004
I was always suspicious of the claims in that post of yours. After reading up on the Yequana Indians and Liedloff, I'm even more suspicious.
Good thing then that Liedloff is merely one person
"However idealistic and romantic Liedloff's work is, I was profoundly moved. She admits to never having the intention of writing a "how-to" book for child-rearing, but the unforeseen following of her child-care pontifications forced her to look again at how her message was received, and how she could possibly be considered an "expert" in light of her first-hand experiences."
"In the 21st century U.S., if I allow my young children to wander up and down the streets or into the woods without "supervision", I could be arrested for child neglect and/or endangerment. So, it doesn't matter whether I agree with her parenting theories, they, in some part, would be punishable by Western governments, and since I choose to remain a U.S. citizen, I need to abide by federal and state laws."
".....and that parents can still be forcibly separated from their children by authorities for sleeping with them, by continuing to nurse into elementary school age, or by letting them roam."
^^^ That was directed at the ballot topic D_O_K , not yourself.
".....and that parents can still be forcibly separated from their children by authorities for sleeping with them, by continuing to nurse into elementary school age, or by letting them roam."
by bigmonkeynuts on Nov 27, 2004
(I presume you mean "co-sleeping") Is that in the USA? I've never heard of such a thing in any other nation that I've lived in. That's crazy PC stuff gone too far.
In the 21st century U.S., if I allow my young children to wander up and down the streets or into the woods without "supervision", I could be arrested for child neglect and/or endangerment. by bigmonkeynuts on Nov 27, 2004
You'd also have a very good chance of the kids getting killed by a car, especially boys.
"However idealistic and romantic Liedloff's work is, I was profoundly moved. She admits to never having the intention of writing a "how-to" book for child-rearing, but the unforeseen following of her child-care pontifications forced her to look again at how her message was received, and how she could possibly be considered an "expert" in light of her first-hand experiences." by bigmonkeynuts on Nov 27, 2004
Like being a mother and all? - which she wasn't. It seems a lot of mothers who tried Liedloff's policies found them impractical. It occurrs to me, that Liedloff is juts another "know-it-all" with no real experience or knowledge, who wrote the sort of rubbish that people like to believe but not what is actually true. Reminds me of the Dr Spock advice books that were the big thing for decades, written by a so-called expert that everyone said must know it all, and distrusted by me the very first time he read some of his books. Fortunately lots of people have since realised that Dr Spock was an idiot who caused a huge amount of damage - but still lots of people are buying his books.
^^^ I dont disagree
"(I presume you mean "co-sleeping") Is that in the USA? I've never heard of such a thing in any other nation that I've lived in. That's crazy PC stuff gone too far."
The US I presume.Though DOCS have been reported on for ages about extreme things.
Wasn't it DOCS that took away all those kids (60 kids wasn't it?) from those religious cultists on spurious unsupported claims of child abuse then had make to a huge pay-out in compensation because they had no evidence and the kids themselves were traumatized by being effectively kidnapped by the State in the middle of the night? I'm sure it was DOCS that did that.
DOCS are classic WASP NWO psycho's.NWO books devote entire chapters to them.Like Peter Sawyers "One Man Banned."
They work hand in glove with the twin evils
of Biopsychiatry and schooling as well as the financial/military elites in invading settlements and turning thousands into fugitives (truancy) , driving them into the Bush as runaways or squatters and prostitution. The elites sex slave trade.Wards of the state turn to suicide and alcohol and drugs.There was one on TV about 5 years ago showing a f**ing jeep thing and helicopter going after a screaming terrorised 5 year old, the excuse being fake charges of drugs.Probably just marijuana.Relentless assaults caught on film. , it drove them to have to depart the settlement.
Martin Bryant , WACO , planting guns caches on hermits to justify raiding and killing them
etc and so on. All a natural part of the "Obedience Of Australia"
The Talifero Family from www.gardendiet.com look ripe for a visit.A Ruby Ridge one.They look a bit too happy
That Storm is 54, looks like he's in his 30s
edit
www.thegardendiet.com
Heck,no!!
I just looked at the results...you awful, awful people...
199 of you are pathetic...
|
|
