|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts 
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, Ian McColl wrote: Believe me. I am in no way in fear of terrorists for myself. However I cannot imagine how anyone can truthfully say as you just did that they "rarely" even think of terrorists today. Maybe you should get out more and watch the news and read the papers instead of sitting behind your keyboard. Maybe you have climate change on the mind. 
Remember muslims represent almost 25% of the world's population and while all of them are not terrorists they all follow the Koran, including the radical muslim terrorists and other muslims. They may interpret it differently. I do not know but they follow it and believe in it and they live by it. As far as they are concerned you and I are nothing but infidels to them because we are not muslims. Obviously way off topic but this is The Café after all. Let me end by saying: Take care of your children and watch over them. They are precious and untilthey canreasonfor themselves they are your responsibility..
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote: I wrote the posts, and I just looked in a mirror. I'm still me. I think individual rights should be protected above any group. I'm against all entitlement programs, and the never ending downward spiral they produce. I think all taxes are a form of confiscation. Social security, aside from being a joke, presupposes that people aren't able to provide for themselves. I think the government, on all levels, should be as small as possible. It should keep courts of OBJECTIVE law, and the federal government should also provide for and maintain a military for the purposes of repelling FOREIGN INVADERS ONLY. The military should be as small as possible to still be effective. Taxes should be used for those purposes only. I think the government should not regulate anything and should own no businesses. I'm against all foreign aid, except in individual disaster situations, and then only if we can afford it. That's just some of what I think. Tell me how ANY of that makes me a liberal. If anything I'm a freaking hyper-republican. I din't like labels as they tend to pigeon hole people, but if I had to label myself I would say I'm an American in the TRUEST sense of the word.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
I keep reading here that these parents have been "convicted". What have they been "convicted" of? It seems more like they have been warned. As in getting a warning for speeding but not convicted. I may be wrong.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, TomBoleware wrote: Of course, and they did. The law says that no law was broken. Quote:
A parent that doesn’t cooperate with the investigation becomes a suspect of neglect/abuse and will be put on watch. What’s wrong with that? They did co-operate, they just didn't agree. They broke no law, why should they be watched? If you don't know why it's wrong for the govt to watch you when you've done nothing wrong then, no offense, you are part of the problem. If the tables turn on you, and the "law" violates your rights, remember you asked for it. Quote:
If on the other hand the child seems to be in good hands with the parent then the case is closed. They were found to have broken no law, and the children were left with the parents because no neglect was found. So by YOUR reasoning the case should be closed. Why isn't it? Quote:
Sure there will be times where the system doesn’t work. But YOUR rights as a parent mean nothing when it comes to saving a child’s life. A system that uses subjective factors, and makes things up as it goes along, is broken by default. How can you expect a broken system to work? Their lives weren't in danger. They were doing something that some thought was wrong. Turns out it wasn't. Quote:
Children are abused everyday and we need laws to protect them. Of course. If no laws are broken then no protection is needed. No child was abused. When did abuse come into this? Quote:
Yes it is neglect when you allow a SIX year old to walk a MILE along a busy road without an adult. Apparently not according to the law, not that that should matter it seems.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, acesover wrote: Warned about what? That some people don't agree with them? How can you be found guilty of something unsubstantiated? Why are they being watched?
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21263 Posts
|
What is your stance on the ACA?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
TomBoleware Inner circle Hattiesburg, Ms 3174 Posts
|
Yes it is neglect; it’s enough to say, ‘keep your kids under supervision or we will do it for you.’
The investigation could have been dropped but for some reason (and I suspect it was the parents aptitude) it wasn’t written off. It was a warning. A warning to get up off your butt and watch your young kids before something happens to them. Even if there wasn’t a crime, should the policeman just pass up a six year old on the road? I don’t think so. This so-called free range parenting is just an excuse to get out of watching your kids. So do we just not check out parents when there is a complaint? Or overlook it when a policeman brings them home? Tom
The Daycare Magician Book
https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/amazekids/the-daycare-magician/ My Blog - https://boleware.blogspot.com/ |
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote: Obviously against.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, TomBoleware wrote: Ok Tom. You obviously don't get what I'm saying but that's OK. Just remember, when your rights get violated don't act like anything is wrong. BTW, out of curiousity, are you a parent?
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
TomBoleware Inner circle Hattiesburg, Ms 3174 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, NYCTwister wrote: Yes I have one older son. I’m also a new, one week today, Great Grandfather. You know you old when your grandkids have kids.
I also owned a large preschool center for 19 years. So I have seen first hand just how clueless some young parents can be. I’m all for freedom of speech and all that stuff, but when it comes to kids, they don’t always have a free choice. We need laws to make sure their rights and safety are being protected too. Are child safety rights more important than my rights? I think so, when it comes to choosing. Tom
The Daycare Magician Book
https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/amazekids/the-daycare-magician/ My Blog - https://boleware.blogspot.com/ |
|||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7527 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, RNK wrote: Again NYCTwister- the above quote by Landmark is why we have to protect our kids. I fully agree about government staying out of our business. But not kids. Unfortunately in todays society the drop-kick parents as Landmark states are more prevalent than ever and it's sad the stories that are reported of the horrible neglect some kids go through. The federal government should stay out of everything but America's protection as what it was originally founded to do. But the states have a moral obligation to protect children since adults and young adults are becoming increasingly incapable of doing so themselves.
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
|
RNK Inner circle 7527 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, RNK wrote: Sorry Landmark- the original quote was not yours but Ian's.......
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
|
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, NYCTwister wrote: What does the word "convicted" have to do with being watched. I often hear the term "person of interest" used. It does not mean they are arrested, much less convicted.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
|
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, TomBoleware wrote: Well NYCTwister, I guess that response rained on your parade.
Kind of difficult to go against logic and common sense. But go ahead anyway. We are still reading.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21263 Posts
|
Should the state protect kids from sweat shops?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
The state should protect sweat shops from the kids.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, acesover wrote: Lol. You folks make blanket statements, obviously true, such as children need to be protected, and pretend you are proving a point. You're a gun owner right Ace? One day when someone sees you around your kid with one of your legal guns, which btw I support your right to own, and decides that in their opinion you are endangering your child by default. Then after an investigation where you are found to have broken no law, you are then watched, just in case you become a danger to your kid, don't say I didn't warn you. If you folks can't understand the dangers of subjective factors being used to determine, and interpret, laws then I wish you luck. That's the issue here. No one seemed to notice that I never said whether I agreed with the parents or not.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote: No Danny, objective law should. There is a big difference.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, RNK wrote: What if the almighty state decides that children should be protected by assessing a persons ability to be a parent, and sterilizing those who don't meet whatever criteria they decide is correct? Too extreme? Never happen? Why? Kids that never were, can't be neglected. Resources are saved. Who would be against that? You can't have it both ways. either people make their own decisions, and mistakes, or they don't. BTW, I asked you a question on the Good Fortunes thread, but I never heard back. I guess you're too busy.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2015, NYCTwister wrote: You just made my point. When you see my kid. Not likely now as both of my daughters are married. But back to your comment ,When someone sees me around my kid with a gun...notice you said I am there with him or her. Big difference then my kid being on the street alone with said gun. Or if 5 years old being on the street alone a few miles away from home. But go ahead and keep talking. We are listening or I guess I should say reading. Regardless I would be there with him or her, not a few miles away. I do agree that the government has no right to tell you how to "bring up" your child. however bringing them up and teaching them you rideals and morals is quite different than protecting them from predators at the age of 5 or 6. One does not have to teach their children to say thank you or excuse me. But one has the obligation to make sure they are safe and secure at a young age. Remember you are a parent. You can raise them to have no respect for elders or authority but you MUST protect the. That is your duty as a parent and it is a crime to neglect them. Anyway in my book it is a crime. Of course that is figuratively speaking. Your mileage may differ. But I repeat I do not believe the parents were convicted of anything. However they were warned and rightly so. You know the old ounce of prevention thing. Seems more to the parents are more embarrassed at their stupidity and are trying to defend their actions. Pride can be a sin.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Neglect? (3 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Mar 5, 2015 04:31 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|