Financial Shakeup this weekend

[catchacab]

Wellardmac wrote:

I agree with you 100% the primary responsibility of raising children rests with parents and I'm of the opinion that the state should get out of the way and not interfere. To often the state thinks that it has more parental rights than the genetic parents and that is a more appropriate target of a lawsuit. I actually get more annoyed when I see authorities interfering with good families when they shouldn't.

As for the ACLU, I didn't dispute that they're selective in their lawsuits. Most of the time they get it right, but sometimes they can be off base. I still stand by my previous comments that I don't necessarily agree with them on this one and cannot see the angle that they're coming from, but I can understand the logic they're using.

Can you give some specifics where you feel the authorities interfere with good families.


What about all the bad parents?

[catchacab]

Wellardmac wrote:

Okay, here are two of the examples that I mentioned - sadly, there are lots of cases just like these, so finding them wasn't difficult and I could equally have pulled other versions of the same story with different families.

http://www.breggin.com/schools.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=..._article=1

Want more? I could probably find some, it's not hard.

There are stories of states stepping in to remove children for the actions of the parents, as well as the actions of the children. Sometimes you look at the story and shake your head that they're stepping in over things that are really none of the state's business.

We're in agreement it's the job of parents to be parents and raise well adjusted kids. It's the government's job to stay the hell out of the way unless a child is being abused.

Parents have a responsibility to raise and educate their children. Additionally, this is not a nanny state and the government shouldn't be telling parents how to raise their kids.

Your first link, I agree, it was wrong for the school and govt to intervene as they did. ADD and ADHD are two medical disorders that are increasingly being diagnosed. Many cases of ADD and ADHD are due to a lack of parental guidance of their children! There are those children who are diagnosed with those disorders that truly have the medical problems (different levels of neurotransmitters) that cause them. A lack of discipline can present the similarly to ADD/ADHD. Now you have a school with classes full of these undisciplined children, who are disruptive to the rest of the class, preventing the remaining student from learning. So what can a school do. They can't go into the home to discipline the child. Many of these problems originated well before the child was school age. They can't physically isolate the child or children, drugging them is the only way the school can reduce the child's disruptions in class. This may be an example. sacrificing the few for the benefit of the many.

The second case, the court and doctors are correct. The patient, a child, doesn't have the knowledge and experience to adequately choose the correct therapy. Also the parents do not have the knowledge and experience either. In my office, I determine treatment. I base the proposed treatment on science and what is in the overall best interest of the patient. If a parent dictates what treatment they will accept for their child and refuses my recommendation or does not want to have my recommended studies preformed (generally radiographs), then they can find another doctor. The bottom line what I do, and what was done in your second example is done for the best interest of the patient.

[catchacab]

Wellardmac wrote:

We're in agreement it's the job of parents to be parents and raise well adjusted kids. It's the government's job to stay the hell out of the way unless a child is being abused.

Parents have a responsibility to raise and educate their children. Additionally, this is not a nanny state and the government shouldn't be telling parents how to raise their kids.

The problem is that there are many parents that are not raising well adjusted kids. The children may not be suffering from physical and sexual abuse, but they are being neglected and suffering from emotional abuse.

The govt has eroded parental abilities to discipline children. If you hit your child in public someone can report you for abuse. Is a swift smack for a misbehaving child abuse?

We need to return to the pre WWII methods of raising children.

[emayer]

catchacab wrote:

Wellardmac wrote:

We're in agreement it's the job of parents to be parents and raise well adjusted kids. It's the government's job to stay the hell out of the way unless a child is being abused.

Parents have a responsibility to raise and educate their children. Additionally, this is not a nanny state and the government shouldn't be telling parents how to raise their kids.

The problem is that there are many parents that are not raising well adjusted kids. The children may not be suffering from physical and sexual abuse, but they are being neglected and suffering from emotional abuse.

The govt has eroded parental abilities to discipline children. If you hit your child in public someone can report you for abuse. Is a swift smack for a misbehaving child abuse?

We need to return to the pre WWII methods of raising children.

As a parent of a 2 and 4 year old I have to admit I am confused by the current state of things regarding child discipline. I'm no advocate for corporal punishment, but as a former recepient and in my present situation, I strongly feel that occasionally it is appropriate. I truly worry as to what would happen if I were to react this way in public today. The pendulum currently has swung too far left on this topic...

On a lighter note I hope everyone had a chance to enjoy their Porsches today...

Days like this make me glad my parents were rigid in my upbringing- (WWII era for sure, but the wrong side!), so as to understand the value of hard work and discipline. Without that, I wouldn't have the privilege of enjoying these fine machines and sharing company with you all!

[catchacab]

emayer wrote:

catchacab wrote:

Wellardmac wrote:

We're in agreement it's the job of parents to be parents and raise well adjusted kids. It's the government's job to stay the hell out of the way unless a child is being abused.

Parents have a responsibility to raise and educate their children. Additionally, this is not a nanny state and the government shouldn't be telling parents how to raise their kids.

The problem is that there are many parents that are not raising well adjusted kids. The children may not be suffering from physical and sexual abuse, but they are being neglected and suffering from emotional abuse.

The govt has eroded parental abilities to discipline children. If you hit your child in public someone can report you for abuse. Is a swift smack for a misbehaving child abuse?

We need to return to the pre WWII methods of raising children.

As a parent of a 2 and 4 year old I have to admit I am confused by the current state of things regarding child discipline. I'm no advocate for corporal punishment, but as a former recepient and in my present situation, I strongly feel that occasionally it is appropriate. I truly worry as to what would happen if I were to react this way in public today. The pendulum currently has swung too far left on this topic...

On a lighter note I hope everyone had a chance to enjoy their Porsches today...

Days like this make me glad my parents were rigid in my upbringing- (WWII era for sure, but the wrong side!), so as to understand the value of hard work and discipline. Without that, I wouldn't have the privilege of enjoying these fine machines and sharing company with you all!

+1!

[catchacab]

Check out this link to John Rosemond, he is a child psychologist.  I have read some of his books, and attended his seminar.  I feel he has  the correct grasp on raising children.

 

http://www.rosemond.com/


check out this page describing what rights children have

http://rosemond.com/index.php?action=web...ageID=9896

[emayer]

Wellardmac wrote:

You make a good point in that discipline has been eroded. Corporal punishment is not illegal, despite what some do-gooders would like to believe. Without discipline kids cannot learn boundaries and all hell breaks loose.

As for giving drugs to kids to make them behave - that's just reprehensible. There's no excuse for avoiding the issue by turning kids into zombies. Discipline is the answer.

Now, I fundamentally disagree with the comment on the teenage cancer patient. He's 16 years old and old enough to understand cause, effect, and consequence. If he wants to follow that path, then that's fine in my book, who are we to tell him what to do with his body? You wouldn't do it to a 17 or 18 year old, why would you do it to a 16 year old? By the time the case went to court he was 17, going on 18, is it still acceptable to tell him what's best for him? We used to have kids working and having families at that age - it's only our current society that wraps them in cotton wool and refuses to let them grow up.

Unless the child is an emancipated minor, the legal age for medical consent is 18. You may agree with me on this already, but if a child is mature enough to render these decisions, what is the logic of the drinking age being 21? I could never understand this as an 18 year-old can be drafted and killed in battle and has the legal responsibilities of an adult. If we are concerned about the well being at maturity of young adults, shouldn't these other rights and responsibilities be at age 21 as well?

[emayer]

catchacab wrote:

Check out this link to John Rosemond, he is a child psychologist. I have read some of his books, and attended his seminar. I feel he has the correct grasp on raising children.



http://www.rosemond.com/


check out this page describing what rights children have

http://rosemond.com/index.php?action=web...ageID=9896

Thanks for the links, I had a chance to review them this morning. The Children's Bill of Rights especially is dead on...

Going to "air out" a Porsche a little bit now so that I can be a Daddy plaything the rest of the day. My favorite job!

[catchacab]

Wellardmac wrote:

You make a good point in that discipline has been eroded. Corporal punishment is not illegal, despite what some do-gooders would like to believe. Without discipline kids cannot learn boundaries and all hell breaks loose.

As for giving drugs to kids to make them behave - that's just reprehensible. There's no excuse for avoiding the issue by turning kids into zombies. Discipline is the answer.

Now, I fundamentally disagree with the comment on the teenage cancer patient. He's 16 years old and old enough to understand cause, effect, and consequence. If he wants to follow that path, then that's fine in my book, who are we to tell him what to do with his body? You wouldn't do it to a 17 or 18 year old, why would you do it to a 16 year old? By the time the case went to court he was 17, going on 18, is it still acceptable to tell him what's best for him? We used to have kids working and having families at that age - it's only our current society that wraps them in cotton wool and refuses to let them grow up.

Now that we agree that discipline has eroded, how do we re-introduce discipline? How do you teach a parent to administer appropriate discipline? How do you get a parent who was not disciplined appropriately to accept that discipline is OK? For those parents that refuse to discipline their children, how do you manage their behavior in public (school)? Another problem is that people are not willing to accept responsibility. It is always some one else's fault.

Many of today's parents were not adequately disciplined themselves. Many parents do not want to discipline their children, it is easier at the time just to give their child what the child wants to pacify the child.

Television, radio, movies and the Internet has made inappropriate material for children all to easy for children to access. Many parents do not monitor what their kids see. Many of my 5 y.o. daughter's friends are getting into Hannah Montana. I watched a couple of episodes on the Disney Channel with her and determined that it is not appropriate material for a five year old. Hannah has a smart mouth. If I talked to my parents, they way she does at 15 years old, I would have been punished.

John Rosemond in his lecture that I attended discussed that the modern generation although exposed to more worldly experiences than prior generations, the modern generations are generally less mature at the same age. I guess that is why they say today's 50 is yesterday' s 30. He goes on to state that in generations past the age of independence (when an individual was prepared to live on his/her own) is much lower than it is today.



In regards to the cancer patient. Will it benefit him if he was allowed to try the alternative therapy and die. On his death bed at age 20 how will it have helped him to say, I made a mistake, I should have listened to the doctors. Is it better for him at age 30 to look back thanking the doctors who saved his life?

[catchacab]

Wellardmac wrote:

Agreed. Unfortunately, I cannot change, nor worry about the poor parenting of others - it's not my place in life to tell others how to parent. I can only worry about the things that I can change. - Parenting is at best highly subjective and variable. What is good for one kid/family may not be good for another.

I took a look at the links that you posted and on the surface what he's saying makes sense. Unfortunately, it's "experts" like him meddling in family life that have gotten us to where we are... "can't do x,y,x or it will harm the kids'.

I'm sorry, I'll call it as it is. It's these so called "experts" that eroded parents ability to discipline, it's so called "experts" like this that cause you to get frowned upon if you discipline children in public. That guy might be great, but his credibility has been hurt by generations of his peers meddling in the lives of families and bringing us to where we are today.

In the absence of discipline in the home you can try to get schools to educate the kids and teach them values and hope that it sticks enough that they then transfer those values to their children. I do know that I don't want anyone outside of my house telling me how to raise my kids. It's hard enough fighting peer pressure of kids and parents without the government and so-called "experts" telling us how to do the job.

My wife and I decided before our first was on the way how we wanted to raise our children - it was our pact. No raising them in front of tv, no video games, no pandering to fads and advertising. We would raise the kids to reflect values of consideration, honesty, integrity and trust. We are the advertiser's nightmare. I want my kids to say "Hannah, who?".

We're active parents and we will decide how our kids get raised. The first step was rejecting our country's materialistic culture. We warned our family that they would be limited to one christmas/birthday present and if they sent anything we disapproved of, then it would either be returned, or donated to charity. We're aiming to raise kids outside the mainstream because we believe that the mainstream has been perverted and lost it's way.

As you can tell, my philosophy on government intervention is consistent. They should be there to serve the population, not bully or intervene in their lives where they have no business.

Considering that I was one of the lucky ones that had a choice where I lived in the world, I am very appreciative of the good things that living in the US brings. The flip side is that I have seen other lifestyles and cultures and I also know what I have given up by living here.

Wayne, you are correct that is was the "experts" who caused this mess that we are in. Those same experts are the same ones who advocate the liberal ideas of social welfare and governmental intervention. Now, we can label you a conservative. Have you been hanging around Rush Limbauh, or GWB lately.

Unfortunately, by the time the children have gotten to school, it is difficult to undo the damage their parents have done to them. Kids spend more time out of school than they do in school. The time constraints prevent schools from teaching discipline. There simply is not enough time nor the level of close interaction from teacher to student at school to teach discipline. Discipline needs to be taught one on one or two on one or one on two to be most effective. When there is discipline in the school, but not in the home, all that is learned is soon forgotten or ignored.

It is great that you and your wife spend a lot of time with your children. The most successful adults generally come from homes where they are shown love, discipline and attention. This is the style my wife and I strive for. We try to be the best parents possible, continue to learn each day. Unless you sequester your children they will hear about Hannah, Jonnas, Cheetah Girls and worse. It is our duty as parents to screen what they actually see and hear.

I believe that children should have toys to play with. Especially toys that encourage creative play. It is not the number of toys that a child has, but how they are chosen and given. A child should not have everything they want. Young children should not ask for toys or gifts, toys should be given at the parents discretion. When one of my children asks for a toy, I say no.

What political ideology do you feel I most identify with?