How depraved, stupid or uninterested can parents get? - Page 2

mrmitchell · August 28, 2003, 17:45

Quote:

Hopefully this will convince all whining teenagers that their parents aren't really as bad as they think.

You're kidding me. Parents are expected to be decent human beings that encourage their childrens' mental, emotional, and physical growth. The mum in the story, on the other hand, is a sick twisted ****. Comparing a failure to encourage with a sick twisted **** makes me troubled enough to make this inane post.

Quote:

Sava, antiquis temporibus, anti tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

Lefty, atiquis fork, ductum tapum ad nonsenium. Googlus translatium Latin no, lazius ad infinitum.

Lefty Scaevola · August 28, 2003, 18:00

What bothers me is that I actually undesrtood it. Maybe the above will translate better correcting the 'anti' to nati. And the phrase is actually related to thread topic as well.

Traianvs · August 28, 2003, 18:20

Sava's right, having a child is not a right, it's a responsability, and there are loads of people who're not responsible or don't have the money or other things to support kids; why on earth would you breed to have these kids live in poor conditions later on, I don't get that... Some parents go berzerk with their kids, some parents abuse them etc...

My 2 nieces are in that situation, my aunt divorced, got sick and now she lives on social security, she works without the gov knowing about it (she has to babysit en elderly rich couple), and on top of that she takes a part of the money my 2 nieces earn. Basically she's loaded with money, but still she is so greedy as to take away their money, drink till she starts shouting and throwing stuff around, she even kicked 1 of the 2 out of the house!

They're both unhappy, depressed etc, all because of bad parents...
imo that kind of people shouldn't get kids, especially because this is quite important: parents decide the life of their kids, and if they're no good, then what happens to their kids you think!

St Leo · August 28, 2003, 18:27

And BTW, when's the last time the gov't got control of ANYTHING and made the situation better?

Back when promising tax cuts didn't get you elected. You get what you pay for.

realpolitic · August 28, 2003, 18:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I'm not sure... I'd float a number of ideas depending on the severity of the overpopulation problem... the most drastic measure I would consider would be sterilization at birth and then the use of IV fertilization to people who qualify.

Sorry to burst your family values' bubbles guys... but I'm just speaking the truth. If the human population keeps doubling at the rate it has been, and the population far outgrows societies ability to feed people, such policies could become realities. And you know what? They would be the most moral means of saving the human race from such a disaster. Without such population control measures, billions would starve. But then again, it's more important for billions to starve rather than "infringe" on what your perceived "rights" are, right?

BTW, since moderately wealthy countries have a fertility rate of less than 2 kids/couple, if you redistributed the world's wealth equally, fertility would drop to the "replacement rate". There would be a temporay increase as children, a disproporationate part of the world's population reached childbearing age. Thgis has been true at least since the early '80's, and now unfortunately AIDS has caused the population of Africa to decrease, and the fertility rate of the developing world has dropped, as young people have disavowed their parents ideas. All this without an increase in the Third World's standard of living. Redistributing the world's wealth might be infeasible, but it shows education, compassion and support could do alot to alleviate the problem.

Imran Siddiqui · August 28, 2003, 19:27

Quote:

such population control measures, billions would starve.

Seeing that Europe and the US without immigration would actually have NEGATIVE population growth, what would be the need for this type of policy in our countries?

And the population increase wouldn't be even close to what it has been. It is proven that as average incomes rise (as they are) first populations boom (as death rate decreases dramatically), then population increase falls dramatically (as peoples' time are worth more than to waste on childrearing). There is a very good correlation between high average income leading to lower population growth.

Of course there is even a GREATER correlation for higher education for women leading to less population growth (as women's time gets more and more valuable).

Kuciwalker · August 28, 2003, 21:04

No, they just become smart enough not to have kids

st_swithin · August 28, 2003, 23:33

God, I feel really, really smart all of a sudden.

Ben Kenobi · August 29, 2003, 04:30

Quote:

and there are loads of people who're not responsible or don't have the money or other things to support kids;

So the poor should not be allowed to have kids?

Good luck enforcing that one Trajanus.

Spiffor · August 29, 2003, 04:53

Poor people generally make more kids than middle-class people because someone will have to pay for retirement ; and because the more attempts, the more chances to see one kid succeed.

That sounds dumb, but there's a logic behind it. The well-being of the kid is generally less weighted in poor couples (at least those who have many children), unlike in most middle-class couples where kids are gods.

Another reason is that some women have unstable relationships which each result in one or several kids. When these women become alone, they are much more prone to poverty than other people.

Dis · August 31, 2003, 14:14

Isn't it better they be in cages instead of being outside being bitten by dogs? or possibly being run over or kidnapped?

st_swithin · August 31, 2003, 14:17

Hopefully the kids are bigger than dogs or have friends to watch out for them.

As for getting run over or kidnapped, didn't you see the Big Lebowski?

ajbera · August 31, 2003, 15:01

Personally, I agree with Sava and the others who say that procreating is a major responsibility that many people are unsuitable to undertake, and it really should be a privelege rather than a right. However, since there is no good way to limit this activity (government really doesn't make anything any better) I can only grumble and b!tch right now.

But how about this... parents like the fvckheads in the story should be sterilized in addition to any prison sentence handed down, and shouldn't ever be allowed within 20 feet of children ever again.

And for bad parents whose children grow to be out-of-control monsters, make them liable (in part) for their children's actions. If parents raise their kid in such an irresponsible fashion that the kid grows up to be a criminal, the parent should have to face the consequences of his/her bad parenting (aside from any social shame that results). Actions have consequences. Again, this applies to bad parents rather than those who are thrust into unfortunate circumstances.

Regarding populations, I've heard that although the European pop is declining, the surge of Muslim immigrants, many of whom have sizable families, may reverse this trend. This is true (in many respects) of particular socio-religious groups. Almost all of my liberal friends have no or just one child, while the conservatives and Christians I know often have families with 3 or 4 children. Another reason why the liberals won't ever win - they don't breed enough.

st_swithin · August 31, 2003, 15:06

VOTE FOR GRAY DAVIS!!!!

Verres · August 31, 2003, 17:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
What bothers me is that I actually undesrtood it. Maybe the above will translate better correcting the 'anti' to nati. And the phrase is actually related to thread topic as well.

Yes Lefty. Unfortunately for you I am actually not bad at Latin. However, I have some consideration for the other few thousand who use this site, so I generally post in English.

As for those parents, they make me believe maybe corporal punishment could be a good idea.

st_swithin · August 31, 2003, 18:11

Nothing a couple of SAM's couldn't fix.

Whaleboy · September 2, 2003, 13:20

Quote:

Yes Lefty. Unfortunately for you I am actually not bad at Latin. However, I have some consideration for the other few thousand who use this site, so I generally post in English.

As for those parents, they make me believe maybe corporal punishment could be a good idea

Quote:

Nothing a couple of SAM's couldn't fix.

Or Drogues pasta... Only the Northamptonians among us (Drogue, Verres, and myself) will understand that!

Jack_www · September 2, 2003, 13:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
IMO, the penalties for such abuses aren't enough... whatever they might be...

I'm leaning closer to supporting a program that requires people to have parenting licenses.

This story just makes me sick when I read it. I agree that the punishment for these types of crimes is not strong enough. Along with the fact that many social workers often do very stupid things and put kids back with an abussive parent.

As for the license for parents, how would you enforce such a law? I mean how can you prevent people from having children? Force an abortion on them? Also you would be voilating peoples rights and it would all to easy for people in power not to give licenses out to someone they hate ect.