Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Violation of Freedom of Speech or warranted protection of children? Options · View
Magical_felix
Posted: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 9:03:42 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,182
Location: California
latinfoxy wrote:
Magical_felix wrote:
^listen you.

The lady in question lives in Missouri. Missouri is in the US of fuckin' A! The kardashian show is an American show. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to assume you were talking about Americans.


latinfoxy wrote:
I dont agree at all with this law, i dont know if its just me or what but lately almost every time i read about a new law in Venezuela or some place else all i read is, im taking your rights away because i have the power to do so, yes a teacher talking to his/her student outside of a school or for other reasons than something related to school is wrong, but shouldnt it be the parents job to make sure that those kids arent talking to their teachers outside the school?!


I think when i say in Venezuela or some place else its very clear that im not talking about US only and do you think that if i had said "just turn the tv on and lets watch sin tetas no hay paraiso the majority of ppl here would have understand my point as easy as saying lets watch the Kardashians?

Sigue soñando que de eso tambien vive la gente


Okay, so in that first post you mentioned Venezuela... And when I read it the first time I was like, "oh okay, that's something," and forgot about it. The post I was responding to was that hideous one where you mentioned the Kardashians and how we love watching them while we ignore problems. So I suppose you're a teensy bit right, kind of, like just a little right.

And everyone knows it's, sin tetas no hay leche.



latinfoxy
Posted: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:08:31 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 816
Location: Here
^ Hey you.

latinfoxy wrote:

I dont know what movie you are watching because the one i am, the only people "caring" too much about anything is the governments and they only "care" to gain more power and control over people, i dont see any lets say "common" people fighting for their rights unless it affects them and even then we say well, just turn the tv on and lets watch what the Kardashians are doing today.


Do you know the definition of WE?

Give it up already i know is difficult for you to admit you are wrong!! laughing8 and stop highjacking the thread!!

Muy cierto sin tetas no hay paraiso o leche
1curiouscat
Posted: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 11:51:11 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
Buz wrote:
It should be the parents job to monitor not the government's job.


I agree with this statement and this view point, as I am a strong believer of being held accountable for my own actions or non-actions.

I´m also of the opinion that "it takes a village to raise a child".

So, what if the parents don´t monitor? We don´t really have our villages anymore.

Shouldn´t the government help?



Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 1:23:15 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,974
I don't believe that it takes a village to raise a child. It's a good spin phrase for a politician but when it comes to raising your kids you can't rely on or depend on anyone doing it but yourself as the parent. That's where being responsible for your own actions comes into reality. That way you can't blame everyone else cause your kid screwed up or you did, as a parent. If someone sees a kid doing something wrong as a member of the "village" it's up to each persons moral compass whether or not to correct or take action involving that child. It's not something anyone should rely on someone else doing your job.
1curiouscat
Posted: Thursday, August 25, 2011 7:02:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
^

Chef, I don´t agree with your perspective of the term. When I say it takes a village, it is by no means a method of delegating responsibility.
Some of us were fortunate enough to have a social structure that represented this village - grand parents, aunts, uncles, close friends, important adult figures. Some were not for many reasons - but no child is responsible for this fate.

In today´s societal structure, where both parents work, you are forced to rely on this "village" whether you agree with its concept or not. However, like I said earlier - this village is evermore composed of individuals who are not close relatives or people chosen by the parents. It is represented in the school you send your child to, or the pool you child spends his/her summer in, the sports programs your child participates in, the arts program your child participates in. In short, whatever solution the parent decides is best to "babysit" the child until their return from work. If you don´t have the capital necessary for private institutions - you have to rely on public programs = government.










Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
Guest
Posted: Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:52:56 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,974
1curiouscat wrote:
^

Chef, I don´t agree with your perspective of the term. When I say it takes a village, it is by no means a method of delegating responsibility.
Some of us were fortunate enough to have a social structure that represented this village - grand parents, aunts, uncles, close friends, important adult figures. Some were not for many reasons - but no child is responsible for this fate.

In today´s societal structure, where both parents work, you are forced to rely on this "village" whether you agree with its concept or not. However, like I said earlier - this village is evermore composed of individuals who are not close relatives or people chosen by the parents. It is represented in the school you send your child to, or the pool you child spends his/her summer in, the sports programs your child participates in, the arts program your child participates in. In short, whatever solution the parent decides is best to "babysit" the child until their return from work. If you don´t have the capital necessary for private institutions - you have to rely on public programs = government.


Relying on family and/or close friends to babysit is in no way connected with the "village" imo. Just as sports/arts etc programs are not either. You're paying a babysitter to watch your kids. That's not raising them. People have been using babysitters for a long time. So now we just call it being raised by the "village"?
Turning your kids out into the street/village and expecting someone else to do your job is lazy.
1curiouscat
Posted: Friday, August 26, 2011 7:32:59 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
chefkathleen wrote:


Relying on family and/or close friends to babysit is in no way connected with the "village" imo. Just as sports/arts etc programs are not either. You're paying a babysitter to watch your kids. That's not raising them. People have been using babysitters for a long time. So now we just call it being raised by the "village"?
Turning your kids out into the street/village and expecting someone else to do your job is lazy.


Are you telling me that when your child is away from your home, he/she is not educated in some form? Whether you are paying for it or not does not matter.

Your child will learn more outside the home then inside!

This "village" is everything that could have an influence in your child´s life. For those who can´t afford private insitutions, they have to resort to public ones = government.



Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
Guest
Posted: Friday, August 26, 2011 4:33:23 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,974
1curiouscat wrote:
chefkathleen wrote:


Relying on family and/or close friends to babysit is in no way connected with the "village" imo. Just as sports/arts etc programs are not either. You're paying a babysitter to watch your kids. That's not raising them. People have been using babysitters for a long time. So now we just call it being raised by the "village"?
Turning your kids out into the street/village and expecting someone else to do your job is lazy.


Are you telling me that when your child is away from your home, he/she is not educated in some form? Whether you are paying for it or not does not matter.

Your child will learn more outside the home then inside!

This "village" is everything that could have an influence in your child´s life. For those who can´t afford private insitutions, they have to resort to public ones = government.


Of course they are. It's called street smarts. Some call it common sense. Their core values and morals are hopefully taught at home. But if the parents can't afford some kind of after school program, sports or whatever and the kid is wandering around on his own, is the government then expected to do the babysitting? I don't want the government telling me or anyone else who or what my kid can do after school when he's on FB. That's a parents job. Making a law that says my kids can't "friend" his teacher is a little to Orwellian for me.
1curiouscat
Posted: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:36:22 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
chefkathleen wrote:
Making a law that says my kids can't "friend" his teacher is a little to Orwellian for me.


Completely agree.





Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.