RE: Free Range Parenting (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


crazyml -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 8:20:47 AM)

Thanks for your offer, it is appreciated, but I doubt we'd ever agree on this.




slvemike4u -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 8:48:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: missiesfavourite

so childhood is a crime and the penalty is house arrest under state surveillance?

Yes,that's the new reality....the powers that be were hoping you wouldn't notice it,but there you go...you caught on too quick [8|]




slvemike4u -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 8:51:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Right... so these parents were warned about their behaviour and they repeated it. I'm guessing that part of their "free range" approach to parenting is to bring their kids up to believe that you can just ignore the laws that are inconvenient to you.

Fucking halfwits.



QFT...about time someone with half a fucking brain joined this conversation.


No insult intended crazyml......I was just getting a little tired of being the only voice of reason here [:D]




slvemike4u -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 8:55:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

I grew up without being beaten at all, and it never did me any harm.

You must be an anomaly [:)]

Imagine surviving one's childhood without being beaten by somebody twice your size,however did you manage learning how to cross the street ?




crazyml -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 8:56:57 AM)

Thanks, although - and no insult is intended here either - I'm not sure I agree with you either!




Aylee -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 9:05:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Right... so these parents were warned about their behaviour and they repeated it. I'm guessing that part of their "free range" approach to parenting is to bring their kids up to believe that you can just ignore the laws that are inconvenient to you.

Fucking halfwits.





They did not break any laws in December the finding showed.




crazyml -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 9:05:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

I grew up without being beaten at all, and it never did me any harm.

You must be an anomaly [:)]

Imagine surviving one's childhood without being beaten by somebody twice your size,however did you manage learning how to cross the street ?


Ok... the last time I smacked my youngest, he was three. We were in a car park, I had told him to stay by me. I was opening the trunk of the car and he ran directly into the path of an oncoming car.

Fortunately the car stopped. I pulled him to the side and gave him a smack on the back of his thighs, telling him firmly (not shouting) that he should never run onto the road like that.

He still remembers the incident, we laughed about it a week ago.

Was that the ideal thing for me to do in that situation? You know, it probably wasn't. Should I have been better at managing him while I put the shopping away? Yeah, of course I should. Was it effective as a way of making and reinforcing the point - apparently so.

Are there better ways of handling these things, I am sure there are - But you know, I'm just a parent, trying to do his best.

Would I describe it as a "beating" - no, it was a single slap. I don't believe that I should be criminalised for doing that.

If I had beaten him, turned him black and blue, caused him lasting pain - Then yep, that crosses a line.

I know that there are parents out there that are more than capable of bringing up solid, smart, successful people (like Peon) without ever having to smack them - And I readily tip my hat to them.

I also know a few, who in their desire to produce children that are "actualised" and "whole" and "Unmarred by violence" are in the process of producing entitled little shit-bags that are going to have dreadfully unhappy lives.







Aylee -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 9:06:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: missiesfavourite


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Right... so these parents were warned about their behaviour and they repeated it. I'm guessing that part of their "free range" approach to parenting is to bring their kids up to believe that you can just ignore the laws that are inconvenient to you.

Fucking halfwits.





... so there are laws forbidding walking home?



No, I don't think there are. And, if you pay careful attention to the reporting, they weren't taken into care for "walking home" they were taken into care because, despite already having the legal position explained to them the parents broke the law. It seems that there are laws forbidding parents from leaving a 6 y/old in the care of a 10 y/old.

I'm really not sure how you could draw the inference that you have from my post, but I do hope that this reply has helped with your confusion!

[ED to add a missing phrase]


Only at home or locked space. Not in a park or sidewalk.




slvemike4u -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 9:12:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Thanks, although - and no insult is intended here either - I'm not sure I agree with you either!

I get that crazml...I saw your posts(all of them) and thats okay.
I'm really not in charge of how other people raise their children.
What you did agree with me on (correct me if I'm wrong) was that these two idiots apparently were using their children to ,in essence,fight city hall.
That they had been counseled,had been placed on probation,and still went ahead and did what they were expressly told they shouldn't do where the children were concerned.
Therefore they,and not the CPS folks,were ultimately responsible for all ensuing consequences.
Right ?




crazyml -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 9:12:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Right... so these parents were warned about their behaviour and they repeated it. I'm guessing that part of their "free range" approach to parenting is to bring their kids up to believe that you can just ignore the laws that are inconvenient to you.

Fucking halfwits.





They did not break any laws in December the finding showed.


Then that would change my point of view. I was under the impression that they'd been told that they were breaking the law. It does seem as if they were given the strong impression that they were doing the wrong thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/decision-in-free-range-case-does-not-end-debate-about-parenting-and-safety/2015/03/02/5a919454-c04d-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

Perhaps you have a better source / link?




crazyml -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 9:18:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Thanks, although - and no insult is intended here either - I'm not sure I agree with you either!

I get that crazml...I saw your posts(all of them) and thats okay.
I'm really not in charge of how other people raise their children.
What you did agree with me on (correct me if I'm wrong) was that these two idiots apparently were using their children to ,in essence,fight city hall.
That they had been counseled,had been placed on probation,and still went ahead and did what they were expressly told they shouldn't do where the children were concerned.
Therefore they,and not the CPS folks,were ultimately responsible for all ensuing consequences.
Right ?


If, and it seems that there's disagreement on what actually happened, what they did was unlawful, then yes. If it's a case of an over zealous mis-interpretation of the law on the part of the authorities, that changes things.




slvemike4u -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 9:23:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

I grew up without being beaten at all, and it never did me any harm.

You must be an anomaly [:)]

Imagine surviving one's childhood without being beaten by somebody twice your size,however did you manage learning how to cross the street ?


Ok... the last time I smacked my youngest, he was three. We were in a car park, I had told him to stay by me. I was opening the trunk of the car and he ran directly into the path of an oncoming car.

Fortunately the car stopped. I pulled him to the side and gave him a smack on the back of his thighs, telling him firmly (not shouting) that he should never run onto the road like that.

He still remembers the incident, we laughed about it a week ago.

Was that the ideal thing for me to do in that situation? You know, it probably wasn't. Should I have been better at managing him while I put the shopping away? Yeah, of course I should. Was it effective as a way of making and reinforcing the point - apparently so.

Are there better ways of handling these things, I am sure there are - But you know, I'm just a parent, trying to do his best.

Would I describe it as a "beating" - no, it was a single slap. I don't believe that I should be criminalised for doing that.

If I had beaten him, turned him black and blue, caused him lasting pain - Then yep, that crosses a line.

I know that there are parents out there that are more than capable of bringing up solid, smart, successful people (like Peon) without ever having to smack them - And I readily tip my hat to them.

I also know a few, who in their desire to produce children that are "actualised" and "whole" and "Unmarred by violence" are in the process of producing entitled little shit-bags that are going to have dreadfully unhappy lives.





Okay,I would have handled that differently....but I don't think we are far apart as far as parents are concerned.
What I read from that post is that at that point you were one scared shitless father.
Scared to hell and back about what just might have happened to your child.
In that light I sure as hell can see a reaction coming....not sure that dealing with something like that is best done till after someones heart rate returns to normal though...
I don't mean to suggest that swatting a child is a criminal offence....not in the least.
In my case it was something that I dare not do.....cause of my own upbringing.
My feelings on this are colored by being a victim myself of physical abuse....so that was ,and still is,for me a big red line that I wasn't going to cross under any conditions.
So my own sense of values colors how I look at "swatting".....I see swatting and I think abuse.
It's part and parcel of who I am.
Add to that someone coming along and telling me the Bible says it's okay my mind jumps top ASSHOLE(still does....lol)
But other that the silly Bible justification I would like to walk back some of the other comments about swatting...I don't like it,I don't condone it ,but no....swatting does not equal abuse(unless of course you are using the bible to justify it ,than IMO you've gone slightly around the bend )




slvemike4u -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 9:26:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Right... so these parents were warned about their behaviour and they repeated it. I'm guessing that part of their "free range" approach to parenting is to bring their kids up to believe that you can just ignore the laws that are inconvenient to you.

Fucking halfwits.





They did not break any laws in December the finding showed.


Then that would change my point of view. I was under the impression that they'd been told that they were breaking the law. It does seem as if they were given the strong impression that they were doing the wrong thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/decision-in-free-range-case-does-not-end-debate-about-parenting-and-safety/2015/03/02/5a919454-c04d-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

Perhaps you have a better source / link?

They were told that they were breaking the law...Aylee is asserting that the CPS folks went to far in their reading of the law....which just might be the case.
The parents though still shouldn't ave used the children to try and prove their point.
They should have waited till their appeal ran it's course....but they were determined to do it their way anyway.




crazyml -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 9:29:52 AM)

Yeah. I was kind of expecting some confirmation that the parents weren't breaking the law.

If there was a judgement that the CPS had misinterpreted the law, then I would say the parents were fine.

If there is a dispute which is in the course of being adjudicated / appealed, then they are fuckwits.

I am keen to see what source Aylee has.




slvemike4u -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 9:30:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Thanks, although - and no insult is intended here either - I'm not sure I agree with you either!

I get that crazml...I saw your posts(all of them) and thats okay.
I'm really not in charge of how other people raise their children.
What you did agree with me on (correct me if I'm wrong) was that these two idiots apparently were using their children to ,in essence,fight city hall.
That they had been counseled,had been placed on probation,and still went ahead and did what they were expressly told they shouldn't do where the children were concerned.
Therefore they,and not the CPS folks,were ultimately responsible for all ensuing consequences.
Right ?


If, and it seems that there's disagreement on what actually happened, what they did was unlawful, then yes. If it's a case of an over zealous mis-interpretation of the law on the part of the authorities, that changes things.


Not really,even if they were proved ultimately legally right....they used their own children to test that rightness against the power of the state....I would never have pitted the safety and security of my kids in some game played against the state....even if the ground I was standing on was solid as a rock.
One doesn't risk one's child in a test like that against the state....shit goes wrong and shit happens.




crazyml -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 9:32:10 AM)

yup. See my previous.




CreativeDominant -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 9:34:05 AM)

The Maryland parents investigated for letting their young children walk home by themselves from a park were found responsible for “unsubstantiated” child neglect in a decision that has not fully resolved their clash with authorities over questions of parenting and children’s safety.

Danielle and Alexander Meitiv hoped the nationally debated case — which has lit up social media and brought a dozen television film crews to their Silver Spring home — would be dismissed after a two-month investigation by Montgomery County Child Protective Services.

But the finding of unsubstantiated child neglect means CPS will keep a file on the family for at least five years and leaves open the question of what would happen if the Meitiv children get reported again for walking without adult supervision.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/decision-in-free-range-case-does-not-end-debate-about-parenting-and-safety/2015/03/02/5a919454-c04d-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

unsubstantiated
[uhn-suh b-stan-shee-ey-tid]
adjective
1.
not substantiated; unproved or unverified:
unsubstantiated allegations.
2.
being without form or substance

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unsubstantiated

So...CPS is keeping a file on a couple for child neglect that was NOT proven to exist. So they were NOT on probation for breaking any law, they'd been warned what would happen if they dared to defy the state's way of thinking...even though it does not have the benefit of law behind it...again.








crazyml -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 9:46:16 AM)

Right.... so there's nothing new. Thanks for the dictionary definition, I was already familiar with the term - but I was basing my point of view on having read the article.

The article you seem to be quoting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/decision-in-free-range-case-does-not-end-debate-about-parenting-and-safety/2015/03/02/5a919454-c04d-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html) makes it clear that the parents understood that the judgment had them doing something wrong.

The mother is quoted as saying “There’s no question this is some kind of finding against us,”.

I won't patronise you by posting the definitions of "no" and "question" - as I am sure you will concede the point that they were abundantly aware that the CPS had a view on their actions.

There is an appeals process, and I have the impression (happy to be corrected) the parents are pursuing that process.

In the meantime, only a fuckwit would repeat the very behaviour that got them into trouble.





Lucylastic -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 10:05:52 AM)

quote:

In the meantime, only a fuckwit would repeat the very behaviour that got them into trouble.

amen to that
you have cps sniffing around, no matter how much YOU think its bogus, and how self righteous you feel.
IF you do the same thing, within the "time limits" set up in a appeals process?...yeah I dont have much sympathy for you




slvemike4u -> RE: Free Range Parenting (4/18/2015 10:27:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

In the meantime, only a fuckwit would repeat the very behaviour that got them into trouble.

amen to that
you have cps sniffing around, no matter how much YOU think its bogus, and how self righteous you feel.
IF you do the same thing, within the "time limits" set up in a appeals process?...yeah I dont have much sympathy for you


And this,in a nutshell,is why I think they are idiots and incapable of putting their childrens needs above their own....as any set of good parents actually do on a regular basis.




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375