Our Kids belong to everyone ....collectively...?????

[econometrics]

My blood boiled when I saw that PSA on MSNBC. I have no issue with people wanting to raise an awareness that communities should be invested together in childrens well-being (education included). But the nerve she has to say that we need to change this "private idea that kids belong to their parents" sent me over the edge. Every single child in America should belong to their parents. And that parent has the ultimate power to choose how their child is raised (within all legal bounds, of course).

All that happened here is the liberal agenda opened their cloaks to reveal their dark agendas. The answer to improving child education is not to make the child more subject to the "ownership" of the community, it is to INCREASE the incentives for private ownership of the child by the PARENTS. Our society makes it very easy for parent's to pass their children off to "the system" - and sometimes that is a good thing. Overall, it seems to have lessened the idea of responsibility with parents, that someone else will teach their kids how to read, write, reason logically, etc. The more we incentivize parents to be invested PRIVATELY in their kids, the better off those children will be in benefiting the community at large.

My $0.02.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

My blood boiled when I saw that PSA on MSNBC. I have no issue with people wanting to raise an awareness that communities should be invested together in childrens well-being (education included). But the nerve she has to say that we need to change this "private idea that kids belong to their parents" sent me over the edge. Every single child in America should belong to their parents. And that parent has the ultimate power to choose how their child is raised (within all legal bounds, of course).

All that happened here is the liberal agenda opened their cloaks to reveal their dark agendas. The answer to improving child education is not to make the child more subject to the "ownership" of the community, it is to INCREASE the incentives for private ownership of the child by the PARENTS. Our society makes it very easy for parent's to pass their children off to "the system" - and sometimes that is a good thing. Overall, it seems to have lessened the idea of responsibility with parents, that someone else will teach their kids how to read, write, reason logically, etc. The more we incentivize parents to be invested PRIVATELY in their kids, the better off those children will be in benefiting the community at large.

My $0.02.

My high school years were 1952-1956. I went to a rural school; we had 18 in my graduating class. This school definitely reflected the values of the community; the teachers were for the most part, life long residents. Parents were interested in what went on, who the teachers were, where they went to church, what they taught and how they taught, and how the kids were treated and disciplined. The teachers on the other hand, were respected members of the community who contributed in other ways. Our Ag teacher, for example, was the nearest thing we had to a Veterinarian, and he helped any farmer who needed it without pay. He was so respected and appreciated that the town got together and bought him a brand new '52 Chevy because he had worn out his old car driving all over the country to help others.

My point being, that schools should be run by, and should reflect the values and goals of the community. The kids just might get an education if we could get the feds out of the business of telling us how to to do it.

 

[Loren49]

My wife I have to correct a fair amount of mid- information our kids are taught at school. Like two weeks ago our fourth grader came home with homework the teacher had given on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A question on the homework was, "What amendment gives citizens the right to bear WEAPONS". Not arms, but weapons.
Yes, they change the wording to fit as close to their agenda as they can.
That's my opinion, and I'm not humble about it.

Or for nine year olds the word weapons may be less confusing than arms.


arm
1 [ahrm] Show IPA

noun
1.
the upper limb of the human body, especially the part extending from the shoulder to the wrist.

2.
the upper limb from the shoulder to the elbow.

3.
the forelimb of any vertebrate.

4.
some part of an organism like or likened to an arm.

5.
any armlike part or attachment, as the tone arm of a phonograph.


arm
2 [ahrm] Show IPA

noun
1.
Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms.

2.
arms, Heraldry. the escutcheon, with its divisions, charges, and tinctures, and the other components forming an achievement that symbolizes and is reserved for a person, family, or corporate body; armorial bearings; coat of arms.

verb (used without object)
3.
to enter into a state of hostility or of readiness for war.

verb (used with object)
4.
to equip with weapons: to arm the troops.

5.
to activate (a fuze) so that it will explode the charge at the time desired.

6.
to cover protectively.

7.
to provide with whatever will add strength, force, or security; support; fortify: He was armed with statistics and facts.

8.
to equip or prepare for any specific purpose or effective use: to arm a security system; to arm oneself with persuasive arguments


weapｷon
[wep-uhn] Show IPA

noun
1.
any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.

2.
anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.

3.
Zoology . any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.

Weapons | Define Weapons at Dictionary.com


My point: Ask a 9 year old to define, arm, arms, weapons. Ask an adult to define what the meanig of "arms" was in the minds of the authors of the 2nd.

It's very reasonable to believe that the educator was just trying to educate. If you check the definition arms means either the two things below your shoulders or weapons.

Loren

 

[econometrics]

My point being, that schools should be run by, and should reflect the values and goals of the community. The kids just might get an education if we could get the feds out of the business of telling us how to to do it.

Yes. This is exactly the problem. Local municipalities have little to no say in curriculum or operation these days. It's a joke.

 

[dave1949]

My blood boiled when I saw that PSA on MSNBC. I have no issue with people wanting to raise an awareness that communities should be invested together in childrens well-being (education included). But the nerve she has to say that we need to change this "private idea that kids belong to their parents" sent me over the edge. Every single child in America should belong to their parents. And that parent has the ultimate power to choose how their child is raised (within all legal bounds, of course).

All that happened here is the liberal agenda opened their cloaks to reveal their dark agendas. The answer to improving child education is not to make the child more subject to the "ownership" of the community, it is to INCREASE the incentives for private ownership of the child by the PARENTS. Our society makes it very easy for parent's to pass their children off to "the system" - and sometimes that is a good thing. Overall, it seems to have lessened the idea of responsibility with parents, that someone else will teach their kids how to read, write, reason logically, etc. The more we incentivize parents to be invested PRIVATELY in their kids, the better off those children will be in benefiting the community at large.

My $0.02.

I can't say I understand the total message the lady was speaking to in the video clip. As far as communities being invested in child raising, I think that is the way it has traditionally worked out. You would do something about a neighbor that abuses their children, support good schools, athletic activities, 4-H, boy & girl scouts, etc. Those are things that rely on community involvement and support. Communities are failing when those things are lacking. To avoid failure, communities need to "own" the responsibility.

I can't say I understand your message either. What does "incentivize parents to be invested PRIVATELY in their kids" really mean?

You cannot "own" a child. You can be responsible for a child's well being as a community member, and as a parent.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Or for nine year olds the word weapons may be less confusing than arms.


arm
1 [ahrm] Show IPA

noun
1.
the upper limb of the human body, especially the part extending from the shoulder to the wrist.

2.
the upper limb from the shoulder to the elbow.

3.
the forelimb of any vertebrate.

4.
some part of an organism like or likened to an arm.

5.
any armlike part or attachment, as the tone arm of a phonograph.


arm
2 [ahrm] Show IPA

noun
1.
Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms.

2.
arms, Heraldry. the escutcheon, with its divisions, charges, and tinctures, and the other components forming an achievement that symbolizes and is reserved for a person, family, or corporate body; armorial bearings; coat of arms.

verb (used without object)
3.
to enter into a state of hostility or of readiness for war.

verb (used with object)
4.
to equip with weapons: to arm the troops.

5.
to activate (a fuze) so that it will explode the charge at the time desired.

6.
to cover protectively.

7.
to provide with whatever will add strength, force, or security; support; fortify: He was armed with statistics and facts.

8.
to equip or prepare for any specific purpose or effective use: to arm a security system; to arm oneself with persuasive arguments


weapｷon
[wep-uhn] Show IPA

noun
1.
any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.

2.
anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.

3.
Zoology . any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.

Weapons | Define Weapons at Dictionary.com


My point: Ask a 9 year old to define, arm, arms, weapons. Ask an adult to define what the meanig of "arms" was in the minds of the authors of the 2nd.

It's very reasonable to believe that the educator was just trying to educate. If you check the definition arms means either the two things below your shoulders or weapons.

Loren

Logical perhaps; but I doubt the teacher was thinking that far ahead. In any case, I propose the following alternative would have accomplished as much or more: First...Leave the wording as it is in the 2nd Amendment; i.e., "The right to keep and bear arms". That's what they have probably heard in the past and will be hearing in the future; secondly, when it comes time to discuss the answers, ask them what they think is meant by the term "Arms". That way you can rectify any confusion, without creating confusion in the first place by changing the wording of the Amendment itself.

 

[econometrics]

I can't say I understand your message either. What does "incentivize parents to be invested PRIVATELY in their kids" really mean?

You cannot "own" a child. You can be responsible for a child's well being as a community member, and as a parent.

False. You can and do legally own children. I realize they are a gift from the Creator that we are to steward, but not all believe that either. The current administration would like to have more ownership of, well everything, but your child included - in filling their little minds with ideas that benefit their agendas, and being hostile to parents who would choose to fill their minds with ideas contrary to what's taught in many public schools.

Anyway, to your previous question: you incentivize parents to be personally invested in their kids by quitting with all of the programs that teach and train them to do the opposite - letting the public be heavily involved in raising them.

I am all for the traditional model of the communities being active in raising children. However, the key point there is that parent's took personal, private responsibility for their own children on a greater level in those days. What this woman is saying, under her guise of being "progressive" is that communities can do a better job of raising kids than parents can. Which is a load of manure. Not today's communities - because today's communities = federal gov't.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

False. You can and do legally own children. I realize they are a gift from the Creator that we are to steward, but not all believe that either. The current administration would like to have more ownership of, well everything, but your child included - in filling their little minds with ideas that benefit their agendas, and being hostile to parents who would choose to fill their minds with ideas contrary to what's taught in many public schools.

Anyway, to your previous question: you incentivize parents to be personally invested in their kids by quitting with all of the programs that teach and train them to do the opposite - letting the public be heavily involved in raising them.

I am all for the traditional model of the communities being active in raising children. However, the key point there is that parent's took personal, private responsibility for their own children on a greater level in those days. What this woman is saying, under her guise of being "progressive" is that communities can do a better job of raising kids than parents can.

Which is a load of manure. Not today's communities - because today's communities = federal gov't.

BINGO!

 

[3v0]

I fully agree with the idea that parent need to teach kids right from wrong at the earliest possible age. This can happen with or without a religious context.

Indoctrination without education makes for a fragile, precarious, and at times dangerous belief system. It may fail for all but the most obstinate. By the time a teacher asks the student to stomp on Jesus the student should have enough (religious) education in place to deal with it in a no fuss way. It should not be a crisis for the student or his parents.

 

[dave1949]

False. You can and do legally own children. I realize they are a gift from the Creator that we are to steward, but not all believe that either. The current administration would like to have more ownership of, well everything, but your child included - in filling their little minds with ideas that benefit their agendas, and being hostile to parents who would choose to fill their minds with ideas contrary to what's taught in many public schools.

Anyway, to your previous question: you incentivize parents to be personally invested in their kids by quitting with all of the programs that teach and train them to do the opposite - letting the public be heavily involved in raising them.

I am all for the traditional model of the communities being active in raising children. However, the key point there is that parent's took personal, private responsibility for their own children on a greater level in those days. What this woman is saying, under her guise of being "progressive" is that communities can do a better job of raising kids than parents can. Which is a load of manure. Not today's communities - because today's communities = federal gov't.

Where does she say that? It's just possible she means communities used to be more invested in raising children than they are today. Frankly, her message is so broad and fluffy that it is hardly worth arguing over.

Yes, communities since the 1960's have more federal oversight and requirements to meet. There is a historical reason for that--they were failing to adhere to the Constitution. What you see as past perfection, hardly was.

I'll bet we could agree that once the federal government gets involved in something, it rarely becomes un-involved.

You are legally responsible for your children, you do not own your children. That would be slavery.
Do parents own their children like they own their house? - The Capitalism Site
Parents do not own their children, but are their guardians. Guardians are individuals who make decisions for the child—in the child’s best interest—until the child’s mind is developed enough so that the child can make decisions for himself. If a parent gives birth to a child—and claims to be its guardian (which is the prerogative of the parent)—then that parent is responsible for taking care of the child, unless the parent revokes guardianship, and turns the child over to someone else for adoption.

The public has a vested interest in how parents raise their children. We are the ones who have to live with, enjoy the benefits of, and pay for the shortcomings of the children after they become adults. I agree it is a tricky line to draw between the parents' and public's interests.