Random Politics & Religion #00

Execution for ideals isn't the answer, but to the point where the anti-vax crowd is actively murdering their own children (by neglect) because of their illogical viewpoint isn't a bad solution either.

The child never had a chance, because of the stupidity of his parents.

What you suggested is a form of punishment after the crime, too late for what you actually want to achieve.

It's better to develope methods which serve as prevention.
Is there something in America that you could build on? Certain mandatory child check ups? or Kindergardens which requires children to be vaccinated?

Unfortunately people can still obtain religious objections to vaccinations.

I'm rather for Rook's idea short of that it would just empower their base to be bigger idiots.

We have somewhat "mandatory" milestone check-ups and vaccinations schedules accompanying them and each state has to have your child(ren)'s vaccination records to be admitted into public schools.

Unfortunately, you have people braying about their individual freedoms, and I would guess home school and (maybe) a few private schools are a way of circumventing vaccinations. I don't think it's something Child Protective Services can follow up on in state where you apply for the exemption on religious/personal grounds.

It's a cluster.

Or just ignorance.
Either way it should be enforced by the government. I don't give a rat's *** if that's perceived as police state.

Your kid is not vaccinated? He can't come to school, parks, pools and stuff.

This actually became a big topic here too. But as you'd expect it was refused to make em mandatory.
Meanwhile there is a meningitis pandemic developing in tuscany.

It's really upsetting to say that even with the public and personal health dangers caused by failing to vaccinate, it would be far, far, far down on the list of severity of things CPS/CYS has on their plate.

CPS/CYS gets a bad name for the occasional (rightfully) highly-publicized, high-profile lame ***they do (see: bringing charges against "free range" parents), but they also have a lot to do with limited resources and power. Even when they take children away from people who are hazards to themselves, their children, and literally any other human being in their vicinity, they can't stop them from having more children and having to repeat the process if they're even able to do so.

I know a foster mother who has three children she took in from a very, very terrible person (not going into details, they make me ill) and said terrible *** is pregnant again.

I understand the right to have children and I understand why people are against any sort of parenting test, one-child policy, and the like. I really do. I understand how you consider it a violation of basic human rights...

...but I very much understand the people who enact such policies and am myself in favor of some level of privilege system for having children.

I could be a terrible person for it. Maybe I'm very, very wrong. But I've just seen too much bad ***done to kids by terrible people who shouldn't be allowed to play with scissors, let alone raise children.

The CPS/Foster care system is a whole bunch of *** up ***combined with under funded and over worked case workers.

I think we just got a better idea about your viewpoint on children.

Not saying you are wrong on your opinions or anything like that, just a little bit more insight in your ideals.

I probably don't do myself any favors because I joke about hating kids, but truthfully I really like kids, they're just not for me. And I really, really hate bad parents.

And if my wife and I ever change our minds, we will be going the adoption route, regardless of how difficult it is, because blood isn't nearly as important as other factors when it comes to caring for children.

I think we all hate bad parents. We may disagree on the gray line of what good vs. bad is, but those that we can agree are bad parents, we would want their children removed from said environment.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with adoption. I just wish it wasn't just for married people. I'm perfectly capable of adapting a child, both financially and time-wise. But I cannot adopt a kid myself because A) I'm single and B) I'm disabled. At least, per State of Texas....

It's all jenny mccarthy's fault.

If you boil down to it, it's really all the English's fault.

Damn English!

But when you keep boiling, it's all the fault of civilization, which wouldn't be an ongoing thing if not for the advent of agriculture.

DAMN YOU, FERTILE CRESECENT!

Hispanic thugs threaten Trump supporters in Georgia.

I wonder how much of this we'll get through November.

I wonder what their immigration status was.

They're not right to do so because that's a shitty thing for a human being to do to another.

That said, Trump is pretty good at doing shitty things to other people too. Up to and including inciting people at his rallies to be belligerent with "non-believers," so to speak. So while I'll categorically say he's being wronged, I will also say I don't give a ***.

Mass shooting in the Pittsburgh area

I'm sort of amazed that this is getting national attention, though admittedly gun control is a talking point.

It's sort of irritating that a shooting like this in a poor* area only makes news because of gun control advocates in the media. It's sort of hard to say otherwise because every article I find hasn't been able to NOT mention gun control, even if just as a "neutral" reference.

Poor people. Their lives matter...in election years.

*ugh*

*Make no mistake, Wilkinsburg is definitely a poor area despite the article saying there are middle-income folks there.

Oh go suck a hockey puck.

I think you completely misunderstood what I'm saying.

I'm not saying they shouldn't get attention.

I'm saying that the only reason this one is getting attention is because it can be wedged into a narrative.

I dislike news only being reported if it fits a narrative. I we as Americans need to find a way to hold both the media and our politicians both to a higher standard.

The agendas on both sides of the fence right now are intolerable.

Edit: Also, it was funny at first but it's rapidly becoming revolting the way the media is pushing Hilary over Bernie. Articles like "Hilary would beat Trump by double digits, shows new poll" -- and then in the text of the article it says the same poll showed Bernie would beat him by even more. (13% to 18%, iirc).

It's really gross.

Edit2: To further clarify, Wilkinsburg is a primarily black area and this mass shooting is not going to fit the mold of "disgruntled affluent white child/potential Islamic terrorist kills group of innocent people."

So you don't give a ***because it's not the narrative you want to talk about? You'd rather talk about mass shootings and gun control. Got it!

Where do you get the right to forcibly inject someone eles's child with a syringe?

...I don't give a ***because Trump is a vile human being and while I would never commit such actions myself or try to incite them, my compassion is not endless and I mourn the aggressors' poor life choices as much as I mourn the target of their actions. Anything negative that ever happens to Donald Trump he has no one to blame but himself.


Mmmhmm. If you'd paid a lick of attention you'd know I'm not really the biggest proponent of gun control as currently desired by kneejerk reactionaries to mass shootings.

You'd realize I'm actually upset with the media for only covering this tragedy because it fits their narrative, not because it's, you know. The right thing to do.

When do you get the right to forcibly inject a sonogram probe into a woman's body?

Get out of here with your insanity already.

When they pose a substantial health risk to themselves and others. Next question.

There is this bit we got from English common law called the common good. In most American law the state has to prove that they have an interest in protecting or prohibiting any particular behavior.

Not letting children die would fall under that.

No, I wouldn't. I would simply refuse them entry. Please tell me you understand the difference.



What health risk do they provide to themselves and others?
That they MIGHT get sick? Should we ban soda too, hey you MIGHT get fat. What about unprotected sex out of marriage (that's far riskier) you might get sick there too.

Is this a real question?