Critics slam MSNBC host’s claim that kids belong to community, not parents

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sdiver

I don't see why everyone is getting all crazy and "up in arms" over this statement?

We were told awhile ago that, "It takes a village to raise a child."

Only difference between the two statements is, the one who said the above statement, the populace took pity on her due to her husbands infidelity and agreed with her.

Yeah. What difference does it make?

[Badger52]

"You didn't build that."

These people just need to walk out on the ice.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

It has everything to do with the Progressives (socialists) not taking "personal responsibility" for their actions.

The Teleprompter Reader of the United States of America was brought up this way was he not?

Benghazi anyone?

[Richard]

Although she didn't express herself very well, perhaps she was attempting to advocate a return to some of those "good old days" behaviors worth emulating when many communities, and not just the parent(s), did take a form of responsibility in raising and protecting the children who lived in them.

Where I grew up, adults always seemed to be aware of our shenanigans and were quick to point out to us what was acceptable and unacceptable behavior, along with letting our parents know about it.

We used to ride our bicycles down to the Cosumnes to swim and jump off the old road bridge into the river (about 40') even when we were pretty young and weren't supposed to be going that far (about 15 miles). Several times Joe Fraley, a sheriff's deputy who knew us and our parents, caught us down there when he knew we weren't supposed to be there, put our bikes in the trunk of his patrol car and us in the back seat, and took us home to let our parents know we'd been down at the river bridge jumping again. My mother about had the 'big one' the first time he pulled up to the house with us in the back seat of his patrol car.

I know there are still communities that cooperate in such a mannner; perhaps she thinks there should be more. Personally, I do, too.

Richard

[Dusty]

The closest our neighborhood came to the "it takes a village" theme was when my Dad whipped Dave Yandell's dad for not spanking my ass when I wrecked Dave's Cushman.

[GratefulCitizen]

This is their primary goal.
The degradation of moral standards/destruction of families are merely a means to this end.

Sever the parent-child bond and make the child loyal to the state, only recognizing standards/morals as dictated by the state.
Train some kids to manage (dependent on the favor of the state), some to produce (with compensation determined by the state), and the rest to vote (with survival dependent on the state).

Tyranny through democracy.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

This is their primary goal.
The degradation of moral standards/destruction of families are merely a means to this end.

Sever the parent-child bond and make the child loyal to the state, only recognizing standards/morals as dictated by the state.
Train some kids to manage (dependent on the favor of the state), some to produce (with compensation determined by the state), and the rest to vote (with survival dependent on the state).

Tyranny through democracy.

"Their"? Hunh. Looks as if you'e got it all figured out.

Personally - I don't agree with such a point of view and, unless things change rather drastically, doubt I ever will.

Richard

[Streck-Fu]

Reads like a derivative of "It takes a village to raise a child".......only in that phrase the parents retained ownership....

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

It is a community's responsibility to provide a reinforcement of the behaviors that should be instilled at home.

I'd go further and say that the community doesn't have to necessarily agree with that instilled at home, but they must respect it and not knowingly attempt to subvert it. I appreciate Richard's reference to a bygone time, and lived that somewhat 'Leave It to Beaver' experience growing up as well; neighborhood, a pretty neat thing. In this case, however, I think the MSNBC person articulated herself as intended.

[BigJimCalhoun]

Another reason we home-skool our son.

[Dozer523]

We "own" our children?
I own a lot of things but I don't own people.
I use a lot of things too; as well as profit from some, too.
God blessed me with my children, gave them to me to love and raise, cherish and train.
We "owe" our children. We owe them our best, our honesty, our trust. We owe them the best life training we can provide them (even when it's F-ing piano lesson on Opening Day). When we can't do it ourselves we look to the community in ever widening circles until our God given responsibilities. We accept that sometimes our best and even the community's best isn't going to be enough and we will stand before God and be held responsible. Fortunately, God is loving and forgiving.

In Afghanistan, children are referred ro as gifts of God even in the most wretched of circumstances. I always kept a little hope for the Afghans because of this.

I'm pretty sure the ownership comment was just the natural progression of all things PS to eventually come circle back to blame someone and ascribe it to a defect of philosophy and character. YMMV,MOO.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

We "own" our children?
I own a lot of things but I don't own people.
I use a lot of things too; as well as profit from some, too.
God blessed me with my children, gave them to me to love and raise, cherish and train.
We "owe" our children. We owe them our best, our honesty, our trust. We owe them the best life training we can provide them (even when it's F-ing piano lesson on Opening Day). When we can't do it ourselves we look to the community in ever widening circles until our God given responsibilities. We accept that sometimes our best and even the community's best isn't going to be enough and we will stand before God and be held responsible. Fortunately, God is loving and forgiving.

Outstanding post, Bro. Really hits home, for me.

I submit to you that the half-Klingon subject of this interview as well as progressive libs in general intend to do exactly what you state in your eloquent post, but they intend to replace God with the state.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

We "own" our children?
I own a lot of things but I don't own people.
I use a lot of things too; as well as profit from some, too.
God blessed me with my children, gave them to me to love and raise, cherish and train.
We "owe" our children. We owe them our best, our honesty, our trust. We owe them the best life training we can provide them (even when it's F-ing piano lesson on Opening Day). When we can't do it ourselves we look to the community in ever widening circles until our God given responsibilities. We accept that sometimes our best and even the community's best isn't going to be enough and we will stand before God and be held responsible. Fortunately, God is loving and forgiving.

In Afghanistan, children are referred ro as gifts of God even in the most wretched of circumstances. I always kept a little hope for the Afghans because of this.

I'm pretty sure the ownership comment was just the natural progression of all things PS to eventually come circle back to blame someone and ascribe it to a defect of philosophy and character. YMMV,MOO.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Outstanding post, Bro. Really hits home, for me.

I submit to you that the half-Klingon subject of this interview as well as progressive libs in general intend to do exactly what you state in your eloquent post, but they intend to replace God with the state.

I agree that so-called Progressives intend good (in their minds) and to achieve said good, they intend to exterminate God and replace him with the State.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

I'm pretty sure the ownership comment was just the natural progression of all things PS to eventually come circle back to blame someone and ascribe it to a defect of philosophy and character.

Hey - let's blame it on the 'Space Race' and the 'Spirit of Science' and our national push to become the world's most technologically advanced society...

Richard

Education and the Spirit of Science
EdPolicieCmsn NEAofUS, 1966

The Impact of Science and Technology Today, PP. 3-4

Today, the worldwide pursuit and spread of science and technology are commonly recognized. There is less recognition that the values and modes of thought which underlie science and technology also are becoming pervasive in the world. Yet these values and associated modes of thought may in the long run be more important to mankind and to education than the visible fruits of scientific and technological pursuits.

The most commonly recognized manifestations of the scientific and technological revolution are the material ones. The physical accoutrements and institutions of the advanced societies have been and continue to be altered; the living standards of many peoples have risen. But much more is changed than the material conditions of life. Modern industrialized societies possess basic elements which make them unique in history. Old routines and time-honored patterns of existence have been destroyed or profoundly changed. Economic systems are modified at an accelerating rate. The methods and results of science introduce a widespread skepticism and willingness to forgo traditional ways in art and philosophy, and they both force and enable theologians to consider new ways of defending the validity and relevance of faith.

In addition, the scientific and technological revolution affects the very texture of thinking of thecommon man. The gulf inspirit between this age and all previous ages is perhaps more vast than the gulf in external appearances. Newor modified values and attitudes, combining to producea new perspective on life, are gaining currency in the industrialized countries. The spread of technology is accompanied byan increasing respect for utility, efficiency, and practical results and an increasing interdependence of individuals. The spread of science promotes respect for the role of reason in human affairs by demonstrating the power of the mind when used in accordance with the spirit of science. There is a tendency to be suspicious of absolutes, a respect for tentativeness, a kind of working skepticism. Science poses a clear challenge to pretensions of absolute certainty. It promotes respect for intellectual flexibility and creativity, for the ability to revise or discard old hypotheses and to form and substantiate new ones. There is also a tendency to see the world in an evolutionary frame of reference, to recognize that what exists now may not have existed in the past and that all things are in a process of becoming.