Home Page link

Re: The value of shopping local

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 2 of 17       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Re: The value of shopping local Amy Blankenship 11-11-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Kris Krieger on November 15, 2007, 7:56 pm

>
>
>>> 'None of you business' also comes in shades of gray.
>>
>> Nope, there's a definite line in the sand.
>> Nosey, bored people claim to see shades of gray where this is
>> concerned. Do you like people nosing around in your business?
>> Treat people like you like to be treated.........
>
> You know, if I was six years old and my mother was a drug addict and
> so I never had nutritious meals or support to get a good education, I
> suspect I'd be very grateful if a responsible adult intervened.
>

(1) Such people should not be allowed to raise children - I say that
because these people are *doing harm* to another human being, and worse, to
one who does not have the power to help him/her self, change the situation.
(2) When you see what some people do to their kids, well, letting them just
have, and keep, *more* kids is just plain criminal - I mean literally,
since it is supposedly illegal to harm others. If these slobs are going to
keep having kids, they should never be allowed to keep them. And once the
kids are adopted, they should *never* be given back to such people, as has
happened far too often.

I would have been very grateful had another adult intervened and take me
away. But it's not just about money. There are poor people who
nevertheless do not neglect their kids. And there are plenty of people who
are getting by, and even people who are well-off, who DO neglect their
kids. If someone is into drugs, OK, yes, I think it's good to *try* to
help them - but "three strikes and you're out" - AND kids should *never* be
in the picture, because kids should never have to live with someone who
cares more about getting drunk or high than they care about the kids.
Griwong up with that sort of scumpig messes a kid up, and it can take
decades to clean up the mess, and that's if the mess can be cleaned up at
all.


Posted by 3D Peruna on November 11, 2007, 10:08 pm
Amy Blankenship wrote:

>>
>> This woman's choices aren't based on her limited income. She's fathered 4
>> children with 3 fathers--knowing the fathers are nowhere around (and she's
>> not very attractive at all). Her choices were based on her ability to
>> INCREASE her income with more children. But if she's going to make poor
>> choices, then I have no obligation to support her in her poor choices.
>> I'll help her as she makes good choices, but so far, the pattern has been
>> to make choices that minimize her effort and maximize her income, which is
>> not earned.
>
> And what about her children? Have they been put in that situation because
> of THEIR choices?

No, her children are in a no-win situation. I cannot legally do
anything for her children. Giving her more money doesn't directly
benefit the children--she gets food stamps, and other assistance, that
covers food related issues. I can't force her to spend her money
wisely, for her kids. They're just plain stuck...and I feel the worst
for them. They really would be better off with "real" parents, but
again, I can't do anything (unless I can get solid evidence of some sort
of abuse).

Posted by Amy Blankenship on November 11, 2007, 10:54 pm

> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
>>>
>>> This woman's choices aren't based on her limited income. She's fathered
>>> 4 children with 3 fathers--knowing the fathers are nowhere around (and
>>> she's not very attractive at all). Her choices were based on her
>>> ability to INCREASE her income with more children. But if she's going
>>> to make poor choices, then I have no obligation to support her in her
>>> poor choices. I'll help her as she makes good choices, but so far, the
>>> pattern has been to make choices that minimize her effort and maximize
>>> her income, which is not earned.
>>
>> And what about her children? Have they been put in that situation
>> because of THEIR choices?
>
> No, her children are in a no-win situation. I cannot legally do anything
> for her children. Giving her more money doesn't directly benefit the
> children--she gets food stamps, and other assistance, that covers food
> related issues. I can't force her to spend her money wisely, for her
> kids. They're just plain stuck...and I feel the worst for them. They
> really would be better off with "real" parents, but again, I can't do
> anything (unless I can get solid evidence of some sort of abuse).

However, this whole conversation started with a discussion of education. If
her children have no access to education (which is the practical effect of
the policies it seems you advocate) they have less ability to extricate
themselves from their bad situation as adults. I do recognize that the odds
are against them, but removing the chance at even an adequate education is
not going to help them. Remember, the education goes directly to children,
people who haven't made many decisions in their lives, good or bad.
Removing education from those children punishes them, not parents.



Posted by 3D Peruna on November 12, 2007, 9:40 am
Amy Blankenship wrote:

> However, this whole conversation started with a discussion of education. If
> her children have no access to education (which is the practical effect of
> the policies it seems you advocate) they have less ability to extricate
> themselves from their bad situation as adults. I do recognize that the odds
> are against them, but removing the chance at even an adequate education is
> not going to help them. Remember, the education goes directly to children,
> people who haven't made many decisions in their lives, good or bad.
> Removing education from those children punishes them, not parents.

They're already punished because of the parents. The ratio is 95:5 of
those who get out without the parents fully being invested in their
education. Most parents aren't, and that's true across income levels.

The other problem is that we keep pouring money into public education,
yet things are getting worse. It's not a function of money. It's a
function of living in a society that really doesn't pay attention to the
needs of children...on a parental level. Sure, the kids are scheduled
to death with various activities. They're provided for (the most part)
with whatever the creature comforts of life might be. But they're not
taken care of.

It seems, as a society, we have moved towards the idea that the school
is responsible for our children's learning, and the state is responsible
for funding this learning. We have abdicated our responsibilities as
parents. We have also let the very false idea that money=education
permeate our society. History is filled with examples of people who
came from nowhere, educated by those with little to no means.

We will never always have parents who care. And we need to stop
thinking that if we collectively pick up the slack, we'll solve the
problem. We can only solve the problem individually--you and me,
individually, without requirement or prompting from the government,
finding someone who needs the help and giving it to them. The
government will never fix this problem.

Posted by Amy Blankenship on November 12, 2007, 10:03 am

> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
>> However, this whole conversation started with a discussion of education.
>> If her children have no access to education (which is the practical
>> effect of the policies it seems you advocate) they have less ability to
>> extricate themselves from their bad situation as adults. I do recognize
>> that the odds are against them, but removing the chance at even an
>> adequate education is not going to help them. Remember, the education
>> goes directly to children, people who haven't made many decisions in
>> their lives, good or bad. Removing education from those children punishes
>> them, not parents.
>
> They're already punished because of the parents. The ratio is 95:5 of
> those who get out without the parents fully being invested in their
> education. Most parents aren't, and that's true across income levels.

So punish them worse by denying them _any_ opportunity?

> The other problem is that we keep pouring money into public education, yet
> things are getting worse. It's not a function of money. It's a function
> of living in a society that really doesn't pay attention to the needs of
> children...on a parental level. Sure, the kids are scheduled to death
> with various activities. They're provided for (the most part) with
> whatever the creature comforts of life might be. But they're not taken
> care of.

So you think kids who aren't offered an education will do better?

> It seems, as a society, we have moved towards the idea that the school is
> responsible for our children's learning, and the state is responsible for
> funding this learning. We have abdicated our responsibilities as parents.
> We have also let the very false idea that money=education permeate our
> society. History is filled with examples of people who came from nowhere,
> educated by those with little to no means.

And eliminating public education will make people more responsible parents
how...?

> We will never always have parents who care. And we need to stop thinking
> that if we collectively pick up the slack, we'll solve the problem.

We can keep it from becoming worse.

> We can only solve the problem individually--you and me, individually,
> without requirement or prompting from the government, finding someone who
> needs the help and giving it to them. The government will never fix this
> problem.

I disagree. I think the system we have is FAR better than what we would
have if we had NO public education system. Again I say look to countries
that do not offer public education and ask if that is what we want for this
country.



Page 2 of 17       < 1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: The value of shopping local November 11, 2007, 12:47 am
Re: The value of shopping local November 13, 2007, 6:50 pm
Re: The value of shopping local November 15, 2007, 7:30 pm
Re: The value of shopping local November 15, 2007, 7:36 pm
Re: The value of shopping local November 15, 2007, 7:43 pm
Right to have armaments was Re: The value of shopping local November 10, 2007, 7:32 pm
This is a local bar in a town of 300 May 23, 2007, 4:40 pm
How to find a local architect April 18, 2008, 1:15 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap