There is very low potential of helping a child during the 6 hours they are in a school, when the child had to go back into 18 hours of parents that set a very low lifestyle example.
A better way to deal with this situation is to get rid of guilty parents. America needs to have an Absolute Paternity Law that say parents must provide for their children. Failure to provide for their children (as proved by asking for government assistance) should be punishable by death using the three strikes and you are out concept.
70 comments
I know! Rather than punish parents for not being prepared or willing to care for the children they create, why not teach them how to prevent getting pregnant?
Yes, yes, there's abstinence. But safe sex, and parenting classes, might be a bit more useful there.
When you pull you head out of your ass, and breathe some real air, I think it will be a shock to your system.
Killing off poor parents will not make the kids better off, you fucking moron!
Since when is the death penalty something that comes up in three-strikes laws?
I'm assuming you're opposed to healthcare reform, in favor of unrestrained free market excesses, and opposed to abortion, too, right?
I was curious as to what she considered "guilty" parents, holding hope that this was some austere way of dealing with child beaters or negligent parents. I sorely wish I hadn't. She doesn't care about how well or poorly the children are cared for, she just wants to kill off people whose views differ from hers.
You can tell from passages like "very low potential of helping" and "very low lifestyle example" that this is a person who has seen the style of writing of educated people, and is trying to imitate it herself, but fails. Hee hee hee.
> Failure to provide for their children (as proved by asking for government assistance) should be punishable by death using the three strikes and you are out concept.
Sounds fun. What are you going to do to the children whose parents you're going to execute? Surely you're not suggesting the government is going to take care of them, what with your hatred of government assistance?
So you're admitting, somewhat obtusely Clirus, that you didn't like school. I'm prepared to admit there were certain aspects of school that I didn't like, but I had to go, and I just made the best of it.
Education is compulsory, Kitzmiller vs. Dover destroyed teaching 'Creationism' there, thus is illegal, therefore Evolution is taught. As well as Sex Ed. Too bad, so sad.
Deal with it.
Yeah! That's what Jesus would have done. If you're poor and can't support your kids without government help, you should be executed. Jesus was all for executing poor people who sponge off others. Like when he caught his disciples eating grain from some farmer's field. He cut off their ears. And don't forget, when he handed out the loaves and fishes, did he just let the sponges have them for free? Hell no! He charged a shekel apiece for them. It's right there in the Bible: screw the poor!
Who decides what constitutes "providing" for the child?
By helping a child during its school hours, you can create a safe "window" for that child. S/he then has a space in life where s/he is not maltreated, abused, neglected. That can make the rest of the hours of the day bearable.
I bet you consider yourself pro-life...
WTH is it with these conservatives and their love affair for death as a punishment for everything? I guess it's to teach the parents of families in poverty a lesson for not being wealthy. Yeah, that'll show them for not being rich. What about the children of the parents who have been executed, well since they've been born, I guess "screw 'em" too.
I wouldn't be surprised if you call yourself a pro-lifer after all this.
[sarcasm]Fantastic idea! Make the kid stare by taking away free lunch, then make them starve at home even more by taking away food stamps, WIC. Then when they get sick, no Medicare or SCHIP for them! Then if they do a strike three, the parents get executed![/sarcasm]
Seriously though, what do you think would happen to the children whose parents you executed? They would likely become wards of the state and have to grow up in some orphanage until they are 18 or get adopted by grandparents, uncles, aunts if they are lucky. I really hope you don't have children. On a side note, I am glad that some of the people who have responded are calling him out for this.
Typical right-wing, republican, religious, fundie mentality:
A better way to deal with this situation is to get rid of fundy parents.
Failure to provide for their children (as proved by preaching hate to your children) should be punishable by confinement to an insane asylum.
FIXED.
From that short period of time I hung around CF, I saw that Clirus is a really strange, sad person. She basically thinks anyone that generally disagrees with conservative values on things should be punished by death or severely punished.
She's pretty pitiable.
WTF is wrong with you? Okay, so let's say the parents CAN'T provide for their children, your solution is to go and take everything away from the children so now they're not only even less provided for but have to go through life with the trauma of having their family killed? And to what end? What are you accomplishing besides killing poor people who, by the way, do the jobs that keep civilization running; jobs that nobody else wants to do? Not only is this the most atrocious idea I've heard in a good long time but it's also the most ill-conceived, bone-headed pile of garbage I've seen in a while. Congratulations, you've set the bar at a new low and it'll be a long time before this is topped. And the kicker is that it even flies in the face of your religion.
A better way to deal with this situation is to get rid of guilty parents. America needs to have an Absolute Paternity Law that say parents must provide for their children. Failure to provide for their children (as proved by asking for government assistance) should be punishable by death using the three strikes and you are out concept.
Er, maybe petitioning the government IS how they're trying to provide for their children, since they can't quite make ends meet some other way and need help. Have you heard of the "working poor"? They are the people who work their asses off - like how they're apparently supposed to - and still can't quite make it since the minimum wage doesn't keep up with inflation. They are the people who have every right to petition the government for a little bit of help (since taxes are taken out of their paychecks) but who never seem to qualify, since they make slightly too much to meet the overzealous standards of the bureaucracy put in place to prevent "abuse" of the system.
Clirus seems bent on violating as many human rights as possible. Parental rights, reproductive rights, the right to live...
So, if a single mom becomes ill and is unable to work, should she be put to death for asking for assistance? How about someone who gets laid off and wants to collect their unemployment insurance, which they've been paying into for years? Does that count as asking for assistance? Should we put teenage parents to death if they ask for a student loan in order to build a better life for their child?
And yet, if a woman who knows she can't afford to raise a child accidentally gets pregnant, you would deny her access to an abortion. So you force her to bear a child she can't afford and didn't really want; then you're going to kill her for asking for help taking care of it? And she may have been pregnant because you also denied her access to effective birth control, as well.
Great "family values!" That's a real "pro-life" attitude. *THAT* is why, even if I could swallow the rest of your ridiculous fairy tale, I am not and will never be a Christian.
So rather than helping those people, you're just going to have them killed.
Looking at the massive amounts of poverty in your country, it raises the question of what you're going to do with all the millions of orphans who will probably also grow up poor. Kill them too?
If, as you claim, there is very little a school can do to help a child during the 6 hours the child is in school, the it must also be true that there is very little damage a school can do to the same child. Of course, the premise that schools irreperably damage a child's moral values is part and parcel of the right's push for homeschooling - they are terrified that schools will destroy any morality that parents nobly try to instill in a child.
But what about parents who are disabled and cannot provide for their children? What about widows\widowers? What about poverty striken parents?
later in post:
Wait, you just said that all parents should provide for their children by punishment of death, and now you're saying that parent's can't provide for their offspring?
If you're thinking like this... why not just accept the abortion thing into law? Turning the US into a totalitarian country by mandating parents provide for children will accomplish nothing.
You should just accept the whole fact that everyone has right to privacy when it comes to sexuality, family business, and etc and fuck off. If someone wants to put their dick in another guy's ass it has nothing to do with you unless they are raping you. If someone wants to abort their child it has nothing to do with you... unless it is your child. Why is that so hard to understand?
I mean it is the same concept that you use anyway... "If someone wants to get money from the government because they are down on their luck 'fuck them because it has nothing to do with me'." If you don't want to give hand outs but you do want to control their lives that makes you a fucking hypocrite.
Paternity? so it only applies to fathers? WTF SEXIST!!!!!! YOU BETTER GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN WHERE YOU BELONG!!!!!
I'm just sayin.
Also, if you have medicaid/medicare then you are recieving government assistance. pay for your own $40,000 doctor bill :)
i suspect somebody didn't get their child support payment.
So what would we do with all the minor children of the parents executed? They'd have to be charges of the state, orphaned and in the hands of the government, whom you didn't want to assist them in the first place. Idiot.
Or, you know,
There is a problem with your methodology: orphans will starve to death. The more moral thing to do would be to kill the parents and feed them to their children.
Sounds totally like what Jesus would do.
sorry but Paternity means the father. If you want to include the mothers you need another word. Perhaps Parental would fit.
By the way, asking for assistance does not make you a bad parent , it just means you need assistance.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
