Anti-Family / Anti-Child Policies: What are they?

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 64
#31
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
For example since the goal is for the break up of the nuclear family they will often oppose things like homeschool
Where do you see the goal of "the left" as "the breakup of the nuclear family" in any policy or law? WHo on the left says "No home school for anyone", I've never heard that before. 
It's well known that the left-tribe has spearheaded every attempt to limit or criminalize homeschooling, charter schools, and are vehemently against school vouchers or anything that would divert children away from state schools. The purpose for this is rather obvious: corruption and indoctrination.


No, it doesn't list anything like policies. It lists your complaints and a study from some institute. I'm asking for the specific POLICY from the candidate, that's what the Trump campaign has accused her of.
It would be profoundly irrational and naive to make the choice to vote based on specifics in a policy document. What will happen is what matters and not what they claim to care about and what will happen is that if the left-tribe seizes power their general agenda will disseminate through the true center of power in this nation: the unelected bureaucracies of the three letter agencies which makes rules without consulting congress and often without any mechanism for popular opposition besides these very federal elections that are the context.

If this was not a valid analysis then it would follow that nobody could vote against Donald Trump on the issue of abortion since he has promised not to sign a national ban.
#32
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
corruption and indoctrination.
Unlike all the parents who practice corruption and indoctrination.

You cannot indoctrinate smart people, and stupid people are going to be indoctrinated by someone anyway. Stupid people cant even think in premises.
#33
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
corruption and indoctrination.
Unlike all the parents who practice corruption and indoctrination.
Parents aren't legally entitled to steal by the virtue of being parents. Governments are.

Of course parents indoctrinate, but they are on average more trustworthy than governments; especially subverted governments.


You cannot indoctrinate smart people, and stupid people are going to be indoctrinated by someone anyway. Stupid people cant even think in premises.
Evidence and logic say stupid people are made more than they are born. As far as I can tell the student culture and staff incompetence of state run schools in the USA have been the largest manufacturer of stupid people in history.

I think peasant children picking vegetables in a 12th century field probably had more useful ideas and less corrosive musings than what most young Americans experience in public school.
Topic's author
#34
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
So nobody has any actual examples of this / these policies, or their supposed effects on children or families, we just have feelings about them? 
#35
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Of course parents indoctrinate, but they are on average more trustworthy than governments
Thats a lie.

Parents aren't legally entitled to steal by the virtue of being parents
Thats a lie.

As far as I can tell the student culture and staff incompetence of state run schools in the USA have been the largest manufacturer of stupid people in history
Thats a lie.

I think peasant children picking vegetables in a 12th century field probably had more useful ideas and less corrosive musings than what most young Americans experience in public school.
Thats a lie.

Anything else?
#36
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
So nobody has any actual examples of this / these policies, or their supposed effects on children or families, we just have feelings about them? 


Ms. Wilkins quote Senator Sanders as having said that if he gets elected, he intends to stifle the growth of charter schools.


I am not a charter-school fan because it takes away the options available and money for public schools, - Joe Biden


#37
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Anything else?
No, I think that about covers it.
Topic's author
#38
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
OK, so you're a fan of charter schools but not public schools, but as many charter schools do not or cannot serve their entire communities, aren't public schools in some form necessary? How is eliminating them, or making them less effective / even lower educational value "pro child"? 

What do you find kids are being "indoctrinated" with, or "corrupted" by?
#39
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
No, it doesn't list anything like policies. It lists your complaints and a study from some institute. I'm asking for the specific POLICY from the candidate
Their philosophies inform their policies so I examine the philosophies of the individuals in question. This should be obvious. So their gut reaction (democrats) is to outlaw homeschool for example or to defend teachers who have secretly, socially transitioned children. 

. I also asked subsequently where you read that the stated or implied goal of the democratic party is the dismantling of the nuclear family. Here are your words:
Here is how politics works. You have an inner circle of academics who inform policy making decisions and the jobs of politicians is to make those philosophies digestible to the public. I was emailing Peter Singer and he was pretty open about wanting to dismantle the nuclear family, but these academics frequently write about it, so literally just find 3 liberal professors and read their published works and you will likely find 2 that openly talk about it. 

The first sentence is in no way a policy for the democratic party, and as I said, it may be that schools or states or whatever are implementing such a policy
So does secretly socially transitioning a child sound like something democrats would do or like republican religious zealots?

which I'm afraid is absolutely a public school teacher's obligation by law. 
You can label a lot of horrendous shit protecting children. The Nazis thought they were protecting children. 

How does welfare harm the family structure, in your own words? 
Greyparrot literally just cited a study to show that. Look at the study he cited because that is what I am basing my opinion on and democrats are aware of this study and others that replicate it and still insist on economic interventionism. 

Topic's author
#40
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
So does secretly socially transitioning a child sound like something democrats would do or like republican religious zealots?
I've never heard this phrase before. What's it mean?
#41
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
It's really a philosophical question on the unintended consequences of equity policies. Not just welfare, but everything.
#42
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
but as many charter schools do not or cannot serve their entire communities
You can't possibly believe that is a legitimate objection. They can be bigger or there can be more of them.


aren't public schools in some form necessary?
No.

Let's expand on that.

Notice how you shift from "what policies" to "don't delete all public schools", what a leap. See my name? I dream of liberty. How about you let people decide what school would serve their children best. If you think nobody would pick public schools what does that mean?

That tells me something: that you, I, and parents all know public schools are worse for children either through lack of education or mal-education. There is nothing inherently broken in "public" it just so happens that all the "public schools" are instances of the category "institutions funded by stolen wealth with no oversight or objective and immovable standards of success with significant consequences for failure". Socialists have a false understanding of human society and so they constantly created instances of that category and then act like their ideas not to blame for the absolute failure.


How is eliminating them, or making them less effective / even lower educational value "pro child"? 
That is a false dichotomy, the false dichotomy those left-tribers I specifically identified with the links imply. It is eliminating competitors to state education that is anti-child, anti-family, and given that everybody grows up to be eligible voters, workers, and consumers: anti-civilization.


What do you find kids are being "indoctrinated" with, or "corrupted" by?
Corruption referred to financial corruption. Teachers unions, endless layers of bureaucratic waste, even something as simple as repairing a school's air conditioning unit will eventually become an avenue of corruption given that nobody gives a shit and nobody gives a shit because the money is stolen and they get paid the same (or more) if they fail.


As for the indoctrination: What I would describe the maleducation as is teaching kids dangerous (false) philosophy by implication and thereby making them cruel, shallow, vain, whiny, fragile, overly trusting of the wrong things [the state] and ignorant of those things you can trust [logic, repeatable experiment, math]. What many parents perceive is probably far less precise but none the less still accurate: Kids go in, useless bratish zombies come out (and they still can't read).

No philosophy is better than bad philosophy. True philosophy is better than no philosophy. I don't think charter schools are teaching good philosophy, but because they must succeed at educating the children to financially succeed means they are teaching real subjects far more effectively.
#43
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
...." No nation wanting to reduce its growth rate to less than or equal to 1% can expect to do so without the widespread use of abortion. This study, based on the experience of 116 of the world's largest countries, supports the contention that abortion is essential to any national population growth control effort. "..
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6742046/
#44
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Of course parents indoctrinate, but they are on average more trustworthy than governments; especially subverted governments.
Not you or your parents, right?

#45
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's well known that the left-tribe has spearheaded every attempt to limit or criminalize homeschooling, charter schools, and are vehemently against school vouchers or anything that would divert children away from state schools. The purpose for this is rather obvious: corruption and indoctrination.
I think some on this forum need some education, before spouting off illogic, lack of common sense critical thinking.

..." Children in the South were educated mostly in tuition-charging or parent-organized schools.
Some rural areas had no schools. The schools that did exist outside of cities were often hard to get
to, skimpily equipped, and overcrowded. Teachers were poorly paid, transient, and inexperienced,
and some were undereducated themselves. In no state was education compulsory or fully
supported by taxes "...


..." The Founding Fathers maintained that the success of the fragile American democracy would
depend on the competency of its citizens. They believed strongly that preserving democracy
would require an educated population that could understand political and social issues and would
participate in civic life, vote wisely, protect their rights and freedoms, and resist tyrants and
demagogues. Character and virtue were also considered essential to good citizenship, and
education was seen as a means to provide moral instruction and build character. While voters
were limited to white males, many leaders of the early nation also supported educating girls on
the grounds that mothers were responsible for educating their own children, were partners on
family farms, and set a tone for the virtues of the nation. "..
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED606970.pdf

#46
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
charter schools are free bro.
#47
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot
Early schools were financed from various sources and often charged tuition.
#48
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
well, charter schools are free bro.
#49
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Bra

#50
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I think this is a hasty generalization. The right doesn't want to starve people any more than the left
you're right. This is a bit much. The right doesn't want poor people to starve. They just don't want to do anything to prevent it while pushing an economic system that makes them starving much, much more likely. But the starvation isn't the goal. Making the rich richer is the goal. Dead poor people is just a consequence they don't care about. 

But there is a middle ground where both can agree the current equity policies are not working as intended.
true. The democrats acting like republicans and caving to them has made systems soo much worse. Take obamacare for example. Instead of making a good policy that would really help people, Obama wanted to be able to work with the republicans. So he literally picked a right wing plan (he stole it from mitt romney) and the republicans still did everything they could to sabotage it. If Obama had just ignored the republicans and pushed for a good system from the start, he could have saved so many lives and prevented so many bankruptcies due to medical debt. 
#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Obama wanted to be able to work with the republicans...
weird take considering no republicans voted for it. with over 30 democrats opposing.

The House of Representatives voted on the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare) on March 21, 2010. The final vote was 219 in favor and 212 against. All 178 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted against the bill, while 219 Democrats voted in favor. The bill was then sent to the Senate, where it passed and was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010.

Obama had a blank slate, but Democrats are the ones to blame here.
#52
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
If Obama had just ignored the republicans and pushed for a good system from the start, he could have saved so many lives and prevented so many bankruptcies due to medical debt. 
When Democrats embrace stupid republican ideas, disaster follows. Repealing Glass-Steagall is another example. 
The Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t ask Don’t tell, are two more examples 



#53
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
weird take considering no republicans voted for it. 
They pretended to be bargaining in good faith as they tried to sabotage the legislation 

#54
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
weird take considering no republicans voted for it. with over 30 democrats opposing
that's exactly what I said. He picked a republican plan thinking that republicans were reasonable. Why would they vote against their own plan? But he forgot that republicans don't care about actually helping people. Stopping the Dems was the only thing that mattered.


Obama had a blank slate, but Democrats are the ones to blame here.
that's what I'm saying. Obama should never have tried to work with the republicans. He picked a right wing plan because he wanted bipartisanship. But republicans (the elected ones anyway) cannot be reasoned with. They had no interest in finding a good policy and passing it. They wanted to stop him from accomplishing anything even when he picked their plan. There was literally no plan he could have picked that they would support. And he wasted precious time trying to convince them when it was always hopeless. He had to pick a good policy and ram it down their throats. Then use the success of that policy to prove they were wrong to oppose it.
#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
still makes no sense. Democrats had a supermajority. The only people Obama had to please were other Democrats (and he failed 34 of them)

Obama should be one of your worst presidents ever as a democrat. Either that or Democrat congressmen (over 34 of them apparently) were more conservative than Obama expected.
#56
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Obama should be one of your worst presidents ever as a democrat
He is better than the best Republican in the last 70 years

#57
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Also, it's Pelosi that actually crafted the bill, not Obama. Obama really didn't get to decide what version hit the floor.
#58
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
When Democrats embrace stupid republican ideas, disaster follows. Repealing Glass-Steagall is another example. 
The Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t ask Don’t tell, are two more examples 
yeah, it drives me crazy. And they've been doing it for decades. They see how they could make things better with a progressive policy, then actively choose to do the opposite while flipping off the left. Then bragging how "centrist" they are as they push right wing policy. It's helped the republicans push the overton window to the right. Because if Clinton is a "communist" while pushing right wing policy, anyone actually left of center is the "far left". 
#59
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
still makes no sense. Democrats had a supermajority. The only people Obama had to please were other Democrats (and he failed 34 of them)
you're just repeating my points back to me. Obama had the power to make real change. But he was far more right wing than people hoped. So he pushed for a right wing plan to appease the republicans. 


Also, it's Pelosi that actually crafted the bill, not Obama. Obama really didn't get to decide what version hit the floor.
Obama was the leader of the party. If he said "this is my policy" that is what would have reached the floor. 
#60
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
still makes no sense. Democrats had a supermajority. The only people Obama had to please were other Democrats (and he failed 34 of them)
The bill passed genius. And those that didn’t support the final bill still lost their seats. They were in weirdo conservative Tea Bagger districts