Posted on 05/24/2011 3:26:20 PM PDT by Former Fetus
My debate with you on this issue reminds me of a debate I had with Sean Hannity on his show once. Hannity defends Howard Stern and the porn promotion that he does on public radio because he believes that if he doesnt defend Howard’s pornographic show being on public radio that then the same arguments used against Howard Stern may be twisted to be used against him.
In this case you are willing to defend people who skirt right along the lines of child abuse with their philosphical beliefs because you fear that if you dont then the same arguments will be used to attack Chrisitianity or homeschooling.
Live in fear if you want. I do not view it as a conservative principle to turn my back if I think that children are possibly being abused and I do see enough signs of that here to hope that there is an investigation. I will still be able to defend Christianity and homeschooling regardless though.
What the parents admit to in so far as secrets is simply just what they admit. But just the fact that they are telling their children to keep secrets based upon the premise that the outside world is bad is troubling.
I also have not seen any reference in the article to their sleeping arrangements being for any other reason then that is the way the parents like it.
You still haven’t told me at what age you may finally be concerned about parents sleeping with the same kids that they teach to crossdress.
The fact that these parents are teaching the kids to crossdress at all is troubling enough.
I also do not see much reference at all to these kids having any normal contact with the outside world at all. Kids could have some contact and still be isolated if they are continually being coached day and night by the parents. The kid Jazz seems to speak like a parrot of his parents.
“Shepherding the Heart of a Child”
yep, read it.
With the Maxwell book, though, the focus is on the child’s heart being turned to and kept by the parents so that you CAN “shepherd” them and not have them go their own way, which is often the way the world and the flesh are pulling them.
See my post number 51. This is the same exact arguement that Hannity makes in his defense of having pornographic material on public radio.
If the government has the power to shut down porn then next it will be political speech on the radio.
I say that it is a faulty premise. It sounds more like the same arguments that libertarians make in regards to making laws against public indecency, prostitution, etc... They argue that the next law may target you.
The argument of Hannity and of libertarians seems to be that it is impossible to differentiate between good and bad behavior so we must hold principles that protect both and just keep our mouths shut and not use our right to representation to protect our children in society.
I say that is a faulty principle and that I could differentiate between bad and good behavior and reject the arguement that we need to defend behavior like we see from these parents.
Sorry again. The above should read see my post number 61.
Leave these people alone. Don't like what they are doing? Then don't raise your kids this way. Threads like this just reek of the hypocrisy the media always lays at the feet of conservatives.
I am so tired of people being hateful just because they disagree. Calling these people names and accusing them of criminal activity, and worse, simply because you do things differently?
I would venture to guess if having someone disagree with how you raise your children was cause enough for the government to have the power to step in and tear your family apart, many on this thread who are clamoring for just that to happen to this family would be in question themselves.
Shame on all of you for throwing stones.
You seem to be mistaking libertarians for conservatives. I I do not want to be told that I have no right to stand for the protection of children or that I have no representation on the issue of public decency laws.
Libertarians of course preach that we need to limit government in this way. Conservatives do not.
The parents are insane.
And it is kind of humorous how you accuse others of being hypocrits and of throwing stones but your tagline reads...
(Soylent green should be made out of liberals...)
Hardly sounds like you want to treat liberals such as these parents very nicely at all.
If you had proof of abuse then I would be all for an investigation. All you have is your suspicion. Yes I realize that these children are going to turn out weird. So is Angelina Jolie’s (sp?) daughter that she dresses like a boy.
The information given in these articles is sad but it is not abuse as defined by social services. Until you or someone else has proof and not just suspicions that these children are being abused then there is no reason to call for an investigation. You want an investigation because you think their parenting is weird. If you haven’t noticed, Christianity is being labelled as weird. And no you can’t take away the freedom of one parent and defend the freedom of another. See liberty is funny that way, it applies to everyone. Go down the checklist from the link I sent you and document each sign of abuse that you see in this family and get back to me.
And I don’t agree with Hannity that pornography is free speech.
So you think that all investigations into criminal activity require proof before an investigation is allowed to take place?
I simply would like to see a professional interview these children alone about their home life being the evidence of behavior that we already see.
If nothing turns up to be criminal in the activity of the parents then fine but from what I see this warrants an investigation.
And I notice that you are ignoring many questions that I ask you. How old is alright for children to sleep with their parents before you get concerned at all?
You want the government to differentiate between good and bad and apply the law to situations differently? Wow that is scary stuff. There are laws about child abuse. These parents haven’t broken any so far as we know from the information presented. What about when the powers that be decide that your way of raising children is bad? Slippery slope anyone?
By all means, if you see someone beating or kidnapping a child, do something. But if you see some parent with whom you simply disagree, butt out.
or that I have no representation on the issue of public decency laws.
Public decency? What, because something offends your delicate sensibilities? I don't think fat people should be allowed to wear bathing suits. Public decency and all that you know.
If being conservative means everyone has to live their life according to the personal whims of what does or does not offend Big Brother, or the government can take my kids, well then I guess I'm not a conservative.
If the position of conservatives is do what I say or you are abusing your children and we will take them, well then you better be prepared for the opposite to be true as well. If you want laws like this, when libs win govt control they get to take your kids if they don't like what you are doing.
Sounds like you want a nanny state just as much as the libs. It's just a different nanny.
The entire checklist you gave deals with only violent type abuse. There are other kinds though whereas the parents knowingly manipulate their children.
I knew a very left-wing woman once, A good friends sister. She had two boys and left her husband. I was sharinga winter rental on the beach with her brother, it was a big house so I said sure she could move in.
Her kids seemed well adjusted but she was extreme with her left-wing libertarian philospohies. She insisted on home-schooling and all natural medical treatments, she did sleep in the same room with her kids but never used the term co-sleeping. She was manipulative but her kids seemed happy and she seemed centered on their development.
Long story short... after she moved out she was found out somehow and her kids were taken away. She had been sexually abusing them. Looking back there were some signs though none would fit the ones in the link that you gave. But the signs were there just as they are in the story of these parents.
I think it requires evidence yes. In this country we don’t investigate people for no cause. Usually an investigation of child abuse comes after someone observing the signs of abuse. Show me from the governments list of signs of abuse, the signs of abuse you see in this home. You can’t because from the information we have, you don’t see any. Yet you call for them to be investigated on your suspicions.
A professional interview alone with children isn’t a simple process. It can turn innocent people into criminals. I have seen it happen. The man I talked about earlier that lost his children... His eldest daughter was manipulated into ‘confessing’ that daddy hit them. She was told that her little sister could come home from the hospital if she would tell the police that daddy hit her.
You have WAY too much confidence in CPS and way too little knowledge of how they work.
I don’t have an age. If the people in the bed are sleeping what is wrong with it? People all over the world co-sleep in the same room until the children are out on their own. I prefer to have my children in their own beds by 5 years old. But that is my preference and my parenting style.
You could speak of a government that is not of the People but that is not the government I support. I support a government that is a representative government and whereas laws are made by the people.
If I see signs of what I believe are signs of child abuse then I want it investigated.
If I see people walking around naked or having sex in a place visibly open to the public then I want a law against that, I dont just say that it is only offending my delicate sensibilities as you would have me say.
Of course though you are pulling the typical libertarian tactic in debate of claiming that if we outlaw certain acts of public indecency then it will lead to outlawing bathing suits or something even more drastic.
Sorry but I am not giving up my right to representation on such issues based upon some fear that a law may be made that I do not like.
So it all subjective and kids should just randomly be yanked from their homes to make sure parents aren’t abusing them?
You sir/madam are not a conservative. You are a nanny stater.
Actually the checklist included neglect and even emotional abuse along with sexual abuse. It also said that with sexual abuse also came neglect.
According to whom?
I could differentiate between bad and good behavior
Oh. I see. You should be ruler of the land then.
There are two parties in this system at the moment. That means that the laws you enact will at some point be in the hands of the other party, and YOU will be the target because THEY disagree with YOU.
The porn argument is correct. Don't like porn? Don't watch it. Don't like Stern? Don't listen to it.
You sir sound like a book burner.
I gave the evidence I see to warrant an investigation. You simply do not agree with it.
It is ironic as well that you dont want government involved but then direct me to a government website as if it proves your point about signs of abuse.
So instead of having my own view about whether there could be abuse you want me to only accept what government websites say is signs of abuse.
Everything else for you is alright. Maybe parents could teach their kids to be animals even because social norms to act as humans is not good.
As long as nothing turns up as signs on the government websites you provide then I guess it is alright with you.
>>These parents also seem to believe that the kids should learn through their own curiousity. Does that include touching?<<
LOL!!
We homeschool and co-slept for a long time. In fact, we still do during the summer. And no, it doesn’t include “touching”.
For heaven’s sake, everything isn’t about sex. Maybe someone should investigate YOUR house if all you think about is “touching”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.