Why is this illegal?

#76
#76
therealUT said:
The government is only a corporation of individuals. If your premise is that you cannot trust individuals to do the right thing then how do you trust a group of individuals to do the right thing?
Click to expand...

Damn the law.....forget punishment......do as you please!
 
#77
#77
tri_vol said:
What justification would he have? If I'm on my property and have not physically touched him. Feeling threatened is an emotional reaction. By your reasoning, I should be able to sue and/or criminally charge my neighbor for shooting me.

However by your logic, if I feel threatened by a drunk driver, then I should be able to shoot him.

So which course of action would be correct?
Click to expand...


Yes, if you can argue that you felt immediately threatened by a drunk driver, then the act of preserving your own life is neither immoral nor a crime. You would have to convincingly argue that in front of a jury, though.

Immediate self-preservation accounts for latitude in pure reason and moves into the realm of practical reason and judgment.

Morally, if your intent is to do everything possible to preserve your own life, their is no luxury for deliberation, and you act off the best information you have at the time in choosing your act, then your act is moral.
 
#81
#81
T-TownVol said:
I am for FAR LESS government involvement in our lives and pocket book, but having been a foster family for three years in FL and then going throught the adoption system, the things that some of the human trash, that father and birth children, put these kids through is not something that we as a nation can ignore. Call me a hypocrite all you want, but come with me to a group foster home and listen to the stories of what these kids have been through and it will change you mind on your idea of trusting people in THIS matter.
Click to expand...

This is kind of the point. You are going to get this sort of thing either way. Government has a heavy hand in the issue and **** is still broken.
 
#83
#83
nbakerld said:
This is kind of the point. You are going to get this sort of thing either way. Government has a heavy hand in the issue and **** is still broken.
Click to expand...

It is broken because some people are scum, plain and simple.
 
#85
#85
T-TownVol said:
Well played.
Click to expand...

Yeah, even if I'd gone through the process, I fail to see the point you are making. My stance is that government's intentions are good, but their bureaucracy makes a disincentive for good parents to adopt, and I'm not sure they're accomplishing anything good.

Just cause they're doing "something" doesn't mean they are doing any good.
 
#86
#86
therealUT said:
The government is only a corporation of individuals. If your premise is that you cannot trust individuals to do the right thing then how do you trust a group of individuals to do the right thing?
Click to expand...

Because we have some say in what happens with government. Semantic arguments aside government people are still employees that can* be held accountable. When you go full-blown laissez faire with this you've got no say whatsoever, which is to say the child has no say whatsoever or even someone acting on their behalf. This isn't the drug argument...these are living children.

*I really don't want to get into a discussion of to what extent government employees are accountable. This is a "something vs nothing" viewpoint. The something doesn't have to be good to still be better than nothing.
 
#87
#87
T-TownVol said:
It is broken because some people are scum, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

If this is plain and simple, then why does it make a difference if the child is raised by their biological parents or by someone else?

Do you think the state should conduct home inspections for every female that becomes pregnant? Upon finding that this person is not as fit as would be ideal, do you think the state should give her child to another home that has been deemed fit?
 
#89
#89
hndog609 said:
Because we have some say in what happens with government. Semantic arguments aside government people are still employees that can* be held accountable. When you go full-blown laissez faire with this you've got no say whatsoever, which is to say the child has no say whatsoever or even someone acting on their behalf. This isn't the drug argument...these are living children.

*I really don't want to get into a discussion of to what extent government employees are accountable. This is a "something vs nothing" viewpoint. The something doesn't have to be good to still be better than nothing.
Click to expand...

Why should I have a say in the life of another person's child?
 
#92
#92
nbakerld said:
And government can't change that. In fact, they tend to encourage it, IMO.
Click to expand...

My point is that if they work for the government they will be monitered and prosecuted if fould to be said scum. The case workers are not "encouraged" to be scum.
You and Trut are out in left field on this one. Makeing up situations that are, like Trut admitted, are in a vacum. But, that is what Trut is all about on VN.
 
Last edited:
#94
#94
T-TownVol said:
My point is that if they work for the government they will be monitered and prosecuted if fould to be said scum. The case workers are not "encouraged" to be scum.
You and Trut are out in left field on this one. Makeing up situations that are, like Trut admitted, are in a vacum.
Click to expand...

Why can't this be done by the adoption agency?

Look at it this way...you are setting a precedent for government workers to enter all homes to "monitor" conditions. Just because somebody didn't biologically acquire the child doesn't mean they are any more likely to treat it poorly.

If you're really worried about protecting children we should send government workers into every home.
 
#95
#95
hndog609 said:
Because the question at hand isn't "the other person"...it IS about the child.
Click to expand...

Why should I have a say?

Who is qualified to pick qualified persons to oversee these processes? Who is qualified to pick the qualified persons who pick the qualified persons?

Half the electorate in America is below average; yet, they have as much say in how the government conducts its business as those who are above average.
 
#96
#96
nbakerld said:
Why can't this be done by the adoption agency?
Look at it this way...you are setting a precedent for government workers to enter all homes to "monitor" conditions. Just because somebody didn't biologically acquire the child doesn't mean they are any more likely to treat it poorly.

If you're really worried about protecting children we should send government workers into every home.
Click to expand...

It can.....I made that point....all these women had to do was contact an attorney and it could have been done legally......that is not what you and Trut want to argue
 
#97
#97
therealUT said:
Why should I have a say?

Who is qualified to pick qualified persons to oversee these processes? Who is qualified to pick the qualified persons who pick the qualified persons?

Half the electorate in America is below average; yet, they have as much say in how the government conducts its business as those who are above average.
Click to expand...


You just answered your own question.
 
#98
#98
T-TownVol said:
It can.....I made that point....all these women had to do was contact an attorney and it could have been done legally......that is not what you and Trut want to argue
Click to expand...

But you ignored the real question and point of my post...

...if protecting children is the point, why don't you support case-workers going into every home and monitoring conditions? A biological parent isn't inherently good, just like an adoptive parent isn't inherently good. Why do you treat them differently?
 
#99
#99
nbakerld said:
But you ignored the real question and point of my post...

...if protecting children is the point, why don't you support case-workers going into every home and monitoring conditions? A biological parent isn't inherently good, just like an adoptive parent isn't inherently good. Why do you treat them differently?
Click to expand...

because the parents have rights agains the government just entering their home, there must be a reason.......as for the parents wanting to adopt, we invite the scrutiny
(by the way, I did not ignore it, it is just common sense that I assummed you could assertain yourself)
 
#100
#100
T-TownVol said:
because the parents have rights agains the government just entering their home, there must be a reason.......as for the parents wanting to adopt, we invite the scrutiny
Click to expand...

You've just described current circumstances, you haven't offered reasoning as to why it's right or useful.

Why do biological parents have rights adoptive parents do not have? Government has a right to invade your privacy if biology denied you children, but you're protected if you had the good fortune to shoot live rounds? I think in both cases they have to show probable cause.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top