| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Moral Dillemas
Is it appropriate in our society to raise our children in a way that
conditions them to be moral? If so, what then is the likely result of that child when faced in competition with another who is not moral (or less moral)? Clearly current law provides a vehicle to protect mothers and children from dangerous men or environments. Unfortunately there seems to be little concern for abuse of the vehicle or the result of men loosing out on their own children's lives simply based on the whim of a woman. The bar is indeed low for removing fathers from their children. If a woman takes advantage of these protections to unduly deprive children of their fathers, and we agree it is immoral, then how can the man ever hope for equity to be restored if he remains moral? Surely this is within the realm of wishful thinking. Therefore, is it not more appropriate in a society where individuals will face immoral competitors, to raise our children without the traditional sense of morality and to allow, even encourage them to be without any moral restriction whatsoever? Are we really doing the best thing for our kids? Preparing them for a moral world which does not exist surely must be to their detriment .. /Meldon Fens. |
Moral Dillemas
Meldon Fens wrote:
Is it appropriate in our society to raise our children in a way that conditions them to be moral? If so, what then is the likely result of that child when faced in competition with another who is not moral (or less moral)? Define "moral." Likewise "less moral." Clearly current law provides a vehicle to protect mothers and children from dangerous men or environments. Unfortunately there seems to be little concern for abuse of the vehicle or the result of men loosing out on their own children's lives simply based on the whim of a woman. The bar is indeed low for removing fathers from their children. Perhaps where you are. Some states are much more egalitarian. If a woman takes advantage of these protections to unduly deprive children of their fathers, and we agree it is immoral, then how can the man ever hope for equity to be restored if he remains moral? Surely this is within the realm of wishful thinking. Therefore, is it not more appropriate in a society where individuals will face immoral competitors, to raise our children without the traditional sense of morality and to allow, even encourage them to be without any moral restriction whatsoever? Are we really doing the best thing for our kids? Preparing them for a moral world which does not exist surely must be to their detriment. Sounds like you're generalizing from a specific incident, which is almost always dangerous... dafydd -- David Barr - dafydd2277 at yahoo dot com The only thing worse than planning for disaster is explaining why you didn't. --unknown |
Moral Dillemas
Excellent point and one I've seen firsthand. Custodial parents gain some
kind of "false confidence" based on the "systems" acquiescence to them. "Meldon Fens" wrote in message ... Is it appropriate in our society to raise our children in a way that conditions them to be moral? If so, what then is the likely result of that child when faced in competition with another who is not moral (or less moral)? Clearly current law provides a vehicle to protect mothers and children from dangerous men or environments. Unfortunately there seems to be little concern for abuse of the vehicle or the result of men loosing out on their own children's lives simply based on the whim of a woman. The bar is indeed low for removing fathers from their children. If a woman takes advantage of these protections to unduly deprive children of their fathers, and we agree it is immoral, then how can the man ever hope for equity to be restored if he remains moral? Surely this is within the realm of wishful thinking. Therefore, is it not more appropriate in a society where individuals will face immoral competitors, to raise our children without the traditional sense of morality and to allow, even encourage them to be without any moral restriction whatsoever? Are we really doing the best thing for our kids? Preparing them for a moral world which does not exist surely must be to their detriment . /Meldon Fens. |
Moral Dillemas
"Meldon Fens" wrote in message ... Clearly current law provides a vehicle to protect mothers and children from dangerous men or environments. Unfortunately there seems to be little concern for abuse of the vehicle or the result of men loosing out on their own children's lives simply based on the whim of a woman. The bar is indeed low for removing fathers from their children. check out your local father's rights organization - there's one in Dallas called "Fathers for Equal Rights" for instance. as someone who has done supervised visitations at a non-profit agency, i can report there's been pretty much the same percentage of mothers being supervised as fathers, that is, in Dallas. it could be that fathers in Dallas are more politically active when it comes to their rights --- nothing in the Texas Family Code states that mothers win and fathers lose - in black & white, it's supposed to be in the best interest of the child. however, it's a cultural left-over assuming that Daddy goes to the office and Mommy stays home to take care of the kids --- society has changed since the '50's - hasn't it? i always wondered how come there's so many other members of society who've stood up for their rights - take blacks and women for one. but for some reason the Men's Movement hasn't gotten much of anywhere. why? dC |
Moral Dillemas
|
Moral Dillemas
dC wrote in message ... "Meldon Fens" wrote in message ... Clearly current law provides a vehicle to protect mothers and children from dangerous men or environments. Unfortunately there seems to be little concern for abuse of the vehicle or the result of men loosing out on their own children's lives simply based on the whim of a woman. The bar is indeed low for removing fathers from their children. check out your local father's rights organization - there's one in Dallas called "Fathers for Equal Rights" for instance. as someone who has done supervised visitations at a non-profit agency, i can report there's been pretty much the same percentage of mothers being supervised as fathers, that is, in Dallas. it could be that fathers in Dallas are more politically active when it comes to their rights --- nothing in the Texas Family Code states that mothers win and fathers lose - in black & white, it's supposed to be in the best interest of the child. however, it's a cultural left-over assuming that Daddy goes to the office and Mommy stays home to take care of the kids --- society has changed since the '50's - hasn't it? i always wondered how come there's so many other members of society who've stood up for their rights - take blacks and women for one. but for some reason the Men's Movement hasn't gotten much of anywhere. why? dC It's a significant question and one I have pondered. I would suggest that inequity by default is more profitable than fairness by default. I think there is a theory of creative destructionism which more or less states that when things don't work, it generates economic activity. Similar principles such as planned obsolescence may be applicable since if cars lasted 40 years, not only could the general population not afford to buy them, but there would be less cars sold overall. Simply put, it's economically based as is the society we live in. I suppose we should not be surprised that the welfare of generations of children are based on how much money a lawyer can make from the process. |
Moral Dillemas
E. Barry Bruyea wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:54:47 GMT, (David Barr) wrote: Meldon Fens wrote: Is it appropriate in our society to raise our children in a way that conditions them to be moral? If so, what then is the likely result of that child when faced in competition with another who is not moral (or less moral)? Define "moral." Likewise "less moral." Clearly current law provides a vehicle to protect mothers and children from dangerous men or environments. Unfortunately there seems to be little concern for abuse of the vehicle or the result of men loosing out on their own children's lives simply based on the whim of a woman. The bar is indeed low for removing fathers from their children. Perhaps where you are. Some states are much more egalitarian. If a woman takes advantage of these protections to unduly deprive children of their fathers, and we agree it is immoral, then how can the man ever hope for equity to be restored if he remains moral? Surely this is within the realm of wishful thinking. Therefore, is it not more appropriate in a society where individuals will face immoral competitors, to raise our children without the traditional sense of morality and to allow, even encourage them to be without any moral restriction whatsoever? Are we really doing the best thing for our kids? Preparing them for a moral world which does not exist surely must be to their detriment. Sounds like you're generalizing from a specific incident, which is almost always dangerous... dafydd Morality is a shifting target that society has not yet learned how to accept. As a result, our society is no longer a democracy when it comes to how we live our lives; a new concept in the evolution of the democratic process. In matters moral, or ethical, we are now in the hands of an appointed Star Chamber. Not only is it appointed, but their is no system of sanction on the appointment of this 'Chamber' imbedded in our democracy, a gross oversight, not only on the part of our 'Fathers Of Confederation, but on the part of our 'Father' of our re-born Constitution. The net result is that we are now ruled strictly and singly from the office of the Prime Minister, who has not only controlled the legislative agenda but indirectly the moral and ethical agenda by simply doing nothing. It may go deeper than the politicians. The power of the corporation has reigned supreme in this society since and before its very discovery. Modern politics is completely dependant on large amounts of financial resources. "Corporation" and "financial resources" are primarily synonymous. |
Moral Dillemas
David Barr wrote in message ... Meldon Fens wrote: Is it appropriate in our society to raise our children in a way that conditions them to be moral? If so, what then is the likely result of that child when faced in competition with another who is not moral (or less moral)? Define "moral." Likewise "less moral." I'll assume this is rhetorical since it is already defined. Clearly current law provides a vehicle to protect mothers and children from dangerous men or environments. Unfortunately there seems to be little concern for abuse of the vehicle or the result of men loosing out on their own children's lives simply based on the whim of a woman. The bar is indeed low for removing fathers from their children. Perhaps where you are. Some states are much more egalitarian. If there are more than 26, you might have a point. Since there aren't, you don't. I'm obviosly speaking of states other than yours. Why redirect the converstation to those states that attempt to be fair? If a woman takes advantage of these protections to unduly deprive children of their fathers, and we agree it is immoral, then how can the man ever hope for equity to be restored if he remains moral? Surely this is within the realm of wishful thinking. Therefore, is it not more appropriate in a society where individuals will face immoral competitors, to raise our children without the traditional sense of morality and to allow, even encourage them to be without any moral restriction whatsoever? Are we really doing the best thing for our kids? Preparing them for a moral world which does not exist surely must be to their detriment. Sounds like you're generalizing from a specific incident, which is almost always dangerous... dafydd -- David Barr - dafydd2277 at yahoo dot com The only thing worse than planning for disaster is explaining why you didn't. --unknown How many times do you have to put a screwdriver in a power outlet to know there might be a problem? In my case I've seen it too many times to ignore. It's greater in scope than just the courts and that's what's really disconcerting. It is taking place in the hearts and minds of the population. In a recent case, a woman allowed a man to die while he was lodged in her windshield. She clearly made a choice between risk to herself (getting help for the man), and letting him die. Fortunately her gamble did not pay off. |
Moral Dillemas
"Meldon Fens" wrote in message ... i always wondered how come there's so many other members of society who've stood up for their rights - take blacks and women for one. but for some reason the Men's Movement hasn't gotten much of anywhere. why? dC It's a significant question and one I have pondered. I would suggest that inequity by default is more profitable than fairness by default. I think there is a theory of creative destructionism which more or less states that when things don't work, it generates economic activity. Jeesh, it's disturbing but it sounds like you nailed it! And just because I've done these Court ordered supervised visits --- it's my self-appointed mission to be there for kids, I am no fan of these attorneys who get their rocks off playing God - I can't get over how parent clients defer to attorneys instead of standing up for their rights. It makes me sick --- these attorneys charge more money to handle family law cases and do little to nothing to resolve the problem. What we're doing for our community is setting up a Parents Anonymous group - a support group for parents who have Any kind of issue as a parent - we want to empower our parents by educating and allowing them an open forum. also with Parents Anonymous we're required to also have a children's support group and we're more than happy to do that! I guess it's called Grassroots Organizing, huh? dC |
Moral Dillemas
Meldon Fens wrote:
E. Barry Bruyea wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:54:47 GMT, (David Barr) wrote: Meldon Fens wrote: Is it appropriate in our society to raise our children in a way that conditions them to be moral? If so, what then is the likely result of that child when faced in competition with another who is not moral (or less moral)? Define "moral." Likewise "less moral." Clearly current law provides a vehicle to protect mothers and children from dangerous men or environments. Unfortunately there seems to be little concern for abuse of the vehicle or the result of men loosing out on their own children's lives simply based on the whim of a woman. The bar is indeed low for removing fathers from their children. Perhaps where you are. Some states are much more egalitarian. If a woman takes advantage of these protections to unduly deprive children of their fathers, and we agree it is immoral, then how can the man ever hope for equity to be restored if he remains moral? Surely this is within the realm of wishful thinking. Therefore, is it not more appropriate in a society where individuals will face immoral competitors, to raise our children without the traditional sense of morality and to allow, even encourage them to be without any moral restriction whatsoever? Are we really doing the best thing for our kids? Preparing them for a moral world which does not exist surely must be to their detriment. Sounds like you're generalizing from a specific incident, which is almost always dangerous... dafydd Morality is a shifting target that society has not yet learned how to accept. As a result, our society is no longer a democracy when it comes to how we live our lives; a new concept in the evolution of the democratic process. In matters moral, or ethical, we are now in the hands of an appointed Star Chamber. Not only is it appointed, but their is no system of sanction on the appointment of this 'Chamber' imbedded in our democracy, a gross oversight, not only on the part of our 'Fathers Of Confederation, but on the part of our 'Father' of our re-born Constitution. The net result is that we are now ruled strictly and singly from the office of the Prime Minister, who has not only controlled the legislative agenda but indirectly the moral and ethical agenda by simply doing nothing. It may go deeper than the politicians. The power of the corporation has reigned supreme in this society since and before its very discovery. Modern politics is completely dependant on large amounts of financial resources. "Corporation" and "financial resources" are primarily synonymous. For various reasons, I don't endorse the demonization of business that goes on in some circles in the U.S. However, it IS interesting to see the differences between business law and family law. For example, it has been the practice for years in the U.S. for state legislatures to change divorce law, and retroactively apply the changes to existing marriages. There were people (like me) who got married at a time when no one would have dreamed of the no-fault divorce concept. Nevertheless, these people were retroactively subjected to no-fault when it was enacted. Such things don't happen in business law, where the notion of "grandfathering" existing practices is well-established. When anyone gets married, they are subjecting themselves a completely unpredictable set of conditions, and they can't even write a personal contract to protect themselves, because judges will over-rule prenuptial contracts if they cover the really important things like custody of children and payment of post-marital support. To take another example, when a business partnership is set up in Delaware, it continues to be subject to Delaware law, regardless of where the business is being conducted. The same is not true of marriages. A marriage that took place in Pennsylvania becomes subject to the divorce laws of Nevada if the couple moves to Nevada. The major reasons for the differences in treatment are that: (a) business is taken seriously in the U.S., whereas marriage is not; and (b) businesses have effective lobby groups, ready to spring into action if their interests are threatened. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:06 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com