A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Moral Dillemas



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 3rd 03, 10:19 PM
Meldon Fens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #2  
Old July 4th 03, 12:54 AM
David Barr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #3  
Old July 5th 03, 05:57 AM
Freedom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.






  #4  
Old July 5th 03, 11:28 PM
dC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #6  
Old July 8th 03, 05:34 AM
Meldon Fens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #7  
Old July 8th 03, 05:40 AM
Meldon Fens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #8  
Old July 8th 03, 06:00 AM
Meldon Fens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #9  
Old July 8th 03, 06:28 AM
dC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #10  
Old July 8th 03, 11:50 AM
Kenneth S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Parenting Without Punishing" Chris General 328 July 1st 04 05:59 AM
"Parenting Without Punishing" Chris Spanking 322 July 1st 04 05:59 AM
Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ... Kane used "smelly-cunt" and his mother approved! Kane General 25 February 27th 04 05:02 PM
Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ... Kane used "smelly-cunt" and his mother approved! Kane Spanking 22 February 27th 04 05:02 PM
| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 142 November 16th 03 08:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.