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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Dillemas
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Dillemas
Well Put.
Matthew "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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 04:02 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 04:02 PM |
| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 142 | November 16th 03 07:46 PM |