Teaching biblical truth could get your kids taken away

[OnePercenter]

So teaching your kids to hate other people ad believe in things that simply have no evidence is somehow good in your mind? Man, you're really screwed up.

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

What about socialist ideals? ie; funding tax-based services.

 

[ding]

So teaching your kids to hate other people ad believe in things that simply have no evidence is somehow good in your mind? Man, you're really screwed up.

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

What about socialist ideals? ie; funding tax-based services.

They are eventually corrupted by the inevitable march of socialism. Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism can not stand up to communism. It is only a matter of time and crisis.

 

[JoeB131]

You are confusing unemployment insurance with welfare. The issue with welfare is that it isn't just one program anymore, and the design of it discourages people from getting off it.

Unemployment is is welfare for middle class white people... kind of like social security.

The real problem is that after 30 years of shifting the wealth from the working class to the investor class, we are all welfare recipients now. Most people who are using programs like Medicaid, SNAP and Section 8 have jobs. Jobs that maybe paid a living wage 30 years ago, but not so much now.

 

[JoeB131]

I'd be interested in a link to that. Did it happen here in America?

Yes, it did.

http://nypost.com/2016/04/05/dad-who-named-kid-hitler-is-tired-of-being-treated-like-garbage/

 

[hadit]

I'd be interested in a link to that. Did it happen here in America?

Yes, it did.

http://nypost.com/2016/04/05/dad-who-named-kid-hitler-is-tired-of-being-treated-like-garbage/

Interesting. You said they "took his kid because they found that they were teaching them white supremacy." In your link, the authorities claim it happened because there was violence in the home, something that he got into trouble for again later on. Basically, we don't have enough of the story to state definitively if this is a case of bureaucratic overreach or a violent individual trying to gain sympathy for his cause.

But, that still doesn't answer the question as to whether you support a family's children being taken from them because of an ideology the parents hold.

 

[JoeB131]

Interesting. You said they "took his kid because they found that they were teaching them white supremacy." In your link, the authorities claim it happened because there was violence in the home, something that he got into trouble for again later on. Basically, we don't have enough of the story to state definitively if this is a case of bureaucratic overreach or a violent individual trying to gain sympathy for his cause.

What put these meth-Nazis on the government's radar was the Hitler Cake.

But, that still doesn't answer the question as to whether you support a family's children being taken from them because of an ideology the parents hold.

Yes, absolutely. If they are teaching kids to hate, they are creating problems down the road.

 

[hadit]

Interesting. You said they "took his kid because they found that they were teaching them white supremacy." In your link, the authorities claim it happened because there was violence in the home, something that he got into trouble for again later on. Basically, we don't have enough of the story to state definitively if this is a case of bureaucratic overreach or a violent individual trying to gain sympathy for his cause.

What put these meth-Nazis on the government's radar was the Hitler Cake.

But, that still doesn't answer the question as to whether you support a family's children being taken from them because of an ideology the parents hold.

Yes, absolutely. If they are teaching kids to hate, they are creating problems down the road.

Do you then agree that children growing up learning to hate LEO should be taken from their parents? A traffic stop in which a dad cusses out a cop triggers investigations like this? Should a black or white supremacist automatically lose their children if they participate in a racist protest?

Just where do you draw the line, and should you be the defining authority of what constitutes hate?

 

[JoeB131]

Do you then agree that children growing up learning to hate LEO should be taken from their parents? A traffic stop in which a dad cusses out a cop triggers investigations like this? Should a black or white supremacist automatically lose their children if they participate in a racist protest?

When LEO's routinely shoot black kids in the back and suffer no legal consequences for it, I think that any fear that the community has for them is kind of justified.

Just where do you draw the line, and should you be the defining authority of what constitutes hate?

Better than making sad ass excuses for it with false equivlencies...

 

[hadit]

Do you then agree that children growing up learning to hate LEO should be taken from their parents? A traffic stop in which a dad cusses out a cop triggers investigations like this? Should a black or white supremacist automatically lose their children if they participate in a racist protest?

When LEO's routinely shoot black kids in the back and suffer no legal consequences for it, I think that any fear that the community has for them is kind of justified.

Now you're equivocating. First you say that parents who teach their kids to hate should lose their kids, now you're saying some hate is justified. That's where I was headed with this. Doing this just gives the entrenched bureaucracy more power over families, power ripe for abuse.

Just where do you draw the line, and should you be the defining authority of what constitutes hate?

Better than making sad ass excuses for it with false equivlencies...

Tell you what, I'll go along with it as long as I get to define hate.

 

[Dragonlady]

I would like to say that the OP is a lie. Your children will NOT be taken away from you in Ontario if you believe being transgendered is false. Children's Aid dont have the resources to deal with the children of drug addicts or those who are physically or sexually abused.

I live in Ontario and Wynne may be widely reviled for her economic failings and hated because of the new sex Ed program, but I wouldn't have even known about this so-called danger if I hadn't read it here.

 

[OnePercenter]

So teaching your kids to hate other people ad believe in things that simply have no evidence is somehow good in your mind? Man, you're really screwed up.

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

What about socialist ideals? ie; funding tax-based services.

They are eventually corrupted by the inevitable march of socialism. Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism can not stand up to communism. It is only a matter of time and crisis.

The 'inevitable march of Socialism' that hasn't occurred even though taxed based services have been around for centuries. You suffer from paranoia over reason caused by ignorance.

 

[JoeB131]

Now you're equivocating. First you say that parents who teach their kids to hate should lose their kids, now you're saying some hate is justified. That's where I was headed with this. Doing this just gives the entrenched bureaucracy more power over families, power ripe for abuse.

No, i'm just not defining hate the way you are. Black families letting their kids know, that cop might shoot you for no good reason isn't hate, it's actually a fairly sound life hack. Now, if they were teaching them to shoot cops, you might have a point here.

Now, if we started holding cops accountable when they shoot kids in the back or when they are lying on the ground, you might have a point.

Tell you what, I'll go along with it as long as I get to define hate.

Absolutely. I think you should totally advocate for Nazi meth-heads to keep their kids. Let me know how much support you get for that, 'kay?

 

[hadit]

Now you're equivocating. First you say that parents who teach their kids to hate should lose their kids, now you're saying some hate is justified. That's where I was headed with this. Doing this just gives the entrenched bureaucracy more power over families, power ripe for abuse.

No, i'm just not defining hate the way you are. Black families letting their kids know, that cop might shoot you for no good reason isn't hate, it's actually a fairly sound life hack. Now, if they were teaching them to shoot cops, you might have a point here.

Was this family teaching their kids to shoot anyone? Obviously, their ideology has been rejected by civil society, but to automatically pull kids from an otherwise stable home where they are not being abused raises big time red flags.

Now, if we started holding cops accountable when they shoot kids in the back or when they are lying on the ground, you might have a point.

Tell you what, I'll go along with it as long as I get to define hate.

Absolutely. I think you should totally advocate for Nazi meth-heads to keep their kids. Let me know how much support you get for that, 'kay?

I would advocate for everyone to keep their kids unless those kids are being abused. If, however, either the parents or the kids indulge in violent behavior, they need to face consequences.

The bottom line is that we do NOT want to give the government power to pull kids from homes just because the parents have a belief system that angers an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat.

 

[JoeB131]

Was this family teaching their kids to shoot anyone? Obviously, their ideology has been rejected by civil society, but to automatically pull kids from an otherwise stable home where they are not being abused raises big time red flags.

given the propensity of Neo-Nazi groups to use violence to achieve their ends, it was a good bet these kids were being taught some awful stuff.

I would advocate for everyone to keep their kids unless those kids are being abused. If, however, either the parents or the kids indulge in violent behavior, they need to face consequences.

I agree. Teaching kids to hate is abuse.

The bottom line is that we do NOT want to give the government power to pull kids from homes just because the parents have a belief system that angers an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat.

There was a whole appeals process these people could go through to get those kids back.

Some reason they didn't think these people were any more fit to raise children than Feral Wolves.

 

[hadit]

Was this family teaching their kids to shoot anyone? Obviously, their ideology has been rejected by civil society, but to automatically pull kids from an otherwise stable home where they are not being abused raises big time red flags.

given the propensity of Neo-Nazi groups to use violence to achieve their ends, it was a good bet these kids were being taught some awful stuff.

"It was a good bet" is flimsy grounds to uproot children's lives. Now again, there apparently were at least allegations of violence in the home. That's a reason to take action, but without that, not really.

I would advocate for everyone to keep their kids unless those kids are being abused. If, however, either the parents or the kids indulge in violent behavior, they need to face consequences.

I agree. Teaching kids to hate is abuse.

There are a lot of kids being taught to hate conservatives, to hate cops, to hate authority. Are they being abused? You don't want to say so, but when a teenager wraps a scarf around his head and throws rocks at cops, he's displaying hate that had to come from somewhere. Are you willing to be safe more than sorry and take those kids out of their homes?

The bottom line is that we do NOT want to give the government power to pull kids from homes just because the parents have a belief system that angers an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat.

There was a whole appeals process these people could go through to get those kids back.

Some reason they didn't think these people were any more fit to raise children than Feral Wolves.

Right, take the kids away and make the parents jump through endless legal hoops for months trying to get them back, all the while traumatizing the kids who don't know from day to day where home is and who family is any more. In the case of these people, I don't know them and so I can't say they were fine upstanding parents, but if you give government the power to take children out of homes because the parents believe something the government does not approve of, how hard is it to imagine where that leads? Do you really want to open that door?

Think of the potential for abuse. Would you want, say, sheriff Arpaio to have influence on what children get taken out of homes because of their parents' beliefs?

 

[martybegan]

You are confusing unemployment insurance with welfare. The issue with welfare is that it isn't just one program anymore, and the design of it discourages people from getting off it.

Unemployment is is welfare for middle class white people... kind of like social security.

The real problem is that after 30 years of shifting the wealth from the working class to the investor class, we are all welfare recipients now. Most people who are using programs like Medicaid, SNAP and Section 8 have jobs. Jobs that maybe paid a living wage 30 years ago, but not so much now.

Unemployment also has a timer, and is funded separate from most general funds, unlike SS which has started dipping into it's IOU's.

Actually wealth has been shifted to the bureaucratic class, or are you ignoring the large increases in both government work rolls, and the compensation given to those on those work rolls? Also a lot of the $$ owed to them isn't coming due for a few decades, and there is no funding for most of it.

 

[JoeB131]

Unemployment also has a timer, and is funded separate from most general funds, unlike SS which has started dipping into it's IOU's.

except when you have a really bad recession, they extend the time limits and dip into general funds... which again- WELFARE FOR WHITE PEOPLE.

actually, what Unemployment does is preserve working skills. It keeps the engineer from taking the job at WalMart by allowing him some cushion to look for another engineering gig.

Actually wealth has been shifted to the bureaucratic class, or are you ignoring the large increases in both government work rolls, and the compensation given to those on those work rolls? Also a lot of the $$ owed to them isn't coming due for a few decades, and there is no funding for most of it.

The reason why there is no funding is because the One Percenters have spent the last 40 years getting stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests. so, yeah, when you get rid of all the good union jobs, there isn't enough revenue to pay pensions and salaries for government workers who managed to hang on to a middle class lifestyle.

So the Marty Solution to Arson is to pay the arsonist to burn down the neighbor's house, too!

 

[martybegan]

Unemployment also has a timer, and is funded separate from most general funds, unlike SS which has started dipping into it's IOU's.

except when you have a really bad recession, they extend the time limits and dip into general funds... which again- WELFARE FOR WHITE PEOPLE.

actually, what Unemployment does is preserve working skills. It keeps the engineer from taking the job at WalMart by allowing him some cushion to look for another engineering gig.

Actually wealth has been shifted to the bureaucratic class, or are you ignoring the large increases in both government work rolls, and the compensation given to those on those work rolls? Also a lot of the $$ owed to them isn't coming due for a few decades, and there is no funding for most of it.

The reason why there is no funding is because the One Percenters have spent the last 40 years getting stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests. so, yeah, when you get rid of all the good union jobs, there isn't enough revenue to pay pensions and salaries for government workers who managed to hang on to a middle class lifestyle.

So the Marty Solution to Arson is to pay the arsonist to burn down the neighbor's house, too!

So only white People collect unemployment? Who knew?

And the object is to get the person back to work. The object of Welfare appears to be to keep people on it, and keep cushy jobs you can't get fired from for government wonks.

No, my solution is to shrink government down to what it should be, and for each level to only care about what's in front of it.

 

[JoeB131]

So only white People collect unemployment? Who knew?

And the object is to get the person back to work. The object of Welfare appears to be to keep people on it, and keep cushy jobs you can't get fired from for government wonks.

No, my solution is to shrink government down to what it should be, and for each level to only care about what's in front of it.

Yes, yes, the Lib-retard-ian dream of having government that just does what you want and fuck those people. got it.

Again, most people on welfare are only on it for a few years. A lot of other programs like Medicaid, Section 8 and SNAP go to working folks who are being cheated by the one-percenters you love so much. But I don't think we are going to see you advocate for fair wage laws, because that's a little too "socialistic-y" for you.

 

[martybegan]

So only white People collect unemployment? Who knew?

And the object is to get the person back to work. The object of Welfare appears to be to keep people on it, and keep cushy jobs you can't get fired from for government wonks.

No, my solution is to shrink government down to what it should be, and for each level to only care about what's in front of it.

Yes, yes, the Lib-retard-ian dream of having government that just does what you want and fuck those people. got it.

Again, most people on welfare are only on it for a few years. A lot of other programs like Medicaid, Section 8 and SNAP go to working folks who are being cheated by the one-percenters you love so much. But I don't think we are going to see you advocate for fair wage laws, because that's a little too "socialistic-y" for you.

Always with your "us against them" mentality

But if figures you have that, because you have repeatedly blamed all the supposed failures in your life on others. You are like a petulant 2 year old that can't take any fault, it's always "those guys fault"