What in the world is wrong with people?

[percysunshine]

The Huffington Post? Oops...recently purchased Huffington Post....

 

[lilbug]

Things used to happen like this twenty, thirty, or forty years ago.

It just wasn't in the media, wasn't reported, wasn't talked about...because people wanted to stay out of other people's business even more so.

I think that's true in part. I think a lot of stuff like this was handled internallythen too.. i.e., a few family members/friends got together and arranged a little ass kicking for the abuser.

 

[midcan5]

This stuff is happening as we write...

5 Children Die A Day from Abuse. National Child Abuse Statistics | Childhelp

Every 13 seconds a child is abused. » Child Abuse Stats

But to answer my own question since no one else would tackle it: I love questions that force either hyperbole or confusion, remove these people from society and how do you judge them? It is like our neighbors whose religion killed many of their children because Gawd was in control, not man, not medicine. How do you judge them? Blame their gawd but allow the kids to die? Interfere? What gives you that right? Any guesses?

So what do you judge them on, religion, law, what exactly? You only judge them because you live in a society governed by politics aka government. If we lived in a jungle how would we judge them? Why would we care. Could we say they can do as they please, so what. Politics viewed from high up, is not party, it is not ideology, it is how we work / live in the complexity of community together, it is what we do to make the world better - and sure as hell that ain't what our elected fools do today is not making the world better.

Most here will never think, never see, never live, but for the few who do, check out Derrick Jensen's books, especially "A Language Older Than Words" and "The Culture of Make Believe."


"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Grace]

This stuff is happening as we write...

5 Children Die A Day from Abuse. National Child Abuse Statistics | Childhelp

Every 13 seconds a child is abused. » Child Abuse Stats

But to answer my own question since no one else would tackle it: I love questions that force either hyperbole or confusion, remove these people from society and how do you judge them? It is like our neighbors whose religion killed many of their children because Gawd was in control, not man, not medicine. How do you judge them? Blame their gawd but allow the kids to die? Interfere? What gives you that right? Any guesses?

So what do you judge them on, religion, law, what exactly? You only judge them because you live in a society governed by politics aka government. If we lived in a jungle how would we judge them? Why would we care. Could we say they can do as they please, so what. Politics viewed from high up, is not party, it is not ideology, it is how we work / live in the complexity of community together, it is what we do to make the world better - and sure as hell that ain't what our elected fools do today is not making the world better.

Most here will never think, never see, never live, but for the few who do, check out Derrick Jensen's books, especially "A Language Older Than Words" and "The Culture of Make Believe."


"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." Mahatma Gandhi

People whose religion forbids meds and whatnot do not force those children to eat dog shit.

 

[Patrick2]

This stuff is happening as we write...

5 Children Die A Day from Abuse. National Child Abuse Statistics | Childhelp

Every 13 seconds a child is abused. » Child Abuse Stats

But to answer my own question since no one else would tackle it: I love questions that force either hyperbole or confusion, remove these people from society and how do you judge them? It is like our neighbors whose religion killed many of their children because Gawd was in control, not man, not medicine. How do you judge them? Blame their gawd but allow the kids to die? Interfere? What gives you that right? Any guesses?

So what do you judge them on, religion, law, what exactly? You only judge them because you live in a society governed by politics aka government. If we lived in a jungle how would we judge them? Why would we care. Could we say they can do as they please, so what. Politics viewed from high up, is not party, it is not ideology, it is how we work / live in the complexity of community together, it is what we do to make the world better - and sure as hell that ain't what our elected fools do today is not making the world better.

Most here will never think, never see, never live, but for the few who do, check out Derrick Jensen's books, especially "A Language Older Than Words" and "The Culture of Make Believe."


"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." Mahatma Gandhi

A real clear exposition of the leftwing mentality: government is everything, politics is everything, individual virtue and morality, religion, family, and civil institutions are all nothing.

 

[lilbug]

This stuff is happening as we write...

5 Children Die A Day from Abuse. National Child Abuse Statistics | Childhelp

Every 13 seconds a child is abused. » Child Abuse Stats

But to answer my own question since no one else would tackle it: I love questions that force either hyperbole or confusion, remove these people from society and how do you judge them? It is like our neighbors whose religion killed many of their children because Gawd was in control, not man, not medicine. How do you judge them? Blame their gawd but allow the kids to die? Interfere? What gives you that right? Any guesses?

So what do you judge them on, religion, law, what exactly? You only judge them because you live in a society governed by politics aka government. If we lived in a jungle how would we judge them? Why would we care. Could we say they can do as they please, so what. Politics viewed from high up, is not party, it is not ideology, it is how we work / live in the complexity of community together, it is what we do to make the world better - and sure as hell that ain't what our elected fools do today is not making the world better.

Most here will never think, never see, never live, but for the few who do, check out Derrick Jensen's books, especially "A Language Older Than Words" and "The Culture of Make Believe."


"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." Mahatma Gandhi

Yeah, I don't think the two can be compared. Folks who refuse meds, because of their religion, I think, feel they are doing what's best for the child, however, misguided they might be, Here the intent was to purposefully cause harm...and the rest of that I couldn't wrap my head enough to reply about.

 

[DiAnna]

Intellectually I know that children are being abused every day, but if I really thought about it I'd go mad. This case made my stomach turn. If it turns out that there were adults outside the home that knew what this poor girl was being put through and did nothing, I hope they are criminally charged as co-conspirator's in this child's death.

The depravity of our species still has the capacity to shock me.

 

[MaggieMae]

Things used to happen like this twenty, thirty, or forty years ago.

It just wasn't in the media, wasn't reported, wasn't talked about...because people wanted to stay out of other people's business even more so.

That's probably partially true, but I don't believe that 20-30-40 years ago parents in general thought their children were such a burden that they had to torture them, even if they were burdened with too many to feed. Somehow people learned to deal with their emotions and weren't so quick to fly into rages, often with disastrous results. It's a sign of the times, in my opinion.

 

[midcan5]

'One of the laws of logic is a provable negative.'

Waaaaaaah!

Secondly, only lunatics and illogical buffoons ask that a negative be proven.

Take a gander and see how stupid that makes you look for asking: Argument from ignorance: "Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). ...."

Just because you toss some random thought out there does not make it stand true.

Lazy idiot.

Au contraire - I love how the right name calls like children do - my point was all things are political (in my use of the term) and since that was disputed I asked that you prove that all things are not political but instead of a debate, I get a link that makes a claim I didn't make. I didn't say all things are political because it could not be dis-proven, I argued it just is, and if you think it isn't give me an example of a non-political community? I admit a bit of stretch in this claim as my point is actions in a society are political because they exist in a particular realm: life in the community. Communities form their own rules and thus all communities are political.

"Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction." You Can Prove a Negative

Yeah, I don't think the two can be compared. Folks who refuse meds, because of their religion, I think, feel they are doing what's best for the child, however, misguided they might be, Here the intent was to purposefully cause harm...and the rest of that I couldn't wrap my head enough to reply about.

You are assuming the intention is harm, if you asked them it would be discipline. Intention can be a tricky thing, humans have a wonderful facility for justification.

Intellectually I know that children are being abused every day, but if I really thought about it I'd go mad. This case made my stomach turn. If it turns out that there were adults outside the home that knew what this poor girl was being put through and did nothing, I hope they are criminally charged as co-conspirator's in this child's death.

The depravity of our species still has the capacity to shock me.

I agree in part, intellectually we know lots of things that are going on are bad, consider our air, our environment, our reckless use of land, our destruction of nature and living things and then consider too our lack of healthcare for the needy, for the children? Consider hunger and poverty in America, or our piss poor too expensive education. One ignores all these things to keep sane, but as the nuns used to teach, there are sins of commission and omission. Do we excuse omission because it is the tougher wrong. This is where politics enters the frame. See Derrick Jensen's writings sometime.

 

[Si modo]

'One of the laws of logic is a provable negative.'

Waaaaaaah!

Secondly, only lunatics and illogical buffoons ask that a negative be proven.

Take a gander and see how stupid that makes you look for asking: Argument from ignorance: "Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). ...."

Just because you toss some random thought out there does not make it stand true.

Lazy idiot.

Au contraire - I love how the right name calls like children do - my point was all things are political (in my use of the term) and since that was disputed I asked that you prove that all things are not political but instead of a debate, I get a link that makes a claim I didn't make. I didn't say all things are political because it could not be dis-proven, I argued it just is, and if you think it isn't give me an example of a non-political community? I admit a bit of stretch in this claim as my point is actions in a society are political because they exist in a particular realm: life in the community. Communities form their own rules and thus all communities are political.

"Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction." You Can Prove a Negative

Obviously, you didn't read a thing. I explained the fallacy and you are still doing it.

Just because you toss a random thought out there, it does not stand as true until someone proves it wrong.

It also involves an attempt to shift a burden.






Midcan is an idiot. Using your rationale, that stands as true until it is proven not to be true.

 

[The Gadfly]

This stuff is happening as we write...

5 Children Die A Day from Abuse. National Child Abuse Statistics | Childhelp

Every 13 seconds a child is abused. » Child Abuse Stats

But to answer my own question since no one else would tackle it: I love questions that force either hyperbole or confusion, remove these people from society and how do you judge them? It is like our neighbors whose religion killed many of their children because Gawd was in control, not man, not medicine. How do you judge them? Blame their gawd but allow the kids to die? Interfere? What gives you that right? Any guesses?

So what do you judge them on, religion, law, what exactly? You only judge them because you live in a society governed by politics aka government. If we lived in a jungle how would we judge them? Why would we care. Could we say they can do as they please, so what. Politics viewed from high up, is not party, it is not ideology, it is how we work / live in the complexity of community together, it is what we do to make the world better - and sure as hell that ain't what our elected fools do today is not making the world better.

Most here will never think, never see, never live, but for the few who do, check out Derrick Jensen's books, especially "A Language Older Than Words" and "The Culture of Make Believe."


"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." Mahatma Gandhi

All things are political, ONLY to the extent that you WANT government (at whatever level, be it local, state or national), to decide all things. Now, if you want government to be all things to all people, if you want government to be the end-all and be-all of human existence (like most liberals and some authoritarian conservatives do) that proposition of yours has some truth to it. If on the other hand, you believe that some things are best handled by individual responsibility and initiative, if you believe that people can, do , and will handle some of life's problems without Big Brother doing it for them, then NO, everything is NOT necessarily political. The difference between you and me, is that you believe that because some adults need to be confined to the playpen, ALL of us need to be similarly restrained; I believe otherwise.You want government to make life "fair". I understand that life is inherently unfair, and trying to make it otherwise is both an exercise in futility, AND destructive to the principles of individual liberty and individual responsibility.

 

[midcan5]

.... Midcan is an idiot. Using your rationale, that stands as true until it is proven not to be true.

We'd have to know what an idiot is, in this case I define it as someone who challenges Si modo's right wing thinking. So it is true in this context as name calling is the best you can do, you can't counter my point so you name call. Yes it is true, and I can't counter it, because then I'd have to agree with you and then we would both be wrong.

All things are political, ONLY to the extent that you WANT government (at whatever level, be it local, state or national), to decide all things. Now, if you want government to be all things to all people, if you want government to be the end-all and be-all of human existence (like most liberals and some authoritarian conservatives do) that proposition of yours has some truth to it. If on the other hand, you believe that some things are best handled by individual responsibility and initiative, if you believe that people can, do , and will handle some of life's problems without Big Brother doing it for them, then NO, everything is NOT necessarily political. The difference between you and me, is that you believe that because some adults need to be confined to the playpen, ALL of us need to be similarly restrained; I believe otherwise.You want government to make life "fair". I understand that life is inherently unfair, and trying to make it otherwise is both an exercise in futility, AND destructive to the principles of individual liberty and individual responsibility.

You are missing the point, nothing happens outside community and community is political. Government is just a word for the process that holds the diverse interests of people in community together, sets boundaries, and resolves disputes. Without law backed by government we'd have chaos. Sometimes we still do. No one lives in a vacuum of freedom, I would argue that freedom is a meaningless concept outside of context. The odd idea that government is separate from us is bizarre, move to another nation and see if you can't tell the difference. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html

"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer


"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments." Robert Locke The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right

And see my thought experiment in link above.

 

[Annie]

Intellectually I know that children are being abused every day, but if I really thought about it I'd go mad. This case made my stomach turn. If it turns out that there were adults outside the home that knew what this poor girl was being put through and did nothing, I hope they are criminally charged as co-conspirator's in this child's death.

The depravity of our species still has the capacity to shock me.

From the report on the local news, sounds like the little girl was seriously underweight, by at least 20 pounds. If that was coupled with bruises, which sounds likely, the school and pediatrician would certainly be of interest one would think.

From what the neighbors were saying, hard to call. The cousin's husband was loud and they didn't think he was ok with the children. I get that. It's also not something that DCFS or CPS can really act on. What they could have done though is called the police. The police can make well person checks and refer suspected abuse-physical and psychological to DCFS. They also have county services that they can refer the case to. Most police departments around here have their own social workers on staff, the county has many more. Any or all of those: police, social workers, etc., could have started looking into the case, including contacting neighbors, school, doctor.