Sheriff recommends death be identified a homicide - Sagewalk

[Whooter]

Starving and abuse comes under basic human rights.  This applies to all humans big and small.

Yes, it does.  Which is why hiking or restraining them to death violates their rights.

Exactly



...

[Anne Bonney]

Starving and abuse comes under basic human rights.  This applies to all humans big and small.

Yes, it does.  Which is why hiking or restraining them to death violates their rights.

Exactly

So why were you saying that kids have no rights?

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Whooter]

Starving and abuse comes under basic human rights.  This applies to all humans big and small.

Yes, it does.  Which is why hiking or restraining them to death violates their rights.

Exactly

So why were you saying that kids have no rights?

They have basic human rights..just by the fact that they were born.... the right to not be abused and to be fed, the right to live.  But no rights within their classification as children.  Their parents decide for them until they become of age and can decide for themselves.  Adults have rights and in America we have civil rights etc. and the United Nations has developed a basic list of rights for children, but they are not law.



...

[Anne Bonney]

They have basic human rights..just by the fact that they were born.... the right to not be abused and to be fed, the right to live.  But no rights within their classification as children.

And where did I say that they did?

 

Their parents decide for them until they become of age and can decide for themselves.  Adults have rights and in America we have civil rights etc. and the United Nations has developed a basic list of rights for children, but they are not law.

By U.S. law, no one can starve, beat or hike to death a child.  It's abuse plain and simple.   Although I can understand why you wouldn't want them to have rights because that would interfere with the Program's ability to do what they do.

[Whooter]

Exactly, there are laws which protect adults from killing kids, abusing them etc.

But until they reach a certain age the kids need to rely on their parents.  we just cant allow kids to decide their own medical needs or put whatever they want in their bodies, choose a religion etc. until they are old enough.  Many states lowered the driving age to 16 and are now rethinking the whole thing and considering moving it up a year or two because too many kids are getting killed.  The denial of rights are not designed to suppress children but to protect them.  If you just open the flood gates and give kids rights more of them would die.

I know most people here would like to give kids the right to choose but you need to use your head a little and think of the consequences.



...

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Anne Bonney]

Exactly, there are laws which protect adults from killing kids, abusing them etc.

But until they reach a certain age the kids need to rely on their parents.  we just cant allow kids to decide their own medical needs or put whatever they want in their bodies, choose a religion etc. until they are old enough.  Many states lowered the driving age to 16 and are now rethinking the whole thing and considering moving it up a year or two because too many kids are getting killed.  The denial of rights are not designed to suppress children but to protect them.  If you just open the flood gates and give kids rights more of them would die.

I have no idea what all that has to do with the fact that you were stating that kids don't have any rights.

I know most people here would like to give kids the right to choose but you need to use your head a little and think of the consequences.

Depends on what the situation is.  IMO, they should be able to choose their own religion or lack thereof but that's not what we're talking about.  The kids in programs have a right to expect not to be abused and to notify authorities if they feel they are.  They have a right to proper nutrition and medical care at the facilities that are entrusted with their care, but they're obviously not getting  it.

Spin all you want, the fact remains that children do indeed have rights as much as you'd like it not to be so.

[Whooter]

Exactly, there are laws which protect adults from killing kids, abusing them etc.

But until they reach a certain age the kids need to rely on their parents.  we just cant allow kids to decide their own medical needs or put whatever they want in their bodies, choose a religion etc. until they are old enough.  Many states lowered the driving age to 16 and are now rethinking the whole thing and considering moving it up a year or two because too many kids are getting killed.  The denial of rights are not designed to suppress children but to protect them.  If you just open the flood gates and give kids rights more of them would die.

I know most people here would like to give kids the right to choose but you need to use your head a little and think of the consequences.



...

Whooter evading this question from page 14 of this thread:

Do you support children being escorted out of their home, without legal representation prior to, by strangers to a program?  Please discuss.

I am not answering because you are not being clear, Joel.  Legal representation for what?  Indicate the specific law you are referring to.  Is there a law against escorting kids in your state?  I would be happy to discuss the laws with you or a new law you wish to pass.

Are kids allowed to be escorted to public school by strangers in your state?  In our state kids are allowed to be escorted by strangers.  In fact some kids are forced into these yellow vehicles , crying, in broad daylight (wearing 30 lb backpacks) by their parents and then they smile and head off to work without even knowing who is driving the vehicle.

I think we sometimes put too much faith in the system and should rethink what we do and for what reason.  If kids were home-schooled there would be no need for escorts.



...

[Whooter]

Exactly, there are laws which protect adults from killing kids, abusing them etc.

But until they reach a certain age the kids need to rely on their parents.  we just cant allow kids to decide their own medical needs or put whatever they want in their bodies, choose a religion etc. until they are old enough.  Many states lowered the driving age to 16 and are now rethinking the whole thing and considering moving it up a year or two because too many kids are getting killed.  The denial of rights are not designed to suppress children but to protect them.  If you just open the flood gates and give kids rights more of them would die.

I have no idea what all that has to do with the fact that you were stating that kids don't have any rights.

I know most people here would like to give kids the right to choose but you need to use your head a little and think of the consequences.

Depends on what the situation is.  IMO, they should be able to choose their own religion or lack thereof but that's not what we're talking about.  The kids in programs have a right to expect not to be abused and to notify authorities if they feel they are.  They have a right to proper nutrition and medical care at the facilities that are entrusted with their care, but they're obviously not getting  it.

Spin all you want, the fact remains that children do indeed have rights as much as you'd like it not to be so.

I think you hit it on the nose when you said it depends on the situation.  Kids have the right to apply for their license at age 16 in some states.  But they dont have the right to vote or decide what to put in their bodies, medical decisions etc.
If a kid wants to become a buddist at age 6 and travel to a monastery I think the parents have a right to overrule them and say no.  If the family is catholic then the parents have the right to take the child to church against their will.
So you can spin it anyway you want.  If you want to say kids should be able to choose their own religion then thats fine.  I just dont agree with you.



...

[Anne Bonney]

I think you hit it on the nose when you said it depends on the situation.  Kids have the right to apply for their license at age 16 in some states.  But they dont have the right to vote or decide what to put in their bodies, medical decisions etc.
If a kid wants to become a buddist at age 6 and travel to a monastery I think the parents have a right to overrule them and say no.  If the family is catholic then the parents have the right to take the child to church against their will.
So you can spin it anyway you want.  If you want to say kids should be able to choose their own religion then thats fine.  I just dont agree with you.

Oh for fuck's sake....   ::deadhorse::

Bottom line is that kids have rights.  Basic human rights.  You said they don't have rights and you were and are wrong. They have the right not to be abused.  They have the right to proper nutrition and medical care and they are obviously not getting that in these programs, as evidenced by the deaths and the refusal of the programs to take ANY responsibility at all.  

As much as it seems to grind your gears, children do indeed have rights.  Which is what I was saying all along and you were arguing against.  Why, I'll never know.


::deadhorse::

[Whooter]

I think you hit it on the nose when you said it depends on the situation.  Kids have the right to apply for their license at age 16 in some states.  But they dont have the right to vote or decide what to put in their bodies, medical decisions etc.
If a kid wants to become a buddist at age 6 and travel to a monastery I think the parents have a right to overrule them and say no.  If the family is catholic then the parents have the right to take the child to church against their will.
So you can spin it anyway you want.  If you want to say kids should be able to choose their own religion then thats fine.  I just dont agree with you.

Oh for fuck's sake....   ::deadhorse::

Bottom line is that kids have rights.  Basic human rights.  You said they don't have rights and you were and are wrong. They have the right not to be abused.  They have the right to proper nutrition and medical care and they are obviously not getting that in these programs, as evidenced by the deaths and the refusal of the programs to take ANY responsibility at all.  

As much as it seems to grind your gears, children do indeed have rights.  Which is what I was saying all along and you were arguing against.  Why, I'll never know.


::deadhorse::

Basic human rights.  I think we can agree here, finally.  We are all born with basic rights because we are human.  I think where we separate is in areas like medical care. If a child wants to go to a hospital it is up to an adult to decide that not a child.  So yes the child is entitled to medical care but at the discretion of the adult in charge so therefore the child has no rights here.



...

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[RTP2003]

Whootie, you are one sick fuck.  No wonder your kid killed himself rather than spend time with you.