Preserving My Children’s Innocence Is Preserving White supremacy.

[ChrisL]

My son works full time. He is a tree climber. He works VERY hard every day. In fact, he's doing a side job today. He pays me rent too, so now WHAT, Mr. Vastator, who thinks people remain with the mentality of 15-year-olds for the rest of their lives?

Let me start by saying as a poster you are one of the few here who come off as genuine. I like that. And at the risk of breaching the rules I'd simply have to ask myself why a 21 year old gainfully employed individual would still be living with his mother. Arrested development is all I can come up with. I was on my own at age 17. Out of the house at 16.
As far as people remain just As experienced and wise as they were at 15; even when they are much older...? Well what could one reasonably expect when thier lifestyle hasn't really changed since they were 15? Nothing changes, if nothing changes.

I think it's illegal for 16-year-olds to be living by themselves. They would be placed into foster care. Why wouldn't he live at home? To save money and be prepared.

Face the facts, 15-year-olds are still children. Science says so.

Cuz I was adult enough to understand that the law could not prosecute a minor for leaving home; and savvy enough to make my way without adhering to the stricture of legality. Ended up graduating high schools 17, military Fromm 18-22; and gainfully employed ever since. What's science as bout that. Not too shabby for a "child" huh?

Where were your parents?

 

[ChrisL]

Can you kick your child out at 16?
Once a minor is legally emancipated, parents no longer have to feed, house, or paychild support for the emancipated minor. Kicking an underage child (meaning under 18 in most states) out of the house, without the child being emancipated, canoften be considered child abandonment, which is a crime.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

My son works full time. He is a tree climber. He works VERY hard every day. In fact, he's doing a side job today. He pays me rent too, so now WHAT, Mr. Vastator, who thinks people remain with the mentality of 15-year-olds for the rest of their lives?

Let me start by saying as a poster you are one of the few here who come off as genuine. I like that. And at the risk of breaching the rules I'd simply have to ask myself why a 21 year old gainfully employed individual would still be living with his mother. Arrested development is all I can come up with. I was on my own at age 17. Out of the house at 16.
As far as people remain just As experienced and wise as they were at 15; even when they are much older...? Well what could one reasonably expect when thier lifestyle hasn't really changed since they were 15? Nothing changes, if nothing changes.

If you were out of the house at 16, how did you go to school?

You were out of the house at 16 but on your own at 17? What about your education?

I realize that you are an older gentleman, and you must realize that times have changed a LOT.

What we are truly lacking in this nation are role models that specifically take on the interest of investing themselves and helping with struggling kids, especially those from a single parent environment. I don't know what happened to the Big Brothers Big Sisters programs that used to advertise that need, but the demand hasn't been any less. What do the youth really have to look up to except for a successful sport figure, or another individual, they see on the flat screen? When there isn't anyone on the "personal" level they can really identify with, it leaves a void with those who struggle with life's experiences ... and can often bring that hurt or rage into the next relationship as an adult. It has to happen in the local community, and we can't always look to it as the federal government's job to solve when we often know better than they what the youth in our local communities struggle with.

 

[Vastator]

ChrisL,
I went and moved in with my girlfriends parents, worked their farm to earn my keep. You see, it might sound strange to you by today's standards; but people haven't always run to the nanny state to solve thier problems. Typically when they do thier problems multiply. Another thing this "child" knew when, I decided I was ready to make my own way in this world.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No safe as in the US isn't safer than other first world countries.

Okay.......... I'm trying to follow this but still having a hard time:

Why would allowing our citizens and police officers to defend themselves make us all unsafe, or as you now revised, only as safe as other first world countries?

Well, firstly the stats suggest that this is the case.

Secondly some citizens aren't exactly the most trustworthy, are they?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, firstly the stats suggest that this is the case.

Secondly some citizens aren't exactly the most trustworthy, are they?

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The stats do suggest that is the case.

Until the Ferguson effect came along, the US has had a declining violent crime and gun crime rate since the early 90's. While there are no absolute reason why, it's in perfect proportion with more and more states adopting CCW laws, and writing laws that protect the victim instead of the attacker.

Another stat is that most of the mass murders that take place happen in gun-free zones. Coincidence? I don't think so.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My son works full time. He is a tree climber. He works VERY hard every day. In fact, he's doing a side job today. He pays me rent too, so now WHAT, Mr. Vastator, who thinks people remain with the mentality of 15-year-olds for the rest of their lives?

Let me start by saying as a poster you are one of the few here who come off as genuine. I like that. And at the risk of breaching the rules I'd simply have to ask myself why a 21 year old gainfully employed individual would still be living with his mother. Arrested development is all I can come up with. I was on my own at age 17. Out of the house at 16.
As far as people remain just As experienced and wise as they were at 15; even when they are much older...? Well what could one reasonably expect when thier lifestyle hasn't really changed since they were 15? Nothing changes, if nothing changes.

If you were out of the house at 16, how did you go to school?

You were out of the house at 16 but on your own at 17? What about your education?

I realize that you are an older gentleman, and you must realize that times have changed a LOT.

What we are truly lacking in this nation are role models that specifically take on the interest of investing themselves and helping with struggling kids, especially those from a single parent environment. I don't know what happened to the Big Brothers Big Sisters programs that used to advertise that need, but the demand hasn't been any less. What do the youth really have to look up to except for a successful sport figure, or another individual, they see on the flat screen? When there isn't anyone on the "personal" level they can really identify with, it leaves a void with those who struggle with life's experiences ... and can often bring that hurt or rage into the next relationship as an adult. It has to happen in the local community, and we can't always look to it as the federal government's job to solve when we often know better than they what the youth in our local communities struggle with.

It's basically a cycle of poverty and violence that the rich have no interest in changing. If you invest in communities, give people reasons for trying hard, then people will. American cities are by far and away worse than almost all cities in first world countries for crime. The selfish nature of the US is what leads this on. The politicians and the voters are just saying "why should we bother?" and you reap what you sow, which in this case is sowing nothing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, firstly the stats suggest that this is the case.

Secondly some citizens aren't exactly the most trustworthy, are they?

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The stats do suggest that is the case.

Until the Ferguson effect came along, the US has had a declining violent crime and gun crime rate since the early 90's. While there are no absolute reason why, it's in perfect proportion with more and more states adopting CCW laws, and writing laws that protect the victim instead of the attacker.

Another stat is that most of the mass murders that take place happen in gun-free zones. Coincidence? I don't think so.

But the US has a declining violent crime rate, as do many other western countries.

These countries aren't adopting CCW laws.

This is the UK

This is Canada

So, something is happening within western society that is seeing a drop in violent crime in general. Now, you're saying that because CCW laws came into place at the same time that this must be the case.

But crime rates dropped in states that didn't introduce CCW laws as well.

So, I'm going to say the evidence suggests you're looking in the wrong place here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, something is happening within western society that is seeing a drop in violent crime in general. Now, you're saying that because CCW laws came into place at the same time that this must be the case.

But crime rates dropped in states that didn't introduce CCW laws as well.

So, I'm going to say the evidence suggests you're looking in the wrong place here.

I can't testify as to what goes on in other countries. The US is different than any other place in the world.

I was just pointing out the obvious correlation. I don't know what other changes have taken place since the start of the drop; nothing that comes to mind. We still have the same jails, the same courts, the same police, the laws haven't changed that much unless you beat your dog or something.

This is besides the fact that there is no law or punishment that would ever make the criminals give up their guns. Sure, if Hil-liar gets in and puts a bunch of leftist commies on the court, yes, we could lose our constitutional right to carry and own firearms, but that would have no effect on criminals. All it would do is give us a disarmed society where only the police and criminals have firearms.

 

[Correll]

I don't feel guilty about white privilege that supposedly exist.

 

[Correll]

I think the notion of children's "innocence" is largely bullshit.

No kids, I take it?

 

[jillian]

Preserving My Children’s Innocence Is An Act Of Preserving White supremacy.

A familiar colloquialism is “let kids be kids.” But of course, not all kids are granted this privilege. Tamir Rice certainly was not afforded this privilege. Trayvon Martin was not afforded this privilege. Dajerria Becton was not afforded this privilege. The Black and brown children racially profiled on my neighborhood listserves are not afforded this privilege. Children who do not have their basic needs met due to poverty are not afforded this privilege.

I want my children to explore, play and enjoy the world around them. I also want them to understand that injustice exists. If I am unwilling to unveil how systems of oppression work, I’m playing into the notion that my children’s innocence is more fragile and more important than other children who do not have the option to have their innocence preserved. White supremacy lives on through this choice.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57d2d8f4e4b0273330ac3dae?ref=yfp

It is simply never going to end. Never.

how sad you are.

are you even aware that there is a vital black middle class and black gentry?

how stupid and ignorant you are.

but then again.... trumpsters

 

[jillian]

I think the notion of children's "innocence" is largely bullshit.

No kids, I take it?

no. probably just not a bigoted lowlife

 

[Correll]

I don't feel guilty about white privilege that supposedly exist.

I still don't know what white privilege even means, and nobody from the left has been able to explain it to me.

Whatever they need it to mean at that very instant.

The same as every other word to a lib.

 

[Correll]

I think the notion of children's "innocence" is largely bullshit.

No kids, I take it?

no. probably just not a bigoted lowlife

ONly a "bigoted lowlife" believes in the notion of "children's innocence"? LOL!!!


YOu lefties are completely full of shit.

 

[Correll]

I think the notion of children's "innocence" is largely bullshit.

We never hid the world from our kid.

Beyond that, the problem with the idea of children's "innocence" is that it can only exist if adults are defined as guilty. That is the problem. It's built upon the notion that people are inherently evil, and persists on nothing more than our own vanity as we attempt to idealize our children. Hence the "Oh no, not my child; my child is a perfect little angel; it must have been your child who was in the wrong" phenomenon.

Complete crazy talk.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, something is happening within western society that is seeing a drop in violent crime in general. Now, you're saying that because CCW laws came into place at the same time that this must be the case.

But crime rates dropped in states that didn't introduce CCW laws as well.

So, I'm going to say the evidence suggests you're looking in the wrong place here.

I can't testify as to what goes on in other countries. The US is different than any other place in the world.

I was just pointing out the obvious correlation. I don't know what other changes have taken place since the start of the drop; nothing that comes to mind. We still have the same jails, the same courts, the same police, the laws haven't changed that much unless you beat your dog or something.

This is besides the fact that there is no law or punishment that would ever make the criminals give up their guns. Sure, if Hil-liar gets in and puts a bunch of leftist commies on the court, yes, we could lose our constitutional right to carry and own firearms, but that would have no effect on criminals. All it would do is give us a disarmed society where only the police and criminals have firearms.

I can testify to what happens in other countries. Though I don't think you actually can tell what happens just by being there. You might pick up a few pointers, but mostly you tell by statistics and the like.

Yes, there are lots of correlations but as we know you have to be very careful.

Changes that have happened. The internet.

Did you know that the ease of availability of hard core porn has helped reduce sexual crimes?

Entertainment has changed immensely. It's a different world out there now.

How is Hillary going to put "a bunch of leftist commies on the court"? Come on, the President doesn't just automatically pick the Supreme Court justices, they do have to be ratified through the Senate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I can testify to what happens in other countries. Though I don't think you actually can tell what happens just by being there. You might pick up a few pointers, but mostly you tell by statistics and the like.

Yes, there are lots of correlations but as we know you have to be very careful.

Changes that have happened. The internet.

Did you know that the ease of availability of hard core porn has helped reduce sexual crimes?

Entertainment has changed immensely. It's a different world out there now.

How is Hillary going to put "a bunch of leftist commies on the court"? Come on, the President doesn't just automatically pick the Supreme Court justices, they do have to be ratified through the Senate.

Yes they do, but the Senate has been stalling for nearly a year and they can't hold off any longer. They said they are going to wait until the next President gets elected and they have to stick to it. the MSM will rip them a new one if they don't confirm somebody and confirm somebody fast.

That puts the ball back in Hillary's court (no pun intended) and she can nominate the left of the leftists and Republicans would be disabled from rejecting her picks, especially if they did lose leadership in the Senate.

 

[SwimExpert]

I think the notion of children's "innocence" is largely bullshit.

No kids, I take it?

no. probably just not a bigoted lowlife

ONly a "bigoted lowlife" believes in the notion of "children's innocence"? LOL!!!


YOu lefties are completely full of shit.

It's ironic that you say that because the real matter here is that I'm just far more educated and intelligent than you. If you bothered to read you'd see that I already explained how the concept of children's "innocence" relies on a presumption that humans are inherently evil in adulthood. You should read Nietzsche. He does a very good job of obliterating the folly of humanity operating on a presumption that we are so deficient.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Senate can legally sit on its hands on this issue for as long as it decides, assuming they maintain the majority, and a backbone.