The Liberal Opinion That Should Be Taught In Every Minority Community

[OKTexas]

Reading your children bedtime stories could give them an unfair advantage, sounds to me that should be shouted from every roof top in minority communities.

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Is having a loving family an unfair advantage - The Philosopher s Zone - ABC Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Oh, find a moron then claim that moron represents the thoughts of everyone in a particular group.

Silly time!!

OH Right, social justice isn't part of the liberal lexicon. LMAO

 

[ScienceRocks]

this is the number one republican issue and it is a good one. the destruction of the family is a big mistake for the democrats.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Reading your children bedtime stories could give them an unfair advantage, sounds to me that should be shouted from every roof top in minority communities.

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Is having a loving family an unfair advantage - The Philosopher s Zone - ABC Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Oh, find a moron then claim that moron represents the thoughts of everyone in a particular group.

Silly time!!

OH Right, social justice isn't part of the liberal lexicon. LMAO

thats what you got from this statement?

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Because if you believe this statement is anything but wackadoodle....

 

[Zander]

i don't know if anyone noticed, but the philosopher is defending the family - and reading bedtime stories.

Did you read it? He is advocating elimination of the family, ostensibly because it's "unfair" that some children have loving parents. He admits that he can't do it all at once though....so he'll allow bedtime stories even though they "confer an unfair advantage"

He's a sick puppy.

 

[OKTexas]

Reading your children bedtime stories could give them an unfair advantage, sounds to me that should be shouted from every roof top in minority communities.

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Is having a loving family an unfair advantage - The Philosopher s Zone - ABC Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation

What's your point? Practically no one, including the state agrees the state should raise children. I doubt anyone in their right mind is going to condemn the reading bedtime stories to children.

Try actually reading the article and the subsequent posts. Then you might have a clue.

 

[ogibillm]

Reading your children bedtime stories could give them an unfair advantage, sounds to me that should be shouted from every roof top in minority communities.

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Is having a loving family an unfair advantage - The Philosopher s Zone - ABC Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation

After reading over half of the article, I had to stop, it was just too ridiculous and stupid. Can anyone, in their right mind, and with a heart, take a child away from loving parents? Taking a child out of the home is only necessary in cases of gross neglect, abuse, molestation, starvation, lack of proper health care, and other terrible circumstances. It would be all-out war if authorities tried taking most children from their parents. In my case, I'd have to run out of ammo, or be killed in order for authorities to take one of mine. And, I imagine many parents feel the same way as I do.

The bottom line, it's a ridiculous article, and obviously written by a real basket case.

i didn't read where the philosopher advocated removing children from loving homes.

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

your welcome

you're. and you clearly didn't read the rest of the article.

 

[ogibillm]

i don't know if anyone noticed, but the philosopher is defending the family - and reading bedtime stories.

Did you read it? He is advocating elimination of the family, ostensibly because it's "unfair" that some children have loving parents. He admits that he can't do it all at once though....so he'll allow bedtime stories even though they "confer an unfair advantage"

He's a sick puppy.

i read it. you didn't.

‘It’s the children’s interest in family life that is the most important,’ says Swift. ‘From all we now know, it is in the child’s interest to be parented, and to be parented well. Meanwhile, from the adult point of view it looks as if there is something very valuable in being a parent.’

He concedes parenting might not be for everyone and for some it can go badly wrong, but in general it is an irreplaceable relationship.

‘Parenting a child makes for what we call a distinctive and special contribution to the flourishing and wellbeing of adults.’

It seems that from both the child’s and adult’s point of view there is something to be said about living in a family way.

 

[Flopper]

Reading your children bedtime stories could give them an unfair advantage, sounds to me that should be shouted from every roof top in minority communities.

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Is having a loving family an unfair advantage - The Philosopher s Zone - ABC Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation

After reading over half of the article, I had to stop, it was just too ridiculous and stupid. Can anyone, in their right mind, and with a heart, take a child away from loving parents? Taking a child out of the home is only necessary in cases of gross neglect, abuse, molestation, starvation, lack of proper health care, and other terrible circumstances. It would be all-out war if authorities tried taking most children from their parents. In my case, I'd have to run out of ammo, or be killed in order for authorities to take one of mine. And, I imagine many parents feel the same way as I do.

The bottom line, it's a ridiculous article, and obviously written by a real basket case.

You should have finished the article, because even though it was about the thoughts of a leftist social philosopher the greatest take away was that a loving family and reading to your children gives them a social advantage. That is a lesson that needs to be taught in every school in America. Just because this idiot claims that is an unfair advantage because all children don't have families that properly nurture them, to me, is just a side note. Maybe all children's books should carry a warning label "Caution reading this to your child could give them an unfair advantage". What do you think that would motivate even the uneducated to do?

No need to read a dumb articles that talks about it might be best to take children out of the home. Besides, I already know what it meant to my kids to read to them. So, what's the point? It was a dumb article. A lot of parents read to their kids. Also, the advantage for kids is having loving parents and a loving family. Books are just a side-note.

I agree it was a pretty dumb article but the author's statement about parents reading books to young children giving them an advantage is right on. Reading to young children is an essential part of early childhood education. A number of studies have concluded that a child that is ill prepared for 1st grade is very likely to fall behind in elementary school and remain so through their academy career. Exposing young children to books is really important. However, there is a big discrepancy between the numbers of books found in affluent families vs. low income families.

A college professor did a study some years ago comparing the number of books found in low income families and affluent families in Philadelphia. The numbers were pretty shocking.

Susan Neuman, now a professor at New York University, focused on that discrepancy, in a study that looked at just how many books were available in Philadelphia's low-income neighborhoods. The results were startling.

"We found a total of 33 books for children in a community of 10,000 children. ... Thirty-three books in all of the neighborhood," she says. By comparison, there were 300 books per child in the city's affluent communities. Neuman recently updated her study. She hasn't yet released those findings but says not much has changed.

Nonprofit Fights Illiteracy By Getting Books To Kids Who Need Them NPR

 

[HenryBHough]

Liberals DO read to their children.

Why else would Karl Marx still be a best-selling author in places like NYC, SFO and, lest we forget, Baltimore.

 

[Clementine]

Reading your children bedtime stories could give them an unfair advantage, sounds to me that should be shouted from every roof top in minority communities.

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Is having a loving family an unfair advantage - The Philosopher s Zone - ABC Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation

They should be encouraging parents to spend more quality time with their children. Of course, if the parent isn't able to read then they can't help their children with that.

I just know I don't feel guilty for being the best parent I could be and I wasn't being unfair to the neighbor's children by being attentive to my own. Maybe my neighbor should have felt guilty for going out drinking and having her young children on their own. And the teachers tried, but can't make up for years of parental neglect. Doesn't help that some parents yell at the teachers if their children don't do well in school.

 

[Clementine]

Reading your children bedtime stories could give them an unfair advantage, sounds to me that should be shouted from every roof top in minority communities.

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Is having a loving family an unfair advantage - The Philosopher s Zone - ABC Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation

After reading over half of the article, I had to stop, it was just too ridiculous and stupid. Can anyone, in their right mind, and with a heart, take a child away from loving parents? Taking a child out of the home is only necessary in cases of gross neglect, abuse, molestation, starvation, lack of proper health care, and other terrible circumstances. It would be all-out war if authorities tried taking most children from their parents. In my case, I'd have to run out of ammo, or be killed in order for authorities to take one of mine. And, I imagine many parents feel the same way as I do.

The bottom line, it's a ridiculous article, and obviously written by a real basket case.

You should have finished the article, because even though it was about the thoughts of a leftist social philosopher the greatest take away was that a loving family and reading to your children gives them a social advantage. That is a lesson that needs to be taught in every school in America. Just because this idiot claims that is an unfair advantage because all children don't have families that properly nurture them, to me, is just a side note. Maybe all children's books should carry a warning label "Caution reading this to your child could give them an unfair advantage". What do you think that would motivate even the uneducated to do?

No need to read a dumb articles that talks about it might be best to take children out of the home. Besides, I already know what it meant to my kids to read to them. So, what's the point? It was a dumb article. A lot of parents read to their kids. Also, the advantage for kids is having loving parents and a loving family. Books are just a side-note.

I agree it was a pretty dumb article but the author's statement about parents reading books to young children giving them an advantage is right on. Reading to young children is an essential part of early childhood education. A number of studies have concluded that a child that is ill prepared for 1st grade is very likely to fall behind in elementary school and remain so through their academy career. Exposing young children to books is really important. However, there is a big discrepancy between the numbers of books found in affluent families vs. low income families.

A college professor did a study some years ago comparing the number of books found in low income families and affluent families in Philadelphia. The numbers were pretty shocking.

Susan Neuman, now a professor at New York University, focused on that discrepancy, in a study that looked at just how many books were available in Philadelphia's low-income neighborhoods. The results were startling.

"We found a total of 33 books for children in a community of 10,000 children. ... Thirty-three books in all of the neighborhood," she says. By comparison, there were 300 books per child in the city's affluent communities. Neuman recently updated her study. She hasn't yet released those findings but says not much has changed.

Nonprofit Fights Illiteracy By Getting Books To Kids Who Need Them NPR

Books are cheap. You can walk into the dollar stores, Goodwill stores or every other garage sale that has them for .25 each. Those same parents who don't think about buying books don't have any problem buying other crap. This is more of a problem with parents than poverty. I grew up poor and always had books because my mother considered reading a priority.

There are also public libraries, most of which offer story hours. I used to volunteer to read to children.

Another study needs to be done to find out why some parents don't consider this an important issue. Maybe some can't read or just don't take time to help their children so the books won't be as beneficial.

 

[Flopper]

Reading your children bedtime stories could give them an unfair advantage, sounds to me that should be shouted from every roof top in minority communities.

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Is having a loving family an unfair advantage - The Philosopher s Zone - ABC Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation

After reading over half of the article, I had to stop, it was just too ridiculous and stupid. Can anyone, in their right mind, and with a heart, take a child away from loving parents? Taking a child out of the home is only necessary in cases of gross neglect, abuse, molestation, starvation, lack of proper health care, and other terrible circumstances. It would be all-out war if authorities tried taking most children from their parents. In my case, I'd have to run out of ammo, or be killed in order for authorities to take one of mine. And, I imagine many parents feel the same way as I do.

The bottom line, it's a ridiculous article, and obviously written by a real basket case.

You should have finished the article, because even though it was about the thoughts of a leftist social philosopher the greatest take away was that a loving family and reading to your children gives them a social advantage. That is a lesson that needs to be taught in every school in America. Just because this idiot claims that is an unfair advantage because all children don't have families that properly nurture them, to me, is just a side note. Maybe all children's books should carry a warning label "Caution reading this to your child could give them an unfair advantage". What do you think that would motivate even the uneducated to do?

No need to read a dumb articles that talks about it might be best to take children out of the home. Besides, I already know what it meant to my kids to read to them. So, what's the point? It was a dumb article. A lot of parents read to their kids. Also, the advantage for kids is having loving parents and a loving family. Books are just a side-note.

I agree it was a pretty dumb article but the author's statement about parents reading books to young children giving them an advantage is right on. Reading to young children is an essential part of early childhood education. A number of studies have concluded that a child that is ill prepared for 1st grade is very likely to fall behind in elementary school and remain so through their academy career. Exposing young children to books is really important. However, there is a big discrepancy between the numbers of books found in affluent families vs. low income families.

A college professor did a study some years ago comparing the number of books found in low income families and affluent families in Philadelphia. The numbers were pretty shocking.

Susan Neuman, now a professor at New York University, focused on that discrepancy, in a study that looked at just how many books were available in Philadelphia's low-income neighborhoods. The results were startling.

"We found a total of 33 books for children in a community of 10,000 children. ... Thirty-three books in all of the neighborhood," she says. By comparison, there were 300 books per child in the city's affluent communities. Neuman recently updated her study. She hasn't yet released those findings but says not much has changed.

Nonprofit Fights Illiteracy By Getting Books To Kids Who Need Them NPR

Books are cheap. You can walk into the dollar stores, Goodwill stores or every other garage sale that has them for .25 each. Those same parents who don't think about buying books don't have any problem buying other crap. This is more of a problem with parents than poverty. I grew up poor and always had books because my mother considered reading a priority.

There are also public libraries, most of which offer story hours. I used to volunteer to read to children.

Another study needs to be done to find out why some parents don't consider this an important issue. Maybe some can't read or just don't take time to help their children so the books won't be as beneficial.

It's not about availability or cost. It's about teaching parent how important books are in their children's lives. They don't see children's books as necessary when you have a TV.. The books are seen not as being educational but as a past time.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Reading your children bedtime stories could give them an unfair advantage, sounds to me that should be shouted from every roof top in minority communities.

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Is having a loving family an unfair advantage - The Philosopher s Zone - ABC Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation

After reading over half of the article, I had to stop, it was just too ridiculous and stupid. Can anyone, in their right mind, and with a heart, take a child away from loving parents? Taking a child out of the home is only necessary in cases of gross neglect, abuse, molestation, starvation, lack of proper health care, and other terrible circumstances. It would be all-out war if authorities tried taking most children from their parents. In my case, I'd have to run out of ammo, or be killed in order for authorities to take one of mine. And, I imagine many parents feel the same way as I do.

The bottom line, it's a ridiculous article, and obviously written by a real basket case.

i didn't read where the philosopher advocated removing children from loving homes.

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

your welcome

you're. and you clearly didn't read the rest of the article.

I got ill reading that far.

and go fuck yerself typo niza!

 

[sealybobo]

It will take a lot more than reading bedtime stories. Ultimately, it will require limiting the number of children of dysfunctional parents.

What do you think is more effective, contraception covered under obamacare or catholics objecting because of their religious beliefs?

 

[sealybobo]

After reading over half of the article, I had to stop, it was just too ridiculous and stupid. Can anyone, in their right mind, and with a heart, take a child away from loving parents? Taking a child out of the home is only necessary in cases of gross neglect, abuse, molestation, starvation, lack of proper health care, and other terrible circumstances. It would be all-out war if authorities tried taking most children from their parents. In my case, I'd have to run out of ammo, or be killed in order for authorities to take one of mine. And, I imagine many parents feel the same way as I do.

The bottom line, it's a ridiculous article, and obviously written by a real basket case.

You should have finished the article, because even though it was about the thoughts of a leftist social philosopher the greatest take away was that a loving family and reading to your children gives them a social advantage. That is a lesson that needs to be taught in every school in America. Just because this idiot claims that is an unfair advantage because all children don't have families that properly nurture them, to me, is just a side note. Maybe all children's books should carry a warning label "Caution reading this to your child could give them an unfair advantage". What do you think that would motivate even the uneducated to do?

No need to read a dumb articles that talks about it might be best to take children out of the home. Besides, I already know what it meant to my kids to read to them. So, what's the point? It was a dumb article. A lot of parents read to their kids. Also, the advantage for kids is having loving parents and a loving family. Books are just a side-note.

I agree it was a pretty dumb article but the author's statement about parents reading books to young children giving them an advantage is right on. Reading to young children is an essential part of early childhood education. A number of studies have concluded that a child that is ill prepared for 1st grade is very likely to fall behind in elementary school and remain so through their academy career. Exposing young children to books is really important. However, there is a big discrepancy between the numbers of books found in affluent families vs. low income families.

A college professor did a study some years ago comparing the number of books found in low income families and affluent families in Philadelphia. The numbers were pretty shocking.

Susan Neuman, now a professor at New York University, focused on that discrepancy, in a study that looked at just how many books were available in Philadelphia's low-income neighborhoods. The results were startling.

"We found a total of 33 books for children in a community of 10,000 children. ... Thirty-three books in all of the neighborhood," she says. By comparison, there were 300 books per child in the city's affluent communities. Neuman recently updated her study. She hasn't yet released those findings but says not much has changed.

Nonprofit Fights Illiteracy By Getting Books To Kids Who Need Them NPR

Books are cheap. You can walk into the dollar stores, Goodwill stores or every other garage sale that has them for .25 each. Those same parents who don't think about buying books don't have any problem buying other crap. This is more of a problem with parents than poverty. I grew up poor and always had books because my mother considered reading a priority.

There are also public libraries, most of which offer story hours. I used to volunteer to read to children.

Another study needs to be done to find out why some parents don't consider this an important issue. Maybe some can't read or just don't take time to help their children so the books won't be as beneficial.

It's not about availability or cost. It's about teaching parent how important books are in their children's lives. They don't see children's books as necessary when you have a TV.. The books are seen not as being educational but as a past time.

At least let teenagers know that's what is expected of a parent. My grandfather never played with my dad but he played with me. He didn't have to be a dick and bad parent like his dad. Are we doomed to keep repeating the cycle of bad parents in poor neighborhoods? Stop breeding!

 

[Flopper]

You should have finished the article, because even though it was about the thoughts of a leftist social philosopher the greatest take away was that a loving family and reading to your children gives them a social advantage. That is a lesson that needs to be taught in every school in America. Just because this idiot claims that is an unfair advantage because all children don't have families that properly nurture them, to me, is just a side note. Maybe all children's books should carry a warning label "Caution reading this to your child could give them an unfair advantage". What do you think that would motivate even the uneducated to do?

No need to read a dumb articles that talks about it might be best to take children out of the home. Besides, I already know what it meant to my kids to read to them. So, what's the point? It was a dumb article. A lot of parents read to their kids. Also, the advantage for kids is having loving parents and a loving family. Books are just a side-note.

I agree it was a pretty dumb article but the author's statement about parents reading books to young children giving them an advantage is right on. Reading to young children is an essential part of early childhood education. A number of studies have concluded that a child that is ill prepared for 1st grade is very likely to fall behind in elementary school and remain so through their academy career. Exposing young children to books is really important. However, there is a big discrepancy between the numbers of books found in affluent families vs. low income families.

A college professor did a study some years ago comparing the number of books found in low income families and affluent families in Philadelphia. The numbers were pretty shocking.

Susan Neuman, now a professor at New York University, focused on that discrepancy, in a study that looked at just how many books were available in Philadelphia's low-income neighborhoods. The results were startling.

"We found a total of 33 books for children in a community of 10,000 children. ... Thirty-three books in all of the neighborhood," she says. By comparison, there were 300 books per child in the city's affluent communities. Neuman recently updated her study. She hasn't yet released those findings but says not much has changed.

Nonprofit Fights Illiteracy By Getting Books To Kids Who Need Them NPR

Books are cheap. You can walk into the dollar stores, Goodwill stores or every other garage sale that has them for .25 each. Those same parents who don't think about buying books don't have any problem buying other crap. This is more of a problem with parents than poverty. I grew up poor and always had books because my mother considered reading a priority.

There are also public libraries, most of which offer story hours. I used to volunteer to read to children.

Another study needs to be done to find out why some parents don't consider this an important issue. Maybe some can't read or just don't take time to help their children so the books won't be as beneficial.

It's not about availability or cost. It's about teaching parent how important books are in their children's lives. They don't see children's books as necessary when you have a TV.. The books are seen not as being educational but as a past time.

At least let teenagers know that's what is expected of a parent. My grandfather never played with my dad but he played with me. He didn't have to be a dick and bad parent like his dad. Are we doomed to keep repeating the cycle of bad parents in poor neighborhoods? Stop breeding!

I believe the most effective ways to break the cycle is to:

• Provide good sex education including birth control in schools and free parenting classes to first time young mothers. These programs are not costly and they are effective.
• Quality childcare for low income parents can make a big difference. Throughout the country, there is subsidized childcare for low income working parents making it possible for the many primary caregivers to work. This type of childcare reminds me of animal in holding pens. Kids are pacified by hours of mindless cartoons on TV and the caregiver is there to make sure the kids don't kill themselves or someone else. There is no supervision of homework or even encouragement to do it. There are books available but no encouragement to read them. They addict the kids to TV and provide little or no supervision. Providing childcare with emphasis on education instead of babysitting can make a major difference. The cost is of course high.

 

[jknowgood]

Reading your children bedtime stories could give them an unfair advantage, sounds to me that should be shouted from every roof top in minority communities.

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Is having a loving family an unfair advantage - The Philosopher s Zone - ABC Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Oh, find a moron then claim that moron represents the thoughts of everyone in a particular group.

Silly time!!

Liberalism wants everything fair, it's a liberal idea. If Obama supported it, you would fall over yourself to support it. You are a leftist puppet.

 

[sealybobo]

Reading your children bedtime stories could give them an unfair advantage, sounds to me that should be shouted from every roof top in minority communities.

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Is having a loving family an unfair advantage - The Philosopher s Zone - ABC Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Oh, find a moron then claim that moron represents the thoughts of everyone in a particular group.

Silly time!!

Liberalism wants everything fair, it's a liberal idea. If Obama supported it, you would fall over yourself to support it. You are a leftist puppet.

You're a right wing parrot.

 

[jknowgood]

Reading your children bedtime stories could give them an unfair advantage, sounds to me that should be shouted from every roof top in minority communities.

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Is having a loving family an unfair advantage - The Philosopher s Zone - ABC Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Oh, find a moron then claim that moron represents the thoughts of everyone in a particular group.

Silly time!!

Liberalism wants everything fair, it's a liberal idea. If Obama supported it, you would fall over yourself to support it. You are a leftist puppet.

You're a right wing parrot.

Your an Obama knob polisher. If Obama came out tonight and said that wealthier parents reading to their kids every night. Isn't fair, minority parents don't have the time. So we need to stop it until every parent can read to their children. You would support it.

 

[eagle1462010]

Reading your children bedtime stories could give them an unfair advantage, sounds to me that should be shouted from every roof top in minority communities.

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Is having a loving family an unfair advantage - The Philosopher s Zone - ABC Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Sick Idiot wrote this.........................should put him in a padded cell for extended observation..................