Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philosophyabsurdity. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're probably looking for old friends, or old enemies. Don't panic! They still exist. Sure, they've forgotten about you. It's just the internet. But with passion, intellect and an enormous penis you can force your way back into their affections or the sex offenders register. So type a message. Expect a witty response. It's all for you... you just might have to wait 2 or 3 years.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Neo-Nazis; Unfit parents?
Topic Started: Jun 11 2008, 02:55 PM (526 Views)
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingn...p-4774914c.html

Quote:
 
The Free Press obtained copies Tuesday of a CFS case summary, which details why police and child welfare officials got involved. They were called to a St. Vital-area elementary school on March 25 after the girl showed up at school with disturbing markings on her body.

"There were symbols written and drawn on (the girl's) arms and one leg in permanent red and blue marker pens," the summary states. The markings included a Swastika symbol on her arm.

Police and CFS quickly went to the family's apartment on Dakota Street and seized her two-year-old brother. While inside, police found "indication of the parents' neo-Nazi, white supremacist beliefs," the report states.

Other concerns included the fact the little girl had missed 39 days of school this year. She told authorities that's because her parents sleep in and don't want to get her ready or take her. There were also expressed concerns about alcohol and drug use in the home.

"She seems to be aware that her parents' beliefs are not held by others."

The children were seized based on a belief by CFS that "the children may be at risk due to the parents' behaviour and associates. The parents might endanger the emotional well-being of the children," court documents say.





This story has been in the news recently ever since a little girl was seized from her parents because she went to school with a swastika drawn on her. Police intervened, and seized a computer and various racist belongings from her parents home.

While they are now making other issues, like the child's attendance at school, reasons for the kids' seizure, the school board never reported anything out of the ordinary until she came to school with drawings on her.

Should parents be scared of teaching their children their beliefs, if Nazism is involved? Is teaching intolerance equivalent to harming your child emotionally?
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ConfusedMonkey
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
Quote:
 
Should parents be scared of teaching their children their beliefs, if Nazism is involved?


Yes. Their beliefs are sick and wrong.

Quote:
 
Is teaching intolerance equivalent to harming your child emotionally?


Indirectly, yes.



I really don't understand the symbols drawn on her body, it doesn't make sense for her parents to do that - perhaps she did that herself for attention? Perhaps she knew the beliefs probably weren't right, so she drew the symbols of her parents beliefs on herself to see what reaction people would get when they saw them? Mneh.

There are no promises or assurances in any shape or form contained in the above post. Do not trust this Monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stevapalooza
Member Avatar
Dalek Valid
It sounds like the lifestyle of the parents was a bigger issue than the Nazism. Sounds like authorities saw evidence of serious neglect and acted on it. I doubt the swastikas helped, but it doesn't sound like the Nazism was the main factor.

Here in the US I'm pretty sure swastikas alone would not have given authorities the right to seize the kids. Vile as Nazi beliefs are, they are also protected under the constitution. Even those crazy pioneer cultists out west were given their kids back.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lori
Member Avatar
that chick, you know
Lori
I don't know how closely any of you deal with Child Protection or if it's just fucked up here, but they can do quite a lot (ie removal) based on very little evidence. It's sort of the sky is falling mentality and, when you get your kid back after they've spent six months in foster care or group homes, the judge may give them a verbal lashing for a lack of evidence, that's about as close as they'll get to a reprimand for the action.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
serendipity
Member Avatar
Cyber Valid
although this is not quite the same thing....

my youngest son, who is 16, owns 3 shirts with the "hammer and sickle" symbol on them.
he attends public school and i have never been contacted by the school about his shirts being "offensive" or "not appropriate".
he's a straight A student and treasurer of his class.
toward the end of this school year one of his teachers wrote on his last report card that he "seeks attention negatively".
the subject of him being a communist has come up at home and i've laughed it off saying "you're not a communist"... only to be met with "YES I AM!".

i figure he wasnt even born when the wall came down and all that, so he doesnt really understand the full impact of what that hammer and sickle may mean to some.
then i started thinking that i wouldnt want him wearing a rebel flag or a swastika... so right now i'm on the fence on whether i should take the hammer and sickle stuff away... or not.
my husband thinks it's just a phase that teenagers go through.. like heavy metal music, or long hair, like my other two boys did..... i never bugged them about the hair and within time they cut it on their own.

on the flip side, he's all about john lennon... has the same hair cut and round wire rim glasses..... so peace and love on one side and the hammer and sickle on the other.


as a mother, should i be concerned? or let it ride and see if it fades?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ConfusedMonkey
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
I think your husband's right. I wouldn't worry about it - what harm can it do? He'll get over it eventually. Taking away the shirts and making it taboo will do more harm than good, I think.
There are no promises or assurances in any shape or form contained in the above post. Do not trust this Monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
I agree - he's not painting it on the side of your house, he's expressing it himself...

The crazy commie.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
serendipity
Member Avatar
Cyber Valid
the kicker is....... i bought the damn shirts.


he had them on his christmas list... at first i thought i read it wrong... but he provided links to order them online.

i didnt give it much thought until the "seeks attention negatively" comment on his report card.... although according to him, the comment had nothing to do with his shirts.

he says he's a communist but when former president Clinton was in town and everyone was wearing their "HILARY" buttons... he came home wearing a Barack Obama tshirt that he made.
i'm proud that he likes to do his own thing and not follow the crowd... i just dont want him to get into trouble, or lose a job over something so silly as saying and/or advertising the fact that he's a communist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lea
Member Avatar
Ninja Valid
Seren that's nothing to be ashamed of. You bought the shirts that represent who your son is right now.

You know.. the teacher could have just been being a fat head. The teacher has dis-credited all that IS your son by labeling him. You're son is being himself.. that can be scary for people who don't know themselves very well to see.

Maybe it's a phase and maybe it's not. But does it really matter? As long as he isn't hurting others.. and as long (and this is important) that he can accept and respect that other people may have different views than he does then he'll be fine. He's a good kid. He's smart. he'll work his way through it and find his own niche in the world.

Stop stressing. :kiss:
Yes. I am talking about you. Fuckstick.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
serendipity
Jun 13 2008, 12:48 AM

i'm proud that he likes to do his own thing and not follow the crowd... i just dont want him to get into trouble, or lose a job over something so silly as saying and/or advertising the fact that he's a communist.

I think your son sounds quite intelligent and you're right to be proud of him. Looking into ideas and beliefs that aren't popular is a sign he's not afraid of what people think. Much better than a sheep, at any rate. It's almost certainly a phase but even so it's not so bad. The naive view that we should all share isn't a cause for alarm.

If he starts quoting the Bible or Koran, then you can panic.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
serendipity
Member Avatar
Cyber Valid
Quote:
 
If he starts quoting the Bible or Koran, then you can panic.




his twin sister already has that covered.
he calls her and her friends "the god squad".


lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stevapalooza
Member Avatar
Dalek Valid
I wouldn't worry about the Communist thing. Most of that is skin deep. Communistica or whatever you call it is very trendy among teenagers these days.
It's mostly fashion. They like the iconography and it spooks their parents enough to be considered cool.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lea
Member Avatar
Ninja Valid
Angie was asking me questions about the war in Iraq. A few of her friends have parents who are in the military.. a few were in Iraq.. i think there was one in Afghan and another in East Timore.. anyway.. something came up about how it all started.. and I was talking about how when I was thirteen we were in the carpark of a local shopping centre and on the radio George Bush Snr came on he declared WAR. I said that was pretty scary because I'd never heard a declaration of war before.

This look crossed her face.. "there is another george bush? There was another war with Iraq? That must have been a really long time ago!"

"1990 actually" <_<

"wow.. that was ages before I was born"


hrmp
Yes. I am talking about you. Fuckstick.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cygnus-X1
Member Avatar
Davros Valid
Communistica vis-a-vis Metallica.....

Master!

Master!

Master of the means of production, I'm making you woooork...

For less pay than you need to survive...

Working for me, you can't save a dime...

Can't play with your kids, cuz you haven't got time...

Master!

Master!

....




(ugh. terrible.)
* This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ConfusedMonkey
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
Cyg - does't that just describe your average factory worker in a 'democratic' society?
There are no promises or assurances in any shape or form contained in the above post. Do not trust this Monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
It's always the stupid, unemployed ugly people who think they are part of a master race. Someone should really sit them down and explain the concept.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cygnus-X1
Member Avatar
Davros Valid
Depends on the factory, Monkey.

Some pay better and have better benefits than others.

The advent of Unions has also improved standard of living and work conditions for many if not most factory workers, relative to the early part of the 20th Century and before.

Though, to be sure, today's US economy and fiscal policies have factory workers (as well as most everyone else) living at a lower standard than the US economy of the 1950's and 1960's did.

Back then, it was common for a father to work a factory job, his wife to stay home and raise the kids and for them to live pretty comfortably in that arrangement. You'd be hard-pressed to find the like today.

By the by, here's an interesting fact that I used against Plague yesterday:

Quote:
 
CONCORD – The tax cut plan of Democratic nominee to be Barack Obama offers three times the break for middle class families than proposals of likely Republican nominee John McCain, according to analysts working for a left-leaning think tank.

Families making between $37,595 and $66,354 of annual income with Obama would get an average tax cut of $1,042 per family while McCain’s tax cut for this group would be $319, the report states.


The Nashua Telegraph

"Socialism" is still a scary word to many Americans who can remember the fear of the Cold War and the threat of Communist conquest. Many of the baby-boom generation and older still equate Socialism with Communism. But, as you know it in Europe, there's no sharp distinction between your "Socialism" and our "Populism." The only real difference is of degree. No one in my country, as yet, can have a serious chance of winning office if he were to run on the platform of an average British MP -- perhaps, not even that of a Tory.
* This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
It's a pretty tragic state of affairs when the vast majority would be better off. You'd think democracy would actively lean towards socialism in the U.S.

I don't think voting for policies applies so much now though. In the UK, with a cabinet minister in charge of each key area of government, most people will still only recognise Gordon Brown - and therefore vote based on how agreeable they find the leader of each party. It's a slippery slope until we have the "puppet figurehead" scenario like yourselves.

My favourite was Reagan the cowboy president. :mellow:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EuphemiaRuntlestuntle
Member Avatar
Malicious Third Party.
With the UK at the moment, it's a fairly faceless regime with what is tantamount to having a local Halifax branch manager in charge. Not that it would be any better under the opposition, it's pretty much the same story with Nathan Barley at the helm. Canada is equally faceless. They should just annoint William Shatner as Emperor and have done with it.

Reagan was great, in a Spitting Image sort of way, but I pine for The Clinton. As a sidenote, I saw that this week in North America's favourite comic-book, the National Enquirer, they had a big reveal on Bill Clinton's secret campaign mistress from the last few months.

My first thought was "It was Serendipity!"

But ... am I wrong?
It's a glitch! An incredibly specific glitch!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cygnus-X1
Member Avatar
Davros Valid
Reagan was a better president than Bush, in the sense that the former was better with foreign policy. But, they both doubled the national debt, essentially borrowing money from other countries to deposit into the bank accounts of the wealthiest 1% of Americans, while cutting programs for kids in need an so forth.

Both Reagan and Bush were the "blissfully ignorant" type, who just ignored the unpleasant consequences of their policies. They both flouted or broke the law in order to fight wars that the American voting public were or would have been against, given all of the facts (Iran-Contra for Reagan).

The main difference, aside from Reagan having handled Gorbachev well, was that Reagan respected his political adversaries, and was thus in turn respected by them, whereas Bush didn't and wasn't. And, likewise for the American and international public. They liked Reagan, for the most part, but not Bush.


Quote:
 
It's a slippery slope until we have the "puppet figurehead" scenario like yourselves.


Puppet figurehead?

The US President has a lot of power. He's not a puppet, unless you consider Bush as an isolated case being "controlled" by the Neo-cons, Cheney, et al.
* This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General · Next Topic »
Add Reply