ForumGarden

spot;925069 wrote: Nothing could be further from the truth. They all think I'm wrong-minded, contrary, ignorant and incapable. it took a lot of effort on my part to get them thinking that way.


I can't help but wonder if you feel that if this scenario were played through that there would be a number of families who's children would be unjustifiably taken away from them having the complacency of the likes of yourself by virtue of scarce jobs related to these kids' future...

Would there be volunteer guardians?...Perhaps a test to show ones competence in raising a child sufficiently to the needs of societies demands?...

K.Snyder;925077 wrote: I can't help but wonder if you feel that if this scenario were played through that there would be a number of families who's children would be unjustifiably taken away from them having the complacency of the likes of yourself by virtue of scarce jobs related to these kids' future...

Would there be volunteer guardians?...Perhaps a test to show ones competence in raising a child sufficiently to the needs of societies demands?...


Children are already taken away from parents, quite often for inadequate reasons. Why do you think it would increase by force? I have no desire at all to see it increase by force. I'm suggesting a commercial option of handing children over to these companies for successful rearing with no old-fashioned family life getting in the way of their success. There could even be competition for places and only the best-qualified newborns accepted, at least to begin with. In England it costs between a quarter and a half million dollars for a family to bring up one child, and at least half of that money comes from national taxation. Pay that to a corporation instead and it would be easy to imagine how they'd do a great job bringing the baby to adulthood.

Why would there be volunteer guardians? I'm suggesting a new profession for those capable of providing the love and care these children need. I've suggested that currently they have few career paths and pitiful recompense, and that this could be a well-paid career for them which they'd enjoy. It all sounds positive and up-beat to me. What sort of test does anyone do to demonstrate competence for a new lifelong professional career like this? Three or four years full time vocational college, a year's training contract as a probationary period, that's the way we'd do it in England at least. It's pretty close to how we make nurses for hospitals.

spot;925087 wrote: Children are already taken away from parents, quite often for inadequate reasons. Why do you think it would increase by force? I have no desire at all to see it increase by force. I'm suggesting a commercial option of handing children over to these companies for successful rearing with no old-fashioned family life getting in the way of their success. There could even be competition for places and only the best-qualified newborns accepted, at least to begin with. In England it costs between a quarter and a half million dollars for a family to bring up one child, and at least half of that money comes from national taxation. Pay that to a corporation instead and it would be easy to imagine how they'd do a great job bringing the baby to adulthood.

Why would there be volunteer guardians? I'm suggesting a new profession for those capable of providing the love and care these children need. I've suggested that currently they have few career paths and pitiful recompense, and that this could be a well-paid career for them which they'd enjoy. It all sounds positive and up-beat to me. What sort of test does anyone do to demonstrate competence for a new lifelong professional career like this? Three or four years full time vocational college, a year's training contract as a probationary period, that's the way we'd do it in England at least. It's pretty close to how we make nurses for hospitals.


Bad business...

Your only customers being poor...

Target a community that can afford it and you're targeting the minority of those supposedly at the root of what's "unethical" in society...

What's left is just another ploy to better the education system through taxation(Which would be the only reasonable outcome to all of this)...For circumnavigation to those whom are interested can apply their opinions here...http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=38504...

Spot are all the facts in yet? Do we know for sure she is faultless? I know we have beaten this thread to death but I want the facts first before I decide guilty or innocence on this one.



[QUOTE]I can't see a single thing this poor woman could possibly have done - on her wedding day, of all days! - to minimise the risk to her boy any further than she did. I find her faultless.[/QUOTE]

spot wrote: I don't want any child to have a respectful upbringing, I want them all to appreciate the desirability of disrespect. It's undeserving parents demanding respect that cause most of the problems in the first place. Disrespect for authority is healthy.You confuse respect with fear. Respect is healthy, fear is not.

spot;925055 wrote: That's exactly why I'm limiting my application to Western society.
A kibbutz is not from Western society.

Accountable;925359 wrote: A kibbutz is not from Western society.Of course it is. Israel's definitively a Western country. It even won the Eurovision Song Contest. It's a transplanted Western European society just as those in Australasia are.

spot;925488 wrote: Of course it is. Israel's definitively a Western country. It even won the Eurovision Song Contest. It's a transplanted Western European society just as those in Australasia are.
A Jewish kibbutz is no more western society than Mormon polygamy.

CARLA;925275 wrote: Spot are all the facts in yet? Do we know for sure she is faultless? I know we have beaten this thread to death but I want the facts first before I decide guilty or innocence on this one.And so would I, and you trimmed my post. I qualified that statement by prefixing it with "Unless someone's lied to try to cover up a criminal mistake, just taking the events reported as accurate"... which covers exactly that question you raise. Within those constraints my statement reflects my honest opinion.

Accountable;925493 wrote: A Jewish kibbutz is no more western society than Mormon polygamy.


What's missing is any breadth in your picture of Western society, the Kibbutz is a fundamentally European development. Where do you think all those Jewish migrants came from? They'd been discussing socialism and kibbutz organization since the mid-19th century.

spot;925546 wrote: What's missing is any breadth in your picture of Western society, the Kibbutz is a fundamentally European development. Where do you think all those Jewish migrants came from? They'd been discussing socialism and kibbutz organization since the mid-19th century.
Something that is absolutely unique to a particular subgroup isn't necessarily blanketly acceptable to the entire western society. Not every advanced society likes haggis, practices hula dancing, love curling, hunt fox on horseback, etc etc etc.

Accountable;925753 wrote: Something that is absolutely unique to a particular subgroup isn't necessarily blanketly acceptable to the entire western society. Not every advanced society likes haggis, practices hula dancing, love curling, hunt fox on horseback, etc etc etc.


Indeed not, but then my suggestion isn't for every child and it's not a copy of the Kibbutz is it.

RedGlitter;925064 wrote: Holy salt lick! Spot and I agree wholly on something!

:yh_hypno


I feel that challenging authority is healthy, how can anybody expect respect from anybody if one is disrespectful to them ??? However I'm not quite sure what this has got to do with the original OP !

spot;925832 wrote: Indeed not, but then my suggestion isn't for every child and it's not a copy of the Kibbutz is it.
How silly of me. How could I possibly misinterpreted your posts that way?



spot;923862 wrote: In an ideal society no child would suffer a family upbringing. State creches and professionally run dormitories would be far better than what Western society has done for the last few hundred years.


spot;924225 wrote: *snip*



I didn't, as it happens, have the government in mind for bringing up children. Once they're stable and healthy and no longer being transitioned out of their birth facility at say a month old they should pass to large-scale crèches. It's my fault for using "State crèche" to indicate that these competitive firms should be nation-scale organizations. I dislike the idea of government involvement in running anything whatever, all government should do is set the rules for the playing field on behalf of the citizens. Even enforcement should be a contracted out policing to rigidly enforce those rules. Have I never gone near this sort of territory before? I'm sure I have.


spot;924354 wrote: Families are the reason most of the screwed up people are screwed up.



I'd have thought one adult on duty for every dozen children would be about right for the first few years, fading out to one for twenty by the time they're moving out permanently into independence. So long as none of these children have ever been corrupted by family influences I'm sure such a system would help them grow into wonderful balanced adults.


spot;924524 wrote: *snip*

I'd have thought one adult on duty for every dozen children would be about right for the first few years, fading out to one for twenty by the time they're moving out permanently into independence. So long as none of these children have ever been corrupted by family influences I'm sure such a system would help them grow into wonderful balanced adults.



Taking England as a sample population, there are 50 million people here. 11 million of them are under 18. They'd need 2 million staff if they all lived in crèche and dormitories instead of families.



Even assuming 80% of mothers with children under 18 work (in fact it's only 65% of just those with children under 5 rising to 80% above), that's over 2 million who keep house while their children are growing. Employing crèche and dormitory staff instead takes fewer people from the workforce to bring up the country's children, not more.


spot;924623 wrote: It can come in over a number of generations of course. The way that produces the most successful children will win out eventually. It's been done already here and there - the Kibbutzim spring to mind, as a group they're a great credit to those who brought them up and an admirable set of adults.


spot;925055 wrote: *snip*

That's exactly why I'm limiting my application to Western society.

Accountable;925862 wrote: How silly of me. How could I possibly misinterpreted your posts that way?


If I were writing a book on it I'd get my ideas straight before I published.

Obviously no society is going to put all its eggs in one basket and neither should it. I'm sure you trimmed out those sections in which I suggested that the technique producing "better" adults would become predominant in the end. I think getting away from families happens to be a big step forward in improving child welfare. I think the competitive nature of the marketplace is an ideal mechanism for sorting the good from the bad. The one thing I don't want to see, as in education at any level, is a child doing better or worse because of the financial resources of his parents. That's why these things are state-funded. That's why education ought to be state-funded. Saying that doesn't mean the state should run the process, that would be catastrophic and backward. Corporations have to bid for business and be paid on results.

G#Gill;925844 wrote: I feel that challenging authority is healthy, how can anybody expect respect from anybody if one is desrespectful to them ??? However I'm not quite sure what this has got to do with the original OP !


I think the thread kinda veered off into whole different areas. I like that about our conversations here, don't you? Just when you least expect it, too.:wah:

spot;925882 wrote: If I were writing a book on it I'd get my ideas straight before I published.



Obviously no society is going to put all its eggs in one basket and neither should it. I'm sure you trimmed out those sections in which I suggested that the technique producing "better" adults would become predominant in the end. I was going to go back to prove that I only trimmed unrelated material, but screw that and screw you. If you don't know me better than that by now you're an idiot. Do your own damned verification.spot wrote: I think getting away from families happens to be a big step forward in improving child welfare. I think the competitive nature of the marketplace is an ideal mechanism for sorting the good from the bad. The one thing I don't want to see, as in education at any level, is a child doing better or worse because of the financial resources of his parents. That's why these things are state-funded. That's why education ought to be state-funded. Saying that doesn't mean the state should run the process, that would be catastrophic and backward. Corporations have to bid for business and be paid on results.Children are far more than commodities to be bid for and sorted. I think you must be right about your self-assessment earlier.

Accountable;925955 wrote: I was going to go back to prove that I only trimmed unrelated material, but screw that and screw you. If you don't know me better than that by now you're an idiot. Do your own damned verification.


"I have no desire at all to see it increase by force. I'm suggesting a commercial option of handing children over to these companies for successful rearing with no old-fashioned family life getting in the way of their success. There could even be competition for places and only the best-qualified newborns accepted, at least to begin with."

That's the bit you trimmed out.

"It can come in over a number of generations of course. The way that produces the most successful children will win out eventually.".

That's the bit in which I suggested that the technique producing "better" adults would become predominant in the end.

You challenged, if you remember, "my suggestion isn't for every child" and I took exception to that challenge.

spot;925973 wrote: "I have no desire at all to see it increase by force. I'm suggesting a commercial option of handing children over to these companies for successful rearing with no old-fashioned family life getting in the way of their success. There could even be competition for places and only the best-qualified newborns accepted, at least to begin with."



That's the bit you trimmed out.



"It can come in over a number of generations of course. The way that produces the most successful children will win out eventually.".



That's the bit in which I suggested that the technique producing "better" adults would become predominant in the end.



You challenged, if you remember, "my suggestion isn't for every child" and I took exception to that challenge.
Which ones are you leaving out?

fuzzy butt;925783 wrote: they don't ? Oh NO!!! we're becoming littel boxes!!!!!!!



Little boxes on the hillside,

Little boxes made of ticky tacky

Little boxes on the hillside,

Little boxes all the same,

There's a green one and a pink one

And a blue one and a yellow one

And they're all made out of ticky tacky

And they all look just the same.

And the people in the houses

All went to the university

Where they were put in boxes

And they came out all the same

And there's doctors and lawyers

And business executives

And they're all made out of ticky tacky

And they all look just the same.

And they all play on the golf course

And drink their martinis dry

And they all have pretty children

And the children go to school,

And the children go to summer camp

And then to the university

Where they are put in boxes

And they come out all the same.

And the boys go into business

And marry and raise a family

In boxes made of ticky tacky

And they all look just the same,

There's a green one and a pink one

And a blue one and a yellow one

And they're all made out of ticky tacky


I love it.

I read the first 3 pages, then jumped to the last as it lost the plot. It is difficult to put one's self into a situation. Getting married, excited, in a rush to go somewhere, it shouldn't happen, but it does. Poor kid, poor mother, poor family.

Accountable;925989 wrote: Which ones are you leaving out?


At the moment, as I muse? I'm insisting that no family's forced to participate. I'm asking that the government money currently going toward family-brought-up children be allowed to follow them into the scheme. I'm asking for the law to be changed to allow the corporation to become the sole legal guardian of each child with all the rights and responsibilities that implies. If there's a funding shortfall I'm not sure where I'd look to have it made up. At that stage, whoever gives birth to a child and doesn't want to bring it up can hand it over. People will end up doing that for the benefit of the child.

fuzzy butt;925783 wrote: they don't ? Oh NO!!! we're becoming littel boxes!!!!!!!



Little boxes on the hillside,

Little boxes made of ticky tacky

Little boxes on the hillside,

Little boxes all the same,

There's a green one and a pink one

And a blue one and a yellow one

And they're all made out of ticky tacky

And they all look just the same.

And the people in the houses

All went to the university

Where they were put in boxes

And they came out all the same

And there's doctors and lawyers

And business executives

And they're all made out of ticky tacky

And they all look just the same.

And they all play on the golf course

And drink their martinis dry

And they all have pretty children

And the children go to school,

And the children go to summer camp

And then to the university

Where they are put in boxes

And they come out all the same.

And the boys go into business

And marry and raise a family

In boxes made of ticky tacky

And they all look just the same,

There's a green one and a pink one

And a blue one and a yellow one

And they're all made out of ticky tacky


To whom are you attributing these lyrics?

spot;926018 wrote: At the moment, as I muse? I'm insisting that no family's forced to participate. I'm asking that the government money currently going toward family-brought-up children be allowed to follow them into the scheme. I'm asking for the law to be changed to allow the corporation to become the sole legal guardian of each child with all the rights and responsibilities that implies. If there's a funding shortfall I'm not sure where I'd look to have it made up. At that stage, whoever gives birth to a child and doesn't want to bring it up can hand it over. People will end up doing that for the benefit of the child.


So why not just make the orphanages already set in place more predominate in succession with higher wages ultimately ensuring more competent guardians?...

Higher wages ultimately congruent to higher taxes...

Because the children I'm discussing aren't orphans? Where did orphanages come from? I don't think England HAS orphanages any longer.

Are you suggesting the low paid shouldn't aspire to higher pay because the government will increase their tax burden?

The quality of the staff's irrelevant if the purpose of the corporation's not what I've put forward. There aren't any corporations like this yet because they'd be illegal.

spot;926243 wrote: Because the children I'm discussing aren't orphans? Where did orphanages come from? I don't think England HAS orphanages any longer.

Are you suggesting the low paid shouldn't aspire to higher pay because the government will increase their tax burden? No...I'm suggesting that people will not give their children over to anyone else other than those who abandon them...

spot;926243 wrote:

The quality of the staff's irrelevant if the purpose of the corporation's not what I've put forward. There aren't any corporations like this yet because they'd be illegal. What's left is changing the law...And without taxes this business venture would fail...

spot;924354 wrote: Families are the reason most of the screwed up people are screwed up.

I'd have thought one adult on duty for every dozen children would be about right for the first few years, fading out to one for twenty by the time they're moving out permanently into independence. So long as none of these children have ever been corrupted by family influences I'm sure such a system would help them grow into wonderful balanced adults.


Sounds a little like a brainwashing regime to me !!! Could this have been what Hitler was aiming for with his so called 'master race' plan ???

I'd be very interested to know what kind of curriculum for growing up this faction would be using.

Also, we can't even get the school boards sorted out- how would we go about raising these handover children in the best way? Who will decide what is best? The governing faction? Oh no! That would be terrible at best. I don't think it's dysfunctional families that raise messed up kids. I think it's messed up people raising messed up kids. All you'd be doing as I see it is switching who's doing the messing up. And removing familial love from the equation.

RedGlitter;926300 wrote: I'd be very interested to know what kind of curriculum for growing up this faction would be using.

Also, we can't even get the school boards sorted out- how would we go about raising these handover children in the best way? Who will decide what is best? The governing faction? Oh no! That would be terrible at best. I don't think it's dysfunctional families that raise messed up kids. I think it's messed up people raising messed up kids. All you'd be doing as I see it is switching who's doing the messing up. And removing familial love from the equation.
The one irreplaceable & most valuable thing that Family offers.



Spot, I allege you speak out of ignorance. Have you ever lived institutionalized as you describe?