fionwe1987 Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 10 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said: I dont think i specified jail for truancy, i think fines might be better. Anything that links consequences for the parents to the chidrens bad behavior. Obviously truancy isnt as egregious as violence or theft so the skin in the game wouldnt be on the same level. This conversation is surreal when most states allow home "schooling" with no standards or no reporting requirements of any kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 12 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said: This conversation is surreal when most states allow home "schooling" with no standards or no reporting requirements of any kind. I dont care for home schooling either, but really that and truancy are a pretty big distraction from what I intended to convey, just the notion that parents should face consequences. Sure one can debate how severe they are or whether truancy even warrants a fine or any penalty. Another poster wondered whether I would support locking up the parents of gang members, if it were a violent gang then perhaps a few weekends in jail for those parents might motivate them towards doing something proactively and intravene to change that behavior. Or just dont have your kids in Michigan where you can be locked up for being a deadbeat parent thankfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 And here I thought the reason Jackie Chan should be locked up is for those awful movies with Owen Wilson or Chris Rock, turns out he should've been busted for his kid's misdeeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissdbyfire Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 I could be wrong but what I understood from what DireWolfSpirit was saying was, if a kid commits a crime where the parents bear responsibility for said crime, the parents should be held accountable as well. DireWolfSpirit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phylum of Alexandria Posted February 8 Author Share Posted February 8 6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said: I could be wrong but what I understood from what DireWolfSpirit was saying was, if a kid commits a crime where the parents bear responsibility for said crime, the parents should be held accountable as well. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think it would really depend on the circumstances of the case, and I would rather lean away rather than toward a tendency to lock parents up. Kind of like the issue of using song lyrics as evidence of criminal behavior. Could it be relevant? Sure. But in many instances it seems wrong to do so. Fines, maybe. For parenting, not spicy lyrics. Zorral 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, fionwe1987 said: This conversation is surreal when most states allow home "schooling" with no standards or no reporting requirements of any kind. That’s not true. My Daughter was home schooled all the the way through to college. She had a curriculum and regular testing via the Iowa test of basic skills. She’s at Clemson Honors now and has been President’s list for the entire time she has matriculated there. I’m not saying that is the result for all home schooled kids but it is a misnomer to assume all homeschooling is substandard or without value. (much to my wife’s frustration my Daughter is significantly to the left of both of us politically… I love my daughter and respect her point of view and political opinions) Edited February 8 by Ser Scot A Ellison drawkcabi 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 28 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said: I could be wrong but what I understood from what DireWolfSpirit was saying was, if a kid commits a crime where the parents bear responsibility for said crime, the parents should be held accountable as well. it should be looked at like corporate manslaughter, if you knew something was a risk, and either neglected to manage it or actively made it worse, you are in the shit. DireWolfSpirit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said: truancy That was not involved in the testimony in the charges against the boy's mother, at least in any of the coverage I've read, which states exactly the opposite -- she and father were both called to take the kid home, but they didn't do that because they had to work, so kept him in school! It is 4 counts of involuntary manslaughter with which she is charged. There is nothing at all about truancy, guys. I am really conflicted about them being charged -- except there is the complicity they got the kid the gun at his request, and they evidently didn't see or else it didn't register with them that it should matter, the state of their kid's mind. He said in his journal they didn't heed his wants and needs and requests for a therapist, but they said he'd never asked, and of course they didn't see his journal. There is so much parents don't know about their kids ... and punishing/accusing any parent as responsible for what their kids do ... pure inversion of the Stasi way, yes? But still constant surveillance and reporting for 'crimes' of any kind, including o my yes, political. Edited February 8 by Zorral Ser Scot A Ellison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fionwe1987 Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 30 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: That’s not true. My Daughter was home schooled all the the way through to college. She had a curriculum and regular testing via the Iowa test of basic skills. She’s at Clemson Honors now and has been President’s list for the entire time she has matriculated there. I’m not saying that is the result for all home schooled kids but it is a misnomer to assume all homeschooling is substandard or without value. (much to my wife’s frustration my Daughter is significantly to the left of both of us politically… I love her and respect her point of view and political opinions) I'm not saying all home schooling is awful. I'm saying most states do nothing to prevent it from being awful, and have no standards for what home schooled kids need to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 21 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said: I'm not saying all home schooling is awful. I'm saying most states do nothing to prevent it from being awful, and have no standards for what home schooled kids need to learn. Interestingly… when my daughter was in homeschool there were standards and reporting requirements for such schooling in deep red South Carolina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Further on this latest development in punishing parents for their children's actions -- or non-actions, as the case may be -- when does this end? In many senses we see the fascists attempting to 'get' President Biden via what his son has or has not done (in most cases, it seems, did not do, see the computer that had stuff planted on it). And ye olden days prior to the Enlightenment in the "west" entire families were punished for what a member of them did -- or merely was accused of -- including, yes, death and execution. Yes, indeed, this is something else the fascists would like to return, as part of their golden lost days of merika great prior to the 1960's and the Civil Rights movement and its achievements. It's not a coincidence that the violence of that decade -- not even including Vietnam and the anti-nuclear movement -- was off the hook. How many figures were out-and-out assassinated in that decade alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Man, Sotomayor sounds awful. Just not good questioning or speaking. Kagan and gorsuch are miles above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Who is repping for huge orange pile of stink's case here? Of course Trump's Supreme Court lawyer is the same guy behind Texas' sadistic abortion ban For Jonathan Mitchell, gutting democracy is the means, but controlling women is the motive https://www.salon.com/2024/02/08/of-course-lawyer-is-the-same-guy-behind-texas-sadistic-abortion-ban/ Quote .... Mitchell earned this "worst of the worst" title by being the architect behind the Texas "bounty hunter" law, which adds a level of creative sadism to abortion bans that would make the villain in the "Saw" movies envious. There have been so many vicious abortion bans passed since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 that readers could be forgiven for forgetting how ugly the Texas law is. To recap: Beyond just banning abortion, the Mitchell-penned law offers a $10,000 bounty to any person who sues someone who "aids and abets" an abortion. It empowers every two-bit bully imaginable to stick their noses into other people's business. A nosy Karen who thinks her neighbor's daughter is a "slut?" She can sue that neighbor for taking her daughter to the abortion appointment. An angry incel can punish a more romantically successful classmate by suing him for paying for a girlfriend's abortion. Local church busybodies who find out a community member donated to an abortion fund can now sue for "aiding and abetting." And, as most feminists immediately predicted, abusive husbands and boyfriends can sue the friends of their victim, for helping with an abortion that helped a victim escape her destructive relationship. One of Mitchell's first big cases under the law looks exactly like what feminists predicted. Marcus Silva did not want his ex-wife to leave him. Witnesses and text messages paint a vivid picture of the cruelty he repeatedly inflicted on her that made her flee, however. He reportedly got drunk at her work party and called her a "slut" and a "whore" in front of her colleagues. He allegedly monitored her phone against her will and would follow her around the house, screaming invective. He reportedly threatened to release sexually explicit photos of her if she didn't return to do his laundry. According to court documents, Silva told his ex-wife to have sex with him or "you’re just gonna have your f*cking life destroyed in every f*cking way that you can imagine to where you want to blow your f*cking brains out." .... .... What links these various issues together, besides irrational hate, is obvious: These stances are all wildly unpopular with a majority of Americans. People like having health care, free speech, and the right to a private sex life. Mitchell no doubt understands that, if he put any of his preferred policies up for a vote, his views would lose big time. There's a lot of talk in the media, correctly, about how Trump and the MAGA movement are a threat to democracy. But why the GOP has turned fascist is often lost in the discourse. Mitchell's presence on this case before the Supreme Court shows why: They know they cannot win with free and fair elections — so they are focused on destroying democracy itself. .... It is ALL interelated, connected and aimed at making ALL of us as miserable as possible, particularly women. Jace, Extat and Ser Scot A Ellison 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 (edited) Jamie Raskin speaks -- writes -- coherently and intelligently about the fascists pretending to govern Their clown car. Republicans are sticking to Trump — they're about to reap the whirlwind Rep. Jamie Raskin on the "fascistic strategy" that's turning the GOP dangerous, incompetent and irrelevant https://www.salon.com/2024/02/08/are-sticking-to--theyre-about-to-reap-the-whirlwind/ Elsewhere I listened to immigration lawyers speak about how very difficult immigration law is, how much one must know to argue immigration law effectively in court -- and how there are few people who are that competent and learned, and the fascists have no lawyers who are immigrations lawyers either in the House (i.e. to draft law) or argue it (in court). The only more complicated field of law than US immigration law is US tax law . . . there are far more who are competent in that law, but none of them are in the House. So it is always more feasible for Them to shut down any attempt to reform, clarify, codify, improve, interpret than to do the work. Which is why nothing has happened of meaning since Reagan and 1985. Additionally, re the current fascists and their Godfather, Reagan -- he was the first to use the ploy of delaying desirable actions by the US to win an election -- i.e. bribing Iran to keep the hostages until AFTER Jimmy Carter lost the election. Edited February 8 by Zorral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 (edited) On the challenge to Colorado putting Trump on the ballot I'm going to side quite a bit with the conservatives because the alternative is exceedingly bad. I agree that states should be able to disqualify people from the ballots that do not qualify legally. That makes sense. But I don't think you can do that based on the interpretation of actions taken by people. Either they need to be entirely factual by themselves (natural born citizen, age, following the general policies of getting to be on the ballot) or they need to be unambiguously and finally decided, and likely done so at a level beyond the state. Why? Because if you don't do this, states can choose entirely based on their state's elected and non-elected officials what they want to do. States don't even necessarily have things like courts to resolve questions to ballots either, which means in theory you can have some secretary of state decide that one entire party's members are ineligible because they participated in an insurrection due to their being associated with a party - and there would be virtually no way to challenge that. That level of power at the state is pretty absurd to comprehend, but it is in theory possible. The end result is not very satisfying and basically makes the 14th amendment clause largely toothless; it would mean that you would need to be tried and convicted of insurrection or you would need congress to specifically pass a law saying that this person is ineligible - but that's still significantly better than just letting random non-judicial voices decide what an insurrection means and whether or not someone is eligible. It also unfortunately sets up a real nasty issue if Trump wins, which is that the electoral processing down the road may ALSO have to decide if he is eligible to take office based on that 14th amendment - and in theory could rule that he is not. That would be a very, very messy situation but is also well within the system as written, and is in fact one of the things that SCOTUS is currently talking about. Edited February 8 by Kalbear Larry of the Lawn and Jace, Extat 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Yeah, overall I'm OK with Trump remaining on Colorado's ballot for essentially the same reasons. If Colorado's position was upheld, it would likely start the beginning of other states disqualifying other candidates via kangaroo court processes. Republicans are already accusing people of treason and high crimes for actions that don't come remotely close, so it's not a stretch to say that they would use similar tactics to keep people off the ballot. Larry of the Lawn, Prince of the North, Kalbear and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conflicting Thought Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 6 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said: Whats next is the mass shooters pos dad is to be tried. I predict his sentencing will be even harsher, they say he bought the boy the weapon he used to murder his schoolmates. Im not at all sure what you are asking about truancy cases, there should be consequences for parents when their minor children steal or commit violent acts, you shouldnt spawn them and leave the rest of society to suffer from their harmful behavior. The jury fealt the parents were culpable, the verdict reflects that and I applaud it. Im sure this wouldnt be used against black families at all, who are disproportianally targeted by the justice system. Fuck minorities right? Maybe you should think a little bitnmore about the consequences of this "brilliant" idea LongRider, JGP and Zorral 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conflicting Thought Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 5 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said: I dont think i specified jail for truancy, i think fines might be better. Anything that links consequences for the parents to the chidrens bad behavior. Obviously truancy isnt as egregious as violence or theft so the skin in the game wouldnt be on the same level. So fuck the poor even more, awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 4 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said: And here I thought the reason Jackie Chan should be locked up is for those awful movies with Owen Wilson or Chris Rock, turns out he should've been busted for his kid's misdeeds. Sir, you have gone too far! And it's Chris Tucker. Not all black people look the same! Chris Rock makes terrible movies with Adam Sandler. 12 minutes ago, Mudguard said: Yeah, overall I'm OK with Trump remaining on Colorado's ballot for essentially the same reasons. If Colorado's position was upheld, it would likely start the beginning of other states disqualifying other candidates via kangaroo court processes. Republicans are already accusing people of treason and high crimes for actions that don't come remotely close, so it's not a stretch to say that they would use similar tactics to keep people off the ballot. It also wouldn't be surprising to see the SC rule that it's okay when Republicans do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conflicting Thought Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 4 hours ago, BigFatCoward said: it should be looked at like corporate manslaughter, if you knew something was a risk, and either neglected to manage it or actively made it worse, you are in the shit. But if the means to manage somehing like that arent even available to people how do you do it. Seems like a way to put the responsability of the state in the hands of individuals. Like if your son has antisocial tendencies and you cant afford to take him to the psychologist or to buy him his meds, etc. How are the parents responsible for that. Seems like a bad idea any way you see it Jace, Extat and Zorral 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts