Multiple Choice Question

Blockhead
Blockhead Posts: 1,538
edited April 2011 in A Moving Train
Say you are a parent raising a child/children and since you are a great parent and want absolutly the best for him or her in terms of success in both personal (family) and social (community) which parenting style would you use.
A. Teach your child responsiblties: Have them engage in chores around the house/neighborhood with either money/privlage reward. Teach them to take pride in their work and actions. Make sure they are responsible for their actions and face consequenes. Show them the different paths to success to fit their individuality and be willing to put money/aid into helping them achieve that.

or

B. Give your Child what he/she wants with no responsibilities: Give them a weekly allowance with having them help around the house or neighborhood. Let them do inadequate work both in school and home without any repercussions. Don't teach them responsibilities because there will always be someone to blame/bail them out. Don't set any boundries or rules (no regulation). Do not put in the time to locate the different avenues of sucess for your child and let them do whatever they want without guidance.

I am sure (hope) most of you would pick A. If so, wouldn't you want the gov. to implement this same type of "parenting program" on welfare recipients. If we really want to help these people wouldn't we want them to put in the same effort? But the Gov. runs the program like B. which does nothing for the individual / individuals family or the community. Why do people continually consist on running the program like B? You know who you are...
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13456

Comments

  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    The government is not a parent (as any good conservative should know) and welfare recipients are not children. They should not be treated like children. Your analogy is flawed, and very telling of your paternalistic attitude toward those less fortunate than you.

    I just wish everyone's parents had taught them not to judge.

    Also, did you just start a new thread so you wouldn't have to answer the questions posed to you in the other one?
  • JonnyPistachio
    JonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    Blockhead wrote:
    Say you are a parent raising a child/children and since you are a great parent and want absolutly the best for him or her in terms of success in both personal (family) and social (community) which parenting style would you use.
    A. Teach your child responsiblties: Have them engage in chores around the house/neighborhood with either money/privlage reward. Teach them to take pride in their work and actions. Make sure they are responsible for their actions and face consequenes. Show them the different paths to success to fit their individuality and be willing to put money/aid into helping them achieve that.

    or

    B. Give your Child what he/she wants with no responsibilities: Give them a weekly allowance with having them help around the house or neighborhood. Let them do inadequate work both in school and home without any repercussions. Don't teach them responsibilities because there will always be someone to blame/bail them out. Don't set any boundries or rules (no regulation). Do not put in the time to locate the different avenues of sucess for your child and let them do whatever they want without guidance.

    I am sure (hope) most of you would pick A. If so, wouldn't you want the gov. to implement this same type of "parenting program" on welfare recipients. If we really want to help these people wouldn't we want them to put in the same effort? But the Gov. runs the program like B. which does nothing for the individual / individuals family or the community. Why do people continually consist on running the program like B? You know who you are...

    I knew exactly what you were getting at before I finished the first two snetences. But its a crappy analogy because your kids dont have kids depending on them.

    I've said it before, I dont like the way some of welfare is run, but would you rather take it away and have them break into your house for food?

    You're also forgetting the people who are the working poor... unless you still think that all people on welfare are sitting around watching thier 60 inch flat panels while they do drugs.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    its a crappy analogy because your kids dont have kids depending on them.

    Exactly. Maybe a better question (though still a questionable analogy) would be whether you would cut off your children's basic needs (food, shelter, clothing) if they were not helping out as much as you wanted them to, particularly if they usually helped out but were having some problem that was keeping them from helping out at the moment.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    here's my multiple choice question:

    a plane crashes and everyone survives and are washed up on a deserted island ... is the best means of survival:

    A. Everyone is out for themselves. Survival of the fittest. People think only of themselves and will do whatever it takes to survive.

    or

    B. Everyone works together. People are treated equally for the most part. People make sacrifices to ensure the survival of the group.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,827
    i would choose option C, make my kids take drug tests in order to collect their allowance and make them pay for their own testing out of their agreed upon allowance dollar amount...


    :|
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,827
    or better yet, option D where i don't tell anybody how to raise their kids...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • JonnyPistachio
    JonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    polaris_x wrote:
    here's my multiple choice question:

    a plane crashes and everyone survives and are washed up on a deserted island ... is the best means of survival:

    A. Everyone is out for themselves. Survival of the fittest. People think only of themselves and will do whatever it takes to survive.

    or

    B. Everyone works together. People are treated equally for the most part. People make sacrifices to ensure the survival of the group.
    :thumbup: :clap:
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    _ wrote:
    The government is not a parent (as any good conservative should know) and welfare recipients are not children. They should not be treated like children. Your analogy is flawed, and very telling of your paternalistic attitude toward those less fortunate than you.

    I just wish everyone's parents had taught them not to judge.

    Also, did you just start a new thread so you wouldn't have to answer the questions posed to you in the other one?
    What world do you live in. The Gov. is thier parent, they are raising their children, paying for their lifestyles, giving them homes/clothes/food. I am pretty sure that is the parents job. Correct me if I am wrong.
    The definition of a Child is - Some one who can't take care of them selves and is dependant on someone else to live, again correct me if I am wrong. So again, they should be treated like children if they can't take care of themselves enough to provide basic needs. My analogy is simply to point out that people who see no issues with how the gov. is running their program are only doing these poor people harm.
    I am only pointing out personal experiences that I /my wife have had (her working in a inner city school)
    Quick story - my wife and principles had to meet with a parent and student because he was doing so poorly, she tried to push some issue that he was unable to learn because of some disablity. He ended up getting this disability approved ( I am not sure the process, its been a while since I heard the story) and his mom infront of everybody said, "you know what this (insert boys name) you being disable get us more money, now Im going get you that Droid phone I promised to get you if you got this disablity"
    What other thread are you refering to?
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    or better yet, option D where i don't tell anybody how to raise their kids...
    Then don't expect other people to pay for their kids. They are "their" kids right??? why is it anybody else's responsibility???
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    Blockhead wrote:
    _ wrote:
    The government is not a parent (as any good conservative should know) and welfare recipients are not children. They should not be treated like children. Your analogy is flawed, and very telling of your paternalistic attitude toward those less fortunate than you.

    I just wish everyone's parents had taught them not to judge.

    Also, did you just start a new thread so you wouldn't have to answer the questions posed to you in the other one?
    What world do you live in. The Gov. is thier parent, they are raising their children, paying for their lifestyles, giving them homes/clothes/food. I am pretty sure that is the parents job. Correct me if I am wrong.
    The definition of a Child is - Some one who can't take care of them selves and is dependant on someone else to live, again correct me if I am wrong. So again, they should be treated like children if they can't take care of themselves enough to provide basic needs. My analogy is simply to point out that people who see no issues with how the gov. is running their program are only doing these poor people harm.
    I am only pointing out personal experiences that I /my wife have had (her working in a inner city school)
    Quick story - my wife and principles had to meet with a parent and student because he was doing so poorly, she tried to push some issue that he was unable to learn because of some disablity. He ended up getting this disability approved ( I am not sure the process, its been a while since I heard the story) and his mom infront of everybody said, "you know what this (insert boys name) you being disable get us more money, now Im going get you that Droid phone I promised to get you if you got this disablity"
    What other thread are you refering to?

    The thread about welfare recipients being tested for drugs.

    So what do you think about American paternalism in other contexts then? Do you think we should have the right to control those nations for which we provide foreign aid, because they are relying on us to do so? Do you agree with IMF policy that countries receiving money from them must follow their rules? Do you think we should do whatever China wants, since we owe them so much money? Do they have a right to tell us how to run our lives? Are we China's children?
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,827
    Blockhead wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    or better yet, option D where i don't tell anybody how to raise their kids...
    Then don't expect other people to pay for their kids. They are "their" kids right??? why is it anybody else's responsibility???
    because you are a member of society are you not? so unless you go all unibomber and live off the land in some remote forest you are paying taxes, and those taxes go to help families whether you like it or not. perhaps run for office and try to change it? i doubt that you are going to change the sense of community and concern for their fellow man that most of our society possesses though.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I truly hope karma is real. Some people have a lot to learn about the world - and humanity.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    because you are a member of society are you not? so unless you go all unibomber and live off the land in some remote forest you are paying taxes, and those taxes go to help families whether you like it or not. perhaps run for office and try to change it? i doubt that you are going to change the sense of community and concern for their fellow man that most of our society possesses though.

    It's amazing to me that there could even be such opposition to the sense of community & concern for our fellow man. It's also amazing to me that so many citizens of the United States have such little understanding of the tax system, and where government money comes from, and who benefits from it. Most importantly, it's amazing that some people (who promote education) have such little desire to learn. Sad. :(
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    _ wrote:
    Most importantly, it's amazing that some people (who promote education) have such little desire to learn. Sad. :(

    it's the inability to think critically ... too many people now just absorb what they are fed without digesting it ...
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Blockhead wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    or better yet, option D where i don't tell anybody how to raise their kids...
    Then don't expect other people to pay for their kids. They are "their" kids right??? why is it anybody else's responsibility???
    because you are a member of society are you not? so unless you go all unibomber and live off the land in some remote forest you are paying taxes, and those taxes go to help families whether you like it or not. perhaps run for office and try to change it? i doubt that you are going to change the sense of community and concern for their fellow man that most of our society possesses though.
    Your right, were ALL members of society, no one group of people (tax payers). I am sorry but there is NO sense of community in inner city/ poor areas. But I think if you start having them be responsible for thier property/children/own needs everything else comes relatively easy. What are you teaching them by just giving hand outs? What good does that do?
  • EmBleve
    EmBleve Posts: 3,019
    "so will Glenn Beck be the voice of reason that gets through to the American Church? It is the responsibility of the Church, the Body of Christ to feed the poor and job train--not the Government."
    just went to my facebook and one of my 'friends' had posted this as his status. Rather unbelievable. :shock: I'm not even sure where he's going with that and I'm scared to ask.
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    _ wrote:
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I truly hope karma is real. Some people have a lot to learn about the world - and humanity.
    Wow, you sound like a real steward of humanity wishing ill will on people who have a differing opinion than you. And another old thread you wished my children would burn in a fire.
    Sadly you don't know jack shit about the world we live in, everything everybody says that opposes you is a sweeping generalization, and only the poor on welfare manage to work 2 or more jobs supporting a family.
    I would much rather help the poor than just give them handouts. There is a big difference. Your breeding generations of entitlement. Thats not how you solve problems.
    I know your a woman and all but quit taking things so personal. Try looking at things objectively.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,827
    Blockhead wrote:
    _ wrote:
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I truly hope karma is real. Some people have a lot to learn about the world - and humanity.
    Wow, you sound like a real steward of humanity wishing ill will on people who have a differing opinion than you. And another old thread you wished my children would burn in a fire.
    Sadly you don't know jack shit about the world we live in, everything everybody says that opposes you is a sweeping generalization, and only the poor on welfare manage to work 2 or more jobs supporting a family.
    I would much rather help the poor than just give them handouts. There is a big difference. Your breeding generations of entitlement. Thats not how you solve problems.
    I know your a woman and all but quit taking things so personal. Try looking at things objectively.
    what was the point in starting the thread? option A was clearly what you thought was the right way and you used positive language in that while option b used negative or provocative language. this is similar to the electiontime robocalls i get when they are asking biased or leading questions.

    seems to me that you just wanted to passively/aggressively bait everyone into a similar discussion to the threads as last week, but you asked our opinion instead of just giving yours which has been well documented. i have said what i wanted to say in those threads and this one is going down the same road so this discussion is pointless.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    he didn't answer my multiple choice! ... :shock:
  • keeponrockin
    keeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    Why do I think welfare is a good thing?

    Because I don't like the idea of starving children.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V

Categories