"We have to protect the children!" (disclaimer: may not apply to LGBT, female, Muslim, etc kids)

[Shadow Wolf]

You make it sound like people are saying "We have to protect the White Christian kids."

That tends to be the ideas it revolves around. America's Right has to protect white Christian values and ensure they are indoctrinated into children. They need to protect them the moral-destroying LBGT, that hip-hop thing they don't even know what it actually is. And of course they have to protect the idea of preserving a fetishistic sense of patriotism in children, because Heaven forbid children get the idea that other countries have rights similar to or better than America and might just be better because health care is considered a right and many try to not let higher education sink students in debt. And if they don't get a feeling of quasi-sexual arousal when doing the pledge of allegiance, something just isn't right.

 

[columbus]

fun to replace.

What a boy
Tom

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The very worst part is that I am sure those lobbying for those religious influences in schools actually believe they are only doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, believe their actions to be sanctioned by God, and when they get caught and it bites them in the butt and they get sued and publicly berated, they have Satan to blame - and anyone and everyone who challenged them can be believed to be under Satan's evil influence.

For all their backward thinking in many, many other areas, Christians really have contrived an ingenious circle of self-deception and a pretty much ironclad base for excuse-making that is guaranteed to garner sympathy from those within "the faith."

 

[Nakosis]

Anyone else notice this odd little double standard in our political discourse? Primarily, it seems to come from the right side of the aisle- more often than not.

I think it is a mistake to expect government to protect anyone's interests other than it's own. Sometimes those interests may align with yours, other times not.

The government is filled with people with whatever motivations they possess. If you care, you have to look after your own. There's no guarantee the government will do it for you.

My son who is only half white, looks white though, was ridiculed by his teachers in front of the class because of his assumed White Privilege. Since we have a good relationship he came to me and we could discuss it. Basically how to exist in a hostile environment.

You can't expect a perfect environment to raise your kids in. You as a parent have to be involved and not rely on the government to raise your children.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yet it's the point of the thread. Right there in the title.

I see the title says "MAY". Has anyone shown where the Right clearly excludes those children?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I see the title says "MAY". Has anyone shown where the Right clearly excludes those children?

If you misread the topic, no need to try a semantics defence. Just accept you made a mistake and move on.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I read the opening post, and stated my opinion quite clearly. No "mistake" has been made; you're trying to lay arguments at my feet that I didn't make, to try and shoe-horn me to the title alone. If that was really the issue, maybe the opening post should have been more clear to that, and provided some evidence that those on "the right side of the aisle" exclude minorities and women from their pleads of concern.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What a boy
Tom

Yessiree!

 

[Buddha Dharma]

You make it sound like people are saying "We have to protect the White Christian kids."

That isn't what the links I shared pretty much show? Notice I didn't have to mention White Christian kids, but you easily inferred it. That's how blatant and obvious the privilege is in our system. No one has to mention it.

For the record, using "clock boy" as an example is pretty lame due to the circumstances behind the story.

How so?

It was clearly a setup and everything the family has done since then supports that it was done to garner a reaction.

I don't think so. What was to garner a reaction?

How did children even become this important. They can barely take care of themselves. They're untrained and fun to replace.

I hope you're joking, right?

What children do liberals omit from their protection arguments?

That's exactly my point

I think it is a mistake to expect government to protect anyone's interests other than it's own.

Even though the purpose of a democratic government is to protect the rights and interests of the citizens electing them? This is how Libertarians and others are changing the political discourse in a very dangerous way.

I see the title says "MAY". Has anyone shown where the Right clearly excludes those children?

I don't know how it isn't obvious what the title is referencing. I honestly have to assume you're playing ignorant.

What issue? Your opening statement just asks if anyone has noticed the use, and lays it at the feet of the Right.

I lay at the feet of the right what obviously belongs there: that they inconsistently use children in political arguments, when they don't actually care about all children.

 

[Nakosis]

Even though the purpose of a democratic government is to protect the rights and interests of the citizens electing them? This is how Libertarians and others are changing the political discourse in a very dangerous way.

Maybe in some future utopia, there will exist some harmonious government. This is not the government we have.

Maybe in a future without diversity. No noticeable racial differences, no nationalities, no cultural differences, no political parties, no religions.

There exist groups of folks who look out for their own groups interest. Hard to avoid that unless you get rid of group identity.

 

[Enoch07]

Anyone else notice this odd little double standard in our political discourse? Primarily, it seems to come from the right side of the aisle- more often than not.

You never answered my question on the other thread that spawned this one. So I will ask again.

Would you show pornographic material to underage children?

 

[YmirGF]

That isn't what the links I shared pretty much show? Notice I didn't have to mention White Christian kids, but you easily inferred it. That's how blatant and obvious the privilege is in our system. No one has to mention it.

Personally, I am getting so sick of this stupid 'argument'.

How so?

Due to his father being a total nutjob. The fruit did not fall far from the tree on this one.

I don't think so. What was to garner a reaction?

I'm curious why you think that anyone bringing something that did not look unlike a bomb, to the untrained eye, is somehow meaningful. The kid (and his family) must have made the connection.

The reaction intended was to be able to scream 'Islamophobia" due to him being a Muslim.
It obviously worked on you.

The Family of 'Clock Boy' Files a Civil Rights Lawsuit

Ahmed Mohamed, "Clock Boy," loses federal discrimination lawsuit - CBS News

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Personally, I am getting so sick of this stupid 'argument'.

That I didn't even make part of the argument. You inferred it. However, since you did- figured I'd point how it isn't difficult or inaccurate to infer. By all means though, let the rage commence based on something you threw in. Great way to muddy your opponent's argument isn't it?

Due to his father being a total nutjob. The fruit did not fall far from the tree on this one.

The kid (and his family) must have made the connection.

Why must they have made the connection? Because Muslims can't do anything without ulterior motives?

The reaction intended was to be able to scream 'Islamophobia" due to him being a Muslim.

Yep, it has to be a conspiracy! Clearly that's what happened

 

[suncowiam]

Personally, I am getting so sick of this stupid 'argument'.


Due to his father being a total nutjob. The fruit did not fall far from the tree on this one.

I'm curious why you think that anyone bringing something that did not look unlike a bomb, to the untrained eye, is somehow meaningful. The kid (and his family) must have made the connection.

The reaction intended was to be able to scream 'Islamophobia" due to him being a Muslim.
It obviously worked on you.

The Family of 'Clock Boy' Files a Civil Rights Lawsuit

Ahmed Mohamed, "Clock Boy," loses federal discrimination lawsuit - CBS News

I thought you were a big fan of trolls?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I don't know how it isn't obvious what the title is referencing.

It's quite clear what the title claims, and what your opening post fails to prove. The links that you provided, as well, don't show instances of "think of the children; but only these children".

I lay at the feet of the right what obviously belongs there: that they inconsistently use children in political arguments, when they don't actually care about all children.

And my point still remains that the Left does just the same. We'll see tons of children refugees from the Middle East and Africa, but how many from the Ukraine? We hear all about LGBT children being bullied, and the horrors it inflicts on them, but did any who make that argument care about the bullying that caused a kid who shoots up his school? No, we never really hear about that.

The Left are just as bad about selectively using children to push their agendas. Both sides are guilty, so it's not just a problem with the Right. Pointing fingers doesn't diminish from the valid criticism that it's just a wretched political play to begin with, whichever side tries to use it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm curious why you think that anyone bringing something that did not look unlike a bomb, to the untrained eye, is somehow meaningful. The kid (and his family) must have made the connection.

The reaction intended was to be able to scream 'Islamophobia" due to him being a Muslim.
It obviously worked on you.

The Family of 'Clock Boy' Files a Civil Rights Lawsuit

Ahmed Mohamed, "Clock Boy," loses federal discrimination lawsuit - CBS News

Are you serious?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

but did any who make that argument care about the bullying that caused a kid who shoots up his school?

That's a bad example because bullying victims aren't likely to become more violent. With school shooters, bullying isn't really the underlying cause. It has become a convenient trope for the media. Unfortunately, this contributes to a romanticized notion that school shooters are just oppressed outcasts striking out at their tormentors, which isn't true at all. For example, most of them kill or injure people they don't even know. If you want revenge, you would kill the people who actually wronged you and not some random person. Some of them, like the Columbine killers, were known to bully kids themselves (one of the kids they killed was special needs, too, and they belittled a black student with racial slurs when they killed him). Repeating that nonsense could also make it worse for misfit types because people might stereotype them as dangerous. There isn't a general mold for school shooters. Some are depressives who are suicidal, some are clinically delusional, some are psychopathic with a history of anti-social behavior and others have a combination of those traits.
Talking about bullying in the wake of school shootings can be dangerous, experts say
School Shooters .info | Resources on school shootings, perpetrators, and prevention

Bullying in general has become a topic of concern that various people and organizations are seeking to address, though.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That's exactly my point

Yes, so I thought. That's why I asked the question.

 

[idav]

It's quite clear what the title claims, and what your opening post fails to prove. The links that you provided, as well, don't show instances of "think of the children; but only these children".


And my point still remains that the Left does just the same. We'll see tons of children refugees from the Middle East and Africa, but how many from the Ukraine? We hear all about LGBT children being bullied, and the horrors it inflicts on them, but did any who make that argument care about the bullying that caused a kid who shoots up his school? No, we never really hear about that.

The Left are just as bad about selectively using children to push their agendas. Both sides are guilty, so it's not just a problem with the Right. Pointing fingers doesn't diminish from the valid criticism that it's just a wretched political play to begin with, whichever side tries to use it.

I’m not really understanding? What is wretched about caring about children issues. Is it only a real concern when not bringing up children? Of course people are concerned about what makes a shooter t begin with, bad parenting, the school system, too much violent video games, gun access, bullying or mental illness are all valid concerns. Certainly people truly want to keep children safe, that isn’t just a political ploy.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

@Lvcifer Invictvs My point - and I know that this is going to strike nerves - is that the Left's use of "think of the children" is fervently tossed out when it comes to minority children, but when there's issue being put to "majority" demographics, it's ignored and swept under the rug, sometimes with startling hypocrisy. The Left uses "TotC" just as much as the Right, and both pitch their agendas as noble and just.

What is wretched about caring about children issues. Is it only a real concern when not bringing up children?

No, what's wretched is bringing up children when they're not actually a concern. Take the bathroom incident from a few years ago. Did the Right really care about children when they brought up "TotC"? No, their concern was sharing bathrooms with transsexuals. Children were a political hook. Do you think the Democrats using the Florida shooting to lobby for gun control care about the kids? No, their concern is their agenda concerning gun ownership and acquisition.

And before either issue is leapt into, drawing away from my point, my issue is that in either case (and others) children are used to push an agenda because they're a large emotional hook. No one would dare to argue against something when children are at stake, but how strong would the argument be if it was worded "think of the teachers"?

Of course people are concerned about what makes a shooter to begin with ... too much violent video games

No, absolute hogwash and this has never been shown to be a valid cause. It's as flaccid as trying to use music as a motivator for violence. For example - and I know for absolute certain that I am not alone in this - I play really violent video games and listed to some pretty dark music. Want to know how many times I've had truly violent thoughts and intentions? Once, when I had just found out my father was being deployed to Iraq and a classmate thought it'd be funny to make jokes about him being killed.

"Violent" video games are not a cause for concern, and as an avid gamer this point is persistently tiresome. Though on-point, it's another line that grabs typically Democratic politicians (Hillary was a big one) to plead for us to "think of the children".