Jump to content

Coral Rhedd

Senior Members
  • Posts

    852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Coral Rhedd

  1. If she lived to be nearly 17, she must have been very well cared for. I suspect at life's end most of us would hope that we were well loved.
  2. If I thought the technology would have provided me with a sufficiently similar dog I would have loved to have cloned the black German Shepherd I had in my twenties. He was almost perfect as to temperament and intelligence. I tried to reproduce him via the usual route of puppies and it just didn't work. Some critters are one of a kind. The great racing thoroughbred and Triple Crown winner Secretariat never produced offspring that were near his equal. IMO, with well bred purebred dogs and cats, the temperament is so much a part of the genetics that an adequate environment would result in cloning producing pretty much the same animal. And leaving aside show qualities, temperament is what makes a satisfying or dissatisfying pet to owners. That is why people should never buy from puppy mills (where most pet stores get their stock) because breed temperament will then be unpredictable. But even among the breeds (bred by responsible breeders) there is variability. There are GSDs suitable for police work, protection work, search and rescue, obedience trials, and even some herding, in addition to the more sanguine temperament needed for pets. Breeding is trial and error to some extent. But I wonder, perfected cloning would certainly take much of the chance element out of pet owning and maybe take some of the fun and adventure out of it, but hundreds of thousands of dogs die every month in "shelters" because they were a bad match for their owners - or vice versa.
  3. Ah. The Sally Fields problem.
  4. Nevermore, I respect you. I respect everyone in this forum who makes an honest effort to discover the truth. I don't think you can assume that a bunch people -- many of whom don't even believe in God -- are necessarily looking for demigods. I respect people in this forum who are both theists and nontheists, who are both conservatives and liberals, who are both moderators and not. BTW, I do not hate Christ's Slave. Regards to you, Coral
  5. We are on the same page here. Chronic conditions should not chronically impact children once their basic financial needs are covered. Being too ill to work is, however, often a reality. I include both mental and physical illness in this category. If the person can be a "good enough" parent with help then they should get that help. There are plenty of narcissists and sociopaths parenting children who are economically successful but unfit parents. Some mental illnesses are economically adaptive and others are not. In other words, financial go getters do not necessarily = good parents. Too often they are emotionally neglectful parents. I wish everyone who wants to be a parent would take a deep breath and consider the cost of parenting both in terms of money and in time. Some people give more thought to buying pets than they do to bearing children.
  6. I agree. But what do you propose to take its place? In my opinions most failures of the welfare state are do to piecemeal solutions to problems, not to the "nanny" state. There are solutions to this as well. Have you ever heard the term, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Compassionate conservatism should be accompanied by a compassionate and thriving economy. When lately, have we had that? I couldn't agree more. But I am sure you have heard of the Great Depression. What would life have been like for people then if we had taken every child away from parents who could only afford a most substandard life for them? And who would have taken these children. National economic emergencies may call for more compassion that conservatives seem willing to extend. I only hope the economy is on the upswing because the level of unemployment in this town is unconscionable.
  7. This depends upon what you mean. There are no perfect parents. I do not believe the use of an illegal substance automatically means poor parenting. Let's take a look at a few substances: Meth: You better believe that if the parents are running a meth lab, their kids should be out of that home. If the parent has tried meth but not become addicted, then not necessarily. Pot: Gimme a break! Just because the government deems this an illegal substance does not mean its use automatically makes bad parents. Give me a parent who uses a little weed over a parent who drinks too much alcohol any day. Alcohol: Alcoholic parents are some of the worst. Physical and sexual abuse often accompany the abuse of alcohol. Yes it's a legal substance, but children are not protected enough from alcoholic parents. Even some social drinkers impact their children when they are under the influence. Tobacco: Perfectly legal, but second hand smoke kills. If I were a judge in a custody battle and I had two equally good parents to choose from, the nonsmoker would win with me. Legal prescriptions: Ah yes, these can be serious drugs. SSRIs can actually worsen some depressions. Oxycontin is a great pain reliever and allows many who suffer from chronic pain to lead productive lives (sometimes as radio personalities), but has a high potential for abuse. Even medicines for asthma and ADHD can be abuse, to say nothing of the opiates that doctors and nurses all too frequently avail themselves of. Most of the people I now who had serious drug problems with pharmaceuticals were in the medical profession. Ever try to take a doctor's kid away from him? So tell me, Tater, what is a normal life? It is that elusive thing that many of us, looking back upon our childhoods simply didn't have. Many of us overcome our childhoods. I promise you, if you want to give every child in America a normal life, it is really going to cost us. Nevertheless I admire your commitment to this particular value. Family values are an essential to a good American life.
  8. Parents with serious substance abuse problems often have their children removed temporarily from the home and the parents are required to get treatment. Treatment is exactly what people with these problems need. However, they often get too many chances to get their act together at the expense of the welfare of the child. We need more expeditious methods of terminating parental rights when it becomes clear that this is in the best interests of the child. However, if you think parents with substance abuse problems do not love their children or that their children do not love them, you should do my volunteer work for awhile. These circumstances are heart-wrenching. People have lots of motives for their behavior besides money. It is rarely a case of parents simply using their children as "bargaining pawns."
  9. Sociopaths love social welfare programs. Oh not not the ones receiving the welfare, but the sociopaths who get to distribute it. They not only have power over mostly helpless people, but they can usually shine their own careers without much scrutiny. The appeals process when people are subject to systemic abuse is inadequate and not widely advertised. I was recently involved in a case where a man was denied Vocational Rehabilitation for very specious reasons and his neither his voc rehab counselor or her supervisor informed him of the appeals procedure despite his request that they do so. I told him -- even though that is not my role. Yes. And part of the problem is the great anxiety that someone low on the totem pole will get something for nothing. This is a real concern because the state should not be allowed to intervene for certain reasons. For instance they should not be able to target people demographically. As it is now, the poor who seek benefits come under great scrutiny as parents. There is no evidence that poor people are worst parents than people with money -- except when providing those things for which money is handy. On the other hand, in one instance I cited (the violent little boy) it is clear that there is such trouble there that not intervening makes no sense. The problem is exactly that the system is focused upon abuse and not the prevention of abuse. And the costs of abuse -- a not just talking about parental abuse here but the creation of abusers -- are enormous. I have never spoken with a homeless woman who did not have abuse of some sort in her background. This could be a fluke, I suppose, but to me it raises certain concerns. Correct. It is very tricky. And that is why identifying children at risk should have a different response. Not one of removing the child from the home or even one of making accusations, but one of being helpful to build stronger families. To be honest, it creeps me out a little too. We don't want a world with all kinds of unnecessary government scrutiny, but we do want a fair world. I cannot see why the poor get accused of being bad parents simply because they are poor and have their children removed from their homes for financial reasons, while the rich may rear their children as they please. Even less, I covet the decision to remove a child from the home simply because his single mother cannot find a job that pays enough to allow her to afford child care.
  10. You must think there is a long line of good people waiting to adopt troubled eight year olds. I can assure that children generally like the parents they originally have. And I can also assure you that there are many solutions cheaper than foster care. What is your objection to providing help for the families that exist so that they can become better parents? Surely keeping families together if possible is a positive value.
  11. I think we could have a better system if we did a better job of indentifying at risk children. Certain conditions such as below a certain poverty level, and neglect and abuse as well as certain personality and learning problems predispose children to not being able to cope when they are older and enter the world of work. Multiple learning problems combined with a problematic home life, mean that school abilities and social skills will be difficult to acquire. However, instead of getting concentrated help, too many of these children get piecemeal help. A couple of examples: #1 Imagine a girl whose mother has left her alone at age 8 in order to go to work. This child is undernourished and isolated. She begins to show symptoms of depression and anxiety. Her circumstances also make her a prime target for abuse and for being treated as an outcast at school. If she also has a reading or math disorder, her chances of success become very slim. Suppose she was identified as a child at risk and a case worker was assigned to make certain essential needs were met. It might be found that her mother is too exhausted from illness or overwork to attend to her daughter's needs. The immediate obvious need is childcare for the child in her mother's absence and help for the mother in gaining skills that will allow her to satisfy the household budget with one job alone. The caseworker might investigate afterschool programs, sports activities, or things like Girl Scouts and see that transportation was provided. Tutoring might be in order and maybe a special ed teacher who was skilled at inclusion so that the child could progress along with age mates. None of this would cost a great deal. It could be argued that such an intervention is cost effective compared to what it would cost the taxpayers if the girl continued as she is and, feeling neglected and discouraged, began to experiment with drugs or became pregnant at an early age. Children who have goals and can see future possibilites tend to do better in school and continue on to college. #2 This scenario is based upon true circumstances. A five year old boy's parents divorce because they cannot agree upon future goals and discipline for their son. Their divorce is acrimonious. Disagreement over discipline continues with the father becoming even more liberal, allowing his son to become verbally abusive to him and to even hit or kick him. The mother, in reaction, becomes more strict and begins overmonitoring the child. All his activities and meals in her home are very structured and she institutes a seven o'clock bedtime that continues through age 8. The child becomes one angry little boy. His aggression extends to other children and include insults, bullying, and many physical incidents of kicking and hitting other children. At home he pulls a knife on his mother and when she attempts to take it from him, he places it at his throat saying he will kill himself it she does not leave him alone. His learning skills fall behind and a teacher and a counselor identify him as possible Oppositional Defiant Disorder and ADHD and recommend testing. which his mother refuses to allow. He is so opposed to authority and so rude to adults that he begins to spend almost as much time in the principal's office as he does in class. Why isn't this child getting the attention he so clearly needs? His mother is a teacher and she doesn't want him labeled ADHD and refuses to seek treatment either for his learning disorder or his behavior disorder. His Dad has started giving him pot to calm him down. His mother never gives him a moment's privacy and at his father's house, he and his Dad still share the same bed. His father lives on a trust fund, is a pothead, and need not come to the state's attention, because this child is financially well-off. Does anyone share my belief that, at the very least, these folks need parenting classes? Especially since this child has recently discovered the thrills of fire-setting. The little girl in the first scenario is a victim waiting to happen. The little boy in the second scenario is a criminal waiting to happen. Each could easily end up homeless. Neither are likely to become productive citizens without intervention. Too often services are provided end case and worst case. Just like preventative medicine, a little prevention of future disaster would go a long ways and be a good expenditure of public funds.
  12. Bettina, This is the best post in this entire thread. As much as admire Dak and his logic, Callipygous' passionate defense of children, and Reverse's good sense, from my experience as a child avocate, you got it right. Studies and statistics won't tell us everything. They won't tell us how children feel about the secrets they keep. You got it exactly right.
  13. Okay. Let's say you have an illness. Do you want one that takes you to your neighborhood clinic or do you want one bad enough that you have to visit the trauma unit? And just because a trauma is short term does not mean it cannot cause trouble down the road. That's what flashbacks do: Trouble down the road. Please note that in Group 2, more trauma resulted when the "suspects" were known to the victim. Every pedophile in this thread has said they want a relationship with the child. That equals known to the victim.
  14. I am not going to argue for a genetic self, an environmental self, and certainly not against a "self" based upon appearance -- having known a few narcissists who seem to have just that. But I can say with certainty that people with Down's Syndrome and other mental retardations have a sense of self. In fact, they can have a very strong sense of self.
  15. Hi there Anxiety Zone. I have had lots of anxiety in the past due to depression. They seem to reinforce each other. I actually found that SSRIs increased my anxiety. I got these awful agitated depressions. I very gradually tapered off SSRIs and found my life much better for it. I am not saying I recommend this for you however. Every person is different. What I found really helpful was finding a psychologist who saw potential in me and treated me as an equal and a human being and not just another "disease." I feel that I am now almost fully recovered from depression. Stressful situations can still make me anxious however, so I try to plan my life in such a way that I am productive without teetering on the edge. Good luck to you in achieving recovery. It can be done. More and more people are doing it and learning much in the process. I believe the key lies in making informed decisions and summoning the strength to be a proactive participant in one's treatment.
  16. Tater, did you know that in the United States, alcoholism is a recognized disability? It has genetic roots. If you have ever seen someone truly in the grip of alcoholism stuggle to get sober, you should understand that these people are not scum. They are sad human beings with a dreadful illness. People like to judge others. We like to look at the frailties of others and say that they are less than we are. I think that is short-sighted. Everyone has a different burden to bear. Being judgmental rarely improves human understanding or improves the world that we all live in together, the rich as well as the poor, the drunk as well as the sober, the sane as well as the mentally ill.
  17. Programs that force the poor to work at "training wages" in order to collect welfare should be outlawed. Everyone who works should get the standard minimum wage. There should not be lower wages for the disabled or those in workfare training programs -- but there are. Who do these programs benefit? Employers. The is a great deal of difference between the real world of work and training programs. Let's say that as a person on welfare, you are forced into a training program -- usually set up through Vocational Rehab. When you try to apply for real work and you state that your wages at your last job amounted to $2 an hour on your job applications, what chance is that going to give you to get hired? Training programs often taint people's opportunities and out them as disabled, when that is information they should be able to keep to themselves. In small towns, these programs result in people being labeled. Employers do appreciate these programs however. Many of them are fully government subsidized and the employer doesn't have to pay a dime. Welfare benefits are such poor provision that any work that pays less amounts to a form of slavery.
  18. I read that the reason that some of the 9-11 victims could not be identified was because intense heat had made it impossible to retrieve their DNA, but they saved the remains just the same because they thought they might someday have the technology to affect an ID. Does this mean that some DNA may remain but that we just don't have the techology to retrieve it -- or were they just being nice and trying to soothe people with the possibility that indentification may some day be possible?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.