Germany Defends Israeli Military Action in Gaza

Some say it's because Germany is still suffering from the guilt of WW2.

Some say it's because Germany has a legitimate government of the people, as does Israel, whereas Hamas is an oppressive, terrorist government that has not proved that they want to co-exist symbiotically anywhere in the world.

Comments?

From Monsters and Critics.com

Middle East News
Germany defends Israeli military action in Gaza
By DPA
Dec 29, 2008, 10:39 GMT

Berlin - Germany on Monday defended Israel's military action in Gaza, saying it was taken to protect the country's civilian population from missile attacks by Palestinian militants.

The decision by the radical Hamas movement to end a six-month truce with Israel and continue firing rockets at the Jewish state was to blame for the crisis, government spokesman Thomas Steg said.

'It is the legitimate right of Israel to protect its civilian population and to defend its territory,' Steg told a press briefing in Berlin.

He called on Hamas to cease firing Kassem rockets and mortar shells at Israeli towns and villages immediately so that Israel can end its military operation.

More than 300 Palestinians have been killed and many more wounded since Israel launched air strikes in the enclave on on Saturday, eight days after Hamas ended the truce. Israel said hundreds of rockets had been fired at its villages since the truce ended.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel discussed the situation in Gaza during a lengthy telephone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday evening, the government spokesman said.

The prime minister told the chancellor that Israel's air strikes were directed against terrorist targets and not against Gaza's civilian population, Steg said.

Merkel urged Olmert to ensure that steps were taken to avoid civilian casualties and allow urgently needed humanitarian supplies across the border into Gaza, he added.

Steg said the conflict could only be resolved through a political process at the end of which there was a two-state solution.

On Sunday, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier discussed the deteriorating situation by telephone with European Union foreign policy supremo Javier Solana and Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, whose country takes over the rotating EU presidency on Thursday.

The trio called for steps to ensure the crisis does not worsen.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1450615.php/Germany_defends_Israeli_military_action_in_Gaza_

You were right with your theory, that is precisely what it is, the 'guilt' vote, just as Germany actually give money to Israel, for the same reasons.

The whole guilt trip has German politicians bending over, it would appear.

Today's German people are essentially paying for deeds that they were not a part of.

That has to be wrong.

Right?

That is a fair statement. Much like innocent Americans are paying the price for slavery.

HotParadox wrote:That is a fair statement. Much like innocent Americans are paying the price for slavery.

Can you imagine if Americans were taxed though, and that this money was given to various African countries, for what you mention here?

Specifically for that, I mean, not aid monies.

People would not accept it, and they would be right not to do so. Yet, they say nothing of the donated billions to Israel. Even stranger than Germany giving money.

I am responsible for my actions alone, to be honest, and they are often a hard enough job!

If my grandad had been senior SS, then I am not guilty for his actions.

Right, true, true.
Something bothered me. I never told you about it before. I had applied for a job a few years ago. I was the candidate to beat, they told me. Steve, I'm not bragging here, but I really was.

Until I was beat out, not by a better qualified candidate, but by being a victim of affirmative action.

I mean, unfair taxes or unfair job laws; whatever-it's all the same. It's a tough thing for people who live by the laws of their country and pay their share of taxes due their own country and then have to pay more for other countries; or in my case, study hard and do well, and then lose a shot at a job because my color is a disqualifier.

HotParadox wrote:Right, true, true.
Something bothered me. I never told you about it before. I had applied for a job a few years ago. I was the candidate to beat, they told me. Steve, I'm not bragging here, but I really was.

Until I was beat out, not by a better qualified candidate, but by being a victim of affirmative action.

I mean, unfair taxes or unfair job laws; whatever-it's all the same. It's a tough thing for people who live by the laws of their country and pay their share of taxes due their own country and then have to pay more for other countries; or in my case, study hard and do well, and then lose a shot at a job because my color is a disqualifier.

Yup, that is of course a bad deal.

Alas, what it is an example of is that society has over compensated, not perhaps for the days of slavery, but down to how black people were treated in the US, before one women on a bus changed history...

There is no doubt that definite discrimination was made against black people, in the past.

The work market was one area.

To counter this, new laws were passed, but with their good intent, comes with it the example that you gave.

Reparations for slavery is exactly what this is all about. There are all types of leagues and platforms, etc. Do a google or wiki. BUT, that does not mean that the discrimination that blacks had to endure is not real and unfortunate and inhumane. But, like you with the pretend example of your Papa as an SS guy, same here.

Wouldn't it be nice if, pouff-like magic-hate and discrimination were history, by the time you are a Papa and I am a Nana? That's so far-fetched....

Prolly always be something to discriminate over, even if we were all blind.

Betcha...?

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:Prolly always be something to discriminate over, even if we were all blind.

Betcha...?

You just said something that is so right on. Just look at little ones, they may as well be blind.

Right. But we take our hang-ups and hate and bring them to kindergarten, by demanding that there should be no Christmas or other holiday stuff for little kids. The kids don't care. It's the parents that have the hangups. We make the bigger issue out of things than the issue itself. I mean, jeez, life used to be fun and simple for little ones, and now they witness arguing about stuff that doesn't matter. As if a tree, or a bunny or a black holiday, (or whatever I don't know what they've got for different holiday themes) or any holiday symbol is going to sway them later.

I hate it esp when mums and dads use their own kids to perpetuate their racial hang up's, but it is inevitable.

There are two twin girls who form a band called Prussian Blue.

They are what I would call a neo nazi duet meets the Olsen twins.

Of course there mother is an active nazi sympathiser, and surprise surprise, she home schools.

One of the reasons I am not a fan of home schooling.

Too easy to isolate the child and exploit the educational process.

I am a firm believer that children do best with other children, and with children who are not just like them. They learn social skills and learn to interact with peers and with authority figures in a way that just cannot happen at home. I proudly sent my children to public school.

HotParadox wrote:I am a firm believer that children do best with other children, and with children who are not just like them.

Me too.

Same sex schools, or one faith schools, they present division, in my eyes.

School should mirror real life, as much as possible, as that is also what you are preparing the kids for.

My ex has my son in a private christian school. Drives me nuts. Not that he's learning about the religion. But the teachers have him convinced he's gonna go to hell for the slightest misdeed. One minute their telling him he'll be forgiven as long as he asks for it and believes, the next, if he don't change his ways he'll be condemned. I'd much rather him be in public school where he'd be exposed to different cultures, faiths, and those that don't believe in God. His religion and how to worship is his choice.
Plus they all have the same uniforms, the same book bags. they say it's to keep some students from feeling bad because other have better cloths. I think it just creates a group of fixed minded kids that have no sense of individuality. And they do that bs where they play sports, but no score is kept. That just sets them up for heart break in the future when they have to compete for jobs.

And where's my reparations for what the English did to my scottish ancestors???? I got Cherokee in me from about 5 generations back too, I need reparations for the land that was taken from them not to mention the women and children the white man slaughtered. Not quite the same thing, but that stuff happened decades and centuries ago, and nobody owes me anything. And I don't owe anybody anything for what great great grandpa did to their great great grandpa. For that matter, name a race of people that haven't been enslaved and had prejudice used against them at some point in history, then we can all settle up. Besides, my ancestors couldn't afford the land they worked and the food on the table, much less own any slaves.

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

HotParadox wrote:I am a firm believer that children do best with other children, and with children who are not just like them.

Me too.

Same sex schools, or one faith schools, they present division, in my eyes.

School should mirror real life, as much as possible, as that is also what you are preparing the kids for.

Ya, exactly right about same sex or faith based schools.

I mean, I do not want my kids to be religious fanatics. It's nice to understand the Bible, and go to Sunday School, learn from your parents. But religious schools are all about that, all day. That's not well rounded.

What if, when my child turns to be a teenager, he decides not to embrace any faith. That's his choice. Or if he decides to be a Christian. At least I can say that I did my best to teach him what I believe is right, but he was exposed to other views and he chose for himself what's right.

Some people go overboard when, really, like I always tell you, it's in your heart. You can be exposed to everything, why not? It's excellent to challenge yourself, be exposed to different things and chose.

Another thing, when my oldest was an atheist, I would tell him, that's fine Guy, just don't knock people who aren't. Get past their faith and like them in spite of it. Be sympathetic to everyone.

I don't like it when parents won't let their kids hang around with kids who are different from their kids. These same kids that they protect; they may turn around and be what you protected them from. And that might be the result of the parent being over zealous.

I really believe that my kids' life stories should be written with their pens, not mine.

What makes it worse is that here in Scotland at least, we state fund faith schools, least we did last time I looked.

There are certainly state funded RC schools here, I know that.

I think that Islamic groups have been pressuring for the same, and technically, if state funding is given to RC's, then they will have a good case for it be to also given to them.

The answer is to abolish the state funding, in whole or in part, of faith schools.

Want to send a child to one? Sure, but get your church to find the funds for them to go, see how benevolent they really are...

Children do not usually live in a society which is exclusively one group, in most major Western nations, we have a real mix, therefore it should be reflected in schooling, so I agree with ya here.

Btw - I would actually go as far as to ban home schooling, unless the grounds were exceptional.

Thoughts?

CarolinaHound wrote:My ex has my son in a private christian school. Drives me nuts. Not that he's learning about the religion. But the teachers have him convinced he's gonna go to hell for the slightest misdeed. One minute their telling him he'll be forgiven as long as he asks for it and believes, the next, if he don't change his ways he'll be condemned. I'd much rather him be in public school where he'd be exposed to different cultures, faiths, and those that don't believe in God. His religion and how to worship is his choice.
Plus they all have the same uniforms, the same book bags. they say it's to keep some students from feeling bad because other have better cloths. I think it just creates a group of fixed minded kids that have no sense of individuality. And they do that bs where they play sports, but no score is kept. That just sets them up for heart break in the future when they have to compete for jobs.

And where's my reparations for what the English did to my scottish ancestors???? I got Cherokee in me from about 5 generations back too, I need reparations for the land that was taken from them not to mention the women and children the white man slaughtered. Not quite the same thing, but that stuff happened decades and centuries ago, and nobody owes me anything. And I don't owe anybody anything for what great great grandpa did to their great great grandpa. For that matter, name a race of people that haven't been enslaved and had prejudice used against them at some point in history, then we can all settle up. Besides, my ancestors couldn't afford the land they worked and the food on the table, much less own any slaves.

A good example of the mental terrorism of religion, maybe?

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:What makes it worse is that here in Scotland at least, we state fund faith schools, least we did last time I looked.

There are certainly state funded RC schools here, I know that.

I think that Islamic groups have been pressuring for the same, and technically, if state funding is given to RC's, then they will have a good case for it be to also given to them.

The answer is to abolish the state funding, in whole or in part, of faith schools.

Want to send a child to one? Sure, but get your church to find the funds for them to go, see how benevolent they really are...

Children do not usually live in a society which is exclusively one group, in most major Western nations, we have a real mix, therefore it should be reflected in schooling, so I agree with ya here.

Btw - I would actually go as far as to ban home schooling, unless the grounds were exceptional.

Thoughts?

First of all, I believe firmly in the separation of church and state and am opposed to the state funding of non-secular schools.
Secondly, I know some children who have been home schooled effectively and when later transferring to high school, were placed in a higher grade level because of the exemplary schooling from their, for the most part, mothers. The parents have bragged about this and I know it's true because I know from the school staff that these kids were well taught.

BUT, what did the kid learn about PEOPLE? About social skills, about finding your way around a big building, about riding on a school bus, about school play and sports, about forming your first crush, etc, etc. I do not like home schooling and I cannot understand how it is legal, unless there were some remarkable circumstance that would preclude a child from attending school as usual.

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:My ex has my son in a private christian school. Drives me nuts. Not that he's learning about the religion. But the teachers have him convinced he's gonna go to hell for the slightest misdeed. One minute their telling him he'll be forgiven as long as he asks for it and believes, the next, if he don't change his ways he'll be condemned. I'd much rather him be in public school where he'd be exposed to different cultures, faiths, and those that don't believe in God. His religion and how to worship is his choice.
Plus they all have the same uniforms, the same book bags. they say it's to keep some students from feeling bad because other have better cloths. I think it just creates a group of fixed minded kids that have no sense of individuality. And they do that bs where they play sports, but no score is kept. That just sets them up for heart break in the future when they have to compete for jobs.

And where's my reparations for what the English did to my scottish ancestors???? I got Cherokee in me from about 5 generations back too, I need reparations for the land that was taken from them not to mention the women and children the white man slaughtered. Not quite the same thing, but that stuff happened decades and centuries ago, and nobody owes me anything. And I don't owe anybody anything for what great great grandpa did to their great great grandpa. For that matter, name a race of people that haven't been enslaved and had prejudice used against them at some point in history, then we can all settle up. Besides, my ancestors couldn't afford the land they worked and the food on the table, much less own any slaves.

A good example of the mental terrorism of religion, maybe?

I wouldn't go that far. An example of how nutty our society can be in general. If it was a school of science, and they constantly drilled into them how there was no God, it would be just as bad in my opinion. Besides, have no fear, my boy will be ok. I teach him a thing or two now and then myself. I even send him back with a question or two to ask them. Like a couple months ago he was telling me how his teacher had told him his mother and I were still married in the eyes of God, and asking me some rather touchy questions. I sent him back with some questions about my two wives I had before her, and one along the lines of what I asked HP on scam about if a man and woman are married in the eye of God, why do they need a preacher and a piece of paper to prove it. Nothing too adult mind you, just enough to let them know it was a message to keep their opinions about that to themselves.

I've had to ask for some forgiveness from the Lord on that one. Been asking it from his grandparents and mother for awhile now too. hehehehehe

Hey, doggieboy, you didn't know you were still married in the eyes of the Lord. That's the difference.

You didn't know you were sinning, maybe you would have thought twice, I don't know. So tell them that.

And tell them to stop talking personal stuff to your kid. Frankly, I would not allow my kid to be asked personal questions and then be reprimanded for his answers. And plus, we already talked about this, you are sorry, you will not do it again if you remarry and you will think long and hard before you remarry. And, and, and you are forgiven. So they're idiots.

As far as a secular school teaching my kid their was no God. You do not want to know what I would do, but I'll tell you what, I wouldn't go to heaven for doing it.

HotParadox wrote:

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:What makes it worse is that here in Scotland at least, we state fund faith schools, least we did last time I looked.

There are certainly state funded RC schools here, I know that.

I think that Islamic groups have been pressuring for the same, and technically, if state funding is given to RC's, then they will have a good case for it be to also given to them.

The answer is to abolish the state funding, in whole or in part, of faith schools.

Want to send a child to one? Sure, but get your church to find the funds for them to go, see how benevolent they really are...

Children do not usually live in a society which is exclusively one group, in most major Western nations, we have a real mix, therefore it should be reflected in schooling, so I agree with ya here.

Btw - I would actually go as far as to ban home schooling, unless the grounds were exceptional.

Thoughts?

First of all, I believe firmly in the separation of church and state and am opposed to the state funding of non-secular schools.
Secondly, I know some children who have been home schooled effectively and when later transferring to high school, were placed in a higher grade level because of the exemplary schooling from their, for the most part, mothers. The parents have bragged about this and I know it's true because I know from the school staff that these kids were well taught.

BUT, what did the kid learn about PEOPLE? About social skills, about finding your way around a big building, about riding on a school bus, about school play and sports, about forming your first crush, etc, etc. I do not like home schooling and I cannot understand how it is legal, unless there were some remarkable circumstance that would preclude a child from attending school as usual.

Exactly.

It's not healthy, imo.

Yes, perhaps there are example of decent grades, however, as with the example I gave, how much time, how many staff do the authorites have to actually monitor how close a parent is sticking to the curriculum?

What measures are in place to prevent situations were parents use it as a means to shamelessly brain wash the kid?

It seem v open to exploitation, in some parts of the US, if am being honest.

Well, I don't know if it's brainwashing. We, as parents, have a responsibility to teach them. What're you gonna teach them? Your values, not someone else's, right?

I look at it more that we are taking these wild little animals that God gives us, and we're civilizing them. We are teaching them our values. But, and I see where you're coming from, when the kid is school age, it's time to get real.

HotParadox wrote:Well, I don't know if it's brainwashing. We, as parents, have a responsibility to teach them. What're you gonna teach them? Your values, not someone else's, right?

I look at it more that we are taking these wild little animals that God gives us, and we're civilizing them. We are teaching them our values. But, and I see where you're coming from, when the kid is school age, it's time to get real.

It would be brainswashing at work, if the parent gave his/her 'learning' with a given slant or agenda.

Teachers do not usually educate pupils with a bias, in most state schools, therefore, there is no room for it in home schooling.

'Values' is merely a word, and you would be surprised at those that use it.

Some of them you would wish no part of, yet, in their minds, they also have a distinct set of 'values'.

The term can be adapted to suit...

HotParadox wrote:Hey, doggieboy, you didn't know you were still married in the eyes of the Lord. That's the difference.

You didn't know you were sinning, maybe you would have thought twice, I don't know. So tell them that.

And tell them to stop talking personal stuff to your kid. Frankly, I would not allow my kid to be asked personal questions and then be reprimanded for his answers. And plus, we already talked about this, you are sorry, you will not do it again if you remarry and you will think long and hard before you remarry. And, and, and you are forgiven. So they're idiots.

As far as a secular school teaching my kid their was no God. You do not want to know what I would do, but I'll tell you what, I wouldn't go to heaven for doing it.

There was a conversation about that. Trust me. I just wanted to put her on the spot, then they tried to put me on the spot, and I made them step all up in the whole spot they made. I also some serious talking with my son. He's got a right to ask questions about what's up with his mama and me, but he needs to ask us, not the teachers. And I know what bible says is sinning as far as that's concerned. I also know the bible is a fragmented book written,translated, picked over by man more for his purposes than for Gods. So I'll just do the best I can do and ask him to forgive my short comings.

Not trying to preach what's right or what's wrong, nor that it's wrong to believe in what is in the bible. Just saying how I feel about it.

You're doing good by your boy, doggieboy. That's all that counts.

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

HotParadox wrote:Well, I don't know if it's brainwashing. We, as parents, have a responsibility to teach them. What're you gonna teach them? Your values, not someone else's, right?

I look at it more that we are taking these wild little animals that God gives us, and we're civilizing them. We are teaching them our values. But, and I see where you're coming from, when the kid is school age, it's time to get real.

It would be brainswashing at work, if the parent gave his/her 'learning' with a given slant or agenda.

Teachers do not usually educate pupils with a bias, in most state schools, therefore, there is no room for it in home schooling.

'Values' is merely a word, and you would be surprised at those that use it.

Some of them you would wish no part of, yet, in their minds, they also have a distinct set of 'values'.

The term can be adapted to suit...

True that. One thing, though. Having put 4 kids through public school, the Massachusetts public school system is slanted, biased and ultra-Liberal. Worse than any parent. But, I still think it's better than homeschooling, if not just for the social skills the child will learn at school. The parents, like ME, we have the upper hand in teaching them things at home, when not in school. Kids understand that their parents love them and want what's best way more than a tunnel-visioned teacher.

HotParadox wrote:

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

HotParadox wrote:Well, I don't know if it's brainwashing. We, as parents, have a responsibility to teach them. What're you gonna teach them? Your values, not someone else's, right?

I look at it more that we are taking these wild little animals that God gives us, and we're civilizing them. We are teaching them our values. But, and I see where you're coming from, when the kid is school age, it's time to get real.

It would be brainswashing at work, if the parent gave his/her 'learning' with a given slant or agenda.

Teachers do not usually educate pupils with a bias, in most state schools, therefore, there is no room for it in home schooling.

'Values' is merely a word, and you would be surprised at those that use it.

Some of them you would wish no part of, yet, in their minds, they also have a distinct set of 'values'.

The term can be adapted to suit...

True that. One thing, though. Having put 4 kids through public school, the Massachusetts public school system is slanted, biased and ultra-Liberal. Worse than any parent. But, I still think it's better than homeschooling, if not just for the social skills the child will learn at school. The parents, like ME, we have the upper hand in teaching them things at home, when not in school. Kids understand that their parents love them and want what's best way more than a tunnel-visioned teacher.

Neat idea.

Not often true.

Parents could be preaching all manner of hate speech

A young kid would suck it up, he would believe that what his parent was giving out was the best thing for him/her, since kids are drawn to wanting love and acceptance from parents.

In reality, it would not be the 'best thing', of course.

It would be a cynical act, and one that would not be tolerated in schools, right?

Teachers often do a thankless job v well.

Were it not for them, we would have even worse levels of basic ed, and probably crime.

So don't be too hard on them, huh..

I think you misunderstand. Juxtapositioning them, I would prefer public over home. But schools here are famous for it's teachers teaching the children just one position. That's not healthy either.

Guy was a Calculus teacher and also a special needs teacher when we first got married. His brother and s-i-l are teachers. I am telling you flat-out that not all teachers are stellar.

Now, if I am the parent of a small child, not of school age, yes the teaching I provide him, his early learning experience is what I am, what I believe. Most emphatically and naturally.

Most parents are good, most have the best interest of their kids first and foremost. The well-balanced child got that way because he learns from many arenas:Parents, family, school, Sunday School. But most of what he learns, good or bad, he learns at home.

Here's a thought.

Who teaches the parent how to be a good parent?

Even the basics.

Hey, we need a licence of a car or for some animals, why not a licence to be able to have kids!

I am not entirely kidding.

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:Here's a thought.

Who teaches the parent how to be a good parent?

Even the basics.

Hey, we need a licence of a car or for some animals, why not a licence to be able to have kids!

I am not entirely kidding.

I DO!!! See, more stuff you didn't know about me!

You know about my counseling pregnant women, you've known about that for years. Well, before I sign them off (I am their counselor for their entire pregnancy and until the baby turns one year old) they must attend my series on Parenting. It starts with pre-natal all the way up. It's FREE, like everything else we offer them. I don't miss a trick in that series, trust me.

Your point is well taken and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why basic parenting isn't taught in school to girls and boys. They teach them how to cook and sew and build wooden things, but not parenting.

Ok, I'll take it one step further:kids can't graduate from high school until they have completed Parenting 101,201,301,401. It should be required. I mean, not everybody uses freakin' Russian every day, but you can't graduate until you complete 4 years of a foreign language. Parenting is something most people are going to run into at some point in their lives, even if it's just used for babysitting or nieces and nephews.

They can't make you get a license for it, though. That would infringe upon your human rights; fact.

HotParadox wrote:

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:Here's a thought.

Who teaches the parent how to be a good parent?

Even the basics.

Hey, we need a licence of a car or for some animals, why not a licence to be able to have kids!

I am not entirely kidding.

I DO!!! See, more stuff you didn't know about me!

You know about my counseling pregnant women, you've known about that for years. Well, before I sign them off (I am their counselor for their entire pregnancy and until the baby turns one year old) they must attend my series on Parenting. It starts with pre-natal all the way up. It's FREE, like everything else we offer them. I don't miss a trick in that series, trust me.

Your point is well taken and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why basic parenting isn't taught in school to girls and boys. They teach them how to cook and sew and build wooden things, but not parenting.

Well that sounds like a positive service.

Taught in schools? Possibly. Perhaps the rudamnetaries and realities. It would have to be done by someone 'qualified', and not in an academic sense, more a practical sense.

Wouldn't be long though before some people were moaning about some aspect of the classes in school, would it?

OK. Read my edit, comment and then I'll reply to your whole thing.

I watched a programme on tv, maybe about a year ago.

Young girls who felt they wanted to have a baby.

They were each given this special doll to care for, for about a week.

It replicated the actions of a real baby.

At the end of that week, most of the girls were happy to hand it back!

We should use that more.

Mine all had that doll. They do that here, but it's not enough. As far teachers v qualified laymen teaching is a great point. I don't know how that could work, though, because in order to teach, you have to be certified, at least have your BA/BS or Masters, depending on the subject/school. Believe me, they could find a way, if they wanted to. Your point about parents' objections is valid. I would suppose that parents would be very involved in the development of the course. Well, one thing; they teach human behavior and sex ed. I would think that it could all be part of a broad program.

I agree with the parenting licence. But..... How are you going to keep them from making babies without taking the class? Forced contraceptives? That's a human rights law suit if I ever heard one. But then you could argue the human rights of the baby, not having qualified parents. That's a catch-22.

(I wonder if you say catch-22 three times will catch-22 show up like beetle juice. )

HotParadox wrote:Mine all had that doll. They do that here, but it's not enough. As far teachers v qualified laymen teaching is a great point. I don't know how that could work, though, because in order to teach, you have to be certified, at least have your BA/BS or Masters, depending on the subject/school. Believe me, they could find a way, if they wanted to. Your point about parents' objections is valid. I would suppose that parents would be very involved in the development of the course. Well, one thing; they teach human behavior and sex ed. I would think that it could all be part of a broad program.

Yes.

It could be done.

Perhaps the idea of a catch all licence to have children is a little fanciful, on my part, but the least we can do is offer more opportunities for people to try to learn some of the essentials of being a good parent, at whatever age, really.

There would be no shame in it, imo.

Until then the option is to muddle through.

Of course, kids learn best how to parent from their parents.

Or, how not to parent........

Either way, it's a learning experience, isn't it?

HotParadox wrote:Of course, kids learn best how to parent from their parents.

Or, how not to parent........

Either way, it's a learning experience, isn't it?

I'm afraid they may just have to learn to roll with the punches like we did. Or in my case, learning how to jump rope by dodging the switches.


No, I wasn't an abused kid; I desreved ever little bit of the wood shed I got. hehehehe

I find kids a bit annoying, if am being honest!

Don't think I am v paternal, really.

CarolinaHound wrote:I agree with the parenting licence. But..... How are you going to keep them from making babies without taking the class? Forced contraceptives? That's a human rights law suit if I ever heard one. But then you could argue the human rights of the baby, not having qualified parents. That's a catch-22.

(I wonder if you say catch-22 three times will catch-22 show up like beetle juice. )

Exactly, doggieboy. Read the edit on my post, a few posts up; it would be an infringement of our human rights. There would be no argument that could trump that.

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:I find kids a bit annoying, if am being honest!

Don't think I am v paternal, really.

A bit? They are very annoying, that's why they're kids! Adults who are annoying are really kids who never grew up. Still do all the little things that are annoying/endearing/charming in children but revolting in adults.

Btw, I bet your D would not agree with you.