You do understand the difference between causing intentional harm and having final say otherwise, right?
Not every conversation has to devolve in to comparing color spectrums comprising blue and platypus mating rituals.
3 Likes
The point is, you arenāt worried about the mayor, chief of police or governor stealing your car; itās your fellow citizens.
It isnāt obvious, and you resort to that because youāre upset. The fact is, any freedom or wealth you enjoy is thanks to the government. We could have been a monarchy and you wouldnāt own anything. You would have zero rights. The government we have was created to protect you from tyranny and to provide those things that we need from a collective effort. Why do your reap the benefits from living in the most powerful nation on Earth? Because our government positioned itself to be just that.
You do understand the concept of negligence?
Iām not sure of a good, similar example, for this. Maybe: a parent remaining in a hot car with his child. I donāt see the government being able to take the child from the parent, in that case; absent actual harm(e.g., the child nearly dying while the parent survives), of course. It seems much harder to pin the parentās decision on negligence if he puts himself in the same situation.
I suppose the government could claim the parent is a danger to himself and others(his child) and detain him for a mental evaluation, but I have no idea whether something like that has ever been done for a possible(forecast) future event.
Driving with your kid not using a seatbelt or car seat just because you arenāt wearing a seatbelt? Using meth with your kid? Sharing the experience doesnāt make it ok. I get the idea of limiting governmentās power but there are extremes on both sides. At some point we need to use common sense and not be slaves to dogma.
I may be wrong, but I think children are required to wear a seatbelt in every State.
I believe meth is illegal in almost-every State. Iād imagine thereās a law prohibiting providing it to children even if itās decriminalized in one or two.
Maybe there are seldom-enforced laws prohibiting the disregard of evacuation orders. Iām not sure. But, if not, Iād say an actual law should be made to prohibit keeping your children with you while disregarding evacuation orders, if thatās desirable.
. Maybe. Heās Floridaās governor. The poster I was exchanging with is in Florida.
He does seem pretty adept at handling the natural disasters that occur year over year, but there might be other issues Floridians face that Iām not aware of.
Can generally agree but in the tug-o-war of govt vs personal, itās important to err on the side of personal.
Govt isnāt, or shouldnāt, be a behavioral modification tool. Itās an organization designed to service a populace. Not make personal decisions. Especially personal decisions projected off of Scared Nancy and his wifeās fears.
People have forgotten how to mind their own business.
Not to be confused with a general disregard of law and order. I donāt think we have to get in to silly extremes to carry a point.
1 Like
I agree with you, which is why I specified āif thatās desirable.ā I was trying to address the possible negligence of keeping your kids with you in contrast to the situations specified by zecarlo(in which actual laws prohibit the things named, and not some broad, subjective ānegligenceā law).
1 Like
Noā¦not worried about that at all
government has a purposeā¦and its not to tell me whether i should lock my doors or not
1 Like
He is a good governor, donāt know if he is the best in the countryā¦he is great at handling hurricane preparedness and response
My issues with him is the following
- Home insurance crisis in florida
- Condo kneejerk reaction to surfside collapse
I will concede that i donāt know what to do fix these issuesā¦but i think they should have been handled differently
1 Like
Hahahaha
i donāt get upsetā¦too old for that
The same state that can take those kids away.
There are crimes, like risk of injury to a minor, and those laws are enforced often.
Laws are, however.
Forget to take your fiber then get back to me.
The problem is, you canāt account for every possible scenario so there will always be subjectivity. You brought up sitting in a hot car with your child and the idea that sharing the experience might make it legal. Is there a law that specifically states you canāt sit in a hot car with your kid? Probably not, but if the child is suffering and a doctor would testify that the childās health was at risk, then it could be a criminal act under a broader, subjective law.
Donāt take fiberā¦i eat foods with fiber
1 Like
Actually, that it would seem to make it hard to pin it on negligence.
Sure. And Iād say the same would apply to a parent refusing to put his kid on the rescue boat when the waterās rising in his house.
I donāt think so. The hard part is more about degree. Is it negligent enough to get arrested or just have child protection services get involved (this will happen if you get arrested) and offer services to help, or have your kids taken away?
Of course. I think the extreme positions are the problem. The state shouldnāt be overly intrusive but parents shouldnāt have total say with regard to their childrenās health and welfare. Common sense needs to prevail. Of course, with subjectivity, there can be issues but thatās why the system doesnāt leave decisions up to one person. You have the people who report potential abuse, the social workers, police, judges, lawyers, etc.
You donāt know what youāre missing.