| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Dana" |
| Date: |
13 Aug 2004 10:10:00 PM |
| Object: |
The Anti-Self-Responsibility Movement |
http://www.theai.net/main.html
The Anti-Self-Responsibility Movement
By Joseph Kellard
August 9, 2004
At a recent community meeting about gangs on Long Island, one resident
proposed enacting curfews for teenagers. Of course, this is a rash,
"something-must-be-done" overreaction to crimes some kids commit on our
streets at night, and is indicative of a wider, alarming movement.
The argument favoring this proposal goes something like this: "Teens
shouldn't be out on the streets after (insert time) anyway, and if they're
acting criminally then we must set a curfew for them." Translation: the
government and I know the best time for your kids to return home, and we'll
protect them by passing a curfew law to keep all kids off the streets.
But enforcing a curfew, particularly in a town where rampant crime, riots
and war are far from the rule or are nonexistent, is just another way of
taking away more responsibilities from parents. Just as parents must decide
whether their teens can drive the family car, date and smoke cigarettes,
they must determine when their kids should come home at night.
Further, a government-backed curfew unjustly punishes the teen who has
legitimate, peaceful reasons to be out at late hours, including walking home
from a friend's house when his parent cannot pick him up. This law, at root,
would violate both a parent's right to set his own curfews and his kid's
right to travel at night.
A parallel to curfews that absolve parents of responsibility is the call to
hold them legally responsible for the crimes of their kids. Washington DC,
for example, is considering suspending the driver's licenses of parents
whose teens break the law.
As Dr. Michael Hurd, a psychologist in Maryland, writes, "There are some
parents who do everything possible to control the actions of their kids but
to no avail...It's not right to punish parents who are trying their best for
the misdeeds of their youth."
The fact is that kids have free will. They chose their own actions. A parent
is not criminally responsible for her teen's actions. If a mother must lose
her license because, say, her daughter chose to drive while drunk, then
where does this parental prosecution end? Do we arrest and charge a father
for his son's armed robbery, rape or murder? By punishing parents for the
illegal activities of their teens, we undercut the responsibility kids alone
must take for their chosen crimes.
And undercutting self-responsibility is what fundamentally unites proponents
of measures to set curfews and criminalize innocent parents. Absolving
people from taking responsibility for their actions is a growing movement
based on irrational motives.
What basically motivates the anti-self-responsibility proponents? With
curfews, they want to hand government more unnecessary and unjust
paternalistic powers. With criminalizing innocent parents, they seek to
further deny that children have free will and to push instead the falsehood
that unruly kids are stricken with some alleged uncontrollable "disorder,"
"diseases" or "chemical imbalance."
All this is part of the erosion of self-responsibility appearing in
increasingly more areas of American life, and typically under cover of
so-called "good intentions." People who chose to smoke can blame their lung
cancer on an addiction and tobacco companies. Americans who regularly eat
fast foods can point accusatory fingers at McDonald's and Wendy's for their
obesity or heart problems. Killers can have gun manufacturers share the
blame for their decision to use their weapons for murder instead of
self-defense.
A movement is afoot in this nation to raise the self-esteem of children. But
as Dr. Hurd points out in his book "Grow Up America!," the bedrock of
self-esteem is to take responsibility for your own life, choices and
actions. The anti-self-responsibility proponents, therefore, are effectively
working to lower people's self-esteem. Ultimately, their movement leads some
kids to join gangs to "be somebody," to act violently on their emotions of
insecurity, and to expect the innocent to share the blame and even be sued
for crimes they alone chose to perpetrate.
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Anti-Self-Responsibility Movement (dana likes Bowel movements) |
14 Aug 2004 03:05:09 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 02:31:09 GMT, "Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote:
========================================================================================================
From: ()Subject: golden/brown showers
View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.personals.fetish, alt.sex.fetish.watersportsDate: 1997/03/30
swm/34 houston tx. looking for females to use me as an oral slave.
no physical penetration,just use my tongue and mouth for your
satisfaction. will perform toilet service for both golden and brown
showers. will worship feet and *****. trampling and smothering ok
also. cyber or in person. ladies tell me your fantasy,on watersports.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
