View Full Version : MSNBC ad; kids belong to community not their parents.
Belmont31R
04-05-13, 15:16
Outrageous!
http://mrctv.org/videos/shorter-melissa-harris-perry-all-your-kids-are-belong-us
NoveskeFan
04-05-13, 15:32
I am really worried for my 9 month old daughters future. This country is turning into the worst episode of Twilight Zone, ever.
crusader377
04-05-13, 15:34
I cringe every time I think about how much this country has fallen since I was growing up. I'm in my mid 30s and I really worry about what type of country my young children will be living in by the time they are my age.
It is unbelievable on how Marxist in outlook our society has become.:mad:
Reason nine million and one why we homeschool...
Well in a corollary since I'm paying for a lot of those kids...shouldn't some of those little ****ers be mowing my yard?
SomeOtherGuy
04-05-13, 16:05
I live in a pretty good community, but I GUARANTEE YOU no one in the community values my kids more highly than my wife and I do, or is willing and able to invest more in their future.
Yeah, we homeschool too.
'Course, I'm just one of those old white guys who's married to the mother of his children (and got married before they were conceived!) and works to support the family. Silly me.
THE AUDACITY OF THE STATE
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-028-f#ixzz2OU2YyUJ4
Naked Before the State
"...Though most people have not yet realized it, the advent of same-sex marriage has transformed marriage from a pre-political institution conferring “divine and human rights,” as the Roman jurist Modestinus put it, into a mere legal construct at the gift and disposal of the state. The legal terrain has thus changed dramatically, along with the cultural—something I have tried to show in a little book called Nation of Bastards. The family is ceasing to be what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights confesses it to be, viz., “the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”
Replaced by a kaleidoscope of transient sexual and psychological configurations, which serve chiefly to make children of adults and adults of children, the declining family is ceding enormous tracts of social and legal territory to the state. At law, parent-child relationships are losing their a priori status and privilege. Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact."
WHY FIGHT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?
Is There Really That Much at Stake?
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f
A Tool of the State
Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada... in its consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of “natural parent,” “blood relationship,” etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with “legal parent,” “legal relationship,” and so forth.
That was strictly necessary. “Marriage” was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state. And the state’s goal, as directed by its courts, was to assure absolute equality for same-sex couples. The problem? Same-sex couples could be parents, but not parents of common children. Granting them adoption rights could not fully address the difference. Where natural equality was impossible, however, formal or legal equality was required. To achieve it, “heterosexual marriages” had to be conformed in law to “homosexual marriages.” The latter produced non-reproductive units, constituted not by nature but by law; the former had therefore to be put on the same footing, and were.
The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005),
"...is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law. But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state."
Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex marriage does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal.
SomeOtherGuy
04-05-13, 16:51
*WARNING - THREAD VEER APPROACHING*
I haven't ventured much into the discussions of "gay marriage," mostly because I don't care about it in the way that many seem to (on either side). But this is a great lead-in for what I do feel about it. None of the government's f'ing business. I do not need the government blessing, endorsing or approving my conventional heterosexual marriage, and I cannot identify anything positive that the government does for me in relation to that marriage. No one else should need, or seek, the government's blessing, approval or endorsement of their own marriage or relationships, of whatever form. It's not a legitimate government function. Keep the government out of the marriage business, period.
/quasi-libertarian rant
Well in a corollary since I'm paying for a lot of those kids...shouldn't some of those little ****ers be mowing my yard?
can i administer the ass whoppin'?:D
Would it be impolite to tell her to F$$K OFF; her and her ilk have ZERO claim on my child, even more than the zero claim to my firearms...to that I really do say, try and come to get them....
Moose-Knuckle
04-05-13, 18:17
Well this week the MSM has taught me that mass shootings are my fault, that I'm not manager material, and that my children really are not mine.
Is it any wonder why there is no ammo on the shelves . . . :confused:
That moon bat has never met my son and his wife.
Chihuahua, meet highly irritated wolverines.
Well this week the MSM has taught me that mass shootings are my fault, that I'm not manager material, and that my children really are not mine.
Is it any wonder why there is no ammo on the shelves... :confused:
Tag line material!
:no:
LOL
Cagemonkey
04-05-13, 19:27
Lousy communists/fascists. More people have been oppressed and murdered in the name of Collectivism than all the Religions combined. These Obama supporters are fanatics.
Well this week the MSM has taught me that mass shootings are my fault, that I'm not manager material, and that my children really are not mine.
Is it any wonder why there is no ammo on the shelves . . . :confused:
Stop reading my brain.
montanadave
04-05-13, 20:19
Well this week the MSM has taught me that mass shootings are my fault, that I'm not manager material, and that my children really are not mine.
Is it any wonder why there is no ammo on the shelves . . . :confused:
Kinda reminds me of the U2 concert joke where Bono stands on stage slowly clapping his hands to a silent crowd and, after a minute or so, mournfully intones, "Every time I clap my hands, a child dies in Africa."
And from the back of the crowd, a voice calls out, "Well, for ****'s sake, quit clappin', ya asshole!"
pilotguyo540
04-05-13, 23:34
I keep my hair short, so stories like this cant make me pull it out.
My dad told me that people thought like this when I was a kid. It seemed too far out there at the time, but holy shit! here it is, in broad daylight.
Way to take personal responsibility out of society... or whats left of it.
I seriously weep for the future.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
So yea.. tell me again how well that investment in public education is working out again??
Lunacy...
*WARNING - THREAD VEER APPROACHING*
I haven't ventured much into the discussions of "gay marriage," mostly because I don't care about it in the way that many seem to (on either side). But this is a great lead-in for what I do feel about it. None of the government's f'ing business. I do not need the government blessing, endorsing or approving my conventional heterosexual marriage, and I cannot identify anything positive that the government does for me in relation to that marriage. No one else should need, or seek, the government's blessing, approval or endorsement of their own marriage or relationships, of whatever form. It's not a legitimate government function. Keep the government out of the marriage business, period.
/quasi-libertarian rant
THE AUDACITY OF THE STATE
It’s Bent on Bringing Down the House on the Family & the Church
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-028-f#ixzz2OU2YyUJ4
If you have time read the entire article. The State believes itself to have some sort of Orwellian power and authority to redefine any and all words, to mean whatever it says they mean, for any reason they so desire.
Thus their redefinition of marriage.
Thus their redefinition of family.
Thus their redefinition of assault rifle.
Thus their labelling of standard issue magazines as "high-capacity."
Thus their attack on religious liberty and ordering the Church to pay for girls contraceptives.
And if the State can redefine marriage, and family, and parents, it can and will do so in a manner where the State itself is included, then predominant, then to the exclusion of all else, and all while fostering the illusions that either nothing has changed, or that things have been changed for the better.
So yea.. tell me again how well that investment in public education is working out again??
Exactly as it was intended.
does that wench even have kids ?
fact is if she does then I want to take them for the day reminding her they are my kids to !
first we will go to church !
then we will go to the range and do some shooting !
talk about the days of past and why things are not like they used to be with a nice quiz after ;)
MountainRaven
04-06-13, 16:08
I don't see what the problem is with the idea that the kids "belong to all of us". Yes, your children are your responsibility, 100%. But so are the kids across the street.
The problem isn't that our families are falling apart (they always have), it isn't that there are more drunken abusive fathers, or absentee parents than there has been at any other point in our history. The problem is that our communities are falling apart.
It used to be that if a kid had absentee parents, they could go across the street and hang out with the neighbor's kids and their parents. If their father got drunk and angry, there was a house in the neighborhood they could run to and hide in. If Uncle Joe was a pedophile, you could find shelter while Uncle Joe was around the house. Everybody in the neighborhood knew everybody else. The neighborhood lived and died together: You may not be invited to the funeral, but you knew when your neighbor's suffered a loss in the family.
Today, that is no longer the case. Kids don't know where the safe houses are, they either aren't allowed out or are allowed to play video games that enable them to never leave the house in the first place. We can spend decades in a neighborhood and never learn anything more about the people who live there but what car they drive.
That is the problem.
Moose-Knuckle
04-06-13, 16:26
I don't see what the problem is with the idea that the kids "belong to all of us".
Well for starters . . .
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/ittakesavillage_zpsd2a982ca.jpg
I don't see what the problem is with the idea that the kids "belong to all of us". Yes, your children are your responsibility, 100%. But so are the kids across the street.
No...THEY are NOT. They are the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY of the parents of those children.
MY responsibility is for MY things and MY family.
I WISH I was GIVEN responsibility for many of the kids across the street, I'd love to straighten a few of them out. Sadly that is up to the retards they call parents.
Kids don't know where the safe houses are, they either aren't allowed out or are allowed to play video games that enable them to never leave the house in the first place. We can spend decades in a neighborhood and never learn anything more about the people who live there but what car they drive.
That is the problem.
The kids in my neighborhood who aren't ****tards KNOW if they ever needed help my house is safe. Problem is south FL is largely populated by ****tard children from ****tard parents and I don't want them on my lawn let alone in my house.
Case in point, after our last major hurricane some of my neighbors and I were grilling hot dogs in the driveway so there were half a dozen kids standing around eating hot dogs and chips. Given that this was THREE DAYS after the storm some of the idiots around here had already run out of food and had the nerve to send their kids over begging for food.
That is the problem.
do you have kids ?
same reason folks like you believe this insane crap are the same reason I dont trust neighbors !
just cause I live near somebody does not make them good !!!
I don't see what the problem is with the idea that the kids "belong to all of us". Yes, your children are your responsibility, 100%. But so are the kids across the street.
The problem isn't that our families are falling apart (they always have), it isn't that there are more drunken abusive fathers, or absentee parents than there has been at any other point in our history. The problem is that our communities are falling apart.
It used to be that if a kid had absentee parents, they could go across the street and hang out with the neighbor's kids and their parents. If their father got drunk and angry, there was a house in the neighborhood they could run to and hide in. If Uncle Joe was a pedophile, you could find shelter while Uncle Joe was around the house. Everybody in the neighborhood knew everybody else. The neighborhood lived and died together: You may not be invited to the funeral, but you knew when your neighbor's suffered a loss in the family.
Today, that is no longer the case. Kids don't know where the safe houses are, they either aren't allowed out or are allowed to play video games that enable them to never leave the house in the first place. We can spend decades in a neighborhood and never learn anything more about the people who live there but what car they drive.
That is the problem.
I don't see what the problem is with the idea that the kids "belong to all of us". Yes, your children are your responsibility, 100%. But so are the kids across the street.
The problem isn't that our families are falling apart (they always have), it isn't that there are more drunken abusive fathers, or absentee parents than there has been at any other point in our history. The problem is that our communities are falling apart.
It used to be that if a kid had absentee parents, they could go across the street and hang out with the neighbor's kids and their parents. If their father got drunk and angry, there was a house in the neighborhood they could run to and hide in. If Uncle Joe was a pedophile, you could find shelter while Uncle Joe was around the house. Everybody in the neighborhood knew everybody else. The neighborhood lived and died together: You may not be invited to the funeral, but you knew when your neighbor's suffered a loss in the family.
Today, that is no longer the case. Kids don't know where the safe houses are, they either aren't allowed out or are allowed to play video games that enable them to never leave the house in the first place. We can spend decades in a neighborhood and never learn anything more about the people who live there but what car they drive.
That is the problem.
I see your point (though disagree). The point is that The State is continuing to drive a wedge in the family unit, and between children are parents. The message is that of devaluing the parents and allowing children to be de facto wards of the state.
The kids across the street are not my responsibility, mine are not my neighbor's responsibility, and they sure as hell aren't the government's responsibility.
MountainRaven
04-06-13, 21:41
No...THEY are NOT. They are the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY of the parents of those children.
MY responsibility is for MY things and MY family.
I WISH I was GIVEN responsibility for many of the kids across the street, I'd love to straighten a few of them out. Sadly that is up to the retards they call parents.
The kids in my neighborhood who aren't ****tards KNOW if they ever needed help my house is safe. Problem is south FL is largely populated by ****tard children from ****tard parents and I don't want them on my lawn let alone in my house.
Case in point, after our last major hurricane some of my neighbors and I were grilling hot dogs in the driveway so there were half a dozen kids standing around eating hot dogs and chips. Given that this was THREE DAYS after the storm some of the idiots around here had already run out of food and had the nerve to send their kids over begging for food.
That is the problem.
I fully understand that some kids are ****tards and that their parents are ****tards. Not everyone needs to be the guy everyone goes to when they need help or use their house as a neighborhood hangout for everyone's kids. Just as not everyone needs to join the military, the police, a fire department, or become a doctor in order to be a contributing member of society. No one is asking you to sacrifice something personal on behalf of the community. But there was a time when someone in the neighborhood could be counted on to do so.
Are you saying that if you know that Timmy across the street is being molested by his father that you're not going to do anything about it because "they're not your responsibility"?
do you have kids ?
same reason folks like you believe this insane crap are the same reason I dont trust neighbors !
just cause I live near somebody does not make them good !!!
And because you don't know your neighbors, you don't know who is trustworthy and who isn't. You don't know who, in an emergency, is going to help you and who is going to cut your throat in your sleep, rape your wife, and feed your children to their dogs.
And they don't know the same about you. This leads to distrust. It means in a serious disaster, your community will eat itself instead of surviving together.
I see your point (though disagree). The point is that The State is continuing to drive a wedge in the family unit, and between children are parents. The message is that of devaluing the parents and allowing children to be de facto wards of the state.
The kids across the street are not my responsibility, mine are not my neighbor's responsibility, and they sure as hell aren't the government's responsibility.
I understand that and feel that the video is the product of a stupid person. A stupid person who is not, as far as I can tell, part of the State.
Unfortunately, I don't see how the video or government can succeed in something most parents are gleefully doing by themselves with no help needed whatsoever: Devaluing parents and parenthood.
Are you saying that if you know that Timmy across the street is being molested by his father that you're not going to do anything about it because "they're not your responsibility"?
No I don't think it's my responsibility. That means I'm not OBLIGATED to do anything just as I'm not OBLIGATED to call 911 if I see there house on fire.
Now I probably WILL call 911 if their house is on fire and I probably WILL report it if I know Timmy across the street is being molested but I'm not OBLIGATED and it's not my RESPONSIBILITY.
And of course if Timmy is a complete ****tard he's on his own in both situations.
I don't believe much in the way of social obligation. I think I am required to do very little but tend to my own shit. But I do believe in being a good neighbor to good people and having good neighbors who help each other even if they aren't REQUIRED to in any way, shape or form.
I've got a strong Objectivist philosophy when it comes to notions of social obligation.
No...THEY are NOT. They are the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY of the parents of those children.
MY responsibility is for MY things and MY family.
After reading some of your recent posts I'd like to ask what you believe you offer to your community. Other than being self-sustaining that is.
again do you have kids ?>
Are you saying that if you know that Timmy across the street is being molested by his father that you're not going to do anything about it because "they're not your responsibility"?
And because you don't know your neighbors, you don't know who is trustworthy and who isn't. You don't know who, in an emergency, is going to help you and who is going to cut your throat in your sleep, rape your wife, and feed your children to their dogs.
And they don't know the same about you. This leads to distrust. It means in a serious disaster, your community will eat itself instead of surviving together.
I understand that and feel that the video is the product of a stupid person. A stupid person who is not, as far as I can tell, part of the State.
Unfortunately, I don't see how the video or government can succeed in something most parents are gleefully doing by themselves with no help needed whatsoever: Devaluing parents and parenthood.
actually if I heard/thought he/she is being molested I will call the authorities and no I will not get involved !
again I know my neighbors but know way are they going to be anything more than neighbors !
and again !!!! I have friends ones I trust they are not my neighbors though !
again do you even have kids ?
By the way I remember the "burden of giving a damn" thread and certainly admired your efforts, but based upon some of your hostile posts regarding kids recently it seems you would put more effort into helping a dog than your neighbor's lost child.
Sorry if that sounds rough but I try to be honest, welcome or not. Nothing personal.
again do you have kids ?>
actually if I heard/thought he/she is being molested I will call the authorities and no I will not get involved !
again I know my neighbors but know way are they going to be anything more than neighbors !
and again !!!! I have friends ones I trust they are not my neighbors though !
again do you even have kids ?
Why? Our next door neighbors are our best friends. We go to their kid's ball games, cook out together, have holiday parties together, their kids play in our back yard, pet sit for each other, heck, we even have keys to each others houses, which has been very handy on a couple of occasions. We didn't know them before we moved in, but we know all our neighbors now and we're all friendly.
Is it just a regional thing? :confused:
Alaskapopo
04-06-13, 23:48
It takes parents not a village. I am all for close nit communities but the responsibility rests on the parents. Many of our problems today can be traced back to single parent homes with the parent gone most of the time and kids basically being raised by the TV set.
Pat
montanadave
04-06-13, 23:58
Why? Our next door neighbors are our best friends. We go to their kid's ball games, cook out together, have holiday parties together, their kids play in our back yard, pet sit for each other, heck, we even have keys to each others houses, which has been very handy on a couple of occasions. We didn't know them before we moved in, but we know all our neighbors now and we're all friendly.
Is it just a regional thing? :confused:
I was also thinking how fortunate I am to live where I do. Our neighbors aren't "best friends" but we all know one another, keep track of kids and pets, watch each other's houses when out of town, visit over a cup of coffee or a cold drink, shovel the walk or mow the lawn as need be. It's a neighborhood, not just a row of houses containing strangers.
My next door neighbor is thirty years older than me and we probably have never voted for the same guy. Regardless, we decided long ago that being friends and good neighbors was a damn sight more important than arguing politics. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
After reading some of these comments, my attitude of gratitude just ticked up a notch.
After reading some of your recent posts I'd like to ask what you believe you offer to your community. Other than being self-sustaining that is.
What do/have I offered them? Many things.
What am I "required" to offer them? Nothing.
Bad enough they constantly reach into my pocket as it it.
I owe others what they owe me. Nothing.
That said, wouldn't be the first time I taught a volunteer martial arts program. Wouldn't be the first time I took a second trip through the drive through to get a sack of burgers for the homeless guy in the wheel chair who looked hungry. Wouldn't be the first time I helped somebody repair/secure there home after a hurricane. Wouldn't be the first time for a lot of things.
But those are voluntary choices. And it wouldn't be the first time some shit happened and I was left to handle shit alone without any kind of assist from the community. But that is because helping me isn't REQUIRED either.
By the way I remember the "burden of giving a damn" thread and certainly admired your efforts, but based upon some of your hostile posts regarding kids recently it seems you would put more effort into helping a dog than your neighbor's lost child.
Sorry if that sounds rough but I try to be honest, welcome or not. Nothing personal.
Once the dog ran away and the neighbor stopped caring, the neighbor was no longer responsible for the dog. Being a decent sort I tried to help. And in the end despite my efforts look how that turned out.
The neighbor kid is not a lost dog, he has parents and he is 100% SOLELY their responsibility. And just as I wouldn't stand for them have .0000000001% percent say about my family, I don't get any say about their family except personal disapproval.
Their kid is their kid and he's not mine to fix, nor do I have much inclination to try and fix him beyond making sure he knows where the property line is.
Now again, I think I'm a nice guy. So if the neighbors abandoned him and I saw him cold and hungry I'd probably do a second lap around the Burger King to get him something to eat. But HONESTLY trying to help a dog and trying to help the children of inconsiderate retards are two very different things.
It can be a lot like running into a trailer park home and trying to help some tattooed meth head whose piece of shit paint huffing boyfriend is beating the shit out of. You THINK she will appreciate your help and won't stick you with a kitchen knife but that is because you are thinking she thinks like you.
The best thing I can do about the people next door is confine my contact to letting them know when they are pushing the bullshit too far. That is certainly enough of a chore without making more work for myself like trying to fix their kids.
Meaning my neighbors are that some are friends some are not !
They are not my kids caretaker or equal to me as my kids are concerned ?
Sorry I dont find the kids are not yours they are ours mentality !
I will not put my life on the line for other kids !
I want my kids to have me as a dad not someone else !
I need to be there for my kids
My neighbors dont have kids or not in my kids age bracket
I also dont choose my friends by geographic location :)
I also know all my neighbors and share keys etc... I think many do that not regional but maybe ?
Why? Our next door neighbors are our best friends. We go to their kid's ball games, cook out together, have holiday parties together, their kids play in our back yard, pet sit for each other, heck, we even have keys to each others houses, which has been very handy on a couple of occasions. We didn't know them before we moved in, but we know all our neighbors now and we're all friendly.
Is it just a regional thing? :confused:
Damn, some of you guys are lucky. My closest neighbors? .... Let's see, one did 7 years, not counting parole, for Assault & Battery with intent to kill (SC's attempted murder charge); evidently he carved the ex up like a Christmas ham. His family now are about as close to the Pikey Clan on Snatch as it gets. Nothing but welfare queens, scum, and theives. Another neighbor is a certified mental counselor who just happens to be a local cock fighting kingpin, and finally a late 20's nut who does some of the weirdest shit I have ever seen a human do.
Imagine awaking in the middle of the night to loud music.... And not just any loud music, loud Lady Gaga Poker Face! Then walking outside to see said dude washing his car in a bathing suit, singing said song at the top of his lungs, at 1 am. Yeah.
And we live in the country.
There are multitudes of reasons, stupid things like the topic of this thread, but we have decided against having kids. The world is just too screwed up anymore and I cannot stomach the thought of raising a kid in it as it is now, much less 5-20 years from now. You guys who are have my upmost respect.
I don't see what the problem is with the idea that the kids "belong to all of us". Yes, your children are your responsibility, 100%. But so are the kids across the street.
You are confusing and conflating "responsibility" and "belonging". If I see a neighbour's child about to run into the street I have a responsibility to at least yell a warning, but that in no way whatsoever, none, implies the child "belongs to all of us".
You miss the point. The wrench in the op video says "us" as in "the government". And if those kids belong to "us" not the parents, then "us" has the power and priority OVER THE PARENT to raise and teach (indoctrinate) them...for example, look at what the Nazi's did to children as example...or NK...or the USSR...or...or...
The neighbor kid is not a lost dog, he has parents and he is 100% SOLELY their responsibility.
So no one is responsible for the dog? Why were you so frustrated with the neighbors then if they have no such obligations?
Their kid is their kid and he's not mine to fix, nor do I have much inclination to try and fix him beyond making sure he knows where the property line is.
As much as I despise the likes of a Perry this comes off as unusually harsh. And who is it that is asking you to "fix" their kids, by the way?
Now again, I think I'm a nice guy. So if the neighbors abandoned him and I saw him cold and hungry I'd probably do a second lap around the Burger King to get him something to eat. But HONESTLY trying to help a dog and trying to help the children of inconsiderate retards are two very different things.
Thankfully most would put as much or more effort into helping a child in distress than a dog. But what really confounds me is where on earth you're deriving the attitude that the child is to blame for their shit patrents. I now suspect that generalized comments such as "little ****ers" are a means to justify your disconnect from this one aspect of reality. Either that or you really just don't care, which is your choice either way.
jonconsiglio
04-07-13, 10:15
I cringe every time I think about how much this country has fallen since I was growing up. I'm in my mid 30s and I really worry about what type of country my young children will be living in by the time they are my age.
It is unbelievable on how Marxist in outlook our society has become.:mad:
Same here brother.
MountainRaven
04-07-13, 11:56
No I don't think it's my responsibility. That means I'm not OBLIGATED to do anything just as I'm not OBLIGATED to call 911 if I see there house on fire.
Now I probably WILL call 911 if their house is on fire and I probably WILL report it if I know Timmy across the street is being molested but I'm not OBLIGATED and it's not my RESPONSIBILITY.
And of course if Timmy is a complete ****tard he's on his own in both situations.
I don't believe much in the way of social obligation. I think I am required to do very little but tend to my own shit. But I do believe in being a good neighbor to good people and having good neighbors who help each other even if they aren't REQUIRED to in any way, shape or form.
I've got a strong Objectivist philosophy when it comes to notions of social obligation.
I disagree.
If Timmy's being molested by his dad, who else might he be molesting? Haven't we established that pedophiles and child molesters are repeat offenders and that for every known victim there are, what, likely ten unknown victims?
Same with the burning house: Yeah, it's not your responsibility to fight the fire. But there's this thing about fires, there's a reason why when our country was founded, if there was a fire, the whole town fought it. Because fire spreads. It may just claim your ****tard neighbor's house (assuming someone calls 911) or it may claim your ****tard neighbor's house and your favorite neighbor's house (assuming someone calls 911) or it might burn down your whole neighborhood before touching your house, at which point (from what you're written) you would call 911... but it would be too late for your house. For your neighborhood. The fire department is simply going to try and keep it from destroying too much of the neighborhoods next door.
again do you have kids ?>
Negative. I don't see how that's relevant.
actually if I heard/thought he/she is being molested I will call the authorities and no I will not get involved !
again I know my neighbors but know way are they going to be anything more than neighbors !
and again !!!! I have friends ones I trust they are not my neighbors though !
So your plan, in an disaster, is to hump it to your friends' neighborhood?
It takes parents not a village. I am all for close nit communities but the responsibility rests on the parents. Many of our problems today can be traced back to single parent homes with the parent gone most of the time and kids basically being raised by the TV set.
Pat
Because TB, Spanish flu, two World Wars, and the extremely high divorce rates of the post-War years didn't create any single-parent homes, right?
Again, back then, the kid being raised by a single parent could go hang out with the neighbor's kids. Today, they have the internet, video games, and TV: I agree those are largely doing the raising. But 50 years ago, the neighborhood would have been raising those kids. (Kids with no access to TV are going to get bored. This means they're going to run around the neighborhood and hang out with other kids. Which means, not infrequently, that they're going to hang out in the houses of those other kids.)
You are confusing and conflating "responsibility" and "belonging". If I see a neighbour's child about to run into the street I have a responsibility to at least yell a warning, but that in no way whatsoever, none, implies the child "belongs to all of us".
I don't believe that I am, but I understand your point.
My point is that if the neighborhood had been more engaged (as they would have been even as recently as the early 1990s) with each other that Nancy Lanza would have known, sooner, that her son was a walking time bomb. That the engagement with the community might even have defused that time bomb, as he would have been raised by people, not TV or the internet (assuming facts not in evidence, of course). That what has really changed in our parenting in the last 50+ years is not that we have more dysfunctional families, more single-parent homes, more pedophiles, more drunkards and drugheads, but that our homes are becoming more and more isolated within our communities.
If you fail to properly socialize a dog when it is a puppy with other dogs and with other people, they will misread body language and be incapable of fully socializing with other dogs or people. It's not the dog's fault, mind, it didn't understand what was going on, it never learned how to read the body language of other dogs, of people, of the differences in other people's tones of voice and inflection and it never learned how to respond to that communication, to communicate back. I would posit that much the same thing occurs with children: Failure to properly socialize them while they're young increases the likelihood of a violent outlash. Just as the improperly socialized dog is much more likely to attack another dog or another human being (other than their owner).
You miss the point. The wrench in the op video says "us" as in "the government". And if those kids belong to "us" not the parents, then "us" has the power and priority OVER THE PARENT to raise and teach (indoctrinate) them...for example, look at what the Nazi's did to children as example...or NK...or the USSR...or...or...
I did not catch that. I caught her saying the community, many times. I did not catch anything about the government (except how the government is failing). Maybe I need to re-watch it?
:confused:
RogerinTPA
04-07-13, 12:18
Because of the progressive indoctrination of school age kids these days, I'd home school them until high school.
So no one is responsible for the dog? Why were you so frustrated with the neighbors then if they have no such obligations?
Maybe because the dog wasn't a ****tard. I suppose if the dog was a constant annoyance prior to running away I probably wouldn't have tried any kind of rescue.
But the real issue is I was frustrated with the neighbors "stupidity" and "lack of responsibility" concerning the dog. I have the same feelings about their "stupidity" and "lack of responsibility" as it applies to their retard kids but again it's "their kids."
What would you suggest, that I go onto their property and attempt to correct them?
As much as I despise the likes of a Perry this comes off as unusually harsh. And who is it that is asking you to "fix" their kids, by the way?
I thought you were suggesting I should feel some kind of responsibility to help their kids? Weren't you just criticizing me for not putting in the same effort that I did with the dog regarding their "lost" kids? I didn't think you meant "actually lost" as in wandering around and not knowing how to get home.
Thankfully most would put as much or more effort into helping a child in distress than a dog. But what really confounds me is where on earth you're deriving the attitude that the child is to blame for their shit patrents. I now suspect that generalized comments such as "little ****ers" are a means to justify your disconnect from this one aspect of reality. Either that or you really just don't care, which is your choice either way.
It's kinda like this. I don't hate cats. I hate cat owners who force me to deal with the bullshit associated with their cats because they don't control them. This includes crapping in my yard, bringing fleas to my yard, having 3am fights in my yard and walking on my cars. But as I don't know where the cats originate from, I am forced to deal directly with the cats to try and eradicate these problems.
The kids ARE being "little ****ers" and I know that is a result of retarded parents. But at the same time it's sometimes the kids I'm forced to deal with so I have to try and eradicate that problem directly. Really wish you lived on the other side instead of the old couple. Be more than happy to let you take a run at the problem and show me more effective options.
I disagree.
If Timmy's being molested by his dad, who else might he be molesting? Haven't we established that pedophiles and child molesters are repeat offenders and that for every known victim there are, what, likely ten unknown victims?
Same with the burning house: Yeah, it's not your responsibility to fight the fire. But there's this thing about fires, there's a reason why when our country was founded, if there was a fire, the whole town fought it. Because fire spreads. It may just claim your ****tard neighbor's house (assuming someone calls 911) or it may claim your ****tard neighbor's house and your favorite neighbor's house (assuming someone calls 911) or it might burn down your whole neighborhood before touching your house, at which point (from what you're written) you would call 911... but it would be too late for your house. For your neighborhood. The fire department is simply going to try and keep it from destroying too much of the neighborhoods next door.
So let me ask this. I'm assuming you think I have this burden of responsibility because I am a thinking person capable of responsible action.
Is the alcoholic across the street held to the same standard of accountability. Or is it because he is pretty much blotto around the clock and wouldn't know if his underwear was on fire let alone the house across the street, to say nothing of child molesting?
What of the people in the neighborhood who are too stupid to know what to do and simply come outside to watch the fire?
What about the house of stoners who are equally not capable of being responsible enough to understand what is going on because they are always high?
Does that mean everyone should be required to stop drinking, smoking dope and not allowed to be functionally ignorant of basic things so they can all be held to the same standard of responsibility to you claim I must assume?
And if not, if I buy a bong does that mean I'm allowed to not give a ****?
Or is it once again that I am forced to accept taking care of others who can't take care of themselves because I'm the only one who took the time to have a capacity to be responsible?
On the third day after the storm do I owe other peoples kids food because they ran out and I still have some?
montanadave
04-07-13, 13:28
When it comes to "social responsibility" (for lack of a better term), most folks do what allows them to sleep at night.
For some, that means zip, nada, nothin'. For others, it's giving somebody the shirt off their back.
For most of us, it's somewhere in between.
And, FWIW, I'm guessing Steyr would trend towards the shirt off his back end of the spectrum, despite his protestations to the contrary. He just doesn't want some pushy do-gooder telling him he has to. :smile:
And, FWIW, I'm guessing Steyr would trend towards the shirt off his back end of the spectrum, despite his protestations to the contrary. He just doesn't want some pushy do-gooder telling him he has to. :smile:
You and I already know this, yet he seems forced to realize it. If the same man that deliberated for days about how to catch a lost dog really would buy a lost child a burger and then wish him good luck getting home exists then he confuses me beyond sensible explanation. I have faith he is better than that.
MountainRaven
04-07-13, 14:43
So let me ask this. I'm assuming you think I have this burden of responsibility because I am a thinking person capable of responsible action.
Is the alcoholic across the street held to the same standard of accountability. Or is it because he is pretty much blotto around the clock and wouldn't know if his underwear was on fire let alone the house across the street, to say nothing of child molesting?
What of the people in the neighborhood who are too stupid to know what to do and simply come outside to watch the fire?
What about the house of stoners who are equally not capable of being responsible enough to understand what is going on because they are always high?
Does that mean everyone should be required to stop drinking, smoking dope and not allowed to be functionally ignorant of basic things so they can all be held to the same standard of responsibility to you claim I must assume?
And if not, if I buy a bong does that mean I'm allowed to not give a ****?
Or is it once again that I am forced to accept taking care of others who can't take care of themselves because I'm the only one who took the time to have a capacity to be responsible?
On the third day after the storm do I owe other peoples kids food because they ran out and I still have some?
I suppose we're arguing about that which is morally obligatory and that which is morally supererogatory (I seriously just learned this word, so here's a link to a definition: supererogation (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/supererogation/)).
In any case, no, I would not tell you that you have to feed the children of your ****tard neighbors. Your obligations are primarily to yourself, your family, your clan, and your tribe (in more or less that order). It is not obligatory that you feed your neighbors if it jeopardizes your own survival. It is, however, an act of supererogation if you choose to.
Let's put a hypothetical out there: You have a neighbor who you get along with quite well and is a known good person. This neighbor is (pick one: active duty military; law enforcement, or; a fire fighter). They get killed (pick one: by an IED in Afghanistan; by a gang banger during a traffic stop, or; in a structure fire when it collapses on them). That leaves their spouse a single-parent and their children without a (pick one: mother, or; father). The single-parent will have to work their butts off to support their kids. This means this will be a de facto absentee parent. Do you not feel some responsibility toward the child of a person who died for their community, for you?
Bearing in mind that the most important part of the equation are the children: Apart from your emotive response, how does this situation vary from one in which the neighbor has any other job and dies for whatever reason? And how does that vary from if one or both of the parents are scumbags?
Is it obligation or supererogation to assist those children in their upbringing?
When it comes to "social responsibility" (for lack of a better term), most folks do what allows them to sleep at night.
For some, that means zip, nada, nothin'. For others, it's giving somebody the shirt off their back.
For most of us, it's somewhere in between.
And, FWIW, I'm guessing Steyr would trend towards the shirt off his back end of the spectrum, despite his protestations to the contrary. He just doesn't want some pushy do-gooder telling him he has to. :smile:
I hope that no one feels that I am presuming to tell people what they must do. Like everyone else, though, I am more than happy to tell people what I think they should do.
:)
I freely admit that I need to spend some more time meditating on the differences between what at least I feel is morally obligatory versus that which is morally supererogatory.
I think...
Supererogatory: Intervening in a mass shooting, stopping at a flipped car to check on everyone involved, administering first aid/CPR, pulling your wounded buddies out of a killzone. Feeding, sheltering, protecting strangers, trying to trap and save a stray (domestic) dog. Taking direct action to help or save others, even when you have no obligation to do so.
Obligatory: Dialing 911 when your neighbor's house in on fire, when you see a car flip over in the median, when you see someone attacked in the street. Keeping your family, your clan, and your tribe fed and protected. Taking no direct action, save to inform those who are or may be obligated to act.
Random rambling ensues:
At one point in Western history, it was obligatory to feed strangers who came to your house. Possibly out of a fear that they might be angels and you might be living in the next Sodom or Gomorrah. But we see the same thing in most 'primitive' societies, even today. A stranger comes knocking on your door, they are a guest, you treat them like a guest.
Hmm.
End random rambling.
I am really worried for my 9 month old daughters future. This country is turning into the worst episode of Twilight Zone, ever.
Educate your daughter in the ways of liberty, goodness and freedom! teach her to embrace such concepts, and reject what the modern media and government perpetuate.
I fear for my kids far more than my own well-being under this regime. The influences of public education and modern media directed towards kids especially are very detrimental to embracing proper morals and believing in conservative, liberty-based principles, not to mention critically thinking in general.
I don't see why anyone is surprised. It's been a tenet of the NWO from since I became aware of it (1988).
Keep hollering "Tinfoil hat" crap and the beast will be sitting next to you before you realize WTF happened.
Yup :)
Also I think in the past families were much closer and some were close enough physically to help raise others family when busy
My brothers kids were his but I loved them as mine of course and cared for them much more than any neighbor could !
Having grandparents around etc...
It takes parents not a village. I am all for close nit communities but the responsibility rests on the parents. Many of our problems today can be traced back to single parent homes with the parent gone most of the time and kids basically being raised by the TV set.
Pat
I disagree.
Negative. I don't see how that's relevant.
:confused:
Having kids will give you a whole new perspective !
And talking about kids when you dont have any is big time empty of any experience/value !
Honestly someone who does not have kids arguing other kids are mine is a bit creepy ! And makes me wonder why !
MountainRaven
04-07-13, 17:57
Having kids will give you a whole new perspective !
And talking about kids when you dont have any is big time empty of any experience/value !
Honestly someone who does not have kids arguing other kids are mine is a bit creepy ! And makes me wonder why !
And I said your children are not yours... where?
I suppose we're arguing about that which is morally obligatory and that which is morally supererogatory (I seriously just learned this word, so here's a link to a definition: supererogation (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/supererogation/)).
In any case, no, I would not tell you that you have to feed the children of your ****tard neighbors. Your obligations are primarily to yourself, your family, your clan, and your tribe (in more or less that order). It is not obligatory that you feed your neighbors if it jeopardizes your own survival. It is, however, an act of supererogation if you choose to.
Let's put a hypothetical out there: You have a neighbor who you get along with quite well and is a known good person. This neighbor is (pick one: active duty military; law enforcement, or; a fire fighter). They get killed (pick one: by an IED in Afghanistan; by a gang banger during a traffic stop, or; in a structure fire when it collapses on them). That leaves their spouse a single-parent and their children without a (pick one: mother, or; father). The single-parent will have to work their butts off to support their kids. This means this will be a de facto absentee parent. Do you not feel some responsibility toward the child of a person who died for their community, for you?
Bearing in mind that the most important part of the equation are the children: Apart from your emotive response, how does this situation vary from one in which the neighbor has any other job and dies for whatever reason? And how does that vary from if one or both of the parents are scumbags?
What form of support do you suggest I owe that family or any family? Right now we already get our property taxes pinged to pay for public schools and free daycare. This means I don't have enough for health insurance and pay out of pocket.
Right now the economy has trashed my business where my income is 1/5th what it was. I imagine that is similar to becoming a single parent hardship. Do the people who make a lot more money than I owe me anything? What if I decided to have 4 kids that I can't provide for? Is it up to the community to take up my slack?
I don't see what the problem is with the idea that the kids "belong to all of us".
This is flat out creepy IMHO even more so since you don't have kids !
And I said your children are not yours... where?
Either your some idiotic radical socialist communist type or truly clueless since you dont have kids !
MountainRaven
04-07-13, 18:38
This is flat out creepy IMHO even more so since you don't have kids !
Do you have an opinion on abortion? I assume that you do. Do you have ovaries? I assume that you do not. Does that make you creepy?
People who do not own or understand firearms have opinions on them. We may not be happy with many of those opinions, but is it creepy that those people have them?
How many people have an opinion on our foreign adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet have never spent a day in a uniform or even know anyone who does? Is that creepy?
I have many friends who have children. I have co-workers who have children including those who I legitimately believe should not have them. I am, as most people are, the child of two parents. I pay taxes that support the children of other people.
Am I not entitled to an opinion simply because you feel that people without children are unworthy of holding opinions regarding the raising of children?
Either your some idiotic radical socialist communist type or truly clueless since you dont have kids !
So you are unable to answer the question?
Do you not feel some responsibility toward the child of a person who died for their community, for you?
Wanted to take this one alone.
I reject the premise that they "did it for me" entirely. This will probably be an unpopular POV but I'll try and explain it.
First, I didn't ask them to and in no way obligated them. So it wasn't for me. It may have been out of love for their country, a sense of duty or something along those lines but that is THEM following THEIR VALUES.
If I do something like stop a crime. I'm not doing it for the community and they owe me nothing. I did it out of adherence to my personal values and what I find acceptable before "I" decide to do something about it.
These are choices, not obligations.
Now if a person ACTUALLY sacrificed themselves for me SPECIFICALLY, like they died in some rescue attempt or took a bullet like the SS protecting a President THEN and ONLY THEN would I have a responsibility to assume (or attempt to assume) some of their responsibilities.
did I ever say you could not have an opinion :) hahahah
your opinion is kinda sick like the other lefties who think children belong to everyone !
again IMHO its sick and radical left thinking
but the fact you dont have kids you really dont understand ! just like anti gun nuts dont understand guns ! and somehow think they just kill people
Do you have an opinion on abortion? I assume that you do. Do you have ovaries? I assume that you do not. Does that make you creepy?
People who do not own or understand firearms have opinions on them. We may not be happy with many of those opinions, but is it creepy that those people have them?
How many people have an opinion on our foreign adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet have never spent a day in a uniform or even know anyone who does? Is that creepy?
I have many friends who have children. I have co-workers who have children including those who I legitimately believe should not have them. I am, as most people are, the child of two parents. I pay taxes that support the children of other people.
Am I not entitled to an opinion simply because you feel that people without children are unworthy of holding opinions regarding the raising of children?
So you are unable to answer the question?
Moose-Knuckle
04-08-13, 03:14
You miss the point. The wrench in the op video says "us" as in "the government". And if those kids belong to "us" not the parents, then "us" has the power and priority OVER THE PARENT to raise and teach (indoctrinate) them...for example, look at what the Nazi's did to children as example...or NK...or the USSR...or...or...
Ding! Ding! Ding!
This sure as shit ain't about the neighborhood kids . . . :help:
Nationalizing Children
http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w321.html
VooDoo6Actual
04-08-13, 13:47
You miss the point. The wrench in the op video says "us" as in "the government". And if those kids belong to "us" not the parents, then "us" has the power and priority OVER THE PARENT to raise and teach (indoctrinate) them...for example, look at what the Nazi's did to children as example...or NK...or the USSR...or...or...
Winner, winner chicken dinner
This has been going on for years, just not as openly. I will give you an example.. Nashville TN late 60's:
I lived across the street from my neighborhood grade school. My mother was President of the school PTA (Parent-Teacher-Association). The parents had an active say in what happened at that school, and therefore participated in the school events, teaching, volunteering and had VESTED interest in that school being successful.
Then came court ordered busing. They wanted to bus me at the government's expense an HOUR across town to another school (in a predominately black) neighborhood. The local participative parent dynamic was destroyed. The schools were basically saying "We don't want YOU to raise/educate your kids, WE will". It didn't have the effect intended - instead of improving the other school, it destroyed our local one.
This is just more of the same, just not as hidden in it's intent.
My parents took me out of public schools and put me in a private school where they then had some say.
My daughter went to our local public school (that principle ran a tight ship) until the 5th grade, when she would have to move to a consolidated middle school, that has a host of problems. She is now in private school also where I have some control over her education, environment, safety and morale upbringing. Costing me an arm and a let, but SHE is worth it.
Lousy communists/fascists. More people have been oppressed and murdered in the name of Collectivism than all the Religions combined. These Obama supporters are fanatics.
And people say I'm crazy, getting ready for it all to go to hell...
At this point, I'll take collapse over waiting for the electorate to un-**** itself and put decent people in office...
Moose-Knuckle
04-10-13, 17:00
Melissa Harris-Perry: Allow me to double down
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/09/why-caring-for-children-is-not-just-a-parents-job/
:rolleyes: . . . :bad: . . . :suicide:
What a stupid bitch.
Can't even understand the difference between her responsibility as a teacher HIRED to do a job and her socialist psychobabble about the collective responsibility to children extending to every member of the community.
About the only good thing that can be said, is she completely understands her socialist agenda and isn't simply falling victim to it.
This is not too different than when Hillary came out with It Takes A Village. That became a pop saying, and although on the surface a noble thought, the real implication is pretty terrifying. And, by the way, it takes a parent to raise a child, not a village.
Melissa Harris-Perry: Allow me to double down
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/09/why-caring-for-children-is-not-just-a-parents-job/
:rolleyes: . . . :bad: . . . :suicide:
"I’ll even admit that despite being an unwavering advocate for women’s reproductive rights, I have learned this lesson from some of my most sincere, ethically motivated, pro-life colleagues. Those people who truly believe that the potential life inherent in a fetus is equivalent to the actualized life of an infant have argued that the community has a distinct interest in children no matter what the mother’s and father’s interests or needs. So while we come down on different sides of the choice issue, we agree that kids are not the property of their parents. Their lives matter to all of us."
Wow, just, simply, wow. It is difficult to believe this magnitude of sheer stupidity can actually inhabit human form.
This towering monument to neo-marxist collectivist mentality actually believes that a living, breathing, human fetus isn't actually living and breathing, that he or she has no life.
And we in the pro-life community do in fact believe that children belong to their parents. What utter deliberately dishonest horseshit. The fact that we don't believe parents can kill a child born or unborn does not mean we think the child belongs to us or the government.
Yes, the lives of my neighbours children matter, as well as the lives of my neighbours themselves, so because of this they all somehow belong to me, or belong to the State?
I will repeat, and repeat, and keep repeating. Every last single rock, brick, stone, and pebble in the lunatic leftist ideological wall must be torn down. The entire thing must be smashed and pounded into dust.
My comment on her ridiculous "clarification".
"But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it."
You might think that, but you'd be wrong. We've seen such a rush to indoctrinate children from an early age by so-called progressives that we're on edge and on defense. You can't wipe that away with a flippant claim that what we automatically assumed isn't what you meant. Your very own report on gun control is full of inaccuracies, falsehoods and "lie by statistic". yet you claim the other side (the NRA in this case) is lying. You have no basis for that accusation. You can't prove that the hard left isn't intent on removing guns from the hands of the law abiding and you can't prove that you and your cohorts have no intention of turning our own children against our way of life. You speak of diversity, all the while discouraging that very diversity if it disagrees with your vision of what the world should be. You actively discourage our way of life and our values system through your biased and disparaging comments.
I do not speak for all conservatives and I certainly have my own disagreements with some of their views, but you are far from innocent. The lady Harris-Perry doth protest too much, methinks.
Moose-Knuckle
04-10-13, 18:09
This is not too different than when Hillary came out with It Takes A Village. That became a pop saying, and although on the surface a noble thought, the real implication is pretty terrifying. And, by the way, it takes a parent to raise a child, not a village.
See page 2 post #24 of this thread. ;)
See page 2 post #24 of this thread. ;)
Sorry....when the thread gets so long my speed reading skills tend to lapse. I am married, so I have no issue in declaring any and all problems with communications, receiving, sending, or understanding, are mine alone. :)
Why? Our next door neighbors are our best friends. We go to their kid's ball games, cook out together, have holiday parties together, their kids play in our back yard, pet sit for each other, heck, we even have keys to each others houses, which has been very handy on a couple of occasions. We didn't know them before we moved in, but we know all our neighbors now and we're all friendly.
Is it just a regional thing? :confused:
It's where you grow up. Where I grew up, the folks on my street were all relatively friendly with each other. One street over, not so much. Two streets over, you shut up and keep walking. Pretty much the same as every other ghetto or near-ghetto / projects / low-income community. We locked our doors and definitely didn't give each other keys.
As an adult living in a very different community, I still find it's very hard to want to be any closer than arms length with neighbors. I try to help them, and they have helped me, but man it takes some effort.
Now go down to Robles Park and other lovely parts of Tampa. Spend a day watching them. That 'community' the MSNBC woman would have seen disintegrates pretty ****ing quick when a marked unit pulls up and someone has to ditch the joint somewhere. These people turn on each other in a damned hurry to save their own skins or just so that they don't go to jail alone. This is not the 'community' that I want to see raising kids, and they sure as hell wouldn't invest in their kids' welfare just because that kid suddenly 'belongs' to all of them.
I tend to strongly agree with SteyrAUG. Morally, I know it's right to help others. But legally? Socially? There's a big-assed difference between helping because of your own morality, your own sense of duty, and because of an obligation.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.