Unbelievable

[maxiep]

[video=youtube;N3qtpdSQox0]

I wonder if she has kids? If so, she can give her kids over to the community first.

 

[RR7]

how does one interpret that as she wants the rights to raise your kids and tell you what to do?

 

[Denny Crane]

how does one interpret that as she wants the rights to raise your kids and tell you what to do?

We haven't had a very collective notion of, 'These are our children'. So part of it is we have to break through our, kind of, private idea that, 'Kids belong to their parents,' or 'Kids belong to their families,' and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.

Whole communities would raise your kids and tell you what to do. In her line of thinking, that would be unelected officials, appointed by someone.

 

[RR7]

No, in her line of thinking, communities should look out for the kids of their community. They should invest and have pride in their community. They should recognize that by improving parks, schools etc. within their community, it will benefit the children of that community, instead of say, a couple with no children thinking meh, I don't give a shit about the kids in my neighborhood, because they aren't my kids. Why should I vote for school initiatives on ballots and such.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, in her line of thinking, communities should look out for the kids of their community. They should invest and have pride in their community. They should recognize that by improving parks, schools etc. within their community, it will benefit the children of that community, instead of say, a couple with no children thinking meh, I don't give a shit about the kids in my neighborhood, because they aren't my kids. Why should I vote for school initiatives on ballots and such.

Where does she say that?

LOL

 

[RR7]

Where does she say that?

LOL

Oh, sorry. I can't infer from what she said, but you can. So assume she meant she has the rights to raise your kids. That's definitely what she was saying. She wants to take kids out of their homes and raise them as she sees fit. Because that fits what you want it to mean. LOL. It's kind of sad, really.

 

[jlprk]

It is crucial to interpret the figurative as literal. Did you catch where she infers that she will eat your children? Listen again. It's in there.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh, sorry. I can't infer from what she said, but you can. So assume she meant she has the rights to raise your kids. That's definitely what she was saying. She wants to take kids out of their homes and raise them as she sees fit. Because that fits what you want it to mean. LOL. It's kind of sad, really.

I "infer" that she literally said that our children should belong to the community and we should break through the notion that the children belong to families.

Who runs the community?

 

[BrianFromWA]

No, in her line of thinking, communities should look out for the kids of their community. They should invest and have pride in their community. They should recognize that by improving parks, schools etc. within their community, it will benefit the children of that community, instead of say, a couple with no children thinking meh, I don't give a shit about the kids in my neighborhood, because they aren't my kids. Why should I vote for school initiatives on ballots and such.

I actually like this interpretation, but in terms of health care, welfare and unemployment. Let the community take care of the community. Improve schools, clinics, jobs programs, charities, etc. instead of thinking "meh, I don't give a shit about my community, I'll just pay my share of the taxes (which for 47% of income-earners happen to be 0...woo hoo!) and let the government sort it out."

 

[Denny Crane]

I actually like this interpretation, but in terms of health care, welfare and unemployment. Let the community take care of the community. Improve schools, clinics, jobs programs, charities, etc. instead of thinking "meh, I don't give a shit about my community, I'll just pay my share of the taxes (which for 47% of income-earners happen to be 0...woo hoo!) and let the government sort it out."

Unfortunately, she didn't say anything like it.

She could have said that our public institutions are failing our children and that we need to invest in improved schools, parks, libraries, etc.

Instead she attacked families. They're failing so the community needs to take over.

 

[RR7]

Unfortunately, she didn't say anything like it.

She could have said that our public institutions are failing our children and that we need to invest in improved schools, parks, libraries, etc.

Instead she attacked families. They're failing so the community needs to take over.

I'm going to repost from PtldPlatypus

"We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we've always had, kind of, a private notion of children. 'Your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility.' We haven't had a very collective notion of, 'These are our children'. So part of it is we have to break through our, kind of, private idea that, 'Kids belong to their parents,' or 'Kids belong to their families,' and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it's everyone's responsibility, and not just the household's, then we start making better investments."

She didn't attack families and say they are failing, so communities need to take over. Please reread it, because your reading comprehension on this is atrocious, and you seem to be hearing what you want to hear, just to complain about something. She says "We have never invested as much in public education as we should have". So it's actually the exact opposite of your last post. She does say something like it, and says NOTHING at all like families are failing, so communities need to take over. Unbelievable as a headline is correct, but it's your interpretation of the video that is so unbelievable.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm going to repost from PtldPlatypus



She didn't attack families and say they are failing, so communities need to take over. Please reread it, because your reading comprehension on this is atrocious, and you seem to be hearing what you want to hear, just to complain about something. She says "We have never invested as much in public education as we should have". So it's actually the exact opposite of your last post. She does say something like it, and says NOTHING at all like families are failing, so communities need to take over. Unbelievable as a headline is correct, but it's your interpretation of the video that is so unbelievable.

You put a period on what she said. There's a comma and an attack on the family immediately following.

"We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, (<-- see the comma?) because (see the word "because?") we've always had, kind of, a private notion of children (see her blaming the family!). 'Your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility.' We haven't had a very collective notion of, 'These are our children'. So part of it is we have to break through our, kind of, private idea that, 'Kids belong to their parents,' or 'Kids belong to their families,' and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it's everyone's responsibility, and not just the household's, then we start making better investments."

Why haven't we invested enough in public education as we should have? She continues "because..."

When you mistake a period for a comma, I think it's you that has the comprehension problem.

We've invested more in public education than all but 3 nations in the world. Per pupil, outright total amount, or by any other measure.

There may be resistance to spending even more, but none of it has to do with parental rights as she suggests. It might have to do with spending big money and getting poor results. Or people are smart enough to realize they'd be throwing good money after bad. Or that "the system" is higher priority than the children and the results of them attending the schools.

 

[jlprk]

You missed the semicolon before she said, "I'm going to eat Denny's children."

 

[MARIS61]

How about her ad sponsors get a little pissed and stop paying to support her?

It's not like she just out and said it on the air. It was written, prepared, rehearsed, filmed, edited, reviewed, and put on the air. Rather deliberate.

The nerve!

 

[MARIS61]

Did I need green font for my previous post? I mean she came very close to suggesting the same sort of thing. That we can only have children, like anything else, because govt. owns it all but allows us enough to keep us from rioting in the streets.

And by came very close you mean...

Sounded to me like a plug for school funding, subtly implying that a bunch of uneducated gang members might cause a bigger hit to their pocketbook (by causing falling property values) than a tax levy.

Who's wearing the tin foil hat now?

 

[MARIS61]

We haven't had a very collective notion of, 'These are our children'. So part of it is we have to break through our, kind of, private idea that, 'Kids belong to their parents,' or 'Kids belong to their families,' and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.

Whole communities would raise your kids and tell you what to do. In her line of thinking, that would be unelected officials, appointed by someone.

Seems she merely says children are a part of the community, not just part of a family.

 

[jlprk]

Who's wearing the tin foil hat now?

Ever notice how "Denny" sounds just like "Dingy"?

 

[MARIS61]

Some of what Denny is talking about.

[video=youtube;ac4IDhjIS7Y]

I just don't think that's what this woman is saying.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I'll waste one more post in the futile effort to bring sanity to this thread.

You put a period on what she said. There's a comma and an attack on the family immediately following.

Why haven't we invested enough in public education as we should have? She continues "because..."

When you mistake a period for a comma, I think it's you that has the comprehension problem.

She doesn't attack families. She doesn't attack the notion that people want to raise their own children. She doesn't say people have had a notion of "My kid is mine, and totally my responsibility", suggesting that people are wrong by taking individual responsibility for child rearing.

No--she says that people have had a notion of "Your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility". Do you see the subtle difference there? She's claiming that those who are not parents have been unwilling to contribute available resources to ensure that the children (and those parents who are raising them) have everything they need to facilitate proper development. She's not blaming the family at all; she's doing exactly the opposite--blaming the community outside of the family for not caring enough to help out when needed.

We've invested more in public education than all but 3 nations in the world. Per pupil, outright total amount, or by any other measure.

There may be resistance to spending even more, but none of it has to do with parental rights as she suggests. It might have to do with spending big money and getting poor results. Or people are smart enough to realize they'd be throwing good money after bad. Or that "the system" is higher priority than the children and the results of them attending the schools.

Now you're actually paying attention to the problem with this video--not the completely invented notion that she wants to step in for parents, but that she wants to reach into everyone else's pockets.

I do, in fact, have a notion that my children are my responsibility, and as a result, I don't expect anybody to provide resources for my children. Perhaps this is because I'm a middle-class suburban white man with a decent white-collar job. Regardless, I agree that the public education system has more than enough resources to accomplish the stated goals (educating children) if they're used wisely. The "notion" that we haven't invested sufficiently in education has always offended me.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll waste one more post in the futile effort to bring sanity to this thread.



She doesn't attack families. She doesn't attack the notion that people want to raise their own children. She doesn't say people have had a notion of "My kid is mine, and totally my responsibility", suggesting that people are wrong by taking individual responsibility for child rearing.

No--she says that people have had a notion of "Your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility". Do you see the subtle difference there? She's claiming that those who are not parents have been unwilling to contribute available resources to ensure that the children (and those parents who are raising them) have everything they need to facilitate proper development. She's not blaming the family at all; she's doing exactly the opposite--blaming the community outside of the family for not caring enough to help out when needed.



Now you're actually paying attention to the problem with this video--not the completely invented notion that she wants to step in for parents, but that she wants to reach into everyone else's pockets.

I do, in fact, have a notion that my children are my responsibility, and as a result, I don't expect anybody to provide resources for my children. Perhaps this is because I'm a middle-class suburban white man with a decent white-collar job. Regardless, I agree that the public education system has more than enough resources to accomplish the stated goals (educating children) if they're used wisely. The "notion" that we haven't invested sufficiently in education has always offended me.

I'm with you on the last bit.

"The notion that these are our children..."

She said what she actually said, not what you read into what she might have been suggesting.

Do you want your children to be "our" children? Apparently not. What if she got her way? You'd have no say or choice.

Have you ever seen her show on MSNBC? Do you realize how what she said fits in with the overall agenda of her show and the network?

 

[huevonkiller]

Of course she's a collectivist, it goes without question given the network she works for.

 

[Denny Crane]

Face the facts. From a university run by lefties.

http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/money-cant-buy-genius/

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Notice that that says "average". Do you think that the same amount is spent on each child, given the way schools are financed by their local tax base? I invite you to visit North Flint some time.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I see a family torn apart by Melissa Harris-Perry and her ilk

For someone so "anti-collectivist" you're awfully prone to wild generalizations.

 

[huevonkiller]

Notice that that says "average". Do you think that the same amount is spent on each child, given the way schools are financed by their local tax base? I invite you to visit North Flint some time.

So? I don't care about North Flint I care about the average.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

She said what she actually said, not what you read into what she might have been suggesting.

Do you want your children to be "our" children? Apparently not. What if she got her way? You'd have no say or choice.

How I'd feel about my children being considered "our" (community's) children isn't relevant to the discussion of properly interpreting what this person was actually saying.

Back on topic, recall that the "these are our children" statement was her stating a notion that doesn't exist. But, to follow your question (and frame it properly), she does talk about recognizing that "kids belong to whole communities". As you say--she said what she said, not what you read into it. So, how do you know what she mean't by that statement? It's open to interpretation, based on contextual evidence. Which evidence shall we use...?

Have you ever seen her show on MSNBC? Do you realize how what she said fits in with the overall agenda of her show and the network?

Clearly, this is the evidence you're using, which I'll grant you. I've never seen the show, nor am I familiar with this particular person's "agenda". I'm using the actual words in the video, where she talks about investing in education at the beginning of the spot, and making proper investments at the end of the spot. Without the same source from which you're basing your interpretation, you and I obviously will not come to the same conclusions. If you're going to debate her meaning based on external information that you have not brought to the fore, then clearly we're going to differ. Absent that--based solely on the 30-second video--I hold to my interpretation of her video, because it seems to stand alone.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Certain people here certainly seem to think they're libertarians. Let's see what John Locke, whose political theory was a huge influence on the sainted founders and on libertarians every since, has to say about parents:

The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their off-spring, during the imperfect state of childhood.

But what reason can hence advance this care of the parents due to their off-spring into an absolute arbitrary dominion of the father, whose power reaches no farther, than by such a discipline, as he finds most effectual, to give such strength and health to their bodies, such vigour and rectitude to their minds, as may best fit his children to be most useful to themselves and others; and, if it be necessary to his condition, to make them work, when they are able, for their own subsistence. But in this power the mother too has her share with the father.

Nay, this power so little belongs to the father by any peculiar right of nature, but only as he is guardian of his children, that when he quits his care of them, he loses his power over them, which goes along with their nourishment and education, to which it is inseparably annexed; and it belongs as much to the foster-father of an exposed child, as to the natural father of another. So little power does the bare act of begetting give a man over his issue; if all his care ends there, and this be all the title he hath to the name and authority of a father

Damn collectivist!

 

[Rastapopoulos]

So? I don't care about North Flint I care about the average.

And therein lies the problem.

 

[jlprk]

So? I don't care about North Flint I care about the average.

Suddenly a man of the people! So different from your high tax bracket worries in tax threads.

 

[huevonkiller]

And therein lies the problem.

Public education is nonsense and expensive, I think therein lies the problem.

There's no way of framing this argument without making the state look inefficient and ignorant.