• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SIN BINS FOR WORST FAMILIES (aka the end of liberty in Britain)

Yea I know.. Top Gear ftw. However was thinking more about ITV, Channel 4 and 5 :) Although does the BBC not have one of the dancing ones?

You watch those channels?
I haven't watched ITV since Trevor McDonald left and channel 5 just never, not since i was a little kid.

Strictly come? Don't watch it.
Have you been watching the series 13, omg Jay Leno is hilarious and when they went France :D
 
ITV is a really, really terrible channel. I really dislike it.
 
You watch those channels?
I haven't watched ITV since Trevor McDonald left and channel 5 just never, not since i was a little kid.

Strictly come? Don't watch it.
Have you been watching the series 13, omg Jay Leno is hilarious and when they went France :D

Nope, because in this house.. one person rules the tv remote (and it aint me) and that person loves Strickly come Dance, X-Factor and so on...

I get to watch Top Gear on reruns or from downloading on the net :(... maybe I should stimulate the Spanish economy by buying a second dish for Sky TV!.. hmmmz
 
Do nothing at all? No. We should take their children, put them up for adoption and require the miscreants to go on mandatory birth control to stay out of jail, or receive public assistance.

I have zero interest in keeping criminal or highly dysfunctional families intact.

In my opinion, mandatory birth control is truly underused as a crime prevention method.
 
Nope, because in this house.. one person rules the tv remote (and it aint me) and that person loves Strickly come Dance, X-Factor and so on...

I get to watch Top Gear on reruns or from downloading on the net :(... maybe I should stimulate the Spanish economy by buying a second dish for Sky TV!.. hmmmz

:(
I'm sorry to hear, i feel for you. I really do.

Only one person controls the TV and computer in my house and that is me xD
 
In my opinion, mandatory birth control is truly underused as a crime prevention method.

It is called Eugencis, and was used in the US, Nazi Germany and quite a number of European countries for decades. It targeted "undesirables" like gays, Jews, slavs, blacks, handicapped, "problem children" and other minorities.. The mild form was forced serialization of said groups so that they could not breed more "undesirables" and pollute society.

Yes I am so against any form of forced birth control of any kind unless it is with the extremely mentally handicapped and only then in a case by case situation.
 
'Just who the hell do you think you are to be able to levy liberty upon people or not?'

And then you go onto decide that there is no levy on liberty - that everyone should get it - effectively creating the double-standard. What makes you so qualified to say EVERYONE deserves unhindered liberty but him not qualified enough to say liberty needs regulation as pertains to dysfunctional families?

I agree with the due process of law. But you must understand that the people who are partaking in this to the extremities mentioned are people who are either actively not raising their children to a sufficient standard or are already using state legisation and assistance to their advantage.

People are people, all people deserve liberty. I have no reason or ability to strip it away from anyone. The only acceptable means of doing so is through due process of law. If there is no crime or charges or conviction, then there is nothing anyone can do and people are free then to enjoy their liberty. This whole spying business on the "bad people" is a bad bad mentality to have and does not lead to any good place. Government will take that power, govenrment will abuse that power, government will expand that power. Near guaranteed. As such I don't believe anyone is able to grant or deny liberty, it's inherent to the person. The only way we have to restrict it is through the court system and we don't get to say who deserves it and who doesn't because that's the beginning of a bad, fascist, big brother path we would do well to avoid. Unless there is a crime committed, you can not rightfully infringe upon the rights and liberties of the individual and that includes people who may or may not be taking advantage of welfare benefits.

We have welfare, people can sign up and get benefits; that's it, deal with it. We cannot start saying that accepting that money is abdication of right and privilege. We can not say the "bad people" who abuse it should be watched more carefully, monitored in any way. Just because we have the program doesn't mean we get to infringe upon the rights and liberties of the individual who participate in it. It's just going to happen, and there's going to be abuse along the line, if you can prove something in court fine; but if you can't then we just have to accept it.
 
Yes I am so against any form of forced birth control of any kind unless it is with the extremely mentally handicapped and only then in a case by case situation.

So, in Pete world, a woman can have 5 children, physically abuse all of them, and you're in favor of her being able to continue to breed more offspring to abuse.

Right?

Because i've actually seen that happen, in practice.
 
Unless there is a crime committed, you can not rightfully infringe upon the rights and liberties of the individual and that includes people who may or may not be taking advantage of welfare benefits.

Have you proven that these people have not committed crimes?
 
So, in Pete world, a woman can have 5 children, physically abuse all of them, and you're in favor of her being able to continue to breed more offspring to abuse.

Right?

Because i've actually seen that happen, in practice.

If she is abusing the kids then she goes to jail. Any offspring she does get, should of course get removed. And for the record we have such a case in Denmark right now.. she is on her 6th child I think, all the previous have been removed by the state. Her own sister is calling for her tube cutting.

However as a principle I am against forced sterilization or birth control unless as I stated, in extreme cases and only a case by case basis.

Should the woman in your example have her tubes tied? Maybe, but how about if she was not abusing her kids but only unemployed and living off the state? What then? Where is the limit? A woman having a kid with a Muslim? How about a woman having a 3rd child with a 3rd man? How about a lesbian? Or is it just drug addicts? How about former druggies? Drunks? people that smoke?

The problem is that once you open up for forced birth control and it is not under very limited and extreme cases after a massive amount of review by government, doctors and professionals, then you risk going back to the bad old days of forced birth control based on race, religion, mental handicap and sexual orientation and worse and frankly I would most likely not be here today if we still lived under some of those laws. It was once that children born outside of wedlock were sterilized.. at least in some countries and in some cases only if the child was black or a minority, but it was done along with orphans.
 
So, in Pete world, a woman can have 5 children, physically abuse all of them, and you're in favor of her being able to continue to breed more offspring to abuse.

Because gods know we can't just sterilize her or put a bullet in her or do anything that might violate her right to subject us to her vile terror spawn until her womb dies of natural causes.
 
Her own sister is calling for her tube cutting.

That's because those of us who deal with these situations face to face, rather than metaphorically, realize that when society's high moral principles encounter life-ruiners, there is a catastrophic collision, and people, usually innocent children, get hurt.

However as a principle I am against forced sterilization or birth control unless as I stated, in extreme cases and only a case by case basis.

Well, DUH.

Should the woman in your example have her tubes tied?

I was thinking Norplant by sniper rifle, but I'd be okay with tubal ligation.

Maybe, but how about if she was not abusing her kids but only unemployed and living off the state?

NO.

A woman having a kid with a Muslim?

No.

How about a woman having a 3rd child with a 3rd man?

Only if she has failed to properly care for the first two.

How about a lesbian? Or is it just drug addicts? How about former druggies? Drunks? people that smoke?

Your use of the slippery slope fallacy is noted.
 
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I know I know...freedom's a bitch.

That's not what I'm talking about, Yankee Doodle. I'm saying: Do you know definitively that these people who are being subjected to this monitoring weren't guilty of criminal child abuse?

You don't.
 
Item 1:

Norplant all the stupid people, post haste.

I think my real issue with this is that the people who are causing problems aren't being arrested. It seems there is a large gap between extreme measures and nothing measures.

From what gunner has said these people and their children should have already been prosecuted and imprisoned.
 
People are almost never imprisoned for child abuse unless someone is raped or died.

I've had limited experience with this and your right.

My previous neighbor was doing meth and her daughter was already in jail for meth as well. So she had custody for her daughters child which she never really took care of and when DFCS finally came to get the kid, the little girl had a newborn diaper on with duck tape holding it together because she was took big for it.

Of course she wasn't arrested even though she was the primary caretaker and had not done her duty to care for the child. It's insanity.
 
That's not what I'm talking about, Yankee Doodle. I'm saying: Do you know definitively that these people who are being subjected to this monitoring weren't guilty of criminal child abuse?

You don't.

What I'm saying King George, is that unless you can show some form of reasonable suspicion and are able to obtain a warrant, there's nothing you can do to put these people under surveillance. Not rightfully.
 
What I'm saying King George, is that unless you can show some form of reasonable suspicion and are able to obtain a warrant, there's nothing you can do to put these people under surveillance. Not rightfully.

How do you know that warrants and/or court findings were NOT pursued in these cases? You're speculating wildly in lieu of facts.

But, hey, let freedom ring.
 
I've had limited experience with this and your right.

My previous neighbor was doing meth and her daughter was already in jail for meth as well. So she had custody for her daughters child which she never really took care of and when DFCS finally came to get the kid, the little girl had a newborn diaper on with duck tape holding it together because she was took big for it.

Of course she wasn't arrested even though she was the primary caretaker and had not done her duty to care for the child. It's insanity.

That's because criminal charges are almost never pursued in family court against serial child abusers. There is an epidemic of child-directed violence and neglect in this country, and nobody does a damn thing.

Hell yeah, I'm in favor of watching these people on camera.
 
Back
Top Bottom