"Parents" Hide the Sexuality of Their Child For 5 Years - Gender Neutral English Parents!

[Reidy]

As with the tiger daughters, I can't wait til this child is old enough to write an autobiography. I hope the parents are still alive.

[Peter]

Peter Reidy wrote:

As with the tiger daughters, I can't wait til this child is old enough to write an autobiography. I hope the parents are still alive.

end quote

Making a child practice the violin or piano may not be abusive, though not welcomed by your child, but dressing a little boy up like a girl is child abuse. The “authorities” recently took a morbidly obese child away from his parents because they continued to allow the child to overeat. That 17 year old boy who just shot some other kids came from a background where his parents fought terribly and he was put in foster care but the psychological damage was already done. I am no friend of the nanny state but there should be standards to determine when child services is called in to intervene. Gender misrepresentation is one of those times. In Delaware and Maryland where I taught, if a child says they are having sex or being abused we were REQUIRED to immediately report it, or we, the teachers were breaking the law.

Peter Taylor

[Xray]

Making a child practice the violin or piano may not be abusive, though not welcomed by your child, but dressing a little boy up like a girl is child abuse

I think it depends on the methods parents use to 'make' their child practice the violin/piano (or anything else that the parents want the child to do).

So if it is true that 'Tiger Mom' Amy Chua did not allow her daughter to use the toilet until she had mastered a piano piece, imo this is child abuse.

[caroljane]

Peter Reidy wrote:

I am no friend of the nanny state but there should be standards to determine when child services is called in to intervene. Gender misrepresentation is one of those times. In Delaware and Maryland where I taught, if a child says they are having sex or being abused we were REQUIRED to immediately report it, or we, the teachers were breaking the law.

Peter Taylor

There is no question of nanny stating here, but of the human state in which society as a whole is responsible for its young. If the family and the neighbours cannot or will not keep the child from harm, of course it is the teachers who must sound the alarm, and the state being the only resource left, to save the child.

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

So it is true that 'Tiger Mom' Amy Chua did no allow her daughter to use the toilet until she had mastered a piano piece, this would be child abuse.

end quote

That is an iffy “truth.” There is systematic abuse where withholding a bathroom break would be one factor among many, but a child could simply be goofing off. I would give the parent the benefit of the doubt. We insisted both our girls play an instrument. One picked the piano and stuck with it. The other picked the piano for a year, switched to the clarinet and then switched to the flute, and then quit that before middle school (America’s seventh grade.) That was expensive. We were not obsessive about practice.

I took trumpet lessons until the seventh grade but my favorite instrument was the French Horn. I love the theme to StarTrek The Next Generation with its dattadida dattadida sounding French Horns. Roger Bissell was a professional musician and played the trombone. Anyone else care to name their favorite instrument?

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Daunce wrote:

. . . the human state in which society as a whole is responsible for its young.

end quote

I agree. The family’s authority comes first but if the family is negligent or abusive I want society to be humane to our kids. Because it bothers me I also support “animal rights” groups though animals do not have rights. It bothers me, pardner, so stop beating your horse. Kosher rules for humanely slaughtering meat animals are also the better way, and are the backbone of a good Food and Drug Administration.

I am watching Jeopardy. What is the only chess piece that can start play? The Knight.

Peter Taylor

[caroljane]

Xray wrote:

So it is true that 'Tiger Mom' Amy Chua did no allow her daughter to use the toilet until she had mastered a piano piece, this would be child abuse.

end quote

That is an iffy “truth.” There is systematic abuse where withholding a bathroom break would be one factor among many, but a child could simply be goofing off. I would give the parent the benefit of the doubt. We insisted both our girls play an instrument. One picked the piano and stuck with it. The other picked the piano for a year, switched to the clarinet and then switched to the flute, and then quit that before middle school (America’s seventh grade.) That was expensive. We were not obsessive about practice.

I took trumpet lessons until the seventh grade but my favorite instrument was the French Horn. I love the theme to StarTrek The Next Generation with its dattadida dattadida sounding French Horns. Roger Bissell was a professional musician and played the trombone. Anyone else care to name their favorite instrument?

Peter Taylor

Peter, you must surely love the Flanders & Swann rendition of Mozart's Horn Concerto? "I got a french horn and I wanted to play it/...in spite of the neighbours who begged me to stop"

Ninth? Ninth Horn Concerto or thereabouts, K.2012?

[Peter]

Daunce wrote:

Peter, you must surely love the Flanders & Swann rendition of Mozart's Horn Concerto?

end quote

No. But if I remember I will look for it. Thanks!

Peter

[Xray]

I agree. The family’s authority comes first but if the family is negligent or abusive I want society to be humane to our kids. Because it bothers me I also support “animal rights” groups though animals do not have rights.

Animals can be granted certain rights by law, e. g. the right to non-cruel treatment.

[9thdoctor]

Ninth? Ninth Horn Concerto or thereabouts, K.2012?

I've never heard of this before. Mozart only wrote 4 horn concerti.

[caroljane]

Ninth? Ninth Horn Concerto or thereabouts, K.2012?

I've never heard of this before. Mozart only wrote 4 horn concerti.

I know, the 9th was your cue. Great thanks for this. I love the vid of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics too!

[Peter]

Ninth Doctor wrote, “I've never heard of this before. Mozart only wrote 4 horn concerti.”

OHO! Daunce was making fun of me. Thanks Doc. Now if you could just go back to your heroic avatar . . .

Xray wrote:

Animals can be granted certain rights by law, e. g. the right to non-cruel treatment.

end quote

Rights can only be acknowledged by humans for sentient beings who respect human life. Rights pertain solely to people. Still, the torturing and mutilation of animals can be undermining to civilization, which is the beneficial state created because of the exercise of our rights. And needless cruelty bothers me. Consequently, the issue is about both the well-being of animals, AND the well-being of people.

I have no qualms about using animals for the sake of medicine, and if necessary harming them to serve other ‘necessary human needs.’ However, killing animals to entertain an audience unleashes barbarism. I concede that prosecuting people who stage animal fights is a restriction upon the liberty of those who have not initiated force upon humans, but view this as an exception to that principle. The purpose of government is to protect us from aggression, whereas animal abuse for entertainment would unleash that aggression.

Killing an animal for “sport” or the malicious torturing of animals, violates the basic premise of life as a value - rather this behavior is the opposite behavior, demonstrating that life is meaningless. I will qualify that by saying hunting for sport is “somewhat” immoral, while hunting for food is moral, though neither should be illegal.

Bull fighting, cock fighting, dog fighting, or gladiators and the like, are abhorrent because they elevate death to the level of a value to be desired. But to truly believe in ‘animal rights’ you would need to advocate ‘savannah police’ to prosecute and imprison lions for killing wildebeests.

I further respect the argument that once government is used to support civilization, there might be a slippery slope where it prosecutes victimless crimes (i.e., behavior for which there is no complainant) thereby restricting rights. Here, I would differentiate between activities that on balance protect our rights, and those that on balance trample upon our rights. Note the subtle libertarian difference between the arguments of those who would legislate morality (ostensibly to build civilization), and those who restrict activities that unleash barbarism. The former apply the force of law to enforce and build morality. The latter person’s argument, to restrict certain barbarous activities, is agreeing to the government’s use of force, solely to protect against aggression.

There have been numerous threads in circles that advocate the use of reason but I have not seen an argument yet that convinced me that animals have rights. WE THE PEOPLE GRANT THEM CERTAIN PROTECTIONS.

Peter Taylor

from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, “Man’s Rights,”

The Virtue of Selfishness, 93

Individual Rights

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

[Xray]

Rights can only be acknowledged by humans for sentient beings who respect human life.

But his premise would exclude e. g. infants who cannot yet "respect human life" because their brain has not sufficiently matured for such thinking process to occur.

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

But his premise would exclude e. g. infants who cannot yet "respect human life" because their brain has not sufficiently matured for such thinking process to occur.

end quote

A guardian exercises all rights not immediately bestowed upon a child, however, the child’s rights are paramount. Upon reaching a reasoning age as determined by law, a child can exercise all their rights. A pet is *owned* so the owner’s rights are paramount. Of course when Fido, Pooh, or Puss in Boots is able to reason then we would recognize their rights. Would a sentient alien who crash landed in America be under our protection and have its rights preserved? Yes. We would have to keep their little green kids from being bullied, though.

Peter

[Selene]

Puss in Boots is able to reason then we would recognize their rights.

So can this pussy vote now?

http://animalvideos.yahoo.com/video-detail?vid=28470581&cid=24037714

[Peter]

Adam asked, “So can this pussy vote now?”

That is a tough one to answer. It clearly has language skills. It is clearly understood by the human. It enjoys speaking with a human and appreciates the rewards the human rationally bestows upon it. Would the cat observe the human’s rights to eat all his food if he wanted it, or would it initiate force and scratch him if no morsels were given to it? I would need to see more before passing judgment. “The Vote” is not something we should take lightly.

Peter