• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Mandatory training/certification to have children?

Pythagoras said:
Thanks for the clarification, as you can see everyone was working om different assumptions regarding your question, which is now much clearer.

Out of interest would the licence have some test at the end, that one could 'fail', denying one the right to have children until one passed the test?.

Would a licence be required for each child? Could one have a time-limited ban of having a child if one displayed negligence in bringing up extant children?
Could a licence be circumvented if having a child abroad?

And ultimately who would set the minimum standards for what child-bearing responsibilities are required for a licence?

To Quantum Perception, I hope you don't mind if I alter the heading to reflect your intentions better?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the title change!!

First question: People would fail if they do not show are not able to restate and apply the teachings.

Second: The person is a "forever-learner". New and better information is always coming out. Once a person is a parent, until all their children can support themselves they will be constantly updated and tested- every 6 months or so with few big updates here and there.

The question regarding baning, if parents are found abusing or neglecting, then their "license"(for lack of a better word) will be removed and dealt with criminal or pathologically.

As for abortion, if the person passes the test then they have the license. If they choose not to have children, then they are not mandated to takes the additional update courses/teachings, thereby their license will expire.

Finally the last question: the information will be based on scientific methodological research with a particular goal in mind. One example of a goal would be to raise the child holistically mind/body/spirit (e.g. meditating) not just authoritarian or dull-memorizing.

Hope that helps
 
Thans for the clarification. On this reading of your question I would have to answer no. The state's intrusion into procreative rights is barely dissembled Eugenics.

Mandatory attendance at ante-natal courses is justifiable to some extent, but I feel that unless parents are criminally negligent in the care of their progeny the state should not interfere too much in parenting choices , multifarious as they are.
 
My take on being certified would be in the sense of this person is or is not allotted (x) amount of children (which should be a level playing field). Over breeding is not something to be taken lightly there could be severe consequences and certainly before it becomes a problem there would be a solution to the problem, which I fear the solution would be worse than the State interfering in personal rights. I believe we often mistake our "rights" as absolute, and not imaginary.
 
CD: I don't have a "chip on my shoulder." You posted something that went against the rules. I simply deleted it and asked you not to repeat it, when I could have just as easily given you a warning.

If you think this is unfair, I encourage you to "file" a complaint to the admin.

Perhaps you think I have a vendetta against you because you are aware of having wronged me unfairly elsewhere?
 
imo, show them the information, but don't test them on it.

make the "class" part of the standard hospital pregnancy methods/procedures, ensure a strong and lasting no-linkage between the class and govt, and especially, the class and religion.
 
Jamshyd said:
CD: I don't have a "chip on my shoulder." You posted something that went against the rules. I simply deleted it and asked you not to repeat it, when I could have just as easily given you a warning.

If you think this is unfair, I encourage you to "file" a complaint to the admin.

Perhaps you think I have a vendetta against you because you are aware of having wronged me unfairly elsewhere?
Click to expand...

I second Jamshyd's call on this, particularly as I PM'd you just a few days ago about your posting in another thread.

Keep it civil, on topic and respect your fellow BLers. It's all clearly laid out in the forum rules.

PAX
 
Shrooms00087 said:
I believe we often mistake our "rights" as absolute, and not imaginary.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you (Human rights, natural and civil, is but one ethical framework amongst many).

But what exactly do you mean when you say the above quote?
 
I think mods should have their own special forum to talk in, because when you interact with the general population of bluelight as an authority, you might unconsciously abuse that authority in the discussion itself and appear arrogant . know what I mean? probably not. but i'm sure about 99% of the bluelight "civilian" members do.
 
This post was infracted, and the text removed to waste less of the reader's time. - Jamshyd
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pythagoras said:
I'm not disagreeing with you (Human rights, natural and civil, is but one ethical framework amongst many).

But what exactly do you mean when you say the above quote?
Click to expand...

I just mean that my "right" to eat, isn't necessarily a right. Basic though it is, it isn't ensured to me just like it isn't ensured to an ant. We've built an imaginary structure to base our lives around, but it in no sense is "real". "Rights" are something documented around the structure and varies from structure to structure. Furthermore if overpopulation happens and there isn't enough food, my "right" to eat would be void, but my "right" to reproduce probably wouldn't be void even though it leads to the former problem. It would then be easier to say, "you don't have the right to reproduce under these conditions". Personal rights are a great idea but only insofar as they work. I believe we often mistake our rights as something unchangeable and innate.
 
ControlDenied said:
I think mods should have their own special forum to talk in, because when you interact with the general population of bluelight as an authority, you might unconsciously abuse that authority in the discussion itself and appear arrogant . know what I mean? probably not. but i'm sure about 99% of the bluelight "civilian" members do.
Click to expand...

I am actually keeping the content of this post untouched because you make a bigger fool of yourself than any fool I or anyone else could have ever made of you. Keep up the good work. Maybe you're on to something ;).
 
a lot of kids still dont know you can get pregnate from the first time

i know because some kids in highschool around my college told me.
they think its at least the 3rd or 4th time.
 
Shrooms00087 said:
I just mean that my "right" to eat, isn't necessarily a right. Basic though it is, it isn't ensured to me just like it isn't ensured to an ant. We've built an imaginary structure to base our lives around, but it in no sense is "real". "Rights" are something documented around the structure and varies from structure to structure. Furthermore if overpopulation happens and there isn't enough food, my "right" to eat would be void, but my "right" to reproduce probably wouldn't be void even though it leads to the former problem. It would then be easier to say, "you don't have the right to reproduce under these conditions". Personal rights are a great idea but only insofar as they work. I believe we often mistake our rights as something unchangeable and innate.
Click to expand...

So you see civil rights as alienable and fluid, the result of social mores, that there are no Universal rights to anything. Would you side with Blattberg that 'rights talk' is an unnessary abstraction of morality that confuses rather than illuminates the subject of ethics.
 
Keep it civil, on topic, and repect the OP and the rules. I could not have been clearer in my 'soft warning' to you. You replied with an assurance that you would keep to the rules. This remark had a complaint made against it, so I've little choice but to issue a warning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pythagoras said:
So you see civil rights as alienable and fluid, the result of social mores, that there are no Universal rights to anything. Would you side with Blattberg that 'rights talk' is an unnessary abstraction of morality that confuses rather than illuminates the subject of ethics.
Click to expand...

I'm unfamiliar with his work, but no, I wouldn't side with that. It's too broad, I simply mean there are circumstances in which human rights are unnecessary. I mean take for instance this Global Warming, if it is really life threatening to a vast majority of people, should we not give up our rights to behave in conflict with Global Warming? Should companies? I think absolutely. Like I said I think rights are great, but they can a brick wall to a solution.
 
I think when people say absolute right or inalienable right that inalienable and absolute are wishes rather than an existent property of existent rights. I think it is a valuable wish. I'm glad that many people share this wish but reification of rights into solid things we imagine to be tangible doesn't really help that much.

I guess I understand why we do it in courts and parliaments but I'm not sure we need to keep up the act elsewhere.
 
I reckon Control Denied would have his licence revoked, if that is he ever was granted one in the first place, which is a shame considering the point he made in his first post.
Who the fuck would draw up the rules/standards/set the examinations ? Black nationalists, nation of Islam, , Al-Qaeda, the Queen of England, White protestant solvent Anglo Saxons ? Poll anyone - this is a cunning plan on my part to make sure no poll will be instituted.
Oh Jamshyd I do love you too & know you have to follow the rules etc - my sympathies
 
Okay. If procreative rights are not inalienable, then they can, under various circumstances be taken away from the individual (irrespective of whether this is because that right comes in to conflict with another right), which in essence is the position of those in this thread who think that government can, and should intrude upon procreative rights, and remove them according to some preset values that determine whether one has procreative rights, or not.

This alienability of procreative rights is suffused with arguments not too dissimilar from those of eugenics. I don't think an inalienable right need be reified into some metaphysical object, but rather acts as a gurantee against government encroachment upon one's freedoms.

If rights can be abrogated too easily then the pendulum of dominion/freedom swings too far towards the government, and away from the individual.

PAX
 
Then it is a matter of its being a high priority social contract, which is subject to change.

The earth is limited in how many humans it can support. We don't know absolutely where that point is but we know there is some point after no more humans can be supported. Technology might eek out more that can be sustained but there is still a limit. Population has nearly always increased. At some point the very malleable social contract about procreation will be reworked significantly.

If inalienable incapable of being alienated, repudiated ,surrendered, or transferred I maintain it can be repudiated, alienated, and transferred. Has been repudiated, and will be repudiated again.

Rights are not absolute. They exist on paper and in human minds which are both rather fickle. They can be rethought out and rewritten. Inalienable rights depend on the will of the population or an aristocracy or a despot none of these are going to consistently uphold and value the same rights. Some systems are going to have buffers against sudden changes but none of them are likely going to be upholding the same inalienable rights a thousand years from now that they are now.

That doesn't mean I favor eugenics right now though it means I don't know there to be a moral absolute that is operant in such decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top