lol -----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Ketsdever [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:42 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: The World According to Me (WAS RE: Yet another scumbag parent .... )
Rule level 1 punishment explains "The Last Comic Standing" -----Original Message----- From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:28 AM To: CF-Community Subject: The World According to Me (WAS RE: Yet another scumbag parent.... ) <cfinsert_new_society> Agreed. I think what this world needs is some arbitrary form of rule making. Now, being a community minded person, I nominate myself to make all the rules for how society should function. So, in saying that there will be....hmmmm.....let's see....four levels of rules. Each rule level will directly correspond to a level of punishment. Rule Level 1: Minor Punishment is Fine, or in the case of economic duress, public humiliation. Examples: 1. Jaywalking 2. Fighting not involving blood loss (internal or external) 3. Minor traffic offenses (not involving injuries to anyone or any property) Rule Level 2: Moderate Punishment is Inprisonment for a term of 2 years Examples: 1. Fighting involving blood loss. 2. Major traffic offenses (involving injuries to anyone or any property). 3. Theft (less than an arbitrary amount) Rule Level 3: High Punishment is Inprisonment for a term of 15 years Examples: 1. Theft (more than an arbitrary amount) 2. Child Abuse (and sterilization) Rule Level 4: Extreme Punishment is Death or Banishment (convict's choice) Examples: 1. Murder 2. Rape 3. Treason (against the John Stanley State) Punishment Standards: Public Humiliation Several Hundred people laughing at the offender in the streets, for a length of 3 minutes per offense. Inprisonment In the case that the offender is a single female between the ages of 18-35 who scores at least a 6 on the State Attractiveness Index and who's crime is Level 2, Inprisonment will occur at any of the 73 Presidential Complexes scattered throughout the world. Any other offenders will serve their sentence in a State run industrial work camp. Death In the case of murder, the offender will be executed in the same fashion as the crime, or a method closely approximating the incident. Banishment Banishment is not currenty an option until the discovery of a suitable "prison planet" can be made. All choices of banishment will be converted to executions at the states convenience. </cfinsert_new_society> -----Original Message----- From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:59 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Yet another scumbag parent.... well now the converse on the other hand... I see absolutely no problem with Susan Smith undergoing involuntary sterilization. Except that she should never be paroled. Even in a more troubling case like Andrea Yates' ... you simply can't trust her not to snap again. Dana John Stanley writes: > >>I would support the idea of a licensing program for parents. > > As would I, but it will never happen. Every day I get to see just how crazy > this world is. Can you image if Susan Smith got parolled. She would be > legally able to bear more children. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:38 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > Look - I don't know where the idea of social eugenics came into all > this, but a licensing program for expectant parents could be very > beneficial in a utilitarian sense of the word. I see no reason that > parents should be prohibited from having children or from being with > their children, except in the extreme cases we currently recongize. > > An ideal licensing program would be something like home economics for > grown ups, where someone explains your responsibilities under the law to > your children. Perhaps it could outline community standards for > reasonable care, I don't know all the details. > > But the purpose would be to establish a 'baseline' for being a parent, > and hopefully head off troubling situations. Child care is not something > everyone understands anymore and which changes every few decades. A > police officer wrote an article about this phenomenon in today's Post, > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19327-2003Aug4.html. He > talks about the differences between community standards when he was a > kid and what they are now, and points out that many things that passed > for child rearing when he was a child would be abuse today. > > When my daughter was born, I was 22 and completely unprepared for what > followed. Even though I consider myself a good parent, I would support > the idea of a licensing program for parents. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:14 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > So, when someone is declined for a license, the government is > essentially telling them, you can't have kids. How is that not telling > someone what they can and can't do with their body? > > >What does licensing someone to be a parent have to do with telling that > > >person what to do with his or her body? > > > >I fail to understand your amazment. > > > >M > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Kevin Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:02 PM > >To: CF-Community > >Subject: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > > > >I hope you're kidding. Otherwise Larry, you are making a huge > >hypocrite out of yourself. It's not ok to tell a woman what she can do > > >with her body when it comes to aborting a pregnancy, but it's ok to do > >it before she conceives? Where is the logic in that one? You can't > >have it both ways. You don't want government telling you what you can > >and can't do to your body after conception, but before conception it's > >ok? Amazing. > > > >>Have to agree as well, but it would be a killer to enforce. > >> > >>larry > >> > >>At 11:45 AM 8/5/2003 -0400, Matthew Small wrote: > >>>I'm completely with your wife on that one. > >>> > >>>- Matt Small > >>> > >>> > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: "Marwan Saidi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:36 AM > >>>Subject: Yet another scumbag parent.... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >Frankly at times I think that parents should be licensed in order > >>> > >to have > >>>kids. > >>> > > > >>> > >larry > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > No kidding. Here in FL, you need a license to drive, to go boating > >>> > ,to > >>>fish, or to hunt, but anyone can have a kid? Does not make much sense > >>>to me. My wife is even more extreme. She believes that women should > be > > > >>>put on Norplant or Depo Provera (sp?) until such time as they have > >>>passed a parenting test. > >>> > > >>> > Sort of Orwellian I suppose, but an idea not without merit... > >>> > > >>> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
