BF2S Forums Way to go Norway!

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Jay wrote:

Yes, they are forcing me to wear a seatbelt. If I refuse to do so I'll be fined $185. That's about five hours of time at work for me, might as well toss me in a cell instead.

Broccoli and seatbelts are indeed in the same realm. The argument for both is hinged on the premise that it is in your best interest to consume the one, and use the other. I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that eating broccoli is beneficial. Why would you be opposed if your government forced you to consume a certain amount of broccoli on a daily or weekly basis? Too far? It's the same thing.

As for who agrees with me, it's generally only Americans on this forum. Foreigners accept that their government will intrude in their lives. We for the most part, do not.

That's cool, how about no one wear a seatbelt, more people die and then you can cry about your taxes going up.

Broccoli and seatbelts in the same realm? I can't believe I even am addressing this absurdity. Yes, broccoli is going to save your life. Puh-lease.

Anything can be justified by making enough noise about public health concerns.

I can't believe I'm having this discussion.

Really, imagine describing it:

"Yeah, I'm having a debate about seatbelts and how they're compulsory, but that takes away my liberty, and I'm using broccoli as an similie. Pretty lame, huh?"

I'm no longer wasting my time on this absurdity.

actually another reason i think seatbelts (and crash helmets while someone mentioned that) should be mandatory is i don't want our police officers to have to go through the mental headfuck that would come from literally scraping someones son/daughter/brother/sister/mother/father ETC off the road with a shovel.

Jay wrote:

I don't really have an answer for you. On the one hand I feel that children are rightfully the property of their parents until they turn 18 or become emancipated. On the other hand, parents can and do make some pretty terrible decisions that affect kids negatively for the rest of their lives. I guess I just feel that whatever the parents do has to be pretty fucking heinous in order to justify ripping the kids away and putting them in foster care; stuff like drug addiction, gross neglect, or molestation.

As for medical care, even that has gray areas. I assume you're talking about the case a few years back where the parents refused cancer treatment for their kid and instead opted for faith healing. I would qualify that as neglect, but it's not really, because the parents are just retarded and actually believed that the kid was better off with prayer circles. It's tough, because there's really no answer. Maybe the kid would've recovered without radiation. Who knows?

I pretty much agree.  And besides, it's probably best that religious nuts allow natural selection to take effect, since I'd rather not have them pollute the gene pool.  The kid who died of faith healing was probably so thoroughly indoctrinated that he/she was going to be a fuckup as an adult anyway.

Jay wrote:

There's just so much potential for 'do gooders' to fuck up peoples lives with stuff like this that it's unreal. I'm talking about the people that have insanely strong convictions that they are correct on a certain subject and will not be swayed by logic or reason. Give one of those people the power to dictate how people should raise their children and they'll cause havoc. It's why I don't like 'what ifs' and want a very narrow definition of what qualifies for child services to come in.

Pretty much... and they already cause enough havoc raising their own kids.

Jay wrote:

How does wearing a helmet benefit anyone but the rider?

Clogging up intensive care beds in hospitals with imbeciles 'because freedom' has ramifications beyond the motorcyclist being dead or a vegetable for the rest of their lives.

Kids are the responsibility of their parents and parents have various powers of control over their kids until they're old enough to be responsible for themselves.

Property doesn't come into it.

If kids are property shouldn't parents be allowed to not get them educated and adjusted so they can be functioning members of society?
Norway has simply taken that concept marginally further than other countries.

"My son was sleeping with my husband. They said he should sleep separately from your son," said Mrs Bhattacharya.

"Feeding a child with the hand is normal in Indian tradition and when the mother is feeding with a spoon there could be phases when she was overfeeding the child. They said it was force feeding. These are basically cultural differences,"

"Feeding a child with the hand is normal in Indian tradition...These are basically cultural differences

I'm sure there is more to the story but this is the thing that kinda annoys me. I don't see how cultural differences is a valid excuse when you live in a place like Norway. That would fly in a place like the U.K. or U.S. without a problem since those places have a history of multiculturalism and hold it up as an ideal and all. A place like Norway on the other hand doesn't have either of those. The mental image you get of a Norwegian isn't someone from South Asia. You can't expect people in a country you have just settled in to be totally okay with your cultural norms.

When in Rome...

Macbeth wrote:

I'm sure there is more to the story but this is the thing that kinda annoys me. I don't see how cultural differences is a valid excuse when you live in a place like Norway. That would fly in a place like the U.K. or U.S. without a problem since those places have a history of multiculturalism and hold it up as an ideal and all. A place like Norway on the other hand doesn't have either of those. The mental image you get of a Norwegian isn't someone from South Asia. You can't expect people in a country you have just settled in to be totally okay with your cultural norms.

When in Rome...

If people like their culture so much why not stay in their own country?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I'm sure there is more to the story but this is the thing that kinda annoys me. I don't see how cultural differences is a valid excuse when you live in a place like Norway. That would fly in a place like the U.K. or U.S. without a problem since those places have a history of multiculturalism and hold it up as an ideal and all. A place like Norway on the other hand doesn't have either of those. The mental image you get of a Norwegian isn't someone from South Asia. You can't expect people in a country you have just settled in to be totally okay with your cultural norms.

When in Rome...

If people like their culture so much why not stay in their own country?

like those moozie cunts coming to australia that want that fucking cunt sharia shit.

fucking lebo cunts

Cybargs wrote:

like those moozie cunts coming to australia that want that fucking cunt sharia shit.

fucking lebo cunts

zactly

Nanny state? It's a group put in to protect our children from abuse/poor parenting - it is something that's extremely important, as it is an issue that's often quite hidden and can have grave consequences for the children that will stick with them for the rest of their lives.

RE: story - do you really think they've gone in and said "Oh, you sleep with your child and fuck bro, where's your fork?" Jesus Christ, this is a heavily funded organisation with top experts in child welfare who don't exactly take away children for fun. All cases are heavily investigated, and things like this will hardly be the only reason for taking the children away. Even the parents' lawyer has confirmed this.

There are so many other parts to this story - including malnutrition, violence and poor hygiene - and these are just things that their own lawyer is willing to admit to. The rest (and he confirms there are other points) is classified until the case is concluded.

But I guess those points don't sell newspapers.

Jay wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Nanny state? It's a group put in to protect our children from abuse/poor parenting - it is something that's extremely important, as it is an issue that's often quite hidden and can have grave consequences for the children that will stick with them for the rest of their lives.

RE: story - do you really think they've gone in and said "Oh, you sleep with your child and fuck bro, where's your fork?" Jesus Christ, this is a heavily funded organisation with top experts in child welfare who don't exactly take away children for fun. All cases are heavily investigated, and things like this will hardly be the only reason for taking the children away. Even the parents' lawyer has confirmed this.

There are so many other parts to this story - including malnutrition, violence and poor hygiene - and these are just things that their own lawyer is willing to admit to. The rest (and he confirms there are other points) is classified until the case is concluded.

But I guess those points don't sell newspapers.

I don't give a fuck how many degrees they have, unless they can prove gross negligence or incest, they can fuck off. There is no right way to raise kids. It's not something you can learn in a book. Every situation is unique. So yes, fuck your nanny state.

malnutrition and poor hygiene are surely (especially when severe enough) examples of gross negligence, whilst violence is an example of abuse..

Jay wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Nanny state? It's a group put in to protect our children from abuse/poor parenting - it is something that's extremely important, as it is an issue that's often quite hidden and can have grave consequences for the children that will stick with them for the rest of their lives.

RE: story - do you really think they've gone in and said "Oh, you sleep with your child and fuck bro, where's your fork?" Jesus Christ, this is a heavily funded organisation with top experts in child welfare who don't exactly take away children for fun. All cases are heavily investigated, and things like this will hardly be the only reason for taking the children away. Even the parents' lawyer has confirmed this.

There are so many other parts to this story - including malnutrition, violence and poor hygiene - and these are just things that their own lawyer is willing to admit to. The rest (and he confirms there are other points) is classified until the case is concluded.

But I guess those points don't sell newspapers.

I don't give a fuck how many degrees they have, unless they can prove gross negligence or incest, they can fuck off. There is no right way to raise kids. It's not something you can learn in a book. Every situation is unique. So yes, fuck your nanny state.

If what Jen is saying is true, then it sounds like this article was a gross distortion of the actual situation.

Granted, that's pretty common by the media -- especially a media source aimed at an audience applicable to the immigrants' country of origin (India).

Jay wrote:

jord wrote:

Jay wrote:

I don't give a fuck how many degrees they have, unless they can prove gross negligence or incest, they can fuck off. There is no right way to raise kids. It's not something you can learn in a book. Every situation is unique. So yes, fuck your nanny state.

Jay you're smarter than this. It's obviously a headline designed to sell papers like every other headline in history. "Look at those liberal pussies across the Atlantic are doing, nanny state we don't want this hurr durr". The headline isn't going to say "Malnutrition, hygeine issues and 2 IN 1 BED"!

Come on.

Actually, it was an Indian newspaper.

Yeah I saw after turq's post but I didn't edit because the point still stands, it's obviously just a case of the media missing out key parts of a story and sticking a controversial title on something to draw people in, and I'm surprised you fell for it.