Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England
Anurup and Sagarika Bhattacharya - an Indian couple from Kolkata are living a nightmare in Norway. Their children - a three-year-old son and one-year-old daughter - were taken away from them by Norway's child protective services and placed in foster care eight months ago.

The drastic measure was taken because, according to the child protective services, the couple were not bringing the children up properly. What did they do wrong? They fed the children with their hands and the infants slept in the same bed as the parents.

"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," said Mr Bhattacharya.

Recently, the Indian Embassy in Oslo stepped in and an officer even met the children, though the parents were not allowed to.

Norway's Child Protective Service is a powerful body charged with protecting the rights of children living in difficult family situations. But there are many reports of excesses. 

"There has been a report in UN in 2005 which criticized Norway for taking too many children in public care. The amount was 12,500 children and Norway is a small country," said Svein Kjetil Lode Svendsen, lawyer.
Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/india … topstories

When we as Americans talk about the nanny state, and the extremes it can be taken to if the engine is put in place, we are talking about stuff like this.

Last edited by Jay (2012-01-19 13:25:13)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6811|Mountains of NC

damn, I would be tearing down the fucking wall to get my kids back .... then getting the fuck out
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6910

I'd like to see how a nord eats a flat bread with curry/chutney.

And obviously, tacos and hotdogs with knife and fork?
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,741|6980|Cinncinatti
what the fuck
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6648|North Carolina
That is pretty insane, but I'm hoping there's more to this story.
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,054|6866|Little Bentcock
There's probably more to the story, always is. But if it's just that then Norway stepped way outa bounds.
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6910

Yeah, there has to more to this.  Has had to involve something actually negligent.  Something about wife not being able to cope with kids?  Corrupt lawyers?  Crazy stuff you read from all the comments.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6875|949

Jay what do you think about government forcing parents to seek medical care for their children?

Obviously this one story is evidence of the slippery slope that could happen if the nanny state that the US is oh so close to becomes a reality
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6396|what

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay what do you think about government forcing parents to seek medical care for their children?
He doesn't even think immunizations should be compulsory.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England
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?

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.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay what do you think about government forcing parents to seek medical care for their children?
He doesn't even think immunizations should be compulsory.
I don't believe in compulsory anything. You don't seem to understand that. If you can't sway people to your side of an argument, then you are either shit at arguing or your argument sucks. Some people believe that immunizing their kids increases the risk of autism. Those people are idiots, but they are entitled to their opinion. My kids will be immunized.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6396|what

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay what do you think about government forcing parents to seek medical care for their children?
He doesn't even think immunizations should be compulsory.
I don't believe in compulsory anything. You don't seem to understand that. If you can't sway people to your side of an argument, then you are either shit at arguing or your argument sucks. Some people believe that immunizing their kids increases the risk of autism. Those people are idiots, but they are entitled to their opinion. My kids will be immunized.
I don't think you understand the importance of immunization for whole populations.

Idiots don't change facts. Entitled to their opinion? Sure. But make them immunize their children. The autism claim was.proven false and the author lost their medical license at the speed of light.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:


He doesn't even think immunizations should be compulsory.
I don't believe in compulsory anything. You don't seem to understand that. If you can't sway people to your side of an argument, then you are either shit at arguing or your argument sucks. Some people believe that immunizing their kids increases the risk of autism. Those people are idiots, but they are entitled to their opinion. My kids will be immunized.
I don't think you understand the importance of immunization for whole populations.

Idiots don't change facts. Entitled to their opinion? Sure. But make them immunize their children. The autism claim was.proven false and the author lost their medical license at the speed of light.
Really? My kids will be immunized. Why should I care if someone elses kids get The Mumps? Their problem.

You don't have the right to dictate how other people choose to live their lives.

Unless, of course, you don't mind if its done to you in return. I'm going to write to Romney and ask him to conquer Australia in order to force you to practice Mormonism. Would you like to be a Mormon? Their version of Mecca is in Salt Lake City. They have a temple and everything. You'll like it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6396|what

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:


I don't believe in compulsory anything. You don't seem to understand that. If you can't sway people to your side of an argument, then you are either shit at arguing or your argument sucks. Some people believe that immunizing their kids increases the risk of autism. Those people are idiots, but they are entitled to their opinion. My kids will be immunized.
I don't think you understand the importance of immunization for whole populations.

Idiots don't change facts. Entitled to their opinion? Sure. But make them immunize their children. The autism claim was.proven false and the author lost their medical license at the speed of light.
Really? My kids will be immunized. Why should I care if someone elses kids get The Mumps? Their problem.

You don't have the right to dictate how other people choose to live their lives.

Unless, of course, you don't mind if its done to you in return. I'm going to write to Romney and ask him to conquer Australia in order to force you to practice Mormonism. Would you like to be a Mormon? Their version of Mecca is in Salt Lake City. They have a temple and everything. You'll like it.
That's the thing with viruses... They have the ability to mutate and spread. So you want small pox to return? That was beaten through immunization programs.

Evil governments controlling your freedoms! I'll bet you're against seatbelts and speed limits too.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England
I am against seat belts, yes. Speed limits? No, you're impacting others. Same with drunk driving.

It's not about government being evil, it's about people like you having access to power. You'd force everyone to your will, against theirs. Government isn't evil, people like you are. You're a would-be dictator that thinks he knows the proper path in life for everyone else

Last edited by Jay (2012-01-19 17:43:16)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6743|so randum
why would you be against seat belts? say you crash, guy behind you wasn't wearing his seatbelt, and his head goes into the back of yours and you die

personal freedom to die in an easily preventable accident? \o/ woohoo freedom
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

FatherTed wrote:

why would you be against seat belts? say you crash, guy behind you wasn't wearing his seatbelt, and his head goes into the back of yours and you die

personal freedom to die in an easily preventable accident? \o/ woohoo freedom
How many times in history has that happened? I'm gonna bet never.

But sure, let's think up every asinine possibility and throw it out there as a reason for the government to make your decisions for you. That's pretty much how every anti-personal freedom argument goes.

Last edited by Jay (2012-01-19 17:45:30)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6743|so randum
you think an 11-16 stone free object inside a car during a collision isn't going to hurt you?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6743|so randum
i hate to drop wiki but;

In crashes, unbelted rear passengers increase the risk of belted front seat occupants' death by nearly five times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#In_rear_seats
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

FatherTed wrote:

you think an 11-16 stone free object inside a car during a collision isn't going to hurt you?
No. You're about a billion times more likely to be killed by a motorcyclist spearing through your windshield. Funny that I've never heard of that as a cause of death.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

FatherTed wrote:

i hate to drop wiki but;

In crashes, unbelted rear passengers increase the risk of belted front seat occupants' death by nearly five times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#In_rear_seats
And? The people in the front seat can request the people in the back put their seat belts on. If they don't like the answer they get, they can get out of the car or force the backseat occupants to get out.

Why are you being such a jackass?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6743|so randum
i'm not trying to be a jackass, i'm just really confused why you are against legislating something that isn't exactly a hassle to comply with, and saves lives :S

Last edited by FatherTed (2012-01-19 17:53:26)

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

FatherTed wrote:

i'm not trying to be a jackass, i'm just really confused why you are against legislating something that isn't exactly a hassle to comply with, and saves lives :S
Why hasn't your government issued a diktat yet forcing you to eat broccoli? It's good for you, and could possibly save your life.

Oh right, because the broccoli lobby is weak. The auto insurance lobby, on the other hand, is quite strong. The seat belt laws were passed not to save lives, but to save insurance companies money on payouts.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England
Seat belt laws are a symptom of the overall problem. You're considered too stupid to make your own decisions and thus someone else must make them for you. You're too stupid to smoke marijuana, you might get addicted (lol) and be a drag at work.

If you want to jump out of an airplane without a parachute, you should be allowed to make that decision. (Here, now you can tell me about all the people that are injured by that decision, starting with emotional trauma, and the one in a billion chance that I land on someone) Are you a stupid person Teds?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6743|so randum
):
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard