Quote of the day—Derek Hunter

Imagine there has been a horrible case of child abuse in your neighborhood. A large family with 10 children had parents who brutally beat their kids, and two died. In reacting to that horrendous news, there’s a knock at your door. It’s your mayor and police chief.

“I understand you have two children in this house. Is that correct?” the mayor asks.

“Yes, that’s true. Why?” you reply.

“We’re going to need to see them, to inspect them to make sure they haven’t been subjected to abuse by you,” the chief says.

“Wait, what? You’re not going to inspect my children,” you respond.

“We are going to. And we’re going to monitor your kids from here on out, stopping by periodically to check on them, inspect their bodies for bruises and have them talk to a psychologist to make sure they aren’t being emotionally abused either,” the chief shoots back.

“What the hell gives you the right to do that?” you ask.

“After the horrible abuse that took place a few blocks away, we decided that we had to insert ourselves into the lives of all parents to prevent that from happening ever again,” the mayor says. “So we’ve passed a new law that says we can curtail parental rights for the greater good. Now go get your children.”

Derek Hunter
October 5, 2017
After Las Vegas, Democrats Send In The Clowns
[The sad/scary part of this is this that public education is a significant step in this direction and there are policies which show we are on this path.—Joe]


11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Derek Hunter

  1. Some other countries are already doing this sort of thing. There was an article recently about a family in Sweden who was subjected to something similar after their young daughter slipped and broke her arm.

  2. When I was in the Navy, a buddy of mine had a daughter who was a real ‘tomboy’. She had scrapes/bruises all the time from sports/wrestling/etc. Busybody neighbor called DCFS. W/ no evidence whatsoever, he ended up ‘monitored’, threatened w/ jail if he did not comply, and the family under suspicion for abuse.

  3. I see a need for intervention in a handful of extreme cases. Sadly, there are some parents who put their children in this kind of danger. But denying parental rights over their own children is a very dangerous road to go down, and we’re already well on our way.

    As a baby, my brother once raised our pediatrician’s eyebrows because of black marks on his arms–he’d been crawling around on the newspaper & gotten ink on himself, which my dad rubbed off with his thumb and a bit of spit. The doctor was of course satisfied, but to think of what might have happened… Growing up, my parents had to deal with related stuff (somewhat) with the anti-home-schooling people–usually with nosy school bureaucrats. They would usually shut up once they found we were about 3 grade levels ahead of the rest of the kids our age. Now we kids all grown up, but look at what they’re trying to the antivaxxers. Anyone who doesn’t conform to the system is viewed as a potential target. Funnily, I’m the only one who didn’t turn out “normal”–I think it’s a personality thing. I’m glad I never went to high school, I’d have been scarred for life. They would have been okay.

    Back on topic–anyone who doesn’t see a slippery slope here is either blind, stupid, or deliberately trying to mislead.

    • look at what they’re trying [to do] to the antivaxxers.

      Could you justify your equivalence here? Vaccination has objective benefits from a public health (epidemiological) standpoint.

      • Doesn’t matter, informed consent and parental rights apply.

        Furthermore if vaccines are so great why worry about the other kids if yours got their shots?

        Furthermore, I got my shots and do not generally oppose most of them. I voluntarily filled one some of the ones that weren’t available then but are recommended now. I think there is an argument to be made that there are, possibly, some confounding variables involved that are attributed to the Introduction of vaccines. I am not convinced that is a strong argument against having it done. I am absolutely oppose making them legally compulsory.

        I think it is quite clear that you missed the entire point of my post. I suggest re-reading it and meditating on its message. I am, by trade and by having earned advanced degrees, a scientist.

        • Because I am a scientist, I do not believe that any idea is immune from criticism, and especially not those broadly assumed to be true. I believe in questioning the common wisdom and evidence. If the evidence is there, why worry about the questions? It will of course stand up to scrutiny.

          • Such an attitude makes you a tiny minority in the political realm, and despite what they may say publicly you are likely a minority even in the “science” community. Most people have no idea how you can support an action but be against making such actions compulsory; the concept blows their mind.

          • I am more of a minority than I myself can believe, let me tell you.

            Funnily enough I have found a kinder (although still far from kind) home in the private sector than in academia, even though earlier in my career I was led to believe the opposite and paid the price for believing them. I hate what I have become, a corporate drone, but I also have no other choice at this point. (don’t get me wrong; I thing profit is great. I just think the pursuit of it is intellectually limiting. By which I do NOT mean that taxpayers should subsidize me and my flights of fantasy.)

  4. From Captain Beatty’s in Fahrenheit 451:
    “There was a girl next door,” he [Montag] said, slowly. “She’s gone now, I think, dead. I can’t even remember her face. But she was different. How-how did she happen?”
    Beatty smiled. “Here or there, that’s bound to occur. Clarisse McClellan? We’ve a record on her family. We’ve watched them carefully. Heredity and environment are funny things. You can’t rid yourselves of all the odd ducks in just a few years. The home environment can undo a lot you try to do at school. That’s why we’ve lowered the kindergarten age year after year until now we’re almost snatching them from the cradle. We had some false alarms on the McClellans, when they lived in Chicago. Never found a book. Uncle had a mixed record; anti-social. The girl? She was a time bomb. The family had been feeding her subconscious, I’m sure, from what I saw of her school record. She didn’t want to know how a thing was done, but why. That can be embarrassing. You ask Why to a lot of things and you wind up very unhappy indeed, if you keep at it. The poor girl’s better off dead.”
    “Yes, dead.”

  5. One of your first jobs as a parent is to teach your children how to interact with government authorities. Are any Jews hiding in your basement or attic? No sir. Is your father hiding any guns in your home? No sir. Would you like to come into this office alone for a more private interview? No thank you sir, I prefer to remain in the presence of other people while being interviewed.

  6. Not quite the same thing, but last week the Times of London had an article saying that the “national health service” (their version of “VA for All”) was requiring all doctors to ask patients 16 and older their sexual orientation. The small print mentioned that patients could refuse to answer, just as they can refuse to state their race.

    This is why I only answer the Constitutional part of the Census form (which is the question that asks “how many people live here”).

Comments are closed.