Stupidest idea of the month...so far

[Forty Two]

"But if you leave a space, and wait for body language and wait to make eye contact then you're letting that child know that their response matters." Does it? Will the parent's decision about the nappy change be influenced by the baby's body language in any way at all?

We're going from a point of eliminating or reducing the parental privilege to impose corporal punishment, to the point of suggesting that parents must have their kids' consent before touching them.

And, of course, a parent's decision about a diaper/nappy change is not influenced by the baby's body language and eye contact. The baby's diaper has to be changed because it's full, not because someone wants it changed. It's like a doctor asking the baby for consent before he handles it in the examination room.

Is it o.k. if I look in your ear?

How about when the baby is getting vaccines. You have to hold the baby down and immobilize them so the nurse or PA can safely stick the needle in their chubby little thigh. Nobody asks the baby if it's o.k. to vaccinate. Nobody is going to sit there and watch for eye contact and body language - oh, the baby looks cool with it. She's cool. Yeah. She's cool.

[Forty Two]

It may or may not. I personally doubt it. But I'm not going to dismiss it off hand or label people crazy,

because you're above labeling people crazy, or mental....

or make judgements on their hair

...because you're above judging someone based on his hair.....

(surprised no one went the whole hog and called her a dyke), because they do things differently.

This isn't about her doing things differently. Lots of people do parenting differently. For example, many people thought I was crazy for playing classical guitar music for my kids when they were infants, talking to them like they could already understand me and holding conversations with them over the oatmeal and bread at the supermarket, etc. I even would ask them if they would like this or that, or if they know what this or that is - when they could just sit in the supermarket shopping cart -- the difference is, I did not suggest that the child really had a say in what we bought or that it "created a culture of democracy" in our family by asking them to vote yes or no on flavors of yogurt.

Locking kids up for life in the cellar to be used as a personal sex toy is "looney" to me. This is nothing.

Nobody is arguing that using kids as personal sex toys or locking them up isn't a problem. However, you are right, changing nappies is nothing. Not asking for consent before changing them does not create a culture that sexual consent doesn't matter.

[Forty Two]

If you're still asking your child if it's OK to change their nappy and they can give you a coherent answer then you've waited too long to teach them to shit in the bog.

But it might not be your fault. You could have asked their permission to teach them to shit in the bog and they refused. There are, after all, adult babies. Who are we to judge?

I make my kid finish her vegetables despite her refusal to consent to such consumption. I just totally ignore her right to do what she wants with her own body that way.

The real crime, though, is when I bind the kids into seats without their consent, and against their express protestations. I mean, when they don't want to get into certain seats I want them to sit in, I'll just pick them up and put them in the seat. Even when they are vocally protesting, I'll just strap them right down, and they are not allowed to get up until I say so.

[Rum]

Opening a US embassy in Jerusalem?

[pErvinalia]

Yep.

[Animavore]

This year.

[Scot Dutchy]

Today.

[Forty Two]

Why do Arabs care if there is an embassy in Jerusalem?

The US has had a US Consulate in Jerusalem for some time. We can have a consulate, but not an embassy? The Jerusalem consulate provided services to Palestinians, too. Was that wrong?

[Svartalf]

Opening a US embassy in Jerusalem?

especially on Naqba day, that embassy is already covered in blood

[Forty Two]

Prior to its adoption by the Palestinian nationalist movement, the al-Nakba meant the"Year of the Catastrophe", referring to 1920, when European colonial powers partitioned the Ottoman Empire into a series of separate states along lines of their own choosing.

It's your boys' baby. It's as I've said many times on many other threads. The Ottoman Empire died in World War 1 and out of its carcass, the European colonial powers partitioned it up into a variety of different countries, only one of which was Israel. Another would have been Palestine, but the Arabs rejected that partition, because if it's not all Muslim controlled, then it's unacceptable, and the existence of Israel became the Nakba -- first referenced in the summer of 1948, after Israel came to be.

It's not the Americans that have blood on their hands over Israel and the Palestinians. It's Europe. If you don't recognize that, you don't have any idea why the Arab countries that exist today exist as they do.

[Animavore]

Looks like Snopes had to do an article on the nappy thing because so many people can't read English.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-e ... ermission/

[Forty Two]

Snopes is wrong.

Claim - Sexuality educator Deanne Carson said parents should ask a baby's permission before changing their diaper.

What's false - Carson did not say infants were able to or parents were required to receive consent for diaper changes; Carson did not say infants who refused consent should remain in dirty diapers.

What they say is false is not the claim, though. She did say you should ask the baby for consent (permission) before changing the diaper, and you should ask if it's "o.k." (another version of consent or permissing is to ask if it's o.k. to do something). So that's absolutely true, and it's not mostly false.

Nobody has claimed she said babies could consent. What people claimed is that since babies absolutely cannot consent, and cannot communicate in these terms at that age, that it's absurd to ask them for their "o.k." to change a diaper.

Snopes is like this, though. This should be deemed true or "mostly true" if they want to put in a caveat that there were qualifications to the statement. But, it is absolutely true to say that the woman said you should ask for permission to change the nappy.

Snopes cites feminist and sex youtuber Laci Green as suggesting that implying that a baby can consent is a bit troubling. And, the reason she says that is that if you say "you should ask for consent before X" you are implying that the recipient can, in fact, give or withhold consent.

There is nothing "mostly false" about the claim Snopes reviewed.

[Rum]

Why do Arabs care if there is an embassy in Jerusalem?

The US has had a US Consulate in Jerusalem for some time. We can have a consulate, but not an embassy? The Jerusalem consulate provided services to Palestinians, too. Was that wrong?

What do you mean 'what do the Arabs care'? It is a simple fact that they do - and that America as Israel's primary ally is hated by much of the Arab world. The establishment of the embassy is seen as a provocation - and it is of course. I have no idea if Trump is doing this just because he can and he thinks it is a rational and good tactical step or if he is an idiot responding to people shouting loudly around him. Either way it is an idiotic move. Both he and Netanyahu have then gone on to proclaim what a great move towards peace this is. The reverse is the case. Trump is managing to inflame passions - ones that are already high, whatever the rights and wrongs of the conflict.

I tend to side with Israel in my views - and give it a lot of leeway - not that it matters a gnat's piss worth, but this has been handled very badly and the killings today seem to me to be a terrible overreaction.

[Forty Two]

Why do Arabs care if there is an embassy in Jerusalem?

The US has had a US Consulate in Jerusalem for some time. We can have a consulate, but not an embassy? The Jerusalem consulate provided services to Palestinians, too. Was that wrong?

What do you mean 'what do the Arabs care'? It is a simple fact that they do -

The reasons people have for caring is relevant. If they care because they're prejudiced against Jews, then I think that's very relevant. You can't have an embassy in Jerusalem because we don't want Israel to be Jewish doesn't seem like a valid reason coming from theocrats. If they were Enlightenment secularist liberals, I'd grant them some slack, because they wouldn't want their country or Israel to be Muslim either. But, since they're not against theocracy, but rather are against Jews, I don't give their reasons much weight.

and that America as Israel's primary ally is hated by much of the Arab world.

Several Muslim countries have the US as their primary ally too. Again, they aren't against countries being primary allies. They're against Jewish countries having the US as a primary ally. The US can be Jordan and Saudi Arabia's primary allies too. No problem there. Obviously, some factions don't want their own Muslim countries as primary allies. But, most of the Arab world is either allied with the US, or with Russia. Turkey is focused on the US and the EU, Syria with Russia, Lebanon is cloe to the EU/France, Saudi Arabi is close to the US, Egypt used to be US-focused and they still get billions, etc.

The establishment of the embassy is seen as a provocation - and it is of course. I have no idea if Trump is doing this just because he can and he thinks it is a rational and good tactical step or if he is an idiot responding to people shouting loudly around him.

The law moving the embassy to Jerusalem was passed 20 years ago, and called for the embassy to move by some time in 1999. That was square in the middle of a very educated, and competent, President - Bill Clinton. Obviously, the move was considered a negotiating piece, and was kept as a threat for 20 years.

Either way it is an idiotic move. Both he and Netanyahu have then gone on to proclaim what a great move towards peace this is. The reverse is the case. Trump is managing to inflame passions - ones that are already high, whatever the rights and wrongs of the conflict.

By not taking strong moves, one condemns the country there to neverending strife. Sure, you can avoid some conflagrations, but for 50 years trying to keep passions from being inflamed as a policy has simply not worked. What trump did by moving the embassy to Jerusalem is send a message that enough is enough, and it's been 20 years since we said we'd begin moving it. Each President from Clinton, to Bush, to Obama to Trump has had to sign six month holds on it to keep its terms from going into effect.

What it does is move the negotiations forward, and its designed to put the Palestinian authority in a position where they have to make a real, concrete proposal for a two state solution, or be willing to accept one. They know that if they don't, they are not going to get much of anything. They aren't getting Jerusalem. That ship has sailed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act

I tend to side with Israel in my views - and give it a lot of leeway - not that it matters a gnat's piss worth, but this has been handled very badly and the killings today seem to me to be a terrible overreaction.

They are a terrible overreaction, by the WestBankians and the Gazaians. The US moves an embassy to Jerusalem and Muslims flip out? Jerusalem is not the place to which Muslims pray. It is not directly connected to any events in Muhammad's (piss be upon him) life. And it is not even mentioned by name in the Koo-Ran. The city never became a cultural center or served as capital of a sovereign Muslim state. Jerusalem has mattered to Muslims only intermittently over the past thirteen centuries, and when it has mattered, as it does today, it has been because of politics.

[Rum]

I'm not doing a wall of text back and forth, but the gist of what you say comes over as they care but they should't and if they cared a bit less they wouldn't be as angry and react in such an over the top manner.

The simple fact is that Palestinians take the view - the majority I think it is fair to assume - that Israel is occupying their home land. Whatever the rights and wrongs or the history (which I am more than well versed in). How else do you expect them to react? How would you react I wonder if the Native Americans moved back in and claimed their 'home land' back, with the backing of some super power or other?