The universe according to MMM

[MultiMillionMiler]

MMM you are bringing up medical decisions. That's an issue I agree with you. But letting kids and young teens just make whatever decision they want, the downsides outweigh the benefits.

In Medical cases though, you agree. You will have people argue that even in medical cases, the number of abuse cases shouldn't be used to guarantee medical autonomy. I know you've generally agreed with me on these issues, but I still feel the negatives even with lesser issues, are anecdotal. The fact of the matter is though, even in medical issues they can't, and no one else's has ever taken significant action to end that. That's why sometimes even the lesser issues infuriate me, they remind of the more severe cases.

That is why Idaho is at the bottom of my list of states.

Kalvado, things like that aren't a matter of opinion, they are clear cut cases of child torture/murder/neglect. Even saying things like that are a debate is despicable. There is no excuse or alternative point of view, it is criminal, it is immoral, it is mentally ill, on every level.

[Scott5114]

I mean, the solution to that is to not use Chase.

https://www.tinkerfcu.org/savings/saveables-kids-club/

Apparently they will give debit cards to 13-year-olds now.

MMM's issue here is that parent's content is required until 18 years old.

And that's not something you'll ever be able to avoid, because someone has to consent to the bank's terms and conditions. Anyone under the age of 18 cannot legally do so. (And if you argue that people shouldn't be disallowed from consenting to things on account of age, well, that opens a whole worse can of worms...)

[Roadgeekteen]

MMM you are bringing up medical decisions. That's an issue I agree with you. But letting kids and young teens just make whatever decision they want, the downsides outweigh the benefits.

In Medical cases though, you agree. You will have people argue that even in medical cases, the number of abuse cases shouldn't be used to guarantee medical autonomy. I know you've generally agreed with me on these issues, but I still feel the negatives even with lesser issues, are anecdotal. The fact of the matter is though, even in medical issues they can't, and no one else's has ever taken significant action to end that. That's why sometimes even the lesser issues infuriate me, they remind of the more severe cases.

That is why Idaho is at the bottom of my list of states.

Kalvado, things like that aren't a matter of opinion, they are clear cut cases of child torture/murder/neglect. Even saying things like that are a debate is despicable. There is no excuse or alternative point of view, it is criminal, it is immoral, it is mentally ill, on every level.

The thing about this is that it's easier to legislate. If you start to dig your nose further into parenting you bring up a whole host of problems. It's important to think critically about what laws you propose and what effects that said laws would have.

[Max Rockatansky]

I had my wife (a Californian behavioral health professional) have a look at the last couple of pages.  She had some opinions that MMM probably wouldn't agree with.

[Roadgeekteen]

I had my wife (a Californian behavioral health professional) have a look at the last couple of pages.  She had some opinions that MMM probably wouldn't agree with.

What opinions? Let's see at how MMM's ideas stack up to a professional. Oh, I forgot, he knows more than all of them!

[Max Rockatansky]

I had my wife (a Californian behavioral health professional) have a look at the last couple of pages.  She had some opinions that MMM probably wouldn't agree with.

What opinions? Let's see at how MMM's ideas stack up to a professional. Oh, I forgot, he knows more than all of them!

Essentially that's he's wrong about much of what he says or lacks a fully understanding about subjects he speaks on. 

[thspfc]

think critically

That's not happening, which is why this thread is over 2000 posts.

[kkt]

I had my wife (a Californian behavioral health professional) have a look at the last couple of pages.  She had some opinions that MMM probably wouldn't agree with.

What opinions? Let's see at how MMM's ideas stack up to a professional. Oh, I forgot, he knows more than all of them!

Well, he has a bachelor's in psychology, so of course he knows more!

[kalvado]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help

Found this article. Of course it's fucking Idaho. Fucking barbaric.

Given a large enough group, there are going to be all sorts of extremes right there. And if you think you're not seen as an extreme by some other people in certain situations - think again...

The problem is that the Idaho politicians won't do anything about it. And these aren't some random cult, these are our elected officials who are failing us and our children. We can all agree that murder is wrong, but at least if you get caught murdering someone you go to jail.

And a very interesting question - why do you think that the public opinion of one group is better than the public opinion of another group?
A separate related fenomenon is that things that were OK at some point may be condemned later, and vice versa. Not uncommon in the medical field specifically...

[Max Rockatansky]

I had my wife (a Californian behavioral health professional) have a look at the last couple of pages.  She had some opinions that MMM probably wouldn't agree with.

What opinions? Let's see at how MMM's ideas stack up to a professional. Oh, I forgot, he knows more than all of them!

Well, he has a bachelor's in psychology, so of course he knows more!

So does she.  She's been on/off working on her Masters. 

[roadman65]

I had my wife (a Californian behavioral health professional) have a look at the last couple of pages.  She had some opinions that MMM probably wouldn't agree with.

What opinions? Let's see at how MMM's ideas stack up to a professional. Oh, I forgot, he knows more than all of them!

Essentially that's he's wrong about much of what he says or lacks a fully understanding about subjects he speaks on. 

That's why I believe he has a big insecurity issue, and he posts his wacked out ideas and feels complimented over shame when we chastise him over them. He loves attention. It's not about roads at all.

[Max Rockatansky]

I had my wife (a Californian behavioral health professional) have a look at the last couple of pages.  She had some opinions that MMM probably wouldn't agree with.

What opinions? Let's see at how MMM's ideas stack up to a professional. Oh, I forgot, he knows more than all of them!

Essentially that's he's wrong about much of what he says or lacks a fully understanding about subjects he speaks on. 

That's why I believe he has a big insecurity issue, and he posts his wacked out ideas and feels complimented over shame when we chastise him over them. He loves attention. It's not about roads at all.

Her take was that what we see here is more a function of being on the spectrum (which MMM has stated he's on).  Essentially we are dealing with a person who might not be fully capable of processing why people disagree with what he says. 

[MultiMillionMiler]

MMM you are bringing up medical decisions. That's an issue I agree with you. But letting kids and young teens just make whatever decision they want, the downsides outweigh the benefits.

In Medical cases though, you agree. You will have people argue that even in medical cases, the number of abuse cases shouldn't be used to guarantee medical autonomy. I know you've generally agreed with me on these issues, but I still feel the negatives even with lesser issues, are anecdotal. The fact of the matter is though, even in medical issues they can't, and no one else's has ever taken significant action to end that. That's why sometimes even the lesser issues infuriate me, they remind of the more severe cases.

That is why Idaho is at the bottom of my list of states.

Kalvado, things like that aren't a matter of opinion, they are clear cut cases of child torture/murder/neglect. Even saying things like that are a debate is despicable. There is no excuse or alternative point of view, it is criminal, it is immoral, it is mentally ill, on every level.

The thing about this is that it's easier to legislate. If you start to dig your nose further into parenting you bring up a whole host of problems. It's important to think critically about what laws you propose and what effects that said laws would have.

With what happened to those kids, honestly, I could care less. Here's a simple change: The 1st amendment no longer exempts you from any criminal laws such as not neglecting your kids in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I know of no such law that currently says otherwise, so I don't know what legal precedent those parents used to get off easy. The establishment clause should forbid any laws from favoring religion over non-religion. What's going on in those states seems to be unconstitutional anyway. Cases such as the ones in that article need to constitute an immediate, and permanent loss of parental custody, and immediate medical treatment of the kid (if still alive that is). What states like that are allowing is organized child abuse, and that should constitute grounds for impeachment of political officials who facilitated those unconstitutional exemptions. States like NY and CA have already taken baby steps, such as eliminating religious exemptions to vaccines, and CA proposing a bill that would eliminate parental consent requirement for vaccines. These need to be expanded to all medical and psychiatric care though.

[roadman65]

I had my wife (a Californian behavioral health professional) have a look at the last couple of pages.  She had some opinions that MMM probably wouldn't agree with.

What opinions? Let's see at how MMM's ideas stack up to a professional. Oh, I forgot, he knows more than all of them!

Essentially that's he's wrong about much of what he says or lacks a fully understanding about subjects he speaks on. 

That's why I believe he has a big insecurity issue, and he posts his wacked out ideas and feels complimented over shame when we chastise him over them. He loves attention. It's not about roads at all.

Her take was that what we see here is more a function of being on the spectrum (which MMM has stated he's on).  Essentially we are dealing with a person who might not be fully capable of processing why people disagree with what he says. 

Watch it, I called MMM of being on it and got reminded we don't say things like that because some user on here once bragged about being on it.

[kalvado]

Kalvado, things like that aren't a matter of opinion, they are clear cut cases of child torture/murder/neglect. Even saying things like that are a debate is despicable. There is no excuse or alternative point of view, it is criminal, it is immoral, it is mentally ill, on every level.

And that's exactly why certain people shouldn't be considered adults just because they are over 21. Jus'saying.

[Max Rockatansky]

I had my wife (a Californian behavioral health professional) have a look at the last couple of pages.  She had some opinions that MMM probably wouldn't agree with.

What opinions? Let's see at how MMM's ideas stack up to a professional. Oh, I forgot, he knows more than all of them!

Essentially that's he's wrong about much of what he says or lacks a fully understanding about subjects he speaks on. 

That's why I believe he has a big insecurity issue, and he posts his wacked out ideas and feels complimented over shame when we chastise him over them. He loves attention. It's not about roads at all.

Her take was that what we see here is more a function of being on the spectrum (which MMM has stated he's on).  Essentially we are dealing with a person who might not be fully capable of processing why people disagree with what he says. 

Watch it, I called MMM of being on it and got reminded we don't say things like that because some user on here once bragged about being on it.

He's literally stated numerous times already that he is on it.  All I told my wife was what MMM has already put out there.  Her reaction more or less was "oh yeah, that fits."

[roadman65]

I had my wife (a Californian behavioral health professional) have a look at the last couple of pages.  She had some opinions that MMM probably wouldn't agree with.

What opinions? Let's see at how MMM's ideas stack up to a professional. Oh, I forgot, he knows more than all of them!

Essentially that's he's wrong about much of what he says or lacks a fully understanding about subjects he speaks on. 

That's why I believe he has a big insecurity issue, and he posts his wacked out ideas and feels complimented over shame when we chastise him over them. He loves attention. It's not about roads at all.

Her take was that what we see here is more a function of being on the spectrum (which MMM has stated he's on).  Essentially we are dealing with a person who might not be fully capable of processing why people disagree with what he says. 

Watch it, I called MMM of being on it and got reminded we don't say things like that because some user on here once bragged about being on it.

He's literally stated numerous times already that he is on it. 

That's news to me hearing that from him, but I already figured it out.  Considering his MO, that he argues about everything and won't succeed from his ideas, is a symptom of Autism.

[kalvado]

I mean, the solution to that is to not use Chase.

https://www.tinkerfcu.org/savings/saveables-kids-club/

Apparently they will give debit cards to 13-year-olds now.

MMM's issue here is that parent's content is required until 18 years old.

And that's not something you'll ever be able to avoid, because someone has to consent to the bank's terms and conditions. Anyone under the age of 18 cannot legally do so. (And if you argue that people shouldn't be disallowed from consenting to things on account of age, well, that opens a whole worse can of worms...)

It's a can of worms as is. It's not a wide open can if parents and kids may come to a common ground. If not...
Puberty is a psychologically difficult period regardless, coupled with other problems it can really be a big can of worms. I don't see a perfect answer here, though. I do agree that parents having control over kid's finances is a good idea in 99.99% cases. What about remaining  1 in 10'000? I don't know.

[MultiMillionMiler]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help

Found this article. Of course it's fucking Idaho. Fucking barbaric.

Given a large enough group, there are going to be all sorts of extremes right there. And if you think you're not seen as an extreme by some other people in certain situations - think again...

The problem is that the Idaho politicians won't do anything about it. And these aren't some random cult, these are our elected officials who are failing us and our children. We can all agree that murder is wrong, but at least if you get caught murdering someone you go to jail.

And a very interesting question - why do you think that the public opinion of one group is better than the public opinion of another group?
A separate related fenomenon is that things that were OK at some point may be condemned later, and vice versa. Not uncommon in the medical field specifically...

Because one group is violating the law, the other isn't. One is directly harming other people, the other isn't. Religions freedom ends at the expense of other people. Laws need to be passed at the federal level to ban states from enacting such exemptions, and cases like that should be talked about in the media more. Another good start would be to tax the church, maybe then they wouldn't have as much money to lobby in support of child abuse-exemption laws. And I never said I was on the spectrum. Although personally, the closest thing I would diagnose myself with is Skizotypal personality disorder to be honest, but not ADHD or autism.

[kalvado]

MMM you are bringing up medical decisions. That's an issue I agree with you. But letting kids and young teens just make whatever decision they want, the downsides outweigh the benefits.

In Medical cases though, you agree. You will have people argue that even in medical cases, the number of abuse cases shouldn't be used to guarantee medical autonomy. I know you've generally agreed with me on these issues, but I still feel the negatives even with lesser issues, are anecdotal. The fact of the matter is though, even in medical issues they can't, and no one else's has ever taken significant action to end that. That's why sometimes even the lesser issues infuriate me, they remind of the more severe cases.

That is why Idaho is at the bottom of my list of states.

Kalvado, things like that aren't a matter of opinion, they are clear cut cases of child torture/murder/neglect. Even saying things like that are a debate is despicable. There is no excuse or alternative point of view, it is criminal, it is immoral, it is mentally ill, on every level.

The thing about this is that it's easier to legislate. If you start to dig your nose further into parenting you bring up a whole host of problems. It's important to think critically about what laws you propose and what effects that said laws would have.

With what happened to those kids, honestly, I could care less. Here's a simple change: The 1st amendment no longer exempts you from any criminal laws such as not neglecting your kids in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I know of no such law that currently says otherwise, so I don't know what legal precedent those parents used to get off easy. The establishment clause should forbid any laws from favoring religion over non-religion. What's going on in those states seems to be unconstitutional anyway. Cases such as the ones in that article need to constitute an immediate, and permanent loss of parental custody, and immediate medical treatment of the kid (if still alive that is). What states like that are allowing is organized child abuse, and that should constitute grounds for impeachment of political officials who facilitated those unconstitutional exemptions. States like NY and CA have already taken baby steps, such as eliminating religious exemptions to vaccines, and CA proposing a bill that would eliminate parental consent requirement for vaccines. These need to be expanded to all medical and psychiatric care though.

It's a well known thing that a noticeable part of medical treatments may not be completely justified, or justified at all. Talking a 12 year old into an important procedure which may be less than absolutely needed but will be billed for next 20 years??  Are you OK with that? 

[roadman65]

Tax the church. Yes if it's Al Sharpton, but many congregations struggle to make ends meet and if you're talking about the Catholics cause they got Rome don't even go there.

[kalvado]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help

Found this article. Of course it's fucking Idaho. Fucking barbaric.

Given a large enough group, there are going to be all sorts of extremes right there. And if you think you're not seen as an extreme by some other people in certain situations - think again...

The problem is that the Idaho politicians won't do anything about it. And these aren't some random cult, these are our elected officials who are failing us and our children. We can all agree that murder is wrong, but at least if you get caught murdering someone you go to jail.

And a very interesting question - why do you think that the public opinion of one group is better than the public opinion of another group?
A separate related fenomenon is that things that were OK at some point may be condemned later, and vice versa. Not uncommon in the medical field specifically...

Because one group is violating the law, the other isn't. One is directly harming other people, the other isn't. Religions freedom ends at the expense of other people. Laws need to be passed at the federal level to ban states from enacting such exemptions, and cases like that should be talked about in the media more. Another good start would be to tax the church, maybe then they wouldn't have as much money to lobby in support of child abuse-exemption laws. And I never said I was on the spectrum. Although personally, the closest thing I would diagnose myself with is Skizotypal personality disorder to be honest, but not ADHD or autism.

Just a moment.
If laws are the primary factor, then shut up about 16-year old discrimination as that is perfectly legal.
If you want a new set of laws, you have to morally justify that set to the majority, including local majorities.
Pick one.

[Roadgeekteen]

MMM you are bringing up medical decisions. That's an issue I agree with you. But letting kids and young teens just make whatever decision they want, the downsides outweigh the benefits.

In Medical cases though, you agree. You will have people argue that even in medical cases, the number of abuse cases shouldn't be used to guarantee medical autonomy. I know you've generally agreed with me on these issues, but I still feel the negatives even with lesser issues, are anecdotal. The fact of the matter is though, even in medical issues they can't, and no one else's has ever taken significant action to end that. That's why sometimes even the lesser issues infuriate me, they remind of the more severe cases.

That is why Idaho is at the bottom of my list of states.

Kalvado, things like that aren't a matter of opinion, they are clear cut cases of child torture/murder/neglect. Even saying things like that are a debate is despicable. There is no excuse or alternative point of view, it is criminal, it is immoral, it is mentally ill, on every level.

The thing about this is that it's easier to legislate. If you start to dig your nose further into parenting you bring up a whole host of problems. It's important to think critically about what laws you propose and what effects that said laws would have.

With what happened to those kids, honestly, I could care less. Here's a simple change: The 1st amendment no longer exempts you from any criminal laws such as not neglecting your kids in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I know of no such law that currently says otherwise, so I don't know what legal precedent those parents used to get off easy. The establishment clause should forbid any laws from favoring religion over non-religion. What's going on in those states seems to be unconstitutional anyway. Cases such as the ones in that article need to constitute an immediate, and permanent loss of parental custody, and immediate medical treatment of the kid (if still alive that is). What states like that are allowing is organized child abuse, and that should constitute grounds for impeachment of political officials who facilitated those unconstitutional exemptions. States like NY and CA have already taken baby steps, such as eliminating religious exemptions to vaccines, and CA proposing a bill that would eliminate parental consent requirement for vaccines. These need to be expanded to all medical and psychiatric care though.

It's a well known thing that a noticeable part of medical treatments may not be completely justified, or justified at all. Talking a 12 year old into an important procedure which may be less than absolutely needed but will be billed for next 20 years??  Are you OK with that?

I'm not since I support universal healthcare

[kalvado]

MMM you are bringing up medical decisions. That's an issue I agree with you. But letting kids and young teens just make whatever decision they want, the downsides outweigh the benefits.

In Medical cases though, you agree. You will have people argue that even in medical cases, the number of abuse cases shouldn't be used to guarantee medical autonomy. I know you've generally agreed with me on these issues, but I still feel the negatives even with lesser issues, are anecdotal. The fact of the matter is though, even in medical issues they can't, and no one else's has ever taken significant action to end that. That's why sometimes even the lesser issues infuriate me, they remind of the more severe cases.

That is why Idaho is at the bottom of my list of states.

Kalvado, things like that aren't a matter of opinion, they are clear cut cases of child torture/murder/neglect. Even saying things like that are a debate is despicable. There is no excuse or alternative point of view, it is criminal, it is immoral, it is mentally ill, on every level.

The thing about this is that it's easier to legislate. If you start to dig your nose further into parenting you bring up a whole host of problems. It's important to think critically about what laws you propose and what effects that said laws would have.

With what happened to those kids, honestly, I could care less. Here's a simple change: The 1st amendment no longer exempts you from any criminal laws such as not neglecting your kids in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I know of no such law that currently says otherwise, so I don't know what legal precedent those parents used to get off easy. The establishment clause should forbid any laws from favoring religion over non-religion. What's going on in those states seems to be unconstitutional anyway. Cases such as the ones in that article need to constitute an immediate, and permanent loss of parental custody, and immediate medical treatment of the kid (if still alive that is). What states like that are allowing is organized child abuse, and that should constitute grounds for impeachment of political officials who facilitated those unconstitutional exemptions. States like NY and CA have already taken baby steps, such as eliminating religious exemptions to vaccines, and CA proposing a bill that would eliminate parental consent requirement for vaccines. These need to be expanded to all medical and psychiatric care though.

It's a well known thing that a noticeable part of medical treatments may not be completely justified, or justified at all. Talking a 12 year old into an important procedure which may be less than absolutely needed but will be billed for next 20 years??  Are you OK with that?

I'm not since I support universal healthcare

OK, a very historical example.
One of nice catholic traditions included castrato choirs - basically boys who never got to puberty, and retained childish voices.
If 12 year old with medical autonomy can be talked into castration under the promise of a great singing career - before he even understands the meaning of word "sex" - should that be allowed? What about kidney donation? Sex change therapy?  What is the difference?

[MultiMillionMiler]

Talking a 12 year old into an important procedure which may be less than absolutely needed but will be billed for next 20 years??  Are you OK with that?

Yes, we need Universal Healthcare. If you are trying to refer to what I think you are, I don't necessarily include that in the same category. Elective medical procedures are not the same as pain relief, mental health treatment, needed surgery..etc, I don't need to pick one, there are constitutional arguments that support both. And I am sure the majority of the country would agree with repealing "exemptions" for child neglect, but the problem is most people don't even know they exist. Such issues likely will never enter the field of vision of the average general public, and depending on the person, even if they are against it, may, for example, worry more about keeping their guns so will continue to vote conservative anyway. Both child abuse laws and general ageism laws need to be improved, just the former being more urgent. That "pick one!" black and white view on things is part of the problem. Not all issues are a slippery slope, interconnected, or a cam of worms, some things are just common sense, like you should rot in prison for letting your kid die a horrible death when you could have easily gotten him treatment.