3 ms·

I don't think it has any benefits to remove children from their parents. That's why I think that was a bad policy. I think however it would be beneficial for t

I don't think it has any benefits to remove children from their parents. That's why I think that was a bad policy. I think however it would be beneficial for the children if their parents adapted their lifestyle to fit the modern society and better integrate into society. 150 years ago their lifestyle might have made sense, but less so today where they could get better jobs if they had a better education and they could also get support from society if needed. It's sad to see these parents taking away so many opportunities for their children.

hef19898 3y ago
Well, luckily that is the parents call, and not ypurs. Nor is it mine or anyone elses call to make. Exceptions are those cleqrly defined illegal things like abuse, sexual abuse and so on. And heck, even those get abused and misused by authorities all the damn time. If anything, minorities with somewhat different life styles should even be more protected as well, or not so well, meaning social workers can use those rules arpund child protection to really ruim peoples lives. Systematically taking away children is just the most extreme, and overt, form of that.
slushh 3y ago
>150 years ago their lifestyle might have made sense, but less so today where they could get better jobs if they had a better education and they could also get support from society if needed. Today, there are expats and mobile internet. Doesn't the world change? With automated production processes, workers won't be needed locally. Like many pensioners today, society could change and the majority could travel depending on seasons. In other words, isn't the sedentary population missing out on receiving advice from hundreds of years of traveling? If the traveling children lack opportunities, shouldn't we find a way to offer those opportunities because sooner or later, many children will be traveling?
- hef19898 3y ago
  But that would be digital nomads, or van life. That is hip, isn't it? And alos totally legal, those people don't steal or cause problems. Unless, of course, they do. Working without proper visas is illegal and tax fraud, for example. But those a white collar crimes, so obviously it is less bad. /s

hef19898 3y ago

Well, luckily that is the parents call, and not ypurs. Nor is it mine or anyone elses call to make. Exceptions are those cleqrly defined illegal things like abuse, sexual abuse and so on. And heck, even those get abused and misused by authorities all the damn time. If anything, minorities with somewhat different life styles should even be more protected as well, or not so well, meaning social workers can use those rules arpund child protection to really ruim peoples lives. Systematically taking away children is just the most extreme, and overt, form of that.

slushh 3y ago

>150 years ago their lifestyle might have made sense, but less so today where they could get better jobs if they had a better education and they could also get support from society if needed. Today, there are expats and mobile internet. Doesn't the world change? With automated production processes, workers won't be needed locally. Like many pensioners today, society could change and the majority could travel depending on seasons. In other words, isn't the sedentary population missing out on receiving advice from hundreds of years of traveling? If the traveling children lack opportunities, shouldn't we find a way to offer those opportunities because sooner or later, many children will be traveling?

hef19898 3y ago
But that would be digital nomads, or van life. That is hip, isn't it? And alos totally legal, those people don't steal or cause problems. Unless, of course, they do. Working without proper visas is illegal and tax fraud, for example. But those a white collar crimes, so obviously it is less bad. /s