Antisocial, societal issues thread

[Vaquer]

The struggle to protect children from conspiracy theorist parents

The inquest following the death of Paloma Shemirani raises the question of how to prevent young people from health misinformation

www.bbc.co.uk

Don't think many had "Internet will turn countless people into conspiracy theorist goofs" on their 1990s-2000s future predictions cards. This crap used to require energy now you get it looking at your phone.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I havnt read this yet, so I may be speaking out of turn, but am assuming it is the cancer patient death who was influenced by her mother's ideals.

This brings up all types of ethical, moral and legal implications, in a very dangerous way.

Yet if parents decided that children didn't need more than a starvation diet because of some perverse ideals, nobody would hesitate to have them punished for neglect.

 

[dirty harry]

Yet if parents decided that children didn't need more than a starvation diet because of some perverse ideals, nobody would hesitate to have them punished for neglect.

Is this referring to Ramadan?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Is this referring to Ramadan?

No.

 

[AlRums]

Is this referring to Ramadan?

Why on earth did you bring religion into this, and why did you ignore Lent?

 

[dirty harry]

No.

So religious rules around restricting food is ok, non religious reasons for restricting food is not?

You see my point?

 

[dirty harry]

Why on earth did you bring religion into this,band why did you ignore Lent?

Why do you think i brought religious reasons for parents dictating to child's behaviours in the context of this story?

 

[AlRums]

Because the conversation had nothing to do with religious culture until you brought it up.

And you targeted a non Christian religion and ignored the Christian culture.

 

[dirty harry]

Because the conversation had nothing to do with religious culture until you brought it up.

And you targeted a non Christian religion and ignored the Christian culture.

Did it not? Parents dictating children's behaviours, especially around healthcare will have no impact on religion?

Even your not this dense!

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

So religious rules around restricting food is ok, non religious reasons for restricting food is not?

You see my point?

No, you are making a point completely separate to the one I made. It's already accepted that forcing decisions that a reasonable person could conclude would cause harm are not acceptable so there should not be exceptions for religious reasons or other.

Ramadan doesn't lead to starvation.

 

[Saintjay]

I'd go after those Doctors restricting food before an operation the ********.

 

[Vaquer]

Why on earth did you bring religion into this

Racism

 

[Ddanno]

The arguments in this thread make no sense.

On one hand, the Tories underinvested and the austerity policies directly led to this behavior.

On the other hand, Debt to GDP ratio is the highest since WWII and Labor is projecting a massive deficit for next year.


These are mutually exclusive ideas and some of you lack the basic deductive reason to understand that.

Do you ever post anything that isn't disgustingly condescending?

 

[dirty harry]

No, you are making a point completely separate to the one I made. It's already accepted that forcing decisions that a reasonable person could conclude would cause harm are not acceptable so there should not be exceptions for religious reasons or other.

Ramadan doesn't lead to starvation.

You know the Ramadan point wasnt the specific issue was getting at, Jehovas witness refusing healthcare, birth defects caused by incestuous marriage etc are both practiced in 2025.

What your proposing is state defined acceptable thought patterns for parents to pass down to children. Thays the danger here, the risks to religious freedoms, and parental responsibility (legally not informally)

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

You know the Ramadan point wasnt the specific issue was getting at, Jehovas witness refusing healthcare, birth defects caused by incestuous marriage etc are both practiced in 2025.

What your proposing is state defined acceptable thought patterns for parents to pass down to children. Thays the danger here, the risks to religious freedoms, and parental responsibility (legally not informally)

We already have them, that's what I'm actually saying, and society hasn't fallen apart to state tyranny as a result. I don't think religious beliefs should get any sort of preferential treatment over other beliefs and feel the special niche religion carved out for itself in society compared to other beliefs needs to be removed.

If parents have a belief of any sort that presents clear and obvious danger to a child who has no say in the matter, they should be held accountable.

Do you advocate that parents should not be held reasonable for the well-being of the children under their protection?

 

[dirty harry]

We already have them, that's what I'm actually saying, and society hasn't fallen apart to state tyranny as a result. I don't think religious beliefs should get any sort of preferential treatment over other beliefs and feel the special niche religion carved out for itself in society compared to other beliefs needs to be removed.

If parents have a belief of any sort that presents clear and obvious danger to a child who has no say in the matter, they should be held accountable.

Do you advocate that parents should not be held reasonable for the well-being of the children under their protection?

Thats not what im saying, im saying there has to be a line of parental responsibility.

So, I'll be the first to criticise bad parenting, on the daily I see the outcome of it, through the criminal justice system, trauma, CSE, ACEs etc, but where does that line stand?

When it comes to idealogy, I dislike all religions, but I acknowledge their right for protection. Why would a conspiracy theory about vaccines, or healthcare be treated any different to refusing modern healthcare for religious reasons?

When we talk about prosecuting parents on ideology, it creates a very dangerous environment, in which the government can dictate what ideology is damaging, and what is approved.

Im not saying this parent is right, im looking at a bigger picture

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Thats not what im saying, im saying there has to be a line of parental responsibility.

So, I'll be the first to criticise bad parenting, on the daily I see the outcome of it, through the criminal justice system, trauma, CSE, ACEs etc, but where does that line stand?

When it comes to idealogy, I dislike all religions, but I acknowledge their right for protection. Why would a conspiracy theory about vaccines, or healthcare be treated any different to refusing modern healthcare for religious reasons?

When we talk about prosecuting parents on ideology, it creates a very dangerous environment, in which the government can dictate what ideology is damaging, and what is approved.

Im not saying this parent is right, im looking at a bigger picture

Yes I agree there is a boundary that must exist, I just don't feel that all it takes is for a parent to state they strongly believe something to give them practical immunity from accountability when their actions contribute significantly to the harm or death of a child in their care.

 

[AlRums]

Mum says autistic son 'deserved better from Waitrose'

The supermarket is investigating after Frances Boyd says her son Tom was stopped from volunteering.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is pretty disgusting

 

[Ddanno]

Mum says autistic son 'deserved better from Waitrose'

The supermarket is investigating after Frances Boyd says her son Tom was stopped from volunteering.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is pretty disgusting

******* *****

 

[AlRums]

Waitrose-rejected autistic volunteer receives job offer from Asda

Tom Boyd's mum says she is "overwhelmed" after he is offered a job by rival supermarket chain Asda.

www.bbc.co.uk