speaking of regulations

Kate wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Kate wrote: I like how Viking immediately starts insulting people he disagrees with. Can't you have a conversation without resorting name calling?

She attacks my family, I will come back swinging. Telling me that my parents obviously had bad judgement just because they had us as kids helping out on the farm just to survive and put food on the table. She obviously has NO CLUE about real life and reality!

waste of skin
un-American
pathetic
stupid
total dumbass
you can kiss my ass
You are not an American...
You are so F*N stupid
utter lack of any intelligence

All of these insults were hurled by you before AspenValley supposedly attacked your family. BTW - I didn't see her attack your family, she just made a comment about how she hoped you didn't have any kids, which would be a question about your parenting skills, not an attack on your family.

I think you owe AspenValley an apology for your insults.

Well that is your opinion. I think you need a labotomy. Is either one going to happen?

The Viking wrote:

Kate wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Kate wrote: I like how Viking immediately starts insulting people he disagrees with. Can't you have a conversation without resorting name calling?

She attacks my family, I will come back swinging. Telling me that my parents obviously had bad judgement just because they had us as kids helping out on the farm just to survive and put food on the table. She obviously has NO CLUE about real life and reality!

waste of skin
un-American
pathetic
stupid
total dumbass
you can kiss my ass
You are not an American...
You are so F*N stupid
utter lack of any intelligence

All of these insults were hurled by you before AspenValley supposedly attacked your family. BTW - I didn't see her attack your family, she just made a comment about how she hoped you didn't have any kids, which would be a question about your parenting skills, not an attack on your family.

I think you owe AspenValley an apology for your insults.

Well that is your opinion. I think you need a labotomy. Is either one going to happen?

Another insult? Usually, people stop digging the hole when they realize their mistake.

Kate wrote: Wow. Farming regulations are destroying our country from within. Who would have believed it?

Remember folks, you read it here first.

Not destroying, but just a little less freedom on raising your children.

I find parallels to the story about the judge who prevented the anti-circumcison law from reaching the ballot in California. One side is trying to prevent kids from being cut on against their will by parents before they can decide themselves. The other side is trying to protect religious freedoms. I can see both sides.

Just like I can see both sides on this issue, one side is just trying to reduce farm accidents. The other side sees this adding needless cost to family farms.

There is another thread here today saying big farms are helping to destroy their smaller competiton, this is one more way for them to do it.

SS109 wrote:

Kate wrote: Wow. Farming regulations are destroying our country from within. Who would have believed it?

Remember folks, you read it here first.

Not destroying, but just a little less freedom on raising your children.

I find parallels to the story about the judge who prevented the anti-circumcison law from reaching the ballot in California. One side is trying to prevent kids from being cut on against their will by parents before they can decide themselves. The other side is trying to protect religious freedoms. I can see both sides.

Just like I can see both sides on this issue, one side is just trying to reduce farm accidents. The other side sees this adding needless cost to family farms.

There is another thread here today saying big farms are helping to destroy their smaller competiton, this is one more way for them to do it.

The best way to prevent farm accidents among children would be for farming parents to realize that their kids are not adults and they should not be doing jobs on a farm that require adult strength, skill, and judgement. If they can't or won't understand that, yes, the government is probably going to have an opening to step in at some point.

If you are a farming family who actually cares about keeping government out of an issue like this, you protect your kids yourself and don't put them in situations that provide an excuse for the government to regulate your actions.

And sorry to say, but if your farm is so marginal that the only way you can keep it going is to put an eight year old on a tractor, it's time to find another occupation.

Kate wrote: Wow. Farming regulations are destroying our country from within. Who would have believed it?

Remember folks, you read it here first.

Insert standard "founding fathers" / Sovereign Citizen / Federalist / Original Intent / Constitution-worship b.s. here: ____________________________

AspenValley wrote:

neptunechimney wrote: I think this thread is an example of statism vs an individuals right to choose.

I don't.

I think it's about whether adults have the right to place their minor children at risk.

I don't care what hazardous thing an adult chooses to do, but I do care when his child is maimed or killed because of what he chooses to do.

You believe the state should decide where acceptable parenting ends and negligence begins. I know it already does to some extent but where does it end? 1984?

LOL, it is rated R for really happening now.

[youtube:2awh0m2l][/youtube:2awh0m2l]

neptunechimney wrote: [You believe the state should decide where acceptable parenting ends and negligence begins. I know it already does to some extent but where does it end? 1984?

LOL, it is rated R for really happening now.

You have got to be joking. Prohibiting children from operating dangerous machinery equals thought control? Give me a break.

Tell me, do you think it is too much government intrusion to prohibit kids from buying a fifth of whiskey?

Maybe instead of all the drama, we could see actual statistics that show how so many kids are being killed while actually operating these tractors. I'm sure there are plenty of instances where kids have been run over (just like on city streets), yet I'll bet you have to dig pretty hard to find drivers who were killed. (But, but, IF IT JUST SAVES ONE CHILD!!!)

This is probably more about government revenue than protecting kids.

CriticalBill wrote: Maybe instead of all the drama, we could see actual statistics that show how so many kids are being killed while actually operating these tractors. I'm sure there are plenty of instances where kids have been run over (just like on city streets), yet I'll bet you have to dig pretty hard to find drivers who were killed. (But, but, IF IT JUST SAVES ONE CHILD!!!)

This is probably more about government revenue than protecting kids.

I already posted a link to statistics. 300 child deaths a year and thousands more maimed.

I don't agree with the "if it saves just one kid" thing, by the way, especially when it comes to insanely rare incidents, like the possibility that some kid MIGHT, if he stood on his head and held his breath, POSSIBLY choke if he wrapped it twice around his neck and once around his ankles and looked to the right while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

But that's not what we're talking about here.

300 hundred children killed every year and thousands more maimed is NOT some hugely rare, freakly uncommon event. And the fact that some of the "defenders" of children driving tractors and operating other dangerous equipment were quick to come up with examples of people they have known PERSONALLY being maimed should give pause, should it not?

I've said it before in this thread but I'll say it again. It would be much, MUCH better if the PARENTS of these kids protected their own offspring but apparently they not only don't, but vehemently protest the idea of being expected to, if the responses on this thread are any indication.

Is anyone surprised if the government steps in such a case?

AspenValley wrote:

neptunechimney wrote: [You believe the state should decide where acceptable parenting ends and negligence begins. I know it already does to some extent but where does it end? 1984?

LOL, it is rated R for really happening now.

You have got to be joking. Prohibiting children from operating dangerous machinery equals thought control? Give me a break.

Tell me, do you think it is too much government intrusion to prohibit kids from buying a fifth of whiskey?

No, I am not joking and that is not what I said.