DescentBB

...and they really believe that. The sentiment is laid bare below:

MSNBC: Your Kids Don’t Belong to You

This is such an incredibly creepy video it’s actually hard for me to believe it’s real. Professor of political science at Tulane University and MSNBC host, Melissa Harris-Perry states the following:

We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everyone’s responsibility, and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.

This clip is very important because it really demonstrates the mentality of a statist. They want to run your lives in every way you can possibly imagine, including the upbringing of your children. Outrageous.

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2013/04/06 ... ng-to-you/

Our bodies no longer belong to us- so why should our kids belong to us either? The government now wishes to dictate all aspects of life- and you leftists are comfortable with it. Hope you enjoy it.

In that case I'd like to know when their kids will be coming over to take out my trash.

Foolish people...

You know that they're officially "your kids" until they get into some sort of trouble don't you?

Old news…the commies stole our kids back in the 60’s.

All your kids are belong to us.

You're just realizing this now? George Carlin nailed it a long time ago, and told us, that they've had us by the balls for at least thirty years. This isn't new.

Ferno wrote:You're just realizing this now? George Carlin nailed it a long time ago, and told us, that they've had us by the balls for at least thirty years. This isn't new.

The "news" is that now, instead of denying it, they ridicule you for being concerned with it...

Ferno wrote:You're just realizing this now? George Carlin nailed it a long time ago, and told us, that they've had us by the balls for at least thirty years. This isn't new.

Heh Ferny, you'll choke but Rush Limbaugh agrees with you.

Meh, I get what's she saying but it's a little too esoteric for the likes of the people on this board. My guess it goes along with the whole "we all do better if we work together" biz.

I guess it depends of whether you believe in "community and common good", or "individual rights".

Or a mixture of both. My take on the video was that the Perry was saying that children are a product of all their environments. The stewards of those environments are not just the parents, but all the people that the children interact with. Didn't seem like to harsh of a video, but she used the word "own" and that just throws everyone into a frenzy, for some reason I guess. Then again, these are the same people that went up in arms because Obama referred to benghazi as an act of terror instead of a terrorist attack. So I don't know, but it seems rather dumb that we're even discussing something as juvenile as this.

Don't get so esoteric that you miss where this couples to reality, Cog. Take this bit.

Commie Chick wrote:Once it’s everyone’s responsibility, and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.

You could say education is everyone's responsibility, but that's an old idea. We've always known that it's in society's best interest to have a flourishing school system. But when it comes right down to it, you can't get around the fact that the children are the responsibility of the one's who birthed and raised them to be what they will be. They can be no one else's responsibility without actually taking away from the authority of the parent, no matter to what degree she meant it. My take... The masses are being dumbed down, and this is a move to governmentally manage their progeny in a managed transition from individual responsibility for those who will give it up.

I agree with the first half of your post. I didn't really see the malice in her video because she wasn't really advocating the lose of parental rights in favor of governmental control. ST, your side really has to stop doing these mass panic events all the time. Do you really, truly believe this woman was advocating something like that in a country of 300 million people? Or was she just speaking in metaphor and happened to use a word that your side went nuts about? If she said something along the lines of "we're advocating that the government come and take your children" then I think your side would be onto something. Right now it seems like unneeded hysteria.

CobGobbler wrote:.... Then again, these are the same people that went up in arms because Obama referred to benghazi as an act of terror instead of a terrorist attack. So I don't know, but it seems rather dumb that we're even discussing something as juvenile as this.

Well if the simple distinction you tried to narrow the issue down to was truly the only thing he got wrong about that disaster then you would certainly have a point. But it isn't...and thus you don't....

CobGobbler wrote:your side really has to stop doing these mass panic events all the time.

We are LIGHT YEARS behind the Dems on this issue. so maybe you should look at "Your side" and do a little self examination

There's nothing hysteric about it, Cob. There are people involved in our government and in the education system that want to have a hand in determining/shaping future generations, and at the expense of parental authority and influence (know what happens if you spank your child and they tell?). It's already well underway. You think they have any respect for how I want my child to be raised? The government has goals for its useful, ignorant masses. That's historical, not hysterical.

You have to understand that my neighbor cannot be responsible for my child without infringing on my authority as a parent. They can be equally responsible for the institution where I send my child to be educated, but even then I would say they shouldn't be without a direct interest of their own in that institution (a child in school).

Will Robinson wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:.... Then again, these are the same people that went up in arms because Obama referred to benghazi as an act of terror instead of a terrorist attack. So I don't know, but it seems rather dumb that we're even discussing something as juvenile as this.

Well if the simple distinction you tried to narrow the issue down to was truly the only thing he got wrong about that disaster then you would certainly have a point. But it isn't...and thus you don't....

if thats all that he got out of what happened in Benghazi and the aftermath then it explains volumes about the Democrats. I'll bet he doesn't even know that the Administration is Hiding survivors of Benghazi from the Senate investigation

http://the-times-of-new-york.com/2013/0 ... the-press/

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Don't get so esoteric that you miss where this couples to reality, Cog. Take this bit.

Commie Chick wrote:Once it’s everyone’s responsibility, and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.

You could say education is everyone's responsibility, but that's an old idea. We've always known that it's in society's best interest to have a flourishing school system. But when it comes right down to it, you can't get around the fact that the children are the responsibility of the one's who birthed and raised them to be what they will be. They can be no one else's responsibility without actually taking away from the authority of the parent, no matter to what degree she meant it. My take... The masses are being dumbed down, and this is a move to governmentally manage their progeny in a managed transition from individual responsibility for those who will give it up.

Sure ST and CUDA, in your perfect American freedom-loving world, it should be the parent's responsibility to raise a child, until they screw it up and create a criminal or mentally unstable child. Then that child becomes a "community" problem. How convenient. Leave the community out of the parent's affairs when raising their children, but then burden that same community with the ones that ended up as failures....... or worse.

Frankly CUDA and I are the wrong ones to be addressing these issues to, because we're both involved with families which are the exception to these problems. Frankly we know the solution, but we live in a society which currently prides itself on throwing off restraint and doesn't believe in long-term consequences to actions which CUDA or myself would probably have a lot to say about. I was wondering to my brother the other day, what choices lead to people being in poverty, to being uneducated, ... Why don't people's family lines just constantly work their way upwards? The moral depravity of our society, and the removal of individual responsibility from our mindset does not justify those who would embracing governmental ideologies which have been known throughout history to give place to tyranny and consequent suffering. In fact, it's arguably that these same parties have contributed to the causes with intent to create a need for government "solutions" which "lean" communist. So there's no excuse. They have a lot to answer for. As for society, the solution is for people to consciously and thoughfully reject ideologies that contribute to delinquency or moral depravity, and resist them zealously where they show their heads. Like we do every time we're talking about a "social safety net". There are a lot of ideas, and a lot of choice the consequences of which people do not appreciate. An important part of maturing in life is to gain an understanding, by experience or preferably guidance, of the ultimate consequences of actions or ideas which on the face may not seem so bad.

tunnelcat wrote:Sure ST and CUDA, in your perfect American freedom-loving world, it should be the parent's responsibility to raise a child,

actually!!!! in my perfect American freedom-loving world, people would actually RAISE their children and be responsible for them, instead of letting the Government raise their children for them, or even worse letting them run around on the streets. which is what is happening now with our public school systems and the current parenting standards, Schools are no longer education institutes they are glorified day care centers.
People should be responsible for their actions and they should teach their children be responsible for theirs.

tunnelcat wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Don't get so esoteric that you miss where this couples to reality, Cog. Take this bit.

Commie Chick wrote:Once it’s everyone’s responsibility, and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.

You could say education is everyone's responsibility, but that's an old idea. We've always known that it's in society's best interest to have a flourishing school system. But when it comes right down to it, you can't get around the fact that the children are the responsibility of the one's who birthed and raised them to be what they will be. They can be no one else's responsibility without actually taking away from the authority of the parent, no matter to what degree she meant it. My take... The masses are being dumbed down, and this is a move to governmentally manage their progeny in a managed transition from individual responsibility for those who will give it up.

Sure ST and CUDA, in your perfect American freedom-loving world, it should be the parent's responsibility to raise a child, until they screw it up and create a criminal or mentally unstable child. Then that child becomes a "community" problem. How convenient. Leave the community out of the parent's affairs when raising their children, but then burden that same community with the ones that ended up as failures....... or worse.

I wonder if you are capable of standing back from that rant and thinking it through. The way you imply a 'group right' to govern the fundamental upbringing of a child based on the groups possible exposure to potential negative outcome is the epitome of suicide-by-fascism. I think you just scared Karl Marx and he is a century and half long dead communist for crying out loud!!

tunnelcat wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Don't get so esoteric that you miss where this couples to reality, Cog. Take this bit.

Commie Chick wrote:Once it’s everyone’s responsibility, and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.

You could say education is everyone's responsibility, but that's an old idea. We've always known that it's in society's best interest to have a flourishing school system. But when it comes right down to it, you can't get around the fact that the children are the responsibility of the one's who birthed and raised them to be what they will be. They can be no one else's responsibility without actually taking away from the authority of the parent, no matter to what degree she meant it. My take... The masses are being dumbed down, and this is a move to governmentally manage their progeny in a managed transition from individual responsibility for those who will give it up.

Sure ST and CUDA, in your perfect American freedom-loving world, it should be the parent's responsibility to raise a child, until they screw it up and create a criminal or mentally unstable child. Then that child becomes a "community" problem. How convenient. Leave the community out of the parent's affairs when raising their children, but then burden that same community with the ones that ended up as failures....... or worse.

Is that like the Federal Welfare system telling parents they could not receive payments if the father was part of the household? How many little monsters resulted in that attempt to control families? When the govt gets involved, people get it in the 'ole Hershey Highway.

Ferno wrote:

OK CUDA, ST, woody and Will, you're all just blithering nonsense now. Glad you're enjoying the show Ferno. Things had died down a little here.

I'm NOT advocating the government raising our children. I never said such a thing. They are the last organization I'd would want to raise children. It's a cold, cruel machine that spits out bad news, heartache and delinquents. As usual, you're all assuming that I'm some crazy commie bent on brainwashing your children. You missed my intentions, as usual. I'm only pointing out that society as a whole is usually who gets stuck with the poor outcomes and parental mistakes of bad child rearing. And when a cold calculating society takes over, things usually go from bad to worse. I'll agree with that. All of you are paying for it too. By the way woody, quite a few monsters were created without the help of the feds. Columbine comes to mind, 2 very screwed up kids with normal married parents............

You all talk of taking personal responsibility and having parents that never divorce, or fight, or beat, or molest, or drink, or do drugs, or lose their jobs and go broke, but in the real world, a lot of parents EPICALLY FAIL at rearing their children. Then we get a boatload of juvy delinquents, homeless thieves, psych cases and young criminals that EVERYONE has to deal with. How do you propose we fix the problem so that the community, ie., the government, DOESN'T have to take responsibility, hmmmmmmmmmmm? Got a solution? Make parents take and pass a test to see if they can raise a child? This world isn't some Ayn Rand Utopia where everyone does what's right all the time and takes their personal responsibilities seriously as law, or religion.

Ummmm, wouldn’t these people be part of the collective training everyone’s children? I guess you have it all figured out how to keep the dregs out of the system.

No sorry, I wouldn’t want the people around here raising my children…no sorry…hell no even!

TC you are the one who clearly implied there is a problem if we don't let the community intervene in the parents affairs. If it isn't the government you had in mind then which 'community'? The church? The Lions Club? The Tea Party?

TunnelCat, you commie. Anything' is irreparable if you assume that broken is the norm. We have a lot of influences culminating in the destruction of future generations. I'm willing to bet that most people don't see them as doing so. You can't ask for a fix-all to such a problem or insist that the unthinkable is the only answer. The only thing that government can do without overstepping its rightful boundaries is to encourage those institutions which seek to offer aid to those who have become these problems but are willing to change. The problem is people. Does our present government hold them accountable, or do we have programs and "representatives" that feed on their failures? Is anyone willing to call a spade a spade? Maybe we should more readily confront problem parents in our neighborhood as contributing to this. Maybe there should be heavier consequences to crimes which contribute to delinquency... Maybe the penal system needs an overhaul. Maybe we should kick some ass instead of embracing a failed government ideology.

Trust me, I'm full of common-sense and creative solutions. But people are adamantly against not being able to pursue their lusts unfettered, and you get people telling me I'm crazy for believing that a man and a women shouldn't have sex until they're married. If you justify failure...

Will Robinson wrote:TC you are the one who clearly implied there is a problem if we don't let the community intervene in the parents affairs. If it isn't the government you had in mind then which 'community'? The church? The Lions Club? The Tea Party?

No, that's not what I said. I "said" that it's the "community" that gets "stuck" with the problem, ie., the tab, when the parents "fail" at their job. Kind of like the taxpayers did when the big banks tanked in 2007. Privatizing the profit, socializing the risk. I don't have a good solution to prevent that, since the community is too large to be a good personal, nurturing and helpful entity like a large extended family would normally be.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:TunnelCat, you commie.

"Snuuuuuuuuuurk, har, har"!

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Anythings irreparable if you assume that broken is the norm. We have a lot of influences culminating in the destruction of future generations. I'm willing to bet that most people don't see them as doing so. You can't ask for a fix-all to such a problem or insist that the unthinkable is the only answer. The only thing that government can do without overstepping its rightful boundaries is to encourage those institutions which seek to offer aid to those who have become these problems but are willing to change. The problem is people. Does our present government hold them accountable, or do we have programs and "representatives" that feed on their failures? Is anyone willing to call a spade a spade? Maybe we should more readily confront problem parents in our neighborhood as contributing to this. Maybe there should be heavier consequences to crimes which contribute to delinquency... Maybe the penal system needs an overhaul. Maybe we should kick some ass instead of embracing a failed government ideology.

The reason I see things as irreparable is because of human nature. We don't want that bad old government telling us how to raise our kids because it's a family matter. But when parents screw up and those kids do go bad, the government will probably get them, usually in prison, or as you point out, a welfare problem and a ward of the state. When kids go bad, many parents wash their hands of the problem.

I've dealt with my share of "bad parents" in many different states and I can tell you, they're all the same, every damn one of them. I've lived near people with kids clearly headed down the path to delinquency or criminal behavior, like doing vandalism or theft. But just try to step in nicely and tell them they've got a problem with their beloved child and be prepared for the "my kid can do no wrong" crap to be thrown in right back your face, MOST OF THE TIME. I'm to the point now that I call the police when some kid's causing problems and I don't even want to confront any parents because they're such conceited jerks about their little Johnny or Kathy. People are the same way with their damn dogs for crying out loud!

I'll tell you what I see as being the big problem. People have embraced problem life-styles that tend toward certain negative ends. Some people are able to do this and still keep their head up, so to speak--still maintain a degree or at least the appearance of success and good character in society. Maybe they subscribe to certain ideas, but choose to only go so far for various reasons. I would point out that the ideas can still be bad, even if a particular person manages to get along while subscribing to them. Now we have a society where these ideas abound (no need for marriage before sex), but not everyone can keep their head up. That, in a nutshell, is what I see happening.

To throw out an example using this line of thought, let's take violence in video games--video games allow people to engage in extreme degrees of dehumanizing violence at the click of a mouse with no repercussions. Now let's say that a full 99% of people can "keep their head up", for all practical purposes, while being engaged in this activity. You still have those few people who can't, and they are inspired to go and do what they are able to do in this game, having already experienced it to a certain degree. Now I personally don't need to know that 1% may be inspired by this stuff to know that being willing to do some of these things, even in a video game, is not good for a person. To me there's a certain level of common-sense there. Not to digress too much. This is a minor example of what I'm talking about, but it's probably close to home for pretty much everyone on this board.

TunnelCat wrote:The reason I see things as irreparable is because of human nature.

I think a good analogy, to put human nature in perspective on this topic, would be that human nature is the soil, but ideas are the seeds, and individual choices supply the water+nutrients. The soil will naturally favor weeds and thorns, but the final garden is still a result of the seeds we plant and how we nourish them. Kind of crude, but I think it's somewhere in there. Human nature is still there when people raise their children the way they ought to. The truth is that the world we live in is jam-packed with various degrees of wrong and harmful ideas (and they are proliferating), and it is taking its toll in more and less obvious ways.

tunnelcat wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Anythings irreparable if you assume that broken is the norm. We have a lot of influences culminating in the destruction of future generations. I'm willing to bet that most people don't see them as doing so. You can't ask for a fix-all to such a problem or insist that the unthinkable is the only answer. The only thing that government can do without overstepping its rightful boundaries is to encourage those institutions which seek to offer aid to those who have become these problems but are willing to change. The problem is people. Does our present government hold them accountable, or do we have programs and "representatives" that feed on their failures? Is anyone willing to call a spade a spade? Maybe we should more readily confront problem parents in our neighborhood as contributing to this. Maybe there should be heavier consequences to crimes which contribute to delinquency... Maybe the penal system needs an overhaul. Maybe we should kick some ass instead of embracing a failed government ideology.

The reason I see things as irreparable is because of human nature. We don't want that bad old government telling us how to raise our kids because it's a family matter. But when parents screw up and those kids do go bad, the government will probably get them, usually in prison, or as you point out, a welfare problem and a ward of the state. When kids go bad, many parents wash their hands of the problem.

I've dealt with my share of "bad parents" in many different states and I can tell you, they're all the same, every damn one of them. I've lived near people with kids clearly headed down the path to delinquency or criminal behavior, like doing vandalism or theft. But just try to step in nicely and tell them they've got a problem with their beloved child and be prepared for the "my kid can do no wrong" crap to be thrown in right back your face, MOST OF THE TIME. I'm to the point now that I call the police when some kid's causing problems and I don't even want to confront any parents because they're such conceited jerks about their little Johnny or Kathy. People are the same way with their damn dogs for crying out loud!

everything you just said can be boiled down to one thing. personal responsibility.
People take none. Parents teach none

You all talk of taking personal responsibility and having parents that never divorce, or fight, or beat, or molest, or drink, or do drugs, or lose their jobs and go broke, but in the real world, a lot of parents EPICALLY FAIL at rearing their children. Then we get a boatload of juvy delinquents, homeless thieves, psych cases and young criminals

I wasnt raised in the "perfect family' my father was abusive to my mother and I and they were divorced when I was 13 and he never held a job and we were poor. so don't make excuses for bad behavior, and none of those things you claimed have been a problem with me

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:TC you are the one who clearly implied there is a problem if we don't let the community intervene in the parents affairs. If it isn't the government you had in mind then which 'community'? The church? The Lions Club? The Tea Party?

No, that's not what I said. I "said" that it's the "community" that gets "stuck" with the problem, ie., the tab, when the parents "fail" at their job. ...

No, I think you were saying more than just a trivial mention that communities can sometimes bear a cost for their members bad actions.

How convenient. Leave the community out of the parent's affairs when raising their children, but then burden that same community with the ones that ended up as failures....... or worse.

You attributed a position to ST and Cuda and then gave a snarky judgemental appraisal of it. You implied that their choices and methods toward parenting were made out of convenience and are abusive of the community because sometimes those children turn out to be a problem/expense.

Someone with your attitude would be quite easily manipulated into surrendering freedoms to the 'community'. A mindset that is cultivated by our liberal leaders today with great hopes for making America a different place.

I think you don't even see how well you are programed.

I would suggest that the kind of burdens you cite are a natural price to pay for the benefits of living in a society and to use them as an excuse to steal power away from the individual and give it to the 'community' is a crime. The 'community' can't even tie it's own shoes.

Will Robinson wrote:You attributed a position to ST and Cuda and then gave a snarky judgemental appraisal of it. You implied that their choices and methods toward parenting were made out of convenience and are abusive of the community because sometimes those children turn out to be a problem/expense..

Ironically, none of my kids are or ever have been a problem. so maybe my approach to parenting actually works.

I'm willing to give lessons...... for a nominal fee....

Cuda: the reason why parents teach no responsibility is because they're afraid that little timmy will call the social workers if they take away their gameboy.

Ferno wrote:Cuda: the reason why parents teach no responsibility is because they're afraid that little timmy will call the social workers if they take away their gameboy.

Agreed. But who gave little timmy that power?

everybody else, under the guise of 'we have to protect the little kiddies! aw ma dawg!'

There is the problem. A campaign to reject peer group enforced moral standards because the source of the standards was perceived to be; conservative, religious, judgemental, etc.
The problem is the result was a quick systematic destruction of morality that was replaced with....well....nothing...

If you are a thug you are no longer a pariah despised by all. No, now you are a victim who wouldn't be going around hurting people if the normal people hadn't put you in the position you are in. To support their cause the left has created the victim class...a self fulfilling prophecy/constituency.
How else would you have a U.S. Congresswoman say, with all the sincerity she could muster, that young black men shouldn't be put in jail for selling crack cocaine because it was the only job the white man has left them to take?!?

Riding on the back of that campaign has come all sorts of ill effect from their 'cause'.

CUDA wrote:everything you just said can be boiled down to one thing. personal responsibility.
People take none. Parents teach none

Agreed, but how to you get people to take personal responsibility, or teach it? Some have it, some learn it and some never learn. Even if you took away the government meddling and flowing money, the problem would still exist. Not everyone is perfect. There will always be some screwed up kids who turn into screwed up adults. That's life. When they become screwed up adults, they end up in prison and on the taxpayer dole because no one want's them around stealing and murdering in their neighborhoods.

CUDA wrote:I wasnt raised in the "perfect family' my father was abusive to my mother and I and they were divorced when I was 13 and he never held a job and we were poor. so don't make excuses for bad behavior, and none of those things you claimed have been a problem with me

I wasn't either. My parents divorced when I was young and it wasn't pretty either. We were poor for years and had to live at my maternal grandparent's house for a while. Not fun for any of us as young children and it affected me emotionally. But even through all that, we never depended on the government, even though my 2 siblings had their share of being sent to boarding schools and had their numerous contacts with the police. Me, I kept my own personal responsibility intact without getting into trouble and graduated from college. One out of three ain't bad. However, I did turn out to be a liberal pinko. No one's perfect.

Will Robinson wrote:You attributed a position to ST and Cuda and then gave a snarky judgemental appraisal of it. You implied that their choices and methods toward parenting were made out of convenience and are abusive of the community because sometimes those children turn out to be a problem/expense.

Someone with your attitude would be quite easily manipulated into surrendering freedoms to the 'community'. A mindset that is cultivated by our liberal leaders today with great hopes for making America a different place.

I think you don't even see how well you are programed.

I would suggest that the kind of burdens you cite are a natural price to pay for the benefits of living in a society and to use them as an excuse to steal power away from the individual and give it to the 'community' is a crime. The 'community' can't even tie it's own shoes.

No where did I say I approved of turning over our "freedoms" to the "community". Far from it because of it's dismal failures. All I'm pointing out is what usually happens in American society. People like their freedoms, to do what they want when they want, but then people seem to like to relegate their failures to the public sphere like a community garbage can. Habit, laziness, convenience or lack of personal responsibility, I don't know. I'm just noting what happens and I'm NOT saying it's right. And I don't have a solution either.

tunnelcat wrote: .. All I'm pointing out is what usually happens in American society. People like their freedoms, to do what they want when they want, but then people seem to like to relegate their failures to the public sphere like a community garbage can. ..

People are being told to blame others instead of being shamed for not taking personal responsibility. There is a whole industry devoted to creating and trading that rationalized excuse for dogmatic support. It is called progressive/liberalism.

TunnelCat wrote:Agreed, but how to you get people to take personal responsibility, or teach it? Some have it, some learn it and some never learn. Even if you took away the government meddling and flowing money, the problem would still exist. Not everyone is perfect. There will always be some screwed up kids who turn into screwed up adults. That's life. When they become screwed up adults, they end up in prison and on the taxpayer dole because no one want's them around stealing and murdering in their neighborhoods.

You keep using the word "perfect". Perfection has nothing to do with it. I think you might be mischaracerizing the problem. Just because the last few generations have gone a certain way, doesn't mean you can separate the result from various social ideas, and political/artificial economic influences and call it the norm for humanity. People are actually very good at surviving, naturally, and if you take away the poisonous influences (welfare, government child support for single mothers which encourages them to stay single) which prop up unnatural, unhealthy, stifled situations, and on the other hand hold them to just and fair legal prosecution (death penalty for your neighborhood murders), and provide a source or sources of good teaching/training for responsible adulthood (private sector/volunteer/charity/church), and manage to remove the bull★■◆● ideas filtering down from Hollywood and the political and media upper-echelons about the fucked up 21st century family where parents don't have time to raise their rebellious children so the wackos in public education and the kids own peers do it, then you have the makings of a recipe for success regardless of the level of personal perfection they manage to achieve.