Loyalty to the State
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 03:34
VIEWED: 19263
PAGE 11 of 27
Anti -
You don't have to like someone to cooperate with them, to treat them with respect, you know.
All that takes really, is not hating them because of some arbitrary reason cooked up by a religion or a government to keep us at each others throats so we never wise up to the fact that we're being played.
You forgot the other, secular, half of that concept.
I don't care what you believe, I care what you DO.
Apparently you cannot seem to see good behavior, mutual respect and ethics as forces that can exist seperately from religion, but the fact is that they can, and do - people got along pretty well before Governments came along, and I am fairly sure they'll get along fine after they are crushed into the dust of history, provided they don't goad us into destroying ourselves and our biosphere before that happens.
The difference, the critical one here...
Is that I might not like you, but so long as you make no active attempt to force your beliefs at me, which you haven't done as you are arguing a viewpoint rather than using force...
We'd get on just fine, I have utterly no interest in forcing my beliefs on you, and so long as that respect is paid in kind, it makes no nevermind to me.
Can you truly say the same of most folks who hold a strong religious belief ?
-F
*PS, Ok yes, I am 'pushing your buttons' a bit deliberately to yank your chain and show you how such belief can lead you into actions you never intended, by making you your own example.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In my view, all legislation is a threat. Therefore, it should be used as a LAST resort, rather than the first. Whenever there is a problem, you will want the law to fix it, and I will want to find alternatives that do not involve law. You and I will never agree on this point.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And I think you’ve been very irrational about the issue of legislation - for some reason you seem to think it’s a threat, ...
Quote:I am unclear on what this basic concept is. Cause right now, I am reading, "[legislation] is not only the only way to fix the problem in CA, it is the way all laws are fixed in America." OK, legislation is the way the laws are fixed--yeah, no dispute there. Is that the basic concept you mean? Or something else?
...but in reality it’s not only the only way to fix the homeschooling problem in California - it is the way all laws are fixed or should be fixed in America. If we can’t agree on this very basic concept then I don’t know where this discussion could possibly go.
I think the core of this dispute is whether the law in CA NEEDS to be fixed. (If it does, obviously legislation is the way to do it.) The only thing I see that needs fixing is to explicitly define "capable of teaching." If that is also the only thing you want to see fixed, then we have no argument.
But my initial post to you was my objection to your suggestion of having "minimum standards" to prevent parents from "abusing homeschooling." I definitely object to "fixing" CA law to add that kind of monitoring.
Quote:Thanks for the link. It is good to have a different perspective, but I am not sure it is a more "honest" one.
I found a website that explains the issue a bit more honestly then some of the other homeschooling websites
Perhaps at the core of our conflict is our views of the law. Though either way is unpleasant, I would prefer the law to be vague, than for the law to be more precise but more controlling. But for you, taking advantage of imprecision to avoid control is "dishonest." You feel it is our duty to write good laws and obey them. I feel it is our duty to avoid laws, and where they can't be avoided, to have the version of law that controls as little as possible.
Maybe this is the basic concept you were talking about? You see those orange traffic cones as guidance to be followed, and I see them as obstacles to be avoided.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s right we won’t. What you are basically telling me is that you prefer a nation run by an autocracy of appointed judges, which is an anti-democratic government, instead of a pro-democratic republic of elected representatives. And as I said if you can’t agree on a braod governmental process then this discussion can go no where.
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:In my view, all legislation is a threat. Therefore, it should be used as a LAST resort, rather than the first. Whenever there is a problem, you will want the law to fix it, and I will want to find alternatives that do not involve law. You and I will never agree on this point.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And I think you’ve been very irrational about the issue of legislation - for some reason you seem to think it’s a threat, ...
Quote:You’re so stuck on this anti-democratic concept that you don’t even realize what’s going on here. The whole problem in California is that the government defined in 1953 that “capable of teaching” means “having a teaching creditential.” So put this “vagueness” in the law that you think exists right out of your head. It’s an illussion. The “vagueness” in the law was nothing more then an excuse for an appointed judge to define exactly what he wanted the law to be over fifty years ago.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Perhaps at the core of our conflict is our views of the law. Though either way is unpleasant, I would prefer the law to be vague, than for the law to be more precise but more controlling. But for you, taking advantage of imprecision to avoid control is "dishonest." You feel it is our duty to write good laws and obey them. I feel it is our duty to avoid laws, and where they can't be avoided, to obey as little as possible. (Not disobey, mind you--I'm not advocating illegal behavior.)
Maybe this is the basic concept you were talking about? You see those orange traffic cones as guidance to be followed, and I see them as obstacles to be avoided.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, no.. that is not what I am telling you at all. Judges are part of the legal system, which I want to avoid.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What you are basically telling me is that you prefer a nation run by an autocracy of appointed judges, ...
When I say alternatives that do not involve the law, I mean private, voluntary efforts that do not involve the legal system (legislature, judge, or politicians) at all.
And I do not give the one judge's ruling in 1953 equal weight as legal statute. So we continue to disagree on what current CA laws says, and what it means. I understand that you feel you are right, and I am wrong, but the fact that this issue is being debated by lawyers and judges in CA shows that there is no real clear answer. (Kind of consistent with the term, "vague.")
BTW, this is fresh off the presses. I know it is not legally binding, but it is reassuring.
Quote:
SCHOOLS CHIEF JACK O'CONNELL ISSUES STATEMENT
REGARDING HOME SCHOOLING IN CALIFORNIA
3/11/08
SACRAMENTO - State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack
O'Connell announced today that the California Department of Education
has completed a legal review of the February 28 California Court of
Appeal ruling regarding home schooling. O'Connell issued the following
statement:
"I have reviewed this case, and I want to assure parents
that chose to home school that California Department of Education policy
will not change in any way as a result of this ruling. Parents still
have the right to home school in our state.
"Every child in our state has a legal right to get an education, and I
want every child to get an education that will prepare them for success
in college and the world of work in the challenging global economy.
"As the head of California's public school system, I hope that every
parent would want to send their children to public school. However,
traditional public schools may not be the best fit for every student.
Within the public school system there are a range of options available.
Students can take independent study classes, attend a charter school, or
participate in non-classroom-
based programs. But some parents choose to
send their children to private schools or to home school, and I respect
that right.
"I admire the dedication of parents who commit to oversee their
children's education through home schooling. But, no matter what
educational program a student participates in, it is critical that the
program prepares them for future success in the global economy. I urge
any parent who is considering or involved in home schooling their
children to take advantage of resources and support available through
their county or district offices of education."
http://www.hsc.org/appellatedecision
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What? What does that even mean? How do you deal with a legal matter without dealing with the law? And it doesn’t make any difference how much weight you give the California appellate court - they have plenty of weight with or without your opinion, or mine.
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:No, no.. that is not what I am telling you at all. Judges are part of the legal system, which I want to avoid.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What you are basically telling me is that you prefer a nation run by an autocracy of appointed judges, ...
When I say alternatives that do not involve the law, I mean private, voluntary efforts that do not involve the legal system (legislature, judge, or politicians) at all.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What? What does that even mean? How do you deal with a legal matter without dealing with the law?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
When I say alternatives that do not involve the law, I mean private, voluntary efforts that do not involve the legal system (legislature, judge, or politicians) at all.
Because I wasn't talking about a legal matter. I was talking about problems in general, such as the educational neglect concern that started this debate.
See if you can spot where we both dropped the ball in this thread. Focus and keep your eye on the ball....
-----Begin Thread History------
Court decides these children's homeschool require credentialed teachers.
Finn: I'm not entirely sure that I don't agree with Court in this case...if some parents are abusing homeschooling, then maybe attention needs to be drawn to this.
CTS: You can't penalize millions of legitimate homeschoolers because some people abuse homeschooling. [penalize, as in require parents to get credentials in order to homeschool]
Finn: We should have mechanism in place to try to prevent abuse, ... if ...California has not defined the law well enough to provide that some mechanism exists to assure that homeschooled children are receiving minimal education, then perhaps the legislation needs to go back and review the law. [Read: Change the law so that a standard for minimum education is required from homeschoolers.]
CTS: We do not disband most of schooling because *some* teachers engage in educational neglect. Similarly, we should not disband most of homeschooling because *some* homeschooling parents engage in educational neglect. [Because a standard like requiring credentials would effectively disband homeschooling.]
Finn: [Unlike a school] A single parental household that receive neither monitoring by the state or some form of guidance ...has the potential be very damaging to a child's education without anyone ever knowing. ...so I say that the issue might need to be reviewed by the California legislators.
CTS: Educational neglect does not happen because no one caught it. Catching it, likewise, is not the solution. The solution is to match students to teachers that CARE.
Finn: It sounds to me like what you are suggesting is that we should just ignore the problem, continue with inadequate legal protection...
CTS: My alternative solution does not involve legislation...it calls for educational reform... Disagreeing with YOUR solution is not the same thing as ignoring the problem.
Finn: Then it’s probably useless, unless you‘re in favor of banning homeschooling. Because California law has banned homeschooling since 1953 and that can only be rectified through legislation. [Read: !!!CHANGE OF TOPIC!!! Segue from legislating to prevent educational neglect, to legislating to legitimize CA homeschooling.]
We digress and discuss whether homeschooling is legal in CA or not.
CTS: My dispute with you is your recommendation to "review the law," as you call it, to monitor homeschoolers and prevent "homeschooling abuse" (educational neglect). My point is the current standards in the law (including the allowance of non-credentialed teachers) are adequate and do not need to be augmented. We do not need MORE bureaucratic hoops to jump through to prove we can and are teaching our kids.
Finn: Yes, “review the law” as I call it, which means for the legislators to “review” or reexamine the “law” or language in the California code to make homeschooling legal. [Read: Another segue from the issue of educational neglect to whether homeschooling is legal or not.]
CTS: I don't have a problem with making homeschool "legal" (if in fact it needs to be made "legal"). It is your assertion that part of this "legality" requires some minimum standard and monitoring for homeschooling abuses that I have a problem with. [Read: I don't have a big conflict about legality. Let's get back on topic of educational neglect.]
Finn:
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If a student spends ten yours being homeschooled by parents who care nothing for the child’s education or have no idea how to care and that child grows to adult knowing nothing, (not how to read, not to write, speak, etc) then this constitutes actual child abuse or neglect, which is illegal. You cannot have an education system designed to abuse children, which is exactly what a homeschooling system would be if the parents/educators had no intent of applying any minimum standard of education. So legislating homeschooling to be legal and applying minimum standards of education to homeschooling are essentially tantamount.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If you cook at home, the state is not looking over your shoulder with a "few checks" to make sure your meals are sanitary and nutritious for your kids.
wow there is quite a difference in cooking at home than providing a complete education for a child.
Firstly, most of us cook at home.
Secondly, you can see malnutritian quite easily in a child. And Social Services do find plenty of examples of children who are not fed properly to the point of health damage.
How do you work out if someone is being educated, or craply educated? Pretty hard to tell by looking.
Quote:
The default assumption is, you're innocent unless proven guilty
not necessarily about guilt or innocence, but about capicity. The assumption we should all have is that children need the opportunity to receive an education. This is not the 17th Century. We live in a highly technological society where education matters more than ever before. There are not that many jobs for illiterate poorly educated people anymore.
Quote:
There is nothing magical about education that it requires only professionals or professional supervision. Really. Teaching your kids is like cooking meals, fixing cars, and doing taxes. You can do it yourself.
So surgeons, architects, engineers, computer programmers, biologists, mechanics, electricians, pilots all learn through magic, do they? Think I'd prefer to use the services of those who have a formal qualifications, thanks all the same.
Quote:
Places without formal, compulsory education also have major socio-political problems that prevent DIY education. You can't assume it is the absence of compulsory education that is the cause of illiteracy and poverty--more often than not, it is something else that is causing it.
really? can you prove that? the correlation between availability of education and standard of living is incredibly strong. It's why people cry out to be educated in developing countries,why its one of the first steps in picking up the rubble in warzones. It picks them up out of the crap, basically.
Quote:
However, I will agree that children do need guidance and resources to learn. Just how much guidance is needed, and how should that guidance be presented is entirely debatable. I submit though, that the guidance currently offered by professional teachers is only one of many effective ways, and is by no means the ONLY effective way, as those professionals like to claim.
I agree with you here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Speaking of that...
Conn. student suspended for buying candy
Wed Mar 12, 7:21 PM ET
Contraband candy has led to big trouble for an eighth-grade honors student in Connecticut.
Michael Sheridan was stripped of his title as class vice president, barred from attending an honors student dinner and suspended for a day after buying a bag of Skittles from a classmate.
School spokeswoman Catherine Sullivan-DeCarlo says the New Haven school system banned candy sales in 2003 as part of a districtwide school wellness policy.
Michael's suspension has been reduced from three days to one, but he has not been reinstated as class vice president.
Superintendent Reginald Mayo said Wednesday that the principal was just trying to keep students safe, but that he would review the decision to suspend Michael.
Michael says that he didn't realize his candy purchase was against the rules, but he did notice that the student selling the Skittles on Feb. 26 was being secretive.
Just one more of the problems sparked by folks taking a system meant purely for education, and using it for indoctrination.
Even worse, hypocrisy - anyone wanna make a bet with me that this self-same school has students selling candy to boost it's field trip and athletics budget ?
So what does THAT teach em, eh ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They're preparing him for the insanity of the 'real world' I guess.
But I think that it's kind of a good thing in the grand scheme. Teaches kids that rules (and later laws) have nothing at all to do with right and wrong. Besides, every time they pull this shit it's just one more recruit for us criminals. They keep fucking around and they'll be more of us then there are of them.
Score one for the bad guys.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME