Real World Event Discussions
Loyalty to the State
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 03:34
VIEWED: 19263
PAGE 19 of 27
Monday, March 17, 2008 1:37 AM
Quote:
Honestly, if sadistic parents are abusing children whom they have closed them away in the basement closet, how does the community discover them? How many years must a child endure this kind of abuse before a mistake finally reveals them to passersby?
People who lock children in basement closets, where the kids never come out to be discovered by the community, don't report to authorities as homeschoolers to begin with.
If making sure all kids are inspected annually is your concern, then do that. Make it mandatory that all children have to have a physical and psychological exam at least once a year. Kids have to wear a current year sticker on their bracelets to show to everyone their exams are up to date. Like cars and their annual inspections.
But don't pretend this has anything to do with education. Using education as a logistical platform for vigilance is dishonest. If you want vigilance, have the guts to be up front about it--not hide it under the guise of making sure a kid is getting educated.
And btw, it doesn't matter how you check up on children, whether through testing or a mandatory bracelet or health exams or what. Criminals will find a way around it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, March 17, 2008 2:25 AM
Quote:Criminals can be crafty, but it’s your unsympathetic attitude towards the rights of children that I find just as disturbing. It’s not parental rights, but parental ego that drives someone to use the parent as an excuse to leave children at the whim of happenstance. All I said from the very beginning was that California law should define homeschooling so that some type of protection existed for the children. I can’t understand why any parent would be opposed to that. I’m not talking about branding kids with stickers or any other Big Brother attitudes. I’m talking about defining the law so that the rights of children are at least as protected as the rights of parents, but from the very beginning you’ve been completely opposed to even the considering such a thing. And I can’t help but think that this is more a product of parental ego then parental rights.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
And btw, it doesn't matter how you check up on children, whether through testing or a mandatory bracelet or health exams or what. Criminals will find a way around it.
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
Monday, March 17, 2008 4:03 AM
Quote:I did. twice. I even capitalized the most relevant portions of the answer. But you didn't like the answer, so you ignored it. I'm not going to answer a third time.
you never answered MY question.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, March 17, 2008 12:32 PM
Quote:And I explained why "IT ISN'T" is a completely false statement. I explained that if you want to use "IT ISN'T" as an answer, you need to provide proof of the statute, as in code, chapter, and section. Just saying "IT ISN'T" without ANY substantiation of the legal requirement doesn't cut it.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I even capitalized the most relevant portions of the answer.
I'll explain yet again. Hell, answer the following questions for starters, if you can't bring yourself to argue the "WHY" part of it.
Health: Parents are not legally required to bring their kids in for well child or even sick child visits. Are they?
Food: Parents are not legally required to feed their children a minimum number of calories or from a minimum "curriculum" of food groups. Parents are not legally required to bring their kids in for a periodic test to rule out nutritional deficits. Are they?
Clothing: Parents are not legally required to provide a certain type or amount of clothing to children. Parents are not legally required to submit to a periodic clothing inspection. Are they?
Housing: Parents are not legally required to provide a certain type or amount of shelter to their children. Parents are not legally required to submit to housing inspections, to make sure the home meets standards for cleanliness and roominess. Are they?
(I understand in some states, prospective parents, such as foster and adoptive ones, have to undergo a housing inspection before being allowed to parent. But natural parents do not have such legal requirements. Do they?)
Now if you answer, "Yes, they are," please provide substantiation. Don't just claim it because I just have to take your word for it.
If you answer, "No, they are not"--please explain why not.
Education: Most parents ARE legally required to provide a certain type (education provided in a school setting) and amount of education to their children, to be inspected periodically. See the HSDLA link above for citations of statutes, state by state. Currently, some parents can bypass this legal requirement by using the homeschooling exception. But you and others on this list WANT to toughen up the laws so the NO parents can bypass this legal requirement, and ALL parents have to submit to an inspection of their children's education. My question is, why is that, when you aren't clamoring for similar inspections in the areas of health, food, clothing, and housing?
[Edited to add:]
All the examples you and Finn gave are legal requirements for businesses or public institutions--not for PARENTS. Education is the only area in which the statutes govern PARENTS directly. If there is another area in which PARENTS are directly governed by law, please provide citations of statutes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, March 17, 2008 2:46 PM
Quote:Finn, Sig, you have my permission to slap me silly if I ever use this argument in a debate: "You don't agree with my solutions so you must not care as much about the problem as I do."
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but it’s your unsympathetic attitude towards the rights of children that I find just as disturbing.
Seriously, anyone, slap me silly if I ever do that, ok?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, March 17, 2008 2:54 PM
Quote:Thank you Sarge. You really have a gift for cutting through bullshit, don't you? Well said.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I won't do that any more than I'll preface every complaint about our idiotic foreign policy with overt statement of my patriotism. So keep your propaganda.
The bottom line is I don't think your solution is worth a shit. On the whole, I just don't think that government does much to stop violence and injustice. It just organizes them. And it's not going to stop bad parents from harming their kids. What it will do is insist that we all follow the same prescription, no matter how bad that prescription may be.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, March 17, 2008 3:08 PM
Quote:You demand intellectual honesty from us, but you're not willing to give it. Your solution to the problem of the protection of children within homeschooling is to simply wait until their abuse is accidentally discovered by passersby. So you’re not against someone calling the police to protect abused children if they happen upon it by mistake. That’s very noble of you, but it’s not a solution to the problem, so much as it is an attempt to ignore it.
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Finn, Sig, you have my permission to slap me silly if I ever use this argument in a debate: "You don't agree with my solutions so you must not care as much about the problem as I do."
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but it’s your unsympathetic attitude towards the rights of children that I find just as disturbing.
Seriously, anyone, slap me silly if I ever do that, ok?
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
Monday, March 17, 2008 3:41 PM
Quote:That is how crime is investigated in our society--by "accident," as you insist. I prefer to call it vigilance. It doesn't have to be "by mistake" if true communities existed.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Your solution to the problem of the protection of children within homeschooling is to simply wait until their abuse is accidentally discovered by passersby.
A lot of cops would love to be able to inspect every home from attic to basement, say once every couple of years. Look for contraband, kids locked in secret compartments, any other crime that may be going on. Hell, while you're at it, mandate those annual physical and psychological exams of kids. Don't leave it to accident, as you say, but systematically scan society on a regular basis, like a computer routinely scans for viruses.
But in our society, something called the Constitution stands in the way of routine, general searches. That is the way the founding fathers set it up--so that crimes have to be investigated only AFTER signs of suspicion are noticed (either by accident or by vigilance). Not BEFORE.
Now maybe the Constitution is an obstacle to true prevention of crime. Maybe all these "rights" just get in the way of proactive crimefighting. If so, make your case for changing the Constitution. Make your case for changing legal tenets such as the presumption of innocence and probable cause.
But don't try to pin that on *my* personal values. I happen to agree with the Fourth Amendment, but I am hardly the only one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, March 17, 2008 6:47 PM
Quote:So is homecooking.
Originally posted by SignyM:
(CBS) ...But homeschooling is largely unregulated.
Why do you want to regulate homeschooling and not regulate homecooking?
Let's try the same question from this angle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, March 17, 2008 7:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:So is homecooking.
Originally posted by SignyM:
(CBS) ...But homeschooling is largely unregulated.
Why do you want to regulate homeschooling and not regulate homecooking?
Let's try the same question from this angle.
Is that really a serious question? If so you have absolutely no sense of proportion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME