Loyalty to the State
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 03:34
VIEWED: 19263
PAGE 22 of 27
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Your post makes absolutely no sense.
Neither did yours.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you have problems understanding the story maybe you should click on the link to get the complete version before it goes away. The link will stay active for a week, more or less.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The other day I heard about a traffic accident. One driver was doing the speed limit, had his seatbelt on, and was not following the car in front too closely. Another driver going the opposite direction feel asleep at the wheel.
Other drivers beeped their horns as the asleep driveer weaved all over the road. Pedestrians shouted and waved their arms, trying to wake him up. Unfortunately the driver didn't wake up, and collided head-on with the first driver killing him instantly.
When asked about the accident, the asleep driver said he had done the best he could, given that he didn't believe that humans actually needed sleep, and growled that it was nobody's else's business but his own, that they shouldn't be interfering with his right to drive.
"And thanks for playing Really Bad Analogies!"
Thanks for making my point.
No matter how many laws and/or policies are in place, bad things will continue to happen. In my analogy, someone died even though driving is one of the most highly regulated 'rights' that we posess. No matter how many laws and/or policies are in place to regulate home schooling and/or 'parental rights', bad things will continue to happen to kids. The couple in Rue's scenario will face the consequences of their actions, as will the driver in my analogy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you have problems understanding the story maybe you should click on the link to get the complete version before it goes away. The link will stay active for a week, more or less.
It's not the story but the context that I have problems understanding.
If one child dies because of their parents religious beliefes, do you outlaw religion?
If one child drowns in a swimming pool, do you ban all swimming pools, rivers, lakes, and oceans?
If one child chokes to death on their lunch, do you make all food illegal?
Why not just ban all child birth so that no children will die at all?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"No matter how many laws and/or policies are in place to regulate home schooling and/or 'parental rights', bad things will continue to happen to kids."
If you had read the thread you'd understand that the issue has devolved to parents isolating children from school, doctors and the legal system. Is it their 'right' to isolate their children from any safety nets out there ?
And if you had read the article at all you'd understand that it's not a case of 'how many laws and/or policies' because there currently are no laws in that state. Which does render your post rather moot, I might add.
Finally, the argument you seem to be making is that since 'bad things will continue to happen' no matter how many laws/ regulations there are on the books perhaps we should just get rid of all laws/ regulations. Because zero is a number too and 'how many' there are makes no difference. Or, to use your really bad analogy we should get rid of any laws about which side of the street to drive on, about driving while impaired (being too tired is being legally impaired), and about taking away licenses for cause.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And on a more general note, I'm sure a lot of people would read this and think THEY wouldn't be so ignorant, so unrealistic, so foolish - because they know better, they have good reasons for doing what they do.
But I keep thinking - except for people who are truly batshit crazy and hearing voices - and sociopaths (who outright admit to anyone who asks that pain is the only thing they can connect with) - everybody has a socially-formulated 'reason' that makes what they do all right. Nixzmary's stepfather did what he did b/c she was evil and ruining food. These people did what they did b/c it was a matter of faith.
And it's a truism. Everyone thinks that their reasons are good. People in general do really backwards and brutal things that way. No one is going to think: I did this because it was a stupid mean thing to do and that's why I picked it. And I think any parent here should see themselves in these stories - at least in the potential for their ideas to blind them to the reality of their choices.
So, justifications and rationalizations aside, how does a parent get feedback on what they're doing ? Personally, I would never put myself in the position of claiming to be the perfect and only authority. I would want some feedback, oversight and external perspective.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you had read the thread you'd understand that the issue has devolved to parents isolating children from school, doctors and the legal system. Is it their 'right' to isolate their children from any safety nets out there ?
First off, are you saying only posts addressing your topic of choice are allowed.
Second, I believe we live by the adage "innocent until proven guilty". I think 'parental rights' should supercede 'state rights' unless proven otherwise.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And if you had read the article at all you'd understand that it's not a case of 'how many laws and/or policies' because there currently are no laws in that state. Which does render your post rather moot, I might add.
And your position is?
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finally, the argument you seem to be making is that since 'bad things will continue to happen' no matter how many laws/ regulations there are on the books perhaps we should just get rid of all laws/ regulations. Or, to use your really bad analogy we should get rid of any laws about which side of the street to drive on, about driving while impaired (being too tired is being legally impaired), and about taking away licenses for cause.
You really didn't get the gist of my post at all.
Show me where I advocated getting rid of all laws.
It is your position that parents should not be allowed to raise their kids without some agency checking up on them.
Driving, as stated above, is one of the most highly regulated 'rights' we have. Still accidents happen and many deaths occur even though laws exist and police enforce those laws.
Perhaps if you could clarify how you think we can prevent bad parents from doing bad things it might clear things up. Are you advocating home visits from some government agency? Perhaps monthly parenting tests (perhaps this could occur for drivers as well). Maybe a year long course where instead of a diploma, you recieve your child rearing certificate. How would Rue accomplish this without forcing the majority of good parents to not only go through this process but fund it as well.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are saying it doesn't matter HOW MANY laws there are. If it REALLY doesn't matter then zero is as good a number of laws as any other number. So how about zero ?
What you mean to say is that MORE laws won't help. But your formulation isn't logical and can lead to the conclusion above.
You need to refine your argument so that it doesn't fall apart at the very start.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You are saying it doesn't matter HOW MANY laws there are. If it REALLY doesn't matter then zero is as good a number of laws as any other number. So how about zero ?
What you mean to say is that MORE laws won't help. But your formulation isn't logical and can lead to the conclusion above.
You need to refine your argument so that it doesn't fall apart at the very start.
How about addressing my point, not how I'm making it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would address your point if I could figure out what it is. Logically, what you are saying is that having no laws for anything would be reasonable. By your example what I THINK you mean is that having some laws and regulations can be useful in preventing the vast majority of 'bad things'. But that some bad things will happen anyway.
So what you seem to be looking for is where to draw the line on how closely things are regulated, not whether to have regulations at all.
But then, I'm not sure. I have two choices in front of me to discuss, and there are probably more, but only you can tell me what it is you mean.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME