BF2S Forums Should homeschooling be legal?

Ty wrote:

HITNRUNXX wrote:

It amazes me how many people have gone from  "The government is there to serve, protect, and represent us." to "The government needs to run every aspect of our lives because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves."

The most terrifying thing you can tell these people seems to be "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help".

Do you know who said that and the context? Second time I have seen you post it...

Ty wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

This times twenty million.

Parents SHOULD have control--until they show they aren't worthy of it. The default shouldn't be anyone else...certainly not the state. Parents are held responsible for their children until they reach the age of majority--you can't force accountability without also giving responsibility.

And "questionable"?! To whom? If their beliefs aren't infringing on anyone else's rights, who are you or anyone else to question their raising in a certain belief system? Pretty fucking arrogant/ethnocentric of you...

I find parents raising their kids to be racist or homophobic questionable or raising their kids into gang culture, (which is a common thing here.) Call that arrogant, ethnocentric or whatever else you want to.

And I would never advocate for parents to have no control over their kids or even limited control but I am saying it should not be absolute. Kids should not be anyone's property to do with as they please.

Hence the highlighted portions of my post.

I was more talking about the kind of view Turquoise posed. In my view, the idea that children can be termed "collateral" in the name of protecting the 'right' of some abusive dickhead to run roughshod over another human being is utterly rephrensible to me.

I knew someone would come up with that, but I see that as a totally different argument.

HITNRUNXX wrote:

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. Ok to kill them before they are born, but not to abuse them after. My bad.

Nice logic. How is anyone supposed to respond to that aside from "it's okay to keep them safe before they're born but after they are, fuck 'em."

FEOS wrote:

Parents are held responsible for their children until they reach the age of majority--you can't force accountability without also giving responsibility.

Which is exactly the point at which the state becomes liable for things like dole.

Isn't requiring that children have some form of education an infringement of parents rights not educate their children?
If not then doesn't the state have a right to have some input to that education?
Shouldn't the state have the right to prevent parents filling the heads of children with gobbledegook which is incompatible with a modern education based on the best available and widely agreed knowledge? - I'm thinking of creationism and invisible sky daddies whose existence can't be disproved for two. You can add crystal spectacles and magic pyjamas if you like.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Parents are held responsible for their children until they reach the age of majority--you can't force accountability without also giving responsibility.

Which is exactly the point at which the state becomes liable for things like dole.

Isn't requiring that children have some form of education an infringement of parents rights not educate their children?
If not then doesn't the state have a right to have some input to that education?
Shouldn't the state have the right to prevent parents filling the heads of children with gobbledegook which is incompatible with a modern education based on the best available and widely agreed knowledge? - I'm thinking of creationism and invisible sky daddies whose existence can't be disproved for two. You can add crystal spectacles and magic pyjamas if you like.

Setting up systems that require some sort of govt subsidy (which comes from other citizens in reality, not the govt) would fall into the "infringing on others' rights" category. Your first point falls here. Children who are "indoctrinated with gobbledegook" can still get an education, hold jobs, etc. Disagreeing with what they are "indoctrinated with" doesn't meet the "infringing on others' rights" burden, so long as that indoctrination doesn't prevent them from being a law-abiding citizen.

And it's not like these people are going to end up in the field of biology anyway where belief in evolution is a must Most people use very little of what they are taught in school.

You're never going to convince the rabid atheists that people should have the freedom to believe as they wish though.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

13/f/taiwan wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

homeschooling is illegal in germany. true story

that's some fucked up shit.

nah, stupid parents shouldn't be allowed to spread their stupidity

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”

My liberty = raising my kids by my standards, not by anyone else's.

My standards just happen to be public schooling at this time. But if something were to happen, I reserve the right to pull my kids out and teach them myself, just like I am not only ALLOWED, but RESPONSIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE for raising them to begin with.

You can't say "You are responsible for raising your kids, BUT you have to do it exactly as we instruct you to." in our government's model of a nation... The most you can say is "Don't abuse them." And then you can argue all day what "abuse" means. My dad whipped my ass with a belt, but I never felt abused. I felt like I did something wrong, and didn't want to do it again. But now a days, parents go to jail for swatting their kids in public.

My 3 year old ran in front of a cart at the grocery store over the weekend. The guy pushing it never saw him. I reached out and grabbed what I could and pulled my boy out of the way at the last second. I grabbed his hood on his sweatshirt. He wasn't hurt and I calmly told him to watch out and not run off. He said "Yes daddy." and then got excited about us buying fruit (he is a fruit-a-holic). But several people standing around started mumbling "Did you see that guy pull that kid's hood? It could have choked him. Should we call the police?" So I guess I should have let my kid get run down by a 400 pound cart of food instead. People need to stay the fuck out of other people's business, and out of other people's families unless they have a DAMN GOOD reason to be involved. By the way "That kid *MIGHT* grow up believing that being gay is a sin." is not a damn good reason.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

You say they're narrow-minded? I don't think so at all. Just because you are religious doesn't make you narrow-minded. If open-minded means you accept new ideas and whatnot that are contrary to scriptures than that's not being religious. In fact I'd say open-minded is a con is most cases meaning you're willing to accept any random crap that pops out somebody's "certified" mouth.

You kind of lost me there.

Isn't "any random crap" pretty much religion in a nutshell? You're taking all this stuff at face value.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

One of the burdens of living in a freer society, however, is having to put up with the ignorance of some fringe elements.  It's not an easy thing to stomach, but it's better than the alternative slippery slope.

I'm OK with having some controls in place so trash can't pollute the place with their feral spawn.

If people won't bring up their kids properly or ensure they get a minimal education to be functional in society and not dependent on welfare their entire adult lives then its fine for the govt to intervene on behalf of me and my tax contribution.

Well again, this can also be solved by phasing out welfare (or at least reducing/reforming it).