Really? So is it wrong to force children to go to school and learn about maths and history if the parents don't want them to?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, a lot of Puppy's statements about worsening conditions concerning teen pregnancy and the like are not born out by the statistics; if anything, there has been a downtick (or flattening, depending on your time period).
I would give two rationales I'm in favor of to explain these stats. Despite increasing explicitness in TV and entertainment in general, the rates have fallen, a) partially due to the AIDS scare; and b) due to increasingly common "comprehensive" sex ed programs (either through school, or ad hoc through the media), that I think made the self-reporting more honest (I think earlier stats were over-inflated out of stigma that one OUGHT to have sex by some mythical age) as well as actually taught people stuff that let them make better decisions.
-Bok
EDIT: These are only teen sex stats. I don't know if the increased abortion/teen pregnancy statements of Puppy are true or not.
posted
So what if the only thing you want your children to learn is to go out and kill black people, is that okay too?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean do you find it ok in the same way you seem to think it's ok for a parent to decide they don't want their child to learn maths.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
It is absolutely the parents' right to control what their child is taught.
It is the school's responsibility to teach the children what they need to know to meet state and federal-regulated standards.
These do not always match.
As to whether or not any particular subject is right or wrong, that's up to the parent, and you're welcome to try to persuade the parent to your views. Now if the parent teaches the child to do something illegal and the child acts on that, then we get into legal matters...
None of that touches on what Dagonee personally may or may not think of the subject.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Edited to add: the parent gets priority. In your "killing all blacks" example, it might be illegal to promote a crime, have to defer to Dagonnee on that one. Otherwise I'd say the parent has that right and there it stops unless the kid is stupid enough to actually try it.
You can't legislate people to make them stop being idiots.
[ November 11, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
So you think it's right that a parent shouldn't have to have their child taught maths if they don't want to.
I'm not dodging. You're asking two different things and I'm answering two different ways. Read the sentence quoted above again.
I think it wrong that parents be forced to do X.
That does not mean I think it is right for parents to not do X.
quote:Do you think it is also right for a parent to teach their child that their sole goal in life is to kill black people?
The also is highly misplaced here. Again, I don't think it's right for parents not to make sure their children learn math. I don't think it's right for parents to teach their children to kill black people.
quote: the parent gets priority. In your "killing all blacks" example, it might be illegal to promote a crime, have to defer to Dagonnee on that one. Otherwise I'd say the parent has that right and there it stops unless the kid is stupid enough to actually try it.
Stupid enough? Perhaps you don't understand what a child is. It can only know what it has been told. If a child is brought out in the middle of no-where with no idea of laws and it's whole understanding of life comes from an insane racist, how is the child stupid when it acts on how it has been taught?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am not being anal about the word right. You're using it in two different manners and expecting me not to notice.
I'm not using it in two different manners, you haven't sussed me out, despite what you may think. I meant it in the same way both times, trying not to connect you with the idea of killing blacks being acceptable.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now you've set up a situation involving an isolated commune filled with training camps that turn out fully armed, black-person-killing children. That, I admit, might be on the wrong side of the law.
I guess the real question is how far do you plan to push this example until you get the answer you're looking for?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In your "killing all blacks" example, it might be illegal to promote a crime, have to defer to Dagonnee on that one.
Very fuzzy. In general, speaking to the actual criminal actor can be a criminal act if it incites a specific crime (including a specific (alhtough possibly unidentified) victim), solicits someone to commit the crime, expresses agreement to commit the crime, helps someone figure out how to commit the crime, or somehow assists in the commission of the crime. I'm sure I've missed a few.
In this case, if the parents are saying in general, "You should kill black people," they might not have culpability. If they say, "go out and kill us a black person," they probably do. There's lots of room between the two for law professors to torture us with.
This ignores tort liability, which the parents might have for their general teaching.
Dagonee P.S., Of course, there are crimes that are committed by speaking - threats, coercion, extortion, etc.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not using it in two different manners, you haven't sussed me out, despite what you may think. I meant it in the same way both times, trying not to connect you with the idea of killing blacks being acceptable.
You've used it as an adjective meaning "conforming with or conformable to morality" and you've used it in the noun sense meaning "something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."
posted
Thank you, you'll notice I'm no longer asking it.
And I meant the adjective as "something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are an awful lot of things taught children, by parents and by teachers, that I disagree with. There are a lot of things that aren't being taught that I think should be. I have very strong opinions on what I consider to be "right" and "wrong" when it comes to a school curriculum.
But I do not believe I have the right to force those opinions. You've been taking that answer and suggesting that it means I think different opinions are "right."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are an awful lot of things taught children, by parents and by teachers, that I disagree with. There are a lot of things that aren't being taught that I think should be. I have very strong opinions on what I consider to be "right" and "wrong" when it comes to a school curriculum.
But I do not believe I have the right to force those opinions. You've been taking that answer and suggesting that it means I think different opinions are "right."
Ok, so why is the training camp idea different then?
quote: An adjective can't be "something."
Well then I apologise, I can only tell you how I meant it, and how I would have responded had you not dragged it out. It was not a trap so that I could go "OMG YOU ****ING RACIST!"
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't drag it out. I answered the questions as asked, and the distinction was clear in my answers by the 8th post overall on this page when I said:
quote:I don't "think it's ok for a parent to decide they don't want their child to learn maths."
I don't think they should be forced to make their child learn math.
posted
Dammit, I wasn't being a freakin' grammar nazi. I was answering the questions he asked. I was being careful about the wording I used because I wanted to express my views precisely.
posted
Ok, so why is the training camp idea different then?
OK, so what if the parent has the kid in an isolation chamber, with electrodes attached to sensitive areas, and there's this video screen in front of the kid's face, and the parent flashes images across the screen and delivers painful electric shocks whenever someone black is shown. Would that be "right?" Huh? Huh?
I don't think teaching your child to kill blacks is right. I don't know how to say that any more clearly.
I don't think I have the right to stop you from doing it. I don't know how to say that any more clearly, either.
If you're going to add more conditions, then I'll respond to those conditions.
"What if the kid is kept isolated?" "Then there may be charges of abuse necessary." "What if the kid is trained and allowed to shoot blacks for practice?" "Then both he and the parent and anyone else involved is charged with murder."
But the right to teach remains the same. At no point have I suggested I think it's right to kill blacks.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
***DISCLAIMER: I WILL NOT TAKE ANYONE'S COMMENTS AS BEING RACIST, YOU DO NOT NEED TO SAY YOU ARE NOT RACIST***
*****NOTE: PLEASE READ DISCLAIMER*****
That's seriously insane, Chris. Why should parents have that much control over their children? Simply because they manage to have sex and shoot the baby out successfully they can now brainwash this child anyway they want?
There are sometimes when somebody's morals interfere with logic. During these times, logic must be given priority. If it is going to help teens avoid unwanted pregnancies by teaching them about the consequences of sex, it makes sense to teach them about the consequences of sex.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's seriously insane, Chris. Why should parents have that much control over their children? Simply because they manage to have sex and shoot the baby out successfully they can now brainwash this child anyway they want?
Yup.
I draw a distinction, as apparently you don't, between teaching a child it's okay to kill blacks and teaching a child exactly how to kill blacks and urging them to do so. Your questions ranged across both those options and treated them as equal.
Parents are welcome to brainwash their children however they like. Most opt to brainwash their children in a positive manner.
What, precisely, are you offering as an alternative? What level of governmental control would you like over parenting techniques? Who decides? Where do we get the manpower? Do parents have to submit their curriculum to an agency, or are the children tested on their black-killing abilities on an annual basis?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you make a post without being cynical, Chris?
The drawing the line argument is a silly one. It is necessary to draw a line on morality, simply because it is hard to draw a line doesn't make the idea bad.
Perhaps it's easy for you to just sit there and say "Most opt to brainwash their children in a positive manner." but parents that don't raise their children well can seriously damage them. Isn't that obvious?
What if we all adopted a religion that told us to stop learning history and to ignore records of the past?
There have to be basic rules for society. We learn maths, english and science so that society can advance. We learn history so that it doesn't repeat itself. It doesn't matter if a parent doesn't want their child to learn maths! Maybe the child will be happy he learned maths when he was older. Who cares what a parent wants? Parents are flawed by their nature of being human.
It is not the right of parents to **** up their child's life if they so choose.
You need to widen a child's chances at becoming what it wants to be, not limit them by imposing their parents brand of morality on them.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It bloils down to being less afraid of the damage wrought by isolated parents (even if they gather into groups) teaching their children bad things than of the damage that could be wrought by a single, centrally controlled, mandatory teaching program.
Central standards are fine, because the check on them is withdrawal of children from school if those standards are acceptable to a broad range of parents.
Frankly, I find the idea that the government knows better than parents how to teach their kids very frightening.
quote:Frankly, I find the idea that the government knows better than parents how to teach their kids very frightening.
As do I.
I do not have problems with their being minimal standards in regards to education - in other words, if someone decides to take their kids out of public schools to homeschool them, I don't have a problem with the state demanding they meet some basic standards before being allowed to have a high school diploma (such as an exit exam that all seniors must pass to be awarded a diploma, so long as the homeschooled students aren't being held to a different standard than the publicly schooled kids).
But I absolutely believe the state has no business telling the parents what they can and cannot teach.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jebus, what if I dig up a few studies that show that children are happier when they believe in a religion? Clearly parents raising kids in an athiest or agnostic home is bad for the child, and why should it be the parents right to do so? Better cart the kid off and make sure they get properly educated.
I'm curious though, what exactly are you suggesting we do about the problem of parents not being good enough? I find the idea of goverment laws about what parents can and can not tell the child to be more than reminscent of 1984.
posted
Hobbes you have made this into a religious thing, when it just simply isn't. One can be religious and still be taught the consequences of sex.
quote: I'm curious though, what exactly are you suggesting we do about the problem of parents not being good enough? I find the idea of goverment laws about what parents can and can not tell the child to be more than reminscent of 1984.
I'm suggesting the government has a limited responsibilty in assuring that children don't ruin their lives because of their parents morals. Perhaps this sounds like communism to you, but it's sounds like common sense to me.
Belle,
quote: But I absolutely believe the state has no business telling the parents what they can and cannot teach.
Why? What has a parent done that says they should be allowed to ruin their child's life if they wish?
I find it similar to the idea of abortion. "It's my child and I can do what I want with it".
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why? What has a parent done that says they should be allowed to ruin their child's life if they wish?
They gave birth to them.
It's different from abortion because the legalization of abortion depends on the fact that a fetus is not considered a child. If it were recognized as a separate human being, then Roe vs. Wade would be overturned.
The argument for abortion isn't "It's my child, I can do what I want with it", but rather "It's my body, I can do what I want with it."
I don't agree with that argument (because I think it is a child) but that is why it's a different situation.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because there's no real consensus as to what teachings (or lack of teachings) will ruin a child's life.
But do we have a general consensus that unwanted pregnancies among teens are a bad thing for the teenager?
quote:Are you in favor of making the Amish teach their children more than they are taught now?
I'm in favour of making it mandatory for the Amish children to learn about the consequences of sex.
quote: They gave birth to them.
So?
Where exactly does it stop and why? Why do children have to go to school? Why aren't parents allowed to beat their children? Why aren't parents allowed to kill their children?
You say they know what's best for the child, why these limitations?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where does it stop? Can they force parents to teach their children that Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Hindusim/Buhdism is false? Can they mandate the diet parents give their children? Can they force parents to give their children popular clothing because children in popular clothing aren't picked on as much?
You say you have to draw a line somewhere. My line is giving the government control over thought and/or speech.
posted
But by forcing them to go to school they are controlling their thoughts to a limited extent.
My line is giving the parents total control over their children. I believe there needs to be a split control, with the government maintaining a very basic level of knowledge. Sexual education being one of these.
posted
My line is giving the parents total control over their children. I believe there needs to be a split control, with the government maintaining a very basic level of knowledge. Sexual education being one of these.
Then we could have skipped a whole page of argument. Such a line exists, and has been mentioned at several points here. The states do have a clearly stated list of material that children are expected to have learned at certain ages. It even mentions in the original CSM article that knowledge of reproductive contraception is on Texas' state-required list.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But parents don't have complete control over their children - there are child abuse and neglect laws, for instance.
Complete control over what they learn.
quote:Further, children cannot be "forced to go to school." Parents have several means of opting out - homeschooling, for instance.
And during homeschooling, what do they learn? They have the same basic requirements as in school. You know I didn't just mean the fact they are forced to go to that building called school.
quote:Then we could have skipped a whole page of argument. Such a line exists, and has been mentioned at several points here. The states do have a clearly stated list of material that children are expected to have learned at certain ages. It even mentions in the original CSM article that knowledge of reproductive contraception is on Texas' state-required list.
Yes and we're talking about wether they should have that on the state-required list.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
