posted
That sort of stuff is one reason I'm glad that we don't have unrestricted freedom of speech here in Canada.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: That sort of stuff is one reason I'm glad that we don't have unrestricted freedom of speech here in Canada.
When you say something like that, does it ever enter the back of your mind that you are part of the problem?
The idea that people should be restricted from speaking because some find their opinions "disgusting", "sad", or even "scary", is very popular in many places.
Those on the left have their reasons to restrict speech, such as preventing feelings from being hurt, preventing alternate views of history from being propagated, etc. Those on the right have similar ideas, only they typically apply them to protecting the state from criticism.
I find the slant of the music in question to be quite disguting, but I would never imagine sending armed thugs out to stop them. "Incitement to Genocide"? What kind of ironic joke is that, to send armed agents of the state to stop people from expressing a certain opinion, and accuse them of inciting genocide?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, Is the accusation "Inciting genocide" pretty specific or is there a lot of room for interpretation?
Robespierre,
quote:The idea that people should be restricted from speaking because some find their opinions "disgusting", "sad", or even "scary", is very popular in many places.
I think inciting genocide is more than just a sad/disgusting/scary idea.
The way I see it, if you plot out someone's murder or some bombing but don't actually pull the trigger yourself, you're still guilty. Likewise, if you tell people to go out and kill someone for no better reason than that you don't like their race, I strongly feel you should be guilty of something.
Personally, I'd be willing to sacrifice certain perceived rights if it would result in making a few people's lives better.
quote:When you say something like that, does it ever enter the back of your mind that you are part of the problem?
No, because the I don't think the slippery slope argument that follows from that line of thinking is valid. I don't see the Canadian people being oppressed.
Also, I thought some of the lyrical snippets quoted in the article linked in the opening post were clearly inciteful. Whether they would run afoul of our laws is doubtful -- the law is very clearly worded and requires violence to be a likely outcome of the incitement -- but it does remind me that I'm glad the laws are there. Added: Which is what I said in my first post, but I should have been more clear in my second. Sorry about that.
Essentially, I have a slippery slope argument that I think is valid: while this material appears to fall short of "go kill all of the non-white people," I think curtailing speech of this type that is likely to result in violence is perfectly justified.
In other words, I think your Second Amendment goes too far. I've said that before on this forum, though I don't expect many Americans here to agree.
Added: Or is it the First Amendment? I don't remember. The one about free speech, in any case. Added 2: Wait, isn't the Second the one about guns? So First, then.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally, I'm not self-righteous enough to believe that my right to incite genocide is more important than another's right to be alive.
Using language like that is a pretty good way to shut down discussion and start up a fight.
You're right. Really poor choice of words on my part that incorrectly reflects my point of view. I'm going to edit it to make it more appropriate.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Educate is from the Latin ducere which means to lead, e or ex, out. Education, properly understood, is the leading out of the soul's knowledge, not the imposition or indoctrination of anything. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't really matter what the Latin meant.
I disagree. Sloppiness regarding important words depicts a sloppiness regarding important thoughts, and your casual attitude towards this sloppiness portrays a disregard for history, wisdom, and character.
Sadly, it's a democratic thing to do, saying that the word means what most people think it means, as opposed to looking to the sense of what the word points to.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sadly, it's a democratic thing to do, saying that the word means what most people think it means, as opposed to looking to the sense of what the word points to.
Yea you're right. What the word meant a thousand years ago is the relevant part, not what it means now.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Language and words change over time. There's nothing wrong with that.
Words mean what they mean because that is what they are understood to mean. It's not like God has given us a dictionary of all possible words and what they "should" mean.
There is no "should" when it comes to the meaning of words.
One of my favorite examples: decimate. Originally it meant to kill one tenth of a population. Somewhere the meaning flipped to mean to destroy all but one tenth.
Now it means to destroy or kill a large portion. That's what it really means, because that's what people mean when they use the word, and it's what people understand when they hear the word.
It's history is interesting, but it would be silly to tell people that they are "wrong" for using the current definition of the word.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, Those are pretty stong words from someone who's been wrong multiple times he's tried to say what the roots of a word are. If you're going to be a pompous jackass, you might do better to choose an area that you haven't made a fool of yourself in in the past.
And that's leaving aside the it's sloppier to assume that a word's entymological meaning supercedes it's use meaning. I don't any linguists that would say that the origin of a word are more important that what people use a word to mean.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: The way I see it, if you plot out someone's murder or some bombing but don't actually pull the trigger yourself, you're still guilty.
Guilty of what?
quote:Originally posted by camus: Likewise, if you tell people to go out and kill someone for no better reason than that you don't like their race, I strongly feel you should be guilty of something.
Something..... but what? Guilty of holding disgusting opinions? What you describe is a thought-crime.
quote:Originally posted by camus: Personally, I'd be willing to sacrifice certain perceived rights if it would result in making a few people's lives better.
Well you are free to remove your own rights, or place them in the hands of others, but please don't impose the same choice on everyone else.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Extreme example: What is Osama bin Laden guilty of, in relation to the September 11th attacks? After all, he didn't "pull the trigger himself."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: No, because the I don't think the slippery slope argument that follows from that line of thinking is valid. I don't see the Canadian people being oppressed.
If they are subjected to such crazy laws that limit their speech to prevent un-popular opinions from being voiced, they are oppressed, in my estimation.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Also, I thought some of the lyrical snippets quoted in the article linked in the opening post were clearly inciteful. Whether they would run afoul of our laws is doubtful -- the law is very clearly worded and requires violence to be a likely outcome of the incitement -- but it does remind me that I'm glad the laws are there.
How can a law be clearly worded, but yet you don't kow whether or not the songs in question violate those laws? This demonstrates the capricious and political nature of such a law.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Essentially, I have a slippery slope argument that I think is valid: while this material appears to fall short of "go kill all of the non-white people," I think curtailing speech of this type that is likely to result in violence is perfectly justified.
Enforcing such a law is certain to result in violence. Violence is exactly what is used to execute the punishment to be determined for such an infraction.
Either way, why subscribe the slippery slope that such speech will eventually cause harm, but not the "slipper slope" that such laws will cause harm? Or can one hold both at the same time... possibly...
quote:Originally posted by twinky: In other words, I think your Second Amendment goes too far. I've said that before on this forum, though I don't expect many Americans here to agree.
Wow. Well, this thread isn't the place to discuss that one.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Added: Or is it the First Amendment? I don't remember. The one about free speech, in any case. Added 2: Wait, isn't the Second the one about guns? So First, then.
Oh okay. Well, I would start by saying that any such amendment should be considered null as the constitution as a contract between the original citizens of the USA and their government has been void for some time. Fedgov has failed to uphold it's end of the bargain from day one.
I am of the opinion that rights exist as a natural property of being human. Anything like a constitution, etc, can only clarify, codify, explicitly state, but never grant rights. I believe the right to free speech, is simply a subset of human rights, which can be summed up in their entirety as the right to own and use one's property without interference, so long as one does not interfere with others. With this understanding in mind, anyone should be free to say anything, while utilizing their own property, or the property of others who freely license them to say such things.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Extreme example: What is Osama bin Laden guilty of, in relation to the September 11th attacks? After all, he didn't "pull the trigger himself."
Quite possibly, nothing. I have no idea. I believe that he set up an organization with the explicit purpose of killing and destroying property, but I couldn't prove it myself, in a courtroom.
I don't think the girls in question are warming up the ovens or tying the nooses just yet.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they are subjected to such crazy laws that limit their speech to prevent un-popular opinions from being voiced, they are oppressed, in my estimation.
Well, we disagree with you. And by "we" I mean "most of the people living under this oppressive Canadian regime."
quote:How can a law be clearly worded, but yet you don't kow whether or not the songs in question violate those laws?
Because I don't know whether or not violence has ensued, and I certainly don't know enough to assume that it's likely. Anyone wishing to prosecute under the Canadian laws would have to have better information in order to construct anything remotely resembling a legal case.
quote:Enforcing such a law is certain to result in violence.
The laws are enforced here. Where's the violence?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Well, we disagree with you. And by "we" I mean "most of the people living under this oppressive Canadian regime."
Right, so popularity=morality?
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Because I don't know whether or not violence has ensued, and I certainly don't know enough to assume that it's likely. Anyone wishing to prosecute under the Canadian laws would have to have better information in order to construct anything remotely resembling a legal case.
So the guilt of the subject of the persecution by this law is entirely dependent upon the actions of others? Sounds less like law, and more like vengence. Why not limit punishment to those who take positive action to harm others?(by positive I mean some action, not merely wishing or speaking about wishing)
quote:Originally posted by twinky: The laws are enforced here. Where's the violence?
How are the laws enforced? Are [there] friendly letters posted to the accused?
quote:So the guilt of the subject of the persecution by this law is entirely dependent upon the actions of others?
No more so than in any other legal proceeding.
quote:Why not limit punishment to those who take positive action to harm others?
Because then you have to wait for the harm to occur. You're also implying that violence and/or death is the only meaningful kind of "harm," which I don't think is valid. If you issue a serious death threat, you force a person to alter his or her life in a more significant way than if you shove him or her out of your way in the hallway.
quote:How are the laws enforced?
How are laws enforced in the general case? In order to prosecute under this particular section of the Criminal Code, the additional constraint is the assent of the Minister of Justice as Attorney General.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Guilty of what? . . . Something..... but what? Guilty of holding disgusting opinions? What you describe is a thought-crime.
Because my knowledge of American laws is somewhat limited, I was purposely being vague. I don't know what the legal term is, but I do know that if you plot a murder, you're not completely innocent.
And I think telling someone to kill someone is no different than planning to kill someone yourself. And if you plan to kill someone, whether you are successful or not, I still think there should be some punishment involved.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: No, that doesn't follow.
So why point out that most Canadians agree that they are not oppressed? WRT the law in question, only the few who may be subjected to it, or who bother to print, sing, or say anything that may be construed as controversial would have anything to be concerned about. So because the law potentially effects a small amount of people directly, it shouldn't be considered oppressive?
quote:Originally posted by twinky: No more so than in any other legal proceeding.
According to your description, it is indeed more so than any other legal proceeding. If one were to sing a song about killing whitey, but no-one took note of it, one would not be considered guilty. If one person heard the song, and killed someone "because of" that song, the song writter would be guilty. Such a structure of placing respnsibility for the actions of individuals on other politically unpopular individuals is, in my opinion, unjust, and fairly unprecedented.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Because then you have to wait for the harm to occur.
Yes, typically a crime must be committed before it can be punished...
quote:Originally posted by twinky: You're also implying that violence and/or death is the only meaningful kind of "harm," which I don't think is valid. If you issue a serious death threat, you force a person to alter his or her life in a more significant way than if you shove him or her out of your way in the hallway.
A death threat is something beyond the scope of the law. A direct threat is something different than hateful speech. Telling someone you are going to kill them is similar to actually pointing a gun at them, and they have every right to defend themselves. However, saying that you don't like someone's race, religion, government, hair color, etc, is a very long way from making a death threat.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: How are laws enforced in the general case? In order to prosecute under this particular section of the Criminal Code, the additional constraint is the assent of the Minister of Justice as Attorney General.
Laws cannot be enforced without violence. Whether it is justified or not is another question. But to suggest that laws could be enforced, by a nation-state at least, in a non-violent way is incorrect. Even the imposition of a fine carries with it a threat of violence. Don't pay the fine, and men with guns show up to take the money.
So in a situation where the persecuted have taken no action but that of expressing an opinion, the agressors would be the canadian government, where they to impose some punishment upon the speaker.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: Because my knowledge of American laws is somewhat limited, I was purposely being vague. I don't know what the legal term is, but I do know that if you plot a murder, you're not completely innocent.
Perhaps, but plotting a murder is very different from sing songs about one's racists beliefs.
quote:Originally posted by camus: And I think telling someone to kill someone is no different than planning to kill someone yourself.
Depending on the circumstances, it most certainly can be different. However, if the candian law could possibly be used to punish racist songs, it is either horribly misapplied or not related to making death threats, but to saying unpopular things.
quote:Originally posted by camus: And if you plan to kill someone, whether you are successful or not, I still think there should be some punishment involved.
Perhaps, but this is far from the issue at hand. Planning to kill someone, as you stated, can be seen as similar to making a direct threat, which a person has a right to defend him/her self from. Yet such threats are not in question here.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Just so we're both on the same page, here you go.
Added: Note that Section 318 is careful to avoid conflict with this.
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [edit: the above mentioned crime]
Nothing in there about death threats. Only vague talk of inciting hatred. Of course, under this law, reporting the events of september eleventh could easily be considered illegal. What this law does, is provide a capricious AG the ability to play to the masses by punishing the unpopular.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps, but plotting a murder is very different from sing songs about one's racists beliefs.
Well, it all depends on what was stated. I didn't see the actual lyrics of the song mentioned at the beginning of this thread, but in general I feel that encouraging people to take a specific action, like a hate crime, is essentially the same as plotting it yourself.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: Well, it all depends on what was stated. I didn't see the actual lyrics of the song mentioned at the beginning of this thread, but in general I feel that encouraging people to take a specific action, like a hate crime, is essentially the same as plotting it yourself.
So saying that murder in general, is a good thing, is the same as planning to kill some specific person?
Either way, this is way off point, as the law and the songs in question have nothing to do with death threats or encouragement to take specific actions.
I think this is a case of well-meaning people getting caught up in trying to look compassionate by rushing to demand punishment for the evil-doers.
The only crime that should be associated with the music afor-mentioned, is the crime of having bad taste.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [edit: the above mentioned crime] . . . What this law does, is provide a capricious AG the ability to play to the masses by punishing the unpopular.
This doesn't have to be considered punishing the unpopular. There are ways to voice opinions in ways that do not lead to a breach of peace.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, under this law, reporting the events of september eleventh could easily be considered illegal.
That isn't true. Certainly not the "easily" part, as it's a huge stretch to even make that suggestion.
quote:What this law does, is provide a capricious AG the ability to play to the masses by punishing the unpopular.
It requires the Attorney General's consent. That doesn't imply that the Attorney General can go around prosecuting people willy-nilly simply by giving himself his consent. Frivolous prosecutions would come into conflict with the Charter.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: This doesn't have to be considered punishing the unpopular.
You can consider it building bridges to the moon if like, the imprecise nature of the law and it's uses remains.
quote:Originally posted by camus: There are ways to voice opinions in ways that do not lead to a breach of peace.
And if you are wrong about that, WRT a specific comment, you should be held criminally responsible? For example, reporting of the OJ Simpson verdict in LA California, which directly incited hatred which led to real property demage, riots, etc?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Either way, this is way off point, as the law and the songs in question have nothing to do with death threats or encouragement to take specific actions.
I think this is a case of well-meaning people getting caught up in trying to look compassionate by rushing to demand punishment for the evil-doers.
The only crime that should be associated with the music afor-mentioned, is the crime of having bad taste.
I think there are two different discussion taking place in this thread.
1. Should the government be able to restrict or limit freedom of speech in certain instances?
2. Is the song mentioned in this thread punishable, or merely bad taste?
Regardging 1, I feel the answer is yes, but only in very specific instances. Regarding 2, from what I can see, I would agree with "The only crime that should be associated with the music afor-mentioned, is the crime of having bad taste. "
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't White Seperatism really just another mixed-up religion? I don't see a lot of difference between white/black seperatists and conservative religious types who think their religious culture shouldn't mingle with the rest of the world to keep the race/culture purse, such as marrying outside of the faith. The arguments for both boil down to pretty much the same thing, and both ignore the essential goodness of people outside of their group in favor of the imagined superiority of their own group.
In other words,
"This country/town is a Christian country/town"
and
"This country/town is a white country/town"
are the same thing, are they not?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: That isn't true. Certainly not the "easily" part, as it's a huge stretch to even make that suggestion.
Not at all. I said "easily considered", not easily convicted. And in many cases, and indictment is as good as a conviction, at least where public opinion is concerned.
But it's easy for you to impute your own amendments to this law, such as the understanding that it shouldn't apply to news reporting, or perhaps to the teaching of history. But such unstated amendments don't prevent real abuses by AG's. Suppose a student went to a lecture about the holocaust, then became so filled with hatred towards Germans, that this student then went off and killed a german tourist in Toronto. Would the lecturer be guilty of a 319?
quote:Originally posted by twinky: It requires the Attorney General's consent. That doesn't imply that the Attorney General can go around prosecuting people willy-nilly simply by giving himself his consent. Frivolous prosecutions would come into conflict with the Charter.
And then what? The charter would rise up, having taken some living coporeal form, and defend itself? What if the entire legal establishment is in agreement? In my opinion, the law remains unjust.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you are wrong about that, WRT a specific comment, you should be held criminally responsible? For example, reporting of the OJ Simpson verdict in LA California, which directly incited hatred which led to real property demage, riots, etc?
To be fair, you have to at least consider the motive of what is being said. In any case, I'm not trying to make a blanket statement saying that anything that may offend someone should be punishable. Rather, if you incite hatred with malicious intent, that shouldn't be ignored as just another opinion protected by free speech.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: To be fair, you have to at least consider the motive of what is being said.
And how can such a thing be discovered?
quote:Originally posted by camus: In any case, I'm not trying to make a blanket statement saying that anything that may offend someone should be punishable. Rather, if you incite hatred with malicious intent, that shouldn't be ignored as just another opinion protected by free speech.
Right, but by even having such a law written, the definitions of malicious intent, hatred, and other such non-specific and often unknowable things become tools by which governments can punish viewpoints which they disagree with.
I say that "inciting hatred" is such a non-specific and loosely defined term as to be entirely useless in predicting whether or not one's actions can be considered legal.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't White Seperatism really just another mixed-up religion?
I would agree with that. In fact, if someone wants to write a book or sing a song about why they are proud to be white, fine with me. But when the purpose is to cause harm to the specific group, that's where I think a line should be drawn. Obviously it would be hard to determine a malicious motive, so that just reinforces the idea that government interference would be very limited, the prosecution would have to prove with undisputable evidence the guilt.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The charter would rise up, having taken some living coporeal form, and defend itself?
The Charter carries the kind of weight in this country that the Bible carries with fanatical Christians. It is not to be trifled with. So yes, in a sense.
Additionally, as part of the Constitution the Charter takes precedence; if a law conflicts with the Charter then the law is unconstitutional. In such an event the courts can be expected to strike the law down.
quote:What if the entire legal establishment is in agreement?
In what country would such a thing occur? It certainly isn't this one. You [seem to] have a deep-rooted fear of governmental authority that in my opinion is unjustified with respect to Canada. If this law is so prone to abuse when interpreted in accordance with our Constitution, other laws, and legal precedents, then where are these supposed abuses? There aren't any.
"It might be abusable in this hypothetical and unrealistic context" isn't grounds for striking down a law. It's grounds for phrasing the law carefully, and I think that's what was done here. I certainly don't think the law is unjust; indeed, as I said at the outset, I'm glad it's there.
Added: Oops, I left out a "seem to," since I'm obviously not a mind-reader. I'll put it in.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right, but by even having such a law written, the definitions of malicious intent, hatred, and other such non-specific and often unknowable things become tools by which governments can punish viewpoints which they disagree with.
I agree that there is room for government abuse of power, and I don't have a good answer as to how to determine what is legal and what is not or how to prevent its abuse.
Yes, the government can punish viewpoints they disagree with, but if that power is limited to such things as viewpoints towards ethnic cleansing and racial hatred, I don't see how that can be all that oppressive.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obviously it would be hard to determine a malicious motive, so that just reinforces the idea that government interference would be very limited, the prosecution would have to prove with undisputable evidence the guilt.
Indeed, and as far as I'm aware only one person has been prosecuted under the relevant section of the Criminal Code.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: You [seem to] have a deep-rooted fear of governmental authority that in my opinion is unjustified with respect to Canada.
The government of Canada operates on a voluntary basis?
The only reason I don't specifically fear the government of Canada is because I wasn't born there.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: It's grounds for phrasing the law carefully, and I think that's what was done here.
So incitement to hatred is a careful phrase? What does it mean?
This law is similar in it's non-specificity to the Sherman Anti-Trust act in the US which supposedly protects us from monopolies. Of course, such a law is only employed when the monied interest supporting group A in government demand that their competitors be taken down for them. Any law which uses such dangerously vague terms as does the canadian anti-speech law, it becomes dangerous. While you may not see it being abused right now, all it takes is a few elections, and then those who may disagree with your political views could be sitting behind the wheel, using that law to punish history professors, et al.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: I agree that there is room for government abuse of power, and I don't have a good answer as to how to determine what is legal and what is not or how to prevent its abuse.
Nor do I, but a good start would be to remove your consent for the enforcement of such laws as anti-speech 319.
quote:Originally posted by camus: Yes, the government can punish viewpoints they disagree with, but if that power is limited to such things as viewpoints towards ethnic cleansing and racial hatred, I don't see how that can be all that oppressive.
You don't? So you don't see the typical Continental European(present in France, Germany, and others) laws which ban possession of swastikas or other hate symbols, and laws which punish any expressing revisionist opinions about the holocaust as oppressive? There was an incident in france where a professor was punished for writing a paper about the crimes of the Soviets in the Ukraine and Poland, because he was "diminishing the importance of the holocaust".
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Incitement to hatred where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is a careful phrase, yes.
Right. So what units do we use to measure the likelihood that incitement to hatred will lead to a breach of the peace? Do those measurements come in Bin-Ladens? Or Kilo-Farrakhans? Or Milli-Hitlers?
And what is the threashold of likely? Above 50%? 65%? 75%?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like homeschooling is the contributing factor to these children's indoctrination. Yep, here's another wacko homeschooler that made the news so lets single that out as the factor. These people would be wacked with or without homeschooling. News being the machine it is you usually only hear about the wackos. Not the hundreds of thousands of homeschoolers whose children are well-adjusted, well-educated and positive contributors to society.
Rant aside, when is the change over from merely repeating what we are taught and having those views become what we believe? I guess in other words when is the turning point?
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wendybird: Like homeschooling is the contributing factor to these children's indoctrination. Yep, here's another wacko homeschooler that made the news so lets single that out as the factor. These people would be wacked with or without homeschooling. News being the machine it is you usually only hear about the wackos. Not the hundreds of thousands of homeschoolers whose children are well-adjusted, well-educated and positive contributors to society.
Exactly. We don't typically hear the phrase "...a public school graduate..." attached to every other story on the nightly news.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Added 2: Wait, isn't the Second the one about guns? So First, then.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
