If your children aren't taught the state's official curriculum by a state-certified teacher, they'll be taken from you.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: alchemize
Bullshit. For one, you have no evidence that it's "harmful to society" (other than to your partisan voting population). They are attending a school, you just don't like what they are teaching.

So they don't believe in evolution, but what if they produce really hard workers? What if their crime rate is lower? Then your net effect is positive.

The issue here isn't the impact to society, it's the impact to the way you want society to be.

So your argument is "we should be free to teach people fairy tales because it is theoretically possible that they could teach them other different things that will be good". Unless you can somehow show that teaching evolution is somehow incompatible with these other good goals, then your argument doesn't hold up.
No, my arguement is "we should be free to teach other people fairy tales BECUASE IT'S A FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT". Enough of you trying to twist my words. you are the one positing that it's "harmful to society", you prove it.

Where does the constitution give you the right to keep your children ignorant?
:cookie: for the troll.

Thats is the best you can do to back up your claim?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Just to clarify: The Law doesn't say the Children need to attend a Government run School. It says that the Teachers must be accredited by the Government and that the Government's curriculum be taught. I assume the curriculum requirement is a minmum and not an absolute(aka- other things can be taught as well as the curriculum).
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Should the parents be able to teach their kids never to see a doctor even if they are grievously sick? How about teaching them to strap on a bomb for Allah?

There are many sects that do not wish to have vaccinations and other medical treatments so I would imagine some don't go to the doc when they are ill either. point?

Teaching kids to murder? Hmm... I'll have to think about that one... :roll:

The point is that the state will intervene in such cases and mandate medical care.

There is no reason, theoretically, that I can see why the state can't tell parents not to smoke or feed their kids twinkies, because it can be seen as child abuse by reasonable people, just as we intervene when parents won't allow their children to be saved by medical care because or their wacky religion. We decide what is harm and what is criminal. What is your f@cking constitutional right changes from time to time.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Should the parents be able to teach their kids never to see a doctor even if they are grievously sick? How about teaching them to strap on a bomb for Allah?

There are many sects that do not wish to have vaccinations and other medical treatments so I would imagine some don't go to the doc when they are ill either. point?

Teaching kids to murder? Hmm... I'll have to think about that one... :roll:

His point is that if a child dies because you refused to take them to a doctor due to religious reasons you will be more then likely criminally charged for their death. Our government is responsible to ensure that parents are not abusing their kids in ways that are considered to be harmful by the society that elected this government.

The truth of the matter is just like "Free Speech" is not exactly free ( in that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater ) the so called "right" to do what ever you want with your kids is actually limited to what a society deems as acceptable parenting. So no you can't raise your kids to be suicide bomber, refuse them life saving acceptable medical care due to religious reason or keep them ignorant by not giving them the most basic of education because we as a society have deemed it not acceptable.
 

DangerAardvark

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2004
7,581
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
It sickens me to see people who think Evolution contradicts religion. Either they don't understand Evolution, or they don't understand their own religion. Or both I guess.

Or they use science when it suits them and dismiss it when it doesn't.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Should the parents be able to teach their kids never to see a doctor even if they are grievously sick? How about teaching them to strap on a bomb for Allah?

There are many sects that do not wish to have vaccinations and other medical treatments so I would imagine some don't go to the doc when they are ill either. point?

Teaching kids to murder? Hmm... I'll have to think about that one... :roll:

His point is that if a child dies because you refused to take them to a doctor due to religious reasons you will be more then likely criminally charged for their death. Our government is responsible to ensure that parents are not abusing their kids in ways that are considered to be harmful by the society that elected this government.

The truth of the matter is just like "Free Speech" is not exactly free ( in that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater ) the so called "right" to do what ever you want with your kids is actually limited to what a society deems as acceptable parenting. So no you can't raise your kids to be suicide bomber, refuse them life saving acceptable medical care due to religious reason or keep them ignorant by not giving them the most basic of education because we as a society have deemed it not acceptable.
Didn't bother to read my links, did you. You are wrong.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Should the parents be able to teach their kids never to see a doctor even if they are grievously sick? How about teaching them to strap on a bomb for Allah?

There are many sects that do not wish to have vaccinations and other medical treatments so I would imagine some don't go to the doc when they are ill either. point?

Teaching kids to murder? Hmm... I'll have to think about that one... :roll:

The point is that the state will intervene in such cases and mandate medical care.

There is no reason, theoretically, that I can see why the state can't tell parents not to smoke or feed their kids twinkies, because it can be seen as child abuse by reasonable people, just as we intervene when parents won't allow their children to be saved by medical care because or their wacky religion. We decide what is harm and what is criminal. What is your f@cking constitutional right changes from time to time.

Heh this is funny - someone who rails against Bush's invasions of privacy, but is perfectly willing to abduct kids and send them to a re-education camp. Reasonable people, my ass :roll:

Good old stormtroopers from the left
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Idontcare
"It boils down to intolerance to our religion" by education officials, said Ronald Goossen,

Community members disapprove of other schools because "we don't agree with the emphasis on evolution, which we consider false; we don't like the morality standards; and we don't like the acceptance of alternative lifestyles," he said.

Ah yes, the old "we are the victims of people who are intolerant of our intolerance" philosophy.

Tyranny of the majority over the minority is tyranny all the same. I may find their views ridiculous, but they're still entitled to them.

That sounds good in principle but it breaks down in reality. Society makes this sort of judgement call constantly. It basically comes down to if you think that the state should be able to determine what the children in it learn because of that influence on society. I am a very big believer in "yes". The fact that the state can force people to go to school at all is an imposition of this type, but one I think our country (and Canada) are very much better off for having.

If you reject this sort of state control, then where does it stop? Is it okay for UFO cult members to indoctrinate their children? Things like that? Those might be considerably more extreme then just some idiotic evolution deniers, but it comes from the same logical path and the question of either the state can mandate some minimum standards on you, or everyone is entitled to whatever opinion/teaching they want.

There is a difference between min standards and standardized result than forcing one to go to a state run school or else!

If you cant see that as being oppresive then you need to open your eyes. What happens if the belief stick is on the other shoe and they are force feeding creationism in public schools and you dont want your kid to be indoctrinated? Should the state have the right to force you to send your kid to the state school or else?

Ah ah ah, I see what you did there.

You are equating creationism and evolution. The problem with your argument is that one of those is a religious doctrine that is constitutionally barred from our school systems, and the other is a scientific theory supported by overwhelming evidence which is the fundamental basis for all modern biology. You are arguing that parents have a right to purposefully render their children ignorant, to their considerable educational detriment.

I disagree.

My point obviously flew right over your head or you are intentionally trying to avoid the obvious pitfall of your logic behind supporting such action.

My question wasnt whether creationism and evolution are on the same plane, my question is if the shoe is on the other foot and the state is supporting creationism in the school. Does the state have a right to force you to indoctrinate your child or confiscate them from you if you dont agree?

Provided the children pass a standardized test I dont see a problem with allowing people to home school the kids. This is an obvious case of oppression by the state.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Idontcare
"It boils down to intolerance to our religion" by education officials, said Ronald Goossen,

Community members disapprove of other schools because "we don't agree with the emphasis on evolution, which we consider false; we don't like the morality standards; and we don't like the acceptance of alternative lifestyles," he said.

Ah yes, the old "we are the victims of people who are intolerant of our intolerance" philosophy.

Tyranny of the majority over the minority is tyranny all the same. I may find their views ridiculous, but they're still entitled to them.

That sounds good in principle but it breaks down in reality. Society makes this sort of judgement call constantly. It basically comes down to if you think that the state should be able to determine what the children in it learn because of that influence on society. I am a very big believer in "yes". The fact that the state can force people to go to school at all is an imposition of this type, but one I think our country (and Canada) are very much better off for having.

If you reject this sort of state control, then where does it stop? Is it okay for UFO cult members to indoctrinate their children? Things like that? Those might be considerably more extreme then just some idiotic evolution deniers, but it comes from the same logical path and the question of either the state can mandate some minimum standards on you, or everyone is entitled to whatever opinion/teaching they want.

There is a difference between min standards and standardized result than forcing one to go to a state run school or else!

If you cant see that as being oppresive then you need to open your eyes. What happens if the belief stick is on the other shoe and they are force feeding creationism in public schools and you dont want your kid to be indoctrinated? Should the state have the right to force you to send your kid to the state school or else?

Ah ah ah, I see what you did there.

You are equating creationism and evolution. The problem with your argument is that one of those is a religious doctrine that is constitutionally barred from our school systems, and the other is a scientific theory supported by overwhelming evidence which is the fundamental basis for all modern biology. You are arguing that parents have a right to purposefully render their children ignorant, to their considerable educational detriment.

I disagree.

My point obviously flew right over your head or you are intentionally trying to avoid the obvious pitfall of your logic behind supporting such action.

My question wasnt whether creationism and evolution are on the same plane, my question is if the shoe is on the other foot and the state is supporting creationism in the school. Does the state have a right to force you to indoctrinate your child or confiscate them from you if you dont agree?

Provided the children pass a standardized test I dont see a problem with allowing people to home school the kids. This is an obvious case of oppression by the state.

The point is, you don't really have a point. In your first post you say you have no problems with minimum standards, but if you bothered to read the article rather than the OP's melodramatic rantings, you'd see that this is exactly what the topic is about. The province doesn't want to take the children away, it doesn't want to shut down the school, it doesn't want the children to go to a public school - it just wants the school to meet its minimum standards.

Of course, when you look at it from that perspective, its much harder to scream and whine about oppression, socialism and whatever other imaginary threats you people see everywhere.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Martin

I see you didn't answer the question, but tried to change to subject to something different. The thread (and article) isn't about minor things like what parents say to their kids, what kind of paintings they have etc. Its about the full time education of kids.

You obviously have no trouble accepting that abuse parents that are a harm to their children can have them taken away, but do you think that only applies to physical abuse? Is denying a kid an education not harmful to them?

Smoking in the home is harmful to a child, do we need to outlaw that? Feeding kids twinkies and Happy Meals is harmful to a child. Do we need to outlaw that?

I did answer the question, you just can't see the answer. If it doesn't break any criminal laws, then the parents can do whatever they please with their children. Is it always "the best thing to do"? No, but again this may be a difference in governments, but in the US it's the constitutionally supported correct thing to do.

Actually neither of the things you mentioned are harmful unless taken too far.

Funny you should bring up breaking the law, since that's exactly what they're doing - so why is it ok in this case, but not ok in other cases?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Idontcare
"It boils down to intolerance to our religion" by education officials, said Ronald Goossen,

Community members disapprove of other schools because "we don't agree with the emphasis on evolution, which we consider false; we don't like the morality standards; and we don't like the acceptance of alternative lifestyles," he said.

Ah yes, the old "we are the victims of people who are intolerant of our intolerance" philosophy.

Tyranny of the majority over the minority is tyranny all the same. I may find their views ridiculous, but they're still entitled to them.

That sounds good in principle but it breaks down in reality. Society makes this sort of judgement call constantly. It basically comes down to if you think that the state should be able to determine what the children in it learn because of that influence on society. I am a very big believer in "yes". The fact that the state can force people to go to school at all is an imposition of this type, but one I think our country (and Canada) are very much better off for having.

If you reject this sort of state control, then where does it stop? Is it okay for UFO cult members to indoctrinate their children? Things like that? Those might be considerably more extreme then just some idiotic evolution deniers, but it comes from the same logical path and the question of either the state can mandate some minimum standards on you, or everyone is entitled to whatever opinion/teaching they want.

Please stop calling yourself a liberal while you spout anti-liberal rhetoric. Freedom of belief is a basic right, no matter how whacky those beliefs might be.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Martin

I see you didn't answer the question, but tried to change to subject to something different. The thread (and article) isn't about minor things like what parents say to their kids, what kind of paintings they have etc. Its about the full time education of kids.

You obviously have no trouble accepting that abuse parents that are a harm to their children can have them taken away, but do you think that only applies to physical abuse? Is denying a kid an education not harmful to them?

Smoking in the home is harmful to a child, do we need to outlaw that? Feeding kids twinkies and Happy Meals is harmful to a child. Do we need to outlaw that?

I did answer the question, you just can't see the answer. If it doesn't break any criminal laws, then the parents can do whatever they please with their children. Is it always "the best thing to do"? No, but again this may be a difference in governments, but in the US it's the constitutionally supported correct thing to do.

Actually neither of the things you mentioned are harmful unless taken too far.

Funny you should bring up breaking the law, since that's exactly what they're doing - so why is it ok in this case, but not ok in other cases?
As I've previously stated, this is Canadian law. It has already been found unconstitutional in the US.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Martin

I see you didn't answer the question, but tried to change to subject to something different. The thread (and article) isn't about minor things like what parents say to their kids, what kind of paintings they have etc. Its about the full time education of kids.

You obviously have no trouble accepting that abuse parents that are a harm to their children can have them taken away, but do you think that only applies to physical abuse? Is denying a kid an education not harmful to them?

Smoking in the home is harmful to a child, do we need to outlaw that? Feeding kids twinkies and Happy Meals is harmful to a child. Do we need to outlaw that?

I did answer the question, you just can't see the answer. If it doesn't break any criminal laws, then the parents can do whatever they please with their children. Is it always "the best thing to do"? No, but again this may be a difference in governments, but in the US it's the constitutionally supported correct thing to do.

Actually neither of the things you mentioned are harmful unless taken too far.

Funny you should bring up breaking the law, since that's exactly what they're doing - so why is it ok in this case, but not ok in other cases?
As I've previously stated, this is Canadian law. It has already been found unconstitutional in the US.

what does this Canadian law have to do with the US constitution?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: alchemize
Heh this is funny - someone who rails against Bush's invasions of privacy, but is perfectly willing to abduct kids and send them to a re-education camp. Reasonable people, my ass :roll:

And that's really point illustrated here. No much which party is in power your rights will be under assualt, just from different directions.

I see no need for the philosophical contortions espoused here. Common sense is enough to know the government should not remove (kidnap) children from otherwise perfectly fine parents, just because they aren't taught evolution or alt lifestyles.

Fern
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Common sense is enough to know the government should not remove (kidnap) children from otherwise perfectly fine parents, just because they aren't taught evolution or alt lifestyles.

This is true, in fact as I think about public education more and more I'm increasingly turned off by it, especially when it's government mandated with a particular mandatory course curriculum (even home education has one). It's easy to make a case for taking a kid out of an abusive home, but one in which the parents want to given them an atypical approach on history and math...maybe not such a big deal. It sounds hyperbolic, but on the same path as a true reducation camp is government-mandated curriculum and education.

As enlightened as we think we are, we as a greater society consist of little more than following sheeple who are desperate for security and consistentcy and will abdicate a lot of personal control and freedom to be part of the flock and not stray too far from the herd.

And of course, having kids is likely to shape one's views of an issue like this. It makes it easier to understand why parents would send their kids to a private school or keep them at home instead of giving the kid to uncle sam for a few hours/day.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Idontcare
"It boils down to intolerance to our religion" by education officials, said Ronald Goossen,

Community members disapprove of other schools because "we don't agree with the emphasis on evolution, which we consider false; we don't like the morality standards; and we don't like the acceptance of alternative lifestyles," he said.

Ah yes, the old "we are the victims of people who are intolerant of our intolerance" philosophy.

Tyranny of the majority over the minority is tyranny all the same. I may find their views ridiculous, but they're still entitled to them.

That sounds good in principle but it breaks down in reality. Society makes this sort of judgement call constantly. It basically comes down to if you think that the state should be able to determine what the children in it learn because of that influence on society. I am a very big believer in "yes". The fact that the state can force people to go to school at all is an imposition of this type, but one I think our country (and Canada) are very much better off for having.

If you reject this sort of state control, then where does it stop? Is it okay for UFO cult members to indoctrinate their children? Things like that? Those might be considerably more extreme then just some idiotic evolution deniers, but it comes from the same logical path and the question of either the state can mandate some minimum standards on you, or everyone is entitled to whatever opinion/teaching they want.

Please stop calling yourself a liberal while you spout anti-liberal rhetoric. Freedom of belief is a basic right, no matter how whacky those beliefs might be.

Yup, Palistinial Americans should be able to teach their kids to strap on bombs and blow Jews up, right?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Vic
Please stop calling yourself a liberal while you spout anti-liberal rhetoric. Freedom of belief is a basic right, no matter how whacky those beliefs might be.
Yup, Palistinial Americans should be able to teach their kids to strap on bombs and blow Jews up, right?
Straw man much? :roll: There a significant difference between thought and action.

These people have all the right in the world to believe what they want. Just like the Amish have the right to believe that electricity and automobiles are the work of the devil. Clearly neither are going to be ruling the world anytime soon, so what are you so afraid of?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Vic
Please stop calling yourself a liberal while you spout anti-liberal rhetoric. Freedom of belief is a basic right, no matter how whacky those beliefs might be.
Yup, Palistinial Americans should be able to teach their kids to strap on bombs and blow Jews up, right?
Straw man much? :roll: There a significant difference between thought and action.

These people have all the right in the world to believe what they want. Just like the Amish have the right to believe that electricity and automobiles are the work of the devil. Clearly neither are going to be ruling the world anytime soon, so what are you so afraid of?

Why do you assume my question came from fear? I am interested in how far you willing to take absolutes. There is indeed a difference between thought and action and I was tempted to reword my question to take both into account but got lazy and decided to wait for what you would say.

So we have this situation where Palestinian Americans are home schooling their kids in Madrases that teach suicide bombings of Jews and Jews in the area are being blown up. Do we just arrest the ones who act or do we shut down the school?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
We arrest the poster who straw mans that teaching one's children creationism is the same as teaching them to suicide bomb those of a different ethnicity. ;)
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize

Heh this is funny - someone who rails against Bush's invasions of privacy, but is perfectly willing to abduct kids and send them to a re-education camp. Reasonable people, my ass :roll:

Good old stormtroopers from the left

Didn't you just get done trying to prove that if the parents want they can send their kids to re-education camps. Well that is what the father wanted, shouldn't the government enforce that wish if some 3rd party is preventing it?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: Vic
We arrest the poster who straw mans that teaching one's children creationism is the same as teaching them to suicide bomb those of a different ethnicity. ;)

I predicted as much is my very third post. Oh wait, scratch that, I mean my first post.

The issue has nothing to do with the relative rights of the individual or society and which will do the most evil, but rather the relative evil of the issue if sourced in the individual or the state, and all this contextually based.
 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
I completely support this. Just because you are born in a family of morons it shouldn't matter you should be condemned to a life of ignorance.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Modelworks
They need to leave them alone.
I have been to one of the Mennonite communities and they are the most hard working and polite people I have ever met.
I think they could do with some of the Mennonite teachers teaching in public schools, not the other way around.

Exactly. Where I lived in Wisconsin had a pretty large grouping of Mennonites. Very hard working group of people. You should also see how well behaved their kids were out in public. As to their schooling, I'm not sure how they did it but maybe they were able to fall under the "home schooling" category in Wisconsin.

So by extension of your logic, we can leave all hard working people alone, which will surely extend to illegal immigrants!
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Martin

I see you didn't answer the question, but tried to change to subject to something different. The thread (and article) isn't about minor things like what parents say to their kids, what kind of paintings they have etc. Its about the full time education of kids.

You obviously have no trouble accepting that abuse parents that are a harm to their children can have them taken away, but do you think that only applies to physical abuse? Is denying a kid an education not harmful to them?

Smoking in the home is harmful to a child
, do we need to outlaw that? Feeding kids twinkies and Happy Meals is harmful to a child. Do we need to outlaw that?

I did answer the question, you just can't see the answer. If it doesn't break any criminal laws, then the parents can do whatever they please with their children. Is it always "the best thing to do"? No, but again this may be a difference in governments, but in the US it's the constitutionally supported correct thing to do.

Yes, we need to outlaw smoking. For once, we agree!