Children of the State

Christian Graus

Oakman wrote:

I don't understand why judges should be expected or permitted to enforce their personal prejudices which is pretty much what this guy did.

Well, the first thing I do in a case like this, is recognise that news sources want to sell their newspapers, they don't want to provide a balanced view. Without looking into it, I'd assume the judge knows more about the case than I do. Secondly, one would assume that there's a reasonable chance that he made a judgement based on the specifics of this case, rather than saying 'wow, now I can get back at one of these damn home schoolers'. Or, her lawyer is not worth a damn, if it was unfair and they didn't pursue it. One possibility to me seems that in this case, so long as the parents are this antagonistic towards one another, getting them into school is probably his only chance for a relationship with these kids, otherwise, she's going to be the only one with them 24/7, telling them that evolution is the devils work, and their father is the tool of the devil.

Oakman wrote:

There are laws that require the kids to be schooled somehow. The parents need to start working on that issue - or paying fines for every day there's kids aren't in school. Meanwhile the parents can start political action committees and try to get the law rewritten.

I'm not sure how these statements relate to this case. Both parents want the kids schooled, they went to court because they cannot come to an agreement how that should work.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Christian Graus

Stan Shannon wrote:

He is saying that anyone who considers the state inherently superior to the parents in such considerations is, in fact, a socialist ass.

OK, so he wasn't replying to what I said at all ? Typical.

Stan Shannon wrote:

There is no amount of child abuse which justifies the creation of a 'federal bureau for child care' which is empowered to ensure that parents are treating their children in accordance with some bureaucratically defined standard of child care

OK, so YOU think that child abuse is less bad than having a form of government ?

Stan Shannon wrote:

Should local communities have laws that protect children from family violence? Of course. But there is no justification for taking it beyond that.

So, if the person abusing the child happens to have a lot of power in the local community, they can get away with it ? That sounds like your typical viewpoint ( that is, feed the rich, starve the poor ) in another guise to me,

Stan Shannon wrote:

When you do, all you achieve is exchanging the probability of a child being abused by some parent with a completely different probability that the state will fundamentally destroy the basic family unit for an entire society.

This is plain ridiculous. Destroy it, how ?

Stan Shannon wrote:

he vast majority of families do not abuse their children, so it really is none of your concern.

I agree. The kids who are being beaten and raped are in a minority, so screw them.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Shog9 0

Christian Graus wrote:

Overall, I agree, I'm not suggesting the state should be QUICK to get involved, I'm just saying there has to be SOME standard

Sure. Make 'em take a test, make it the same test that's used in the local schools, and hold them to the same standards for results.

Christian Graus wrote:

I think the problem is that perhaps my statements have been assumed to be arguing with the red herring the OP threw out there

Well, #1 and #2 made it sound like you'd taken the bait, so... ;-)

Christian Graus

Shog9 wrote:

Well, #1 and #2 made it sound like you'd taken the bait, so...

My failing is that I'll make a side comment and then get lost in it, when I should really keep pulling back to my main point, which often gets lost as a result. Yes, all I am saying is that parents can't just keep their kids at home and not be subjected to *some* level of standardised testing, to make sure that what they teach them meets a minimum level. I personally think that exposure to evolution should be part of that ( I have no problem with parents teaching 'this is what a lot of people believe, but we reject it because....' , that's always been parents right, and making the parents the teacher blurs that line, but I think kids should at least be aware that there IS a debate).

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Mike Gaskey

Christian Graus wrote:

I am pointing out that Mike's implication is false, the issue here is not that parents get no say, but that the parents disagree and are asking the state to step in.

Where in God's name did you read that, "the parents disagree and are asking the state to step in" ??? What you did read was that the father objected and pushed the issue in court. Since the mother was doing the teaching it is safe to assume the mother is the custodial parent and should make those decisions, not the father and not some moronic judge, who may only be a family court judge because he won some fucking election. If there's any implied opinion on my part it is that the state is not the parent of the child and it is the parent's responsibility to prepare the children for the world as those parents see fit to do. Other wise we should just raise our kids to school age and hand them over to the state.

Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.

Lost User

Stan Shannon wrote:

There is no amount of child abuse which justifies the creation of a 'federal bureau for child care' which is empowered to ensure that parents are treating their children in accordance with some bureaucratically defined standard of child care.

So breaking a child's arm deliberately is quite OK with you as long as you don't have a child cruelty body to report and investigate. If such abuse is happening in your neck of the woods, it is likely happening in somebody else's neck of the woods as well. Having a national organization to stop child abuse enables, for example, information to be collected that can identify the likelihood of resources needed to tackle the issue and then provide that resource to in fact tackle the issue.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Should local communities have laws that protect children from family violence? Of course. But there is no justification for taking it beyond that.

So if a family moves from one locality to another locality (that could be from town to town or indeed across state borders) the probability that any existing child abuse will also move with it and the authorities have no effective means of stopping that abuse. Another reason for such a national organization.

Stan Shannon wrote:

The vast majority of families do not abuse their children, so it really is none of your concern.

That depends on whose yard stick you use make such a comparison. In many countries, shouting at a child is considered child abuse. In many countries smacking or reasonable chastisement is considered abuse. But in other countries, shouting, smacking and reasonable chastisement is acceptable practice. So Stan, what is your yard stick telling you? Not getting involved when you suspect or know that child abuse is happening in a family home within your vicinity is the right thing to do if you are callous and have a disregard for humanity. All others would report it to the NSPCC or whosoever your local child protection authority so that this abuse stops. Are Microsoft wrong in supporting the NSPCC in Britain and their "Full Stop campaign" [^]? Sometimes it is vital to separate parents and children. Failure to do so can in effect give the child a death sentence carried out by the very people who are supposed to love, cherish and protect them.

Shog9 0

Christian Graus wrote:

My failing is that I'll make a side comment and then get lost in it, when I should really keep pulling back to my main point, which often gets lost as a result.

:-\

Christian Graus wrote:

Yes, all I am saying is that parents can't just keep their kids at home and not be subjected to *some* level of standardised testing, to make sure that what they teach them meets a minimum level.

That's fair, so long as the same standard is applied to other schools in the area.

Christian Graus wrote:

I personally think that exposure to evolution should be part of that ( I have no problem with parents teaching 'this is what a lot of people believe, but we reject it because....' , that's always been parents right, and making the parents the teacher blurs that line, but I think kids should at least be aware that there IS a debate).

That's pretty much how my parents taught. I know it's kind of a big deal for a lot of people, but... frankly, i have a hard time granting it much importance. I run into people willing to hold strong opinions on evolution who don't appear to have even the most basic knowledge of the more concrete aspects of biology like, say, hybridization. So we end up with these huge, knock-down drag-out fights on a topic that doesn't really affect the lives of most people, while discussions on things like organic vs. genetically engineered crops - you know, the stuff we eat - get the short shrift, crammed full of misinformation with little hope that your average highschool graduate will suss out the bullshit.

Christian Graus

Shog9 wrote:

I know it's kind of a big deal for a lot of people, but... frankly, i have a hard time granting it much importance.

My only concern is that it's not education if it hides the mainstream view. I also think a high school science class should point out that some people don't believe it, for the same reason. In fact, I think that schools would do better to more expose kids to the fact that we don't always know things to the point where everyone agrees 100%, and use that as a springboard to discussing alternatives. Asking why SHOULD we believe in evolution, or any other topic, is a better way to get kids thinking than 'regurgitate these facts on test day' would, IMO.

Shog9 wrote:

That's fair, so long as the same standard is applied to other schools in the area.

Yes, making sure that the local standard was being at least passably met, would be the only goal.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Christian Graus

Mike Gaskey wrote:

"the parents disagree and are asking the state to step in" ??? What you did read was that the father objected and pushed the issue in court.

Exactly. If the father disagrees with the mother, then the parents disagree, and so the issue was pushed to court. That's what I said.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

Since the mother was doing the teaching it is safe to assume the mother is the custodial parent and should make those decisions, not the father and not some moronic judge, who may only be a family court judge because he won some f***ing election.

OK, so now you're stan, twisting a story so that it hits your hot button issues ? I'm sorry, but I am a father, and screw you if you think that divorce means that a father has no rights in saying how his kids will be raised, unless he happens to still get a say by virtue of being in the good graces of the mother. Am I right in thinking that you disapprove of the way you select judges ? I tend to think that voting for sheriffs and judges is retarded, too, but somehow you've ended up with that.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

it is the parent's responsibility to prepare the children for the world as those parents see fit to do.

It is the parents responsibility to do that. BOTH parents. The state did not step in here, they were dragged in, by parents who could not agree. The state had to make SOME decision, and they made it based on the facts in front of them, not a snippet that was written to sell papers to people like you who would enjoy getting enraged by the slant of the news story.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

Other wise we should just raise our kids to school age and hand them over to the state.

OK, I'm sorry. You're not LIKE Stan, you're the same as him.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Shog9 0

Christian Graus wrote:

In fact, I think that schools would do better to more expose kids to the fact that we don't always know things to the point where everyone agrees 100%, and use that as a springboard to discussing alternatives

Agreed.

Mike Gaskey

Christian Graus wrote:

so the issue was pushed to court. That's what I said.

and you apparently didn't bother to read the article: the parents were in court for a divorce proceding, the father didn't go to court over the home schooling issue. the children had been home schooled for 4 years, it didn't start yesterday.

Christian Graus wrote:

OK, so now you're stan, twisting a story so that it hits your hot button issues ?

no Christian, that was you.

Christian Graus wrote:

OK, I'm sorry. You're not LIKE Stan, you're the same as him.

in that I don't cede my life to the state, certainly.

Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.

Christian Graus

Mike Gaskey wrote:

the parents were in court for a divorce proceding, the father didn't go to court over the home schooling issue.

So, you're saying that the parents were in court for divorce ( I know that ), that the parents disagreed on the way the kids should be raised ( I know that ), and that this came out because the judge started to question them, because he hates home schoolers and was looking for a way to control this woman's life ?

Mike Gaskey wrote:

no Christian, that was you.

Fact: the state did NOT seek out these people to control how they raise their kids. They disagreed, and they took it to court. The manner of schooling was a point of contention and so the judge made a call. I notice you didn't comment at all on my pointing out that the judge had all the facts, and you have a story that was written to sell papers, by eliciting the response in you that it has.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

n that I don't cede my life to the state, certainly.

If you don't want to live in a place that is subject to laws, you should start your own country. Or if you think enough people around you also want to live in a place where people can do what they like, to whomever they like, and are subject only to mob rule, why not start a revolution and see how that works out for you ? They went to court, the court made a ruling, and you think this proves the state is interfering in peoples lives. How is that not you following some journalist in trying to create a story about something that is important to you ( and, more to the point, is kind of insane ? )

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Lost User

Christian Graus wrote:

I knew a kid who went to one of those.

My son goes to one...

Christian Graus wrote:

He was one weird guy

My son is one :)

Christian Graus wrote:

Not that I judge the whole school by this one person, of course

NO "of course" bout it - lots of people would, and do! In fact with some of these smaller independent schools, you can't even judge one school by another - at Steiner they're given a lot of freedom to interpret the 'rules' (not the right word, but i can't think of the right one now) locally.

___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

Oakman

Christian Graus wrote:

one would assume that there's a reasonable chance that he made a judgement based on the specifics of this case, rather than saying 'wow, now I can get back at one of these damn home schoolers'.

Nonetheless, he had to make a judgement call, not a legal one. While the genuflecting that goes on in courtrooms may make him think that his words are inspired by a Higher Power, his training has only equipped him to understand the law, not everything that happens.

Christian Graus wrote:

Or, her lawyer is not worth a damn, if it was unfair and they didn't pursue it.

Really? You think that cases are appealed and overturned on whether the judge had an opinion about the matter before he walked in the door?

Christian Graus wrote:

getting them into school is probably his only chance for a relationship with these kids, otherwise, she's going to be the only one with them 24/7, telling them that evolution is the devils work, and their father is the tool of the devil.

If you argue that 25 hours a week in a school can counteract her influence, I'll suspect you of pretending to be naive. Indeed, I would guess that her losing the case will make her angrier at her ex and make her try harder to get the kids on her side. My point however is whether either parent is right, nor whether the judge made the right decision. It is that this is not a matter that should be adjudicated. My suggestion that the parent be told that until they come up with a solution that is acceptable to both of them and obeys the laws of the state, they be fined still seems a logical response to the problem.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Christian Graus wrote:

I'm sorry, but I am a father, and screw you if you think that divorce means that a father has no rights in saying how his kids will be raised, unless he happens to still get a say by virtue of being in the good graces of the mother.

Most fathers think that way, and assume that it will be that way if they get a divorce. Then the mother decides to move out of state, or remarries and starts teaching the kids to call the step-father, "Dad." At the same time, of course, he's dating four nights a week and never worrying about a baby sitter, and sometimes he can't get off work in time to pick the kids up for the weekend so she has to cancel her plans and stay home with 'em, and then he remarries and wife2 is really not happy with playing part-time baby sitter to a bunch of kids who resent her existence, let alone with how much of his paycheck goes out in alimony and childsupport.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

So breaking a child's arm deliberately is quite OK with you as long as you don't have a child cruelty body to report and investigate.

I don't believe a child cruelty body is necessary to achieve the goal of protecting children. If it is, we have much worse problems than child abuse.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

DRHuff

Chris Austin wrote:

keep the discussion above the 3rd grade.

Sorry - can't do that because its not in the State Curriculum!

I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave

Christian Graus

Oakman wrote:

and assume that it will be that way if they get a divorce

Well, I more assume that my rights would get trampled, but that I wouldn't go down without a fight.

Oakman wrote:

At the same time, of course, he's dating four nights a week and never worrying about a baby sitter, and sometimes he can't get off work in time to pick the kids up for the weekend so she has to cancel her plans and stay home with 'em, and then he remarries and wife2 is really not happy with playing part-time baby sitter to a bunch of kids who resent her existence, let alone with how much of his paycheck goes out in alimony and childsupport.

Yeah, at the end of the day, life is less complicated if you can make the most of who you married in the first place, especially if there is kids.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Christian Graus

Oakman wrote:

Nonetheless, he had to make a judgement call, not a legal one.

Yes, that is true, in that I assume there's no law that could apply here. One wonders if the best he could do is to say that he knows what will be taught in a classroom, and to what level, so given that he had to choose at all, it was the logical choice ?

Oakman wrote:

hile the genuflecting that goes on in courtrooms may make him think that his words are inspired by a Higher Power, his training has only equipped him to understand the law, not everything that happens.

As I say, I'd suspect that he was put in a place where he had to decide which of the two was most likely to conform to societies standards,. having been forced to choose at all.

Oakman wrote:

You think that cases are appealed and overturned on whether the judge had an opinion about the matter before he walked in the door?

I think that if a judge is plainly unfair, then mechanisms exist to appeal, yes.

Oakman wrote:

If you argue that 25 hours a week in a school can counteract her influenc

No, I'm not suggesting it can nullify it. What I am suggesting is, it will provide some alternative views. Kids always get to decide for themselves, but they can decide only from the options they have been given.

Oakman wrote:

My suggestion that the parent be told that until they come up with a solution that is acceptable to both of them and obeys the laws of the state, they be fined still seems a logical response to the problem.

OK, that's a decent option - give them an incentive to agree. Of course if she has no job and lives on his payments, then the fine also hurts him only. At the end of the day, what makes this a tough situation is that a couple with kids decided to divorce. It's not that the state was trying to control their lives, that's my core point. The state was dragged into this. AND, the other point is that reading the paper does not give you the whole story. It never will. If I wanted to make definitive pronouncements about the motivation of the judge and what he should have done, I'd get the court transcripts first.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Christian Graus

I hope you're right, but society what it is today, I have no idea how the neighbours treat their kids, and they don;t know how I treat mine. The co-ordination of reports from doctors, teachers, etc, seems to me the best way to try to track down that sort of thing. When my wife was a little girl, her dad and some other off duty cops went around to a guy who beat his wife, and beat the crap out of him. Nowadays, I don't think people would be connected enough to notice, or do something about it.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.