Children of the State

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.

Lost User

The three monkey syndrome lives.

Stan Shannon

Than we are obviously trying to solve the wrong problem.

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.

Oakman

Christian Graus wrote:

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

Not once your lawyer explained the facts of life to you.

Christian Graus wrote:

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.

It takes two to make a marriage, only one to get a divorce.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Christian Graus wrote:

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 ?

Would he also be "forced" to decide whether the child should chew double bubble or juicy fruit? You keep talking as if someone with a gun made him come up with a ruling other than the one I describe: work it out or pay the fines.

Christian Graus wrote:

the other point is that reading the paper does not give you the whole story. It never will.

Every time I try to point out to an Australian that reading the news, no matter how faithfully, does not make them an expert on the USA, they disagree. Can I assume that the next time this issue is raised, you would agree with me?

Christian Graus wrote:

I'd get the court transcripts first

You seem to have been weighing in pretty strongly, without having done so.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

I don't believe a child cruelty body is necessary to achieve the goal of protecting children.

Unless of course, a state government sets it up.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Unless of course, a state government sets it up.

That would be preferable to the federal government. But, I would even have problems with that. I would be opposed to any bureaucratically defined standard of child care. What is best for a child should be exclusively the authority of the parents of that child. Any criminality towards a child should be defined and enforced precisely the way any other crime is. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a local community is not the perfect place for such responsibilities to be invested by a society.

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.

Lost User

Clearly Stan, you seem to know better than them who are Child Care specialists. Would you care to give some guidance of correctness where such Child Care specialists are getting it so consistently wrong. To help you, here is a small 5 page PDF leaflet for you to consider in terms of its wrongness. [^] And here is another, this time a 14 page booklet [^]

Stan Shannon

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Clearly Stan, you seem to know better than them who are Child Care specialists. Would you care to give some guidance of correctness where such Child Care specialists are getting it so consistently wrong.

It isn't the specialists who are the problem (mostly) - it is the bureaucrats who will actually be empowered to administer any such system. It will, of necessity, be a one size fits all bureaucratic solution designed not to help children but to justify the existence of the bureaucrats. Just as with health care, I refuse to sacrifice my freedom simply because other people are incapable of using their own wisely. Freedom is a dangerous thing to give to people. Those who cannot handle it should go live somewhere else or at the very least let me live separately from them.

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.