Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
California - Invading the Homeschools
sfgate.com — The "progressive" State of California, is doing the best they can to make sure young children are brought up the way the State feels they should, and not the parents.
tman84- 1242 diggs
- digg it
- tman84, on 03/07/2008, -90/+210This is truly appalling news, this is what progress is? Creating little robots in the public schools where you must learn from government approved curriculum whether you like it or not. Because the State knows what's best for you and your children. Socialism at it's finest folks. It's making a come back in the country, and those of us who do not take our liberty and individual freedoms for granted must fight back.
Everyone who is in RP meetup groups, stay together, remain a group, become a Liberty meetup group and fight back against Socialism in this country.- TomK88, on 03/07/2008, -48/+98I love how "socialism" is blamed for this. Socialism is pooling resources when necessary (i.e. military, police, roads, etc.). Quit trying to act like socialism is complete thought control and communism.
- Ellipsys, on 03/07/2008, -36/+22Don't waste your breath, friendly Canadian! Anyone who cites Ron Paul as their savior is about as zealous as those that cite Jesus Christ.
- tman84, on 03/07/2008, -13/+8That's why I am telling everyone it's time to become liberty groups, Ron Paul has started the movement, unfortunately we live in a country where you are judged by who you believe in, and not what you believe in.
- FTLJohnson, on 03/07/2008, -6/+13I agree, anyone who cites Ron Paul as their savior is definitely zealous and crazy.
I imagine a real Ron Paul supporter would probably suggest that he might save the constitution... or the United States government.
I imagine that a bunch of Ron Paul supporters would probably say that considering any politician to be a personal savior in any way would be dangerous and unintelligent, because bureaucrats are, in general, liars, and power hungry.
So, I imagine you are absolutely correct. Ron Paul supporters who aren't totally crazy zealots, would probably talk more about what the MEANING of freedom is, and talk about how collective activities and pooling resources (like when a group of people at a Ron Paul meetup all pitch in to buy the pizzas) is great when it's VOLUNTARY. (ya know, not stolen from people by threat of police in riot gear kicking down your door in the night and dragging you off to some room with cold cement walls if you don't pay)- hipnerd, on 03/07/2008, -6/+2I like some of Ron Paul's political ideas. Others not so much. But my biggest problem with Mr. Paul is that he allowed a newsletter with his name at the top to be distributed with racist content for a period of years. I cannot believe that Paul did not read his own newsletter for 4-5 years, so I am left to assume that he tacitly endorsed the ideas contained within it.
Libertarian values are fine, but I think you need a new poster boy for the movement.
- hipnerd, on 03/07/2008, -6/+2I like some of Ron Paul's political ideas. Others not so much. But my biggest problem with Mr. Paul is that he allowed a newsletter with his name at the top to be distributed with racist content for a period of years. I cannot believe that Paul did not read his own newsletter for 4-5 years, so I am left to assume that he tacitly endorsed the ideas contained within it.
- roho76, on 03/07/2008, -13/+4***** Canada and ***** You.
Why don't you ask the Soviets how there Socialism turned out. Incase you don't know it was called the U.S.S.R.-Union of Soviet Socialists Republic- adrianmonk, on 03/07/2008, -3/+5That's a great argument. The official name of North Korea is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Does that mean democracy is a horrible system?
- duggfunny, on 03/07/2008, -6/+1hey roho, contact me $sunday$morning1$22 /-} t ya - h - oo (remove '$')
- roho76, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Yeah, it does.
And for those of you who don't know the US is a Republic not a Democracy.
Democracy leads to Socialism which eventually leads to Communism.
- tman84, on 03/07/2008, -13/+8That's why I am telling everyone it's time to become liberty groups, Ron Paul has started the movement, unfortunately we live in a country where you are judged by who you believe in, and not what you believe in.
- tlenker, on 03/07/2008, -33/+15Sounds like someone has already been brainwashed by a socialist society. How's the Kool-Aid Mr. Canada?
- TomK88, on 03/07/2008, -22/+26You don't like socialism? Cool. Stop driving on roads. Stop having police. Stop having a military.
- tman84, on 03/07/2008, -8/+15In America, our roads are paid by direct taxes on Gasoline and Tolls collected by private companies. It's a nice concept
- TomK88, on 03/07/2008, -19/+15Cool. Who pays for the military? Welcome to 'Why Socialism is Necessary 101".
- chrissandvick, on 03/07/2008, -8/+9You might be stunned to discover there's such a thing as "private" roads. And having police or a military isn't socialist but the tools of good government, a proper government and socialism doesn't qualify, to protect individual rights from criminals and enemies foreign or domestic.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/07/2008, -4/+15You do not need a socialist government to have a military. Just because a government performs a few legitimate functions (roads, police, fireman, and courts) does not mean it is a socialist government. EVERY type of government preforms these functions.
Socialism is where all resources are controlled by the community and there is no private property. - didiman, on 03/07/2008, -5/+15Tom you better go back to school (or stay in it). You obviously have no idea what socialism is.
- Ellipsys, on 03/07/2008, -11/+2@DrinkxRedxBull - So how about adding national health care paid for by taxation? That seems like a legitimate function. At what point does it become an "evil socialist empire"? Also, what you describe is "pure" communism, not socialism.
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/07/2008, -5/+10Tom's a brainwashed Socialist ... maybe instead of given our government 30%, 50%, or 80% of our taxes we should all just march to work at a government controlled factory everyday
- C0lMustard, on 03/07/2008, -1/+6The soviets were communist not socialist.
Communist- An economic system in which capital is owned by private government.
Socialist - a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the government.
In layman terms commies own everything and socialist states regulate everything, but don't own it.
In oligopoly situations where there are few competitors who work together to control prices (i.e. oil) government regulation can work better because these companies have defeated capitalism buy stacking the deck against the free market.
Another misconception I hear from loudmouth Americans (I love the US, just not the loudmouths BTW) is comparisons between communism and democracy. Communism is an economic system, and democracy is a system of government. You can't compare the two. It's Communism vs capitalism or Democracy vs. Dictatorship. You can have a democratic/communist state they are not mutually exclusive. That being said capitalism kicks the ***** out of communism.
For further learning (yes I'm Canadian) try to read something before you start running your mouth.
- LeeSoong, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Well, California can solve this problem with more control:
Mandatory System wide reversible sterilization of all public school children and all subjects under Californian law.
Then when children grow up to young adults and decide they want to have children
of their own - they can apply for a Offspring Permit,
take the psychological exams, fill out the background checks, credit checks, drug testing, eugenic genetic screening, blood typing, and disease and health screening and compatibility tests while paying the state of California for the tests and required $5,000 per application.
Californians approved for reproduction will receive a breeding license good for 1 child, and a State voucher allowing hospitals to assist the couple in reversal of their sterilization procedure and attempt at artificial insemination.
Once a child has been successfully generated and not demonstrating eugenic defects, the couple will take the parenting screening and profiling examinations.
The annual screening of parents ensures the child will only grow in a qualified home with full approval of the State. The annual tests and $2000 per child parenting licensing fee ensures the full control of the State of California over such an important matter.
Should one or both of the breeders fail the parenting screening and profiling exam,
all children are removed from the couple, and subject to the No Child of Poor Quality Control Act [ NCPQCA ] test for summary termination. Then both parents are irreversibly sterilized via total genital removal of all external and internal organs and structures.
California needs to pass this law Today for the good of the children!
( /sarcasm )
- TomK88, on 03/07/2008, -22/+26You don't like socialism? Cool. Stop driving on roads. Stop having police. Stop having a military.
- tman84, on 03/07/2008, -20/+33Socialism is the precursor to Totalitarianism. Do you think once all the power is consolidated and given to the state to run everything that it will magically be wonderful?
Why not allow people to have a choice, that's what this is about, we just want to be able to CHOOSE what's best, not have it spoon fed to us. The idea of liberty is the freedom to choose what's best for you and your family. This law is one step closer to destroying that freedom
Does it matter if it's "religious nutjobs" no, they are free to practice their religion, and their children are their property until they turn 18, it's their responsibility to raise that child to be a productive member of society how they see fit, not how you see fit or how the state of California sees fit.- TomK88, on 03/07/2008, -20/+15That's not what socialism is. It's pooling resources. Roads are socialist. The military is socialist. Some things HAVE to be socialist in order to function. Who would build a road if people weren't forced to by the government (through taxes)?
Also, people cannot be "property". That is called slavery, and last I checked it was abolished.- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/07/2008, -3/+14Slavery might have been abolished, but in a socialist society, all of it members are owned by the state.
Its quite simple. If I own my self, then I also own my own labor (otherwise you would be a slave). If I own my own labor, then I clearly own the products of my own labor. If I do not own the products of my labor(which is the point of slavery), or the things I trade it for with other individuals (ie property) then I do not own myself.
In a socialistic society, individuals DO NOT own their own labor - it belongs to to state. Therefore they do not own themselves.
Once again, a society having roads does not make it socialist. - TomK88, on 03/07/2008, -11/+6We are simply defining socialism differently then...
Paying taxes to pay for roads, military, police, etc. is socialist. So is paying taxes for universal healthcare. You can't say one isn't socialist and the other isn't. - DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/07/2008, -0/+9Yes, you can. Government healthcare is form of redistribution of wealth. Roads are paid for with user fees (gas taxes). There are things that private market is not very good at providing, such as military, police, infrastructure, ect.
Insurance IS something that is done very well in the private sector when not heavily regulated (see: auto, death insurance). The problem in America is that it is heavily regulated, and the government gives monopoly status to HC companies (in Minnesota, Blue Cross Blue Shield is the ONLY company allowed to sell health insurance).
You have socialism when you have the government running sectors of the economy that private markets CAN provide better than government, such as housing, food production, software engineering, ect. There is your line. - HesNikke, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2@DRINKxREDxBULL: when the government runs a sector, that moves past socialism into fascism.
when the government panders to a particular sector (your example of Blue Cross in Minnesota works, as does California's STATE MANDATED AUTO INSURANCE) that is called corporatism.
In all of the above cases, the first thing you need is COMMUNISM to limit your personal liberties and make you a slave to the state. Socialism, Fascism, and Corporatism are all built on top of Communism - something we've had in the USA since the war of northern aggression - AKA the civil war.
here's an excersize for you: go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifes ... and count off the planks and see how meny apply to the USA. (hint: all)
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/07/2008, -3/+14Slavery might have been abolished, but in a socialist society, all of it members are owned by the state.
- Ellipsys, on 03/07/2008, -13/+16Have you ever been to Sweden? How about Canada? Do either of those countries seem to be run in a totalitarian manner? You're talking about socialism (which, as our Canadian posters have pointed out, includes our federally funded roads, military, and other services) as if you're experiencing the Red Scare? Don't be stuck in the 50s! Unfortunately, what you suggest would lead to chaos - what if every religious right nutjob home schooled their kids? Do they have the right to forego mathematics and instead talk about how it is Their Chosen People who God Created to destroy the nonbelievers? How about teaching creationism as science? By the time the kids are full grown, there will be years of fallacy ingrained that will be detrimental to society as a whole and may never be reversed.
- NoNameFace, on 03/07/2008, -2/+5Unfortuantely, yes. Those people do have the right to teach their children whatever they want and however they think best fits them to be members of their society, Even if that society is cultish and non-accepted by mainstream. Thats FREEDOM and that is the american dream, thats LIBERTY and that is what this country was based on and what countless americans died to protect in the beginning. They don't do that anymore, but the media still spins it that way.
- Tipperzack, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1That was perfect
- MalenfantX, on 03/07/2008, -3/+2Most of us are OK with the government stopping parents from physically abusing their children. Why is it not OK for the government to stop psychological abuse and intellectual neglect too? Beatings are a lot less damaging than cutting a child off from education and instead filling their heads with superstition. How many brilliant minds are snuffed out in their formative years by their kook parents?
- tman84, on 03/07/2008, -5/+5People are not property, children are, and whether you like it or not they are either your property or the state's property. Someone has to care for them, they are not capable of reason or understanding, they can not survive on their own. Your child is your property. But Social Services like DYFS which are Socialized programs, would have you believe that your child is property of the state and can be taken from your home at anytime for anyreason.
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 03/07/2008, -1/+3Children are property?!?!
- bowe, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1if they are not capable of reason or even worse understanding, good luck teaching them.
- LeeSoong, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2so I guess you'll find them on eBay ?
FREEDOM & LIBERTY - Do you speak it?
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 03/07/2008, -1/+3Children are property?!?!
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/07/2008, -3/+8@TheSocialists - Perhaps we should just mandate that the kids get put in a government controlled bus that takes them to boarding school
- Theli, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1"Government controlled bus"?
And he's being dugg up for this comment...
- Theli, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1"Government controlled bus"?
- BridgeBurner, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Does that mean I can have your Social Security check?
- TomK88, on 03/07/2008, -20/+15That's not what socialism is. It's pooling resources. Roads are socialist. The military is socialist. Some things HAVE to be socialist in order to function. Who would build a road if people weren't forced to by the government (through taxes)?
- InspectorGadget, on 03/07/2008, -7/+22Nice strawman argument, TomK88. People that oppose socialism aren't necessarily opposed to any goverment action, they're opposed to invasive government action. Of course, for people that shill for socialism, acting like it is a sliding scale and we're already there only helps them because it makes it seem as though the socialist "paradise" isn't far away.
- makeitloud, on 03/07/2008, -7/+6Aww.. you almost had an argument there yourself, and then you blew it. TomK88 is right; certain things are necessarily handled by the government, and that is a form of socialism that even Adam Smith supports (though he probably wouldn't call it socialism). Pointing to that fact doesn't make somebody a "shill for socialism."
- InspectorGadget, on 03/07/2008, -1/+3I didn't say that HE was. I was pointing out the usual tone of conversation. He may be shilling for something, but I think it's Canada.
- makeitloud, on 03/07/2008, -7/+6Aww.. you almost had an argument there yourself, and then you blew it. TomK88 is right; certain things are necessarily handled by the government, and that is a form of socialism that even Adam Smith supports (though he probably wouldn't call it socialism). Pointing to that fact doesn't make somebody a "shill for socialism."
- raynar, on 03/07/2008, -20/+14Why is this a bad thing? If you want to teach at home, you have to be certified. Otherwise, i bust my ass in a real school trying to get my grades for college, and your little retard can barely keep from peeing himself and has no social skills, yet they have the same chance as i do.
- d03boy, on 03/07/2008, -2/+12The home schooler's I know were getting 33+ on the ACT
- junolynn, on 03/07/2008, -11/+3The homeschoolers I know can't hold jobs because actual social interaction outside the home is too much for them. Being sheltered for their growing years and pumped with abstinence-only education and "intelligent design" has turned them into little Aspergers' zombies.
- NoNameFace, on 03/07/2008, -1/+3Some of the public schoolers I know smoked pot until their brains were dead, and can't hold jobs because of drug tests, and can't contribute to society so they're stuck on welfare and I'm stuck supporting them.
- mhender, on 03/07/2008, -3/+3Considering pot doesn't kill brain cells, your little whiny rant has no merit.
- NoNameFace, on 03/08/2008, -1/+0maybe it doesn't actually kill the cells, but the term "pot head" wasn't created for no reason by people trying to give it a bad name. It does physically and physcologically effect people in a negative way. And yes, I know this will be dugg down because there are a tons of people on digg that want it legalized, but that term wasn't created for no reason.
If you don't like pot head, replace it with the drug of your choice, where I went to PUBLIC school we were poor farmers and pot was all we could buy...
- FTLJohnson, on 03/07/2008, -9/+30Socialism isn't THOUGHT control in any way.
It's PHYSICAL control. It's a threat of violence if one does not 'pool resources'.
When college kids get together to buy a pizza... Does one of them (the one studying criminology so that he can becomes a cop) pull out a gun and tell the others that (because they are all hungry) the pizza is necessary and that they all MUST pay an equal share?
No, I think in most situations a voluntary pooling of resources gets things done for those that need it. To suggest otherwise is the fascist, power hungry and stupid method that goes against what FREE people do. It is the road to the failure of a society, and war, as has been shown by history over and over again. Collectivism doesn't help people as its supporters would intend it to... It kills with the unintended consequences that occur when people flow right around the rules and boundaries set for them - until they are caught, and punished by the rules that shouldn't exist in the first place.- TomK88, on 03/07/2008, -10/+4Yes, if you don't pay taxes (which pay for roads, military, police, etc.) you will be punished. Why? Because otherwise nobody will pay! What programs should be socialist is up for debate, but certain things must be socialist to work. Any non-exclusive service MUST be socialist or it will not be funded, period. That's BASIC economics.
- mhender, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2missile, I'm sure he was in Canada when he wrote that. Therefore, your comment is stupid and so are you.
- Ellipsys, on 03/07/2008, -8/+4Your ideas are great theories, but will fail in reality simply because, just as you said in your pizza analogy, people won't want to pay. So that means that EVERYONE goes without. If you make everything voluntary, nothing will ever get funded. "Well, I don't have any kids in school, so I'm not going to contribute to that". "I don't need healthcare now, so I'm not going to pay into that" . People are inherently selfish. And fickle. They change their minds as their circumstances change.
Suppose person B who didn't want to pay into healthcare all these years because he was healthy and didn't want to pay for "smokers and fatties" or whatever the excuse tends to be, now needs a kidney transplant? Are the hospitals still running? Did they go out of business? Has technology research had enough investment to come up with a newer, safer procedure? Maybe not.
Everything would degenerate to anarcho-capitalism - if its not profitable immediately, its not worth it. The system simply doesn't work for a society, but rather obliterates the concept of society itself - each person or entity becomes an individual "bubble" with no common needs and ruthlessly tries to satisfy themselves through obtaining goods and services at the lowest price, with no moderating force, no "advancement of society" instances that benefit everyone involved. Forget space exploration, forget environmental preservation - these things aren't profitable in a short enough term that warrant the money that is sunk into them. The problems are numerous and vast with what you advocate, simply because of the fact people are inherently selfish and outside of a handful of incredibly rich and unscrupulous people, nobody would really have funding for anything. - Corrosionx, on 03/07/2008, -3/+12Socialism fails every single time. That's because it involves THREATING PEOPLE WITH FORCE to get you want, because you're too stupid to find a voluntary way to fund your precious "programs" that I don't necessarily want, or think it's best handled in that way (it never is). And that is totally inhumane, no matter what the good intentions are.
- Ellipsys, on 03/07/2008, -3/+6You're taking things to extremes. Is Sweden failing as a society? How about Canada? Denmark? Every time someone says socialism or communism everyone immediately thinks of Stalin's USSR, and that's the problem. So are you saying that everyone should be able to behave as they want, all the time? Without any constraints at all? Murder? Rape? You're speaking of anarchy. Socialist ideas, if you take away the rhetoric come down to "This benefits most or all of us, so lets work together and do it". Nothing more insidious than that. How is it inhumane to expect people in a society of shared mores and values to work together for the benefit of all? This isn't saying that the only chair you can buy is The State Approved Chair - capitalism works great here where people have and want varieties of different things. However, when it comes to health care, roads, a unified defense force and the like, its much more economical to pool resources for them, since they are things that benefit everyone (Nobody wants "*****" health care, everyone wants the best available! Nobody wants a section of privately funded militias fighting our conflicts...except the current administration and Blackwater of course. And we see the problems that causes!") You can have a society that has "some socialist functions" and "Some capitalist functions". In fact, that's probably the best system of all.
- Theli, on 03/08/2008, -3/+1"That's because it involves THREATING PEOPLE WITH FORCE to get you want..."
Are you ***** psychotic? Get a grip... - Corrosionx, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1I meant "THREATENING". And no I'm not psychotic, you want proof? Try not paying your taxes.
I am against the use of force against people (theft, murder and rape included) even if you have a badge or you passed a "law". People who use force against other people should be dealt with accordingly (and that includes the government)
With socialism, you get ***** everything. It's just not possible to not go bankrupt with socialism, it always leads to control and rationning.
- TomK88, on 03/07/2008, -11/+7Corrisionx:
That's fine. Just realize that without socialism there cannot be military, police, roads, or a bunch of other services.- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/07/2008, -4/+4Boy are you dumb. Just because a country has roads does not mean it has a socialist government! You really need to study some political science before you make any more uneducated remarks. Every kind of government does those things. What crosses the line into socialism is when it takes over things that better provided by the free market, like housing. Education is another one. A system of school vouchers would far more effective at educating kids this failed system we have now.
Here is great mini-documentary Drew Carey did for Reason on a school in Cali. The school was one of the worst ones in the state, and when a new principal tried to reform it, the Teachers Union stepped in and had him fired. You really should watch it.
http://reason.tv/video/show/60.html - C0lMustard, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1so who decides what the market can run better. Before you say anything, ENRON.
- Corrosionx, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2COIMustard: Nice strawman argument there buddy, Enron was a result of government involvement in the first place.
Quebec is the most socialist state in North America and the roads will destroy a brand new car in a couple of months. Overpasses are crumbling. The water service is losing 80% of its water because of holes in the pipes... It's just a stupid way of organizing and paying for stuff (and it's immoral too).
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/07/2008, -4/+4Boy are you dumb. Just because a country has roads does not mean it has a socialist government! You really need to study some political science before you make any more uneducated remarks. Every kind of government does those things. What crosses the line into socialism is when it takes over things that better provided by the free market, like housing. Education is another one. A system of school vouchers would far more effective at educating kids this failed system we have now.
- TomK88, on 03/07/2008, -10/+4Yes, if you don't pay taxes (which pay for roads, military, police, etc.) you will be punished. Why? Because otherwise nobody will pay! What programs should be socialist is up for debate, but certain things must be socialist to work. Any non-exclusive service MUST be socialist or it will not be funded, period. That's BASIC economics.
- LeeSoong, on 03/08/2008, -1/+10California has said that CHILDREN ARE PROPERTY OF THE STATE.
That is the danger of socialism - the utter destruction of the American Individualism that
built our country.
My children are NOT property of the state - I will teach them as I see fit.
My earnings are MINE, not a 'collective resource' to be shared by people sitting idle collecting welfare.
The government is a CRIME when it violates human rights.
Attacking parents supreme right of parenting of their children is a Crime.
Taking our paychecks to give to Iraqis is wrong.
Taking our paychecks to pass out to Bush's Anti-Science 'Faith Based Funding' is a Crime.
Dear California:
Our Children are not Things owned by the state, our children are ours.
We are not your surf slaves to your 'Chosen Rulers' -- you do not have a god given mandate
to rule OVER the people.
At some point, the people need to remember the government of the USA is our servant,
all of the Californian government and educational members backing this assault on families need FIRED, and run out of town on a rail...
- Ellipsys, on 03/07/2008, -36/+22Don't waste your breath, friendly Canadian! Anyone who cites Ron Paul as their savior is about as zealous as those that cite Jesus Christ.
- AndreiOttawa, on 03/07/2008, -57/+67The reason for this law is to reduce the number of so called "home schoolers" that instead of giving their children proper education brainwash their kids with the works of Jesus and other bogus crap.
- abran1984, on 03/07/2008, -24/+31So if you were in charge parents couldn't pass on their religious beliefs to their children?
- AndreiOttawa, on 03/07/2008, -35/+33Yes. How about let children reach the age of reason and let them choose what they want to believe in.
- swizzcheez, on 03/07/2008, -2/+42Parents have the right and privilege of _guiding_ their children into adulthood. That means having the latitude to upbringings that you might not approve of, including religion. Many parents go too far in guidance in this arena, in my humble agnostic opinion. Except in the more grotesque circumstances, I personally would NEVER presume to deny a parent the right to choose the vehicle in which they guide their child into adulthood.
- FTLJohnson, on 03/07/2008, -6/+19because THAT would work... or happen ... ever...
Ugh, stupid Canadian is stupid.
While I LOVE the sentiment of allowing everyone to be freethinkers and to grow up without the mental tyranny of religions that use fear of punishment in the afterlife and bogus promises of rewards in the same to manipulate children into becoming believers...
What's the point, if those kids just grow up to waste that gift by being mentally lazy like you?
How's about you give people FREEDOM...
and then those of us with an actual BRAIN in our heads won't have to worry about DYING in the civil war idiots like you will inevitably cause... - Ellipsys, on 03/07/2008, -3/+2@Swizzcheez - That's all well and good (even if I don't agree with the beliefs being taught) as long as it supplements and doesn't replace some of the "basics" of school. This isn't so much about them imparting religious beliefs, but rather those that would choose to do that as part of their formal education. Teaching creationist "science", for instance.
- Aramil, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1@swizzcheez
So you would rather parents tell their children that they're going to a world where they'll burn forever just for being bad once!? Come on, I don't know about you, but IMHO that's one of the worst forms of child abuse around today. - swizzcheez, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2@Aramil: Enslaving a child is one of the worst forms of abuse around. Beating and/or raping a child is one of the worst form of abuse around. Teaching religion, even if you personally think it's stupid, is NOT child abuse by any worthwhile standard, of course IMHO.
Religion has a lot of problems, but let's get our perspective straight here. The presumption that all religion is saying that one will burn for saying "Gawd" is flat wrong. There are extremes, but there are extremely "progressive" folk out there who are instructing their kids that all religion is evil and everyone who practices it are morons. The extremists in that direction would assert that anything taught other than the rigid cold of science is damnable and deserving of derision. Using your standards, this would seem to me pretty abusive too.
But we're really pretty far off topic. The question is whether a parent should have the right to decide how their child will be educated. Given a choice between parenting and education becoming a mechanical thing versus the possibility that some parents will become overzealous in their faiths, and as a result some or many kids will have a strange world view from my standpoint, I'll stick to the (admittedly American) approach of taking the "risks" and letting the other philosophies flourish.
Given all this time kids have been raised with a Parochial bent, how many were truly made useless to society as a result? 5%? 10%? I doubt anywhere near even 0.01%. I'm sure extreme examples could be found, but given two kids, one Fundamentalist Christian and one with a totally Athiestic background, I doubt there would be that much _substantial_ difference in terms of societal impact. Sure, they're going to see the world differently, but all in all, both are reasonably equally likely to function in society.
Besides, no one organization is totally right about everything, especially the state. It is the diversity of philosophy, even in the face of apparent bloody-mindedness, that makes a free society work. Rob the people of their power to guide their children's education in the name of state homogeneity and we'll all be far closer to the Orwellian nightmare that even the most extreme conspiracy theorist could dream of.
- TomK88, on 03/07/2008, -24/+26There is a difference between teaching and indoctrinating. Watch the documentary "Jesus Camp" to see how some Fundamentalist Christians are indoctrinating children.
- chrissandvick, on 03/07/2008, -3/+21Agreed that Jesus Camp was indoctrination and probably verging on child abuse. That does not give you the right to deprive the parents the right to educate their children how they see fit. Homeschooling is increasingly secular. If I had children of school age and couldn't afford private school I'd strongly consider keeping them out of the public system till high school. Scary religious people are just an excuse and a bad one at that. The California school system is afraid of the competition and acting on the fear that even the scary religious types are going to score better on standardized tests than kids coming out of the public system.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/07/2008, -2/+26I guess it is SO much better for them be indoctrinated by the government, right?
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/07/2008, -2/+20That's such a red flag - the fact that you're ready to hand over your rights and just have the government "do what's best" for your kid.. wow
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -7/+15That doesn't work Andrei, because if you wait they don't need religion to explain anything. So they don't ask which religion or sect they should believe in, they ask why they are supposed to believe in religions and sects. And that's very dangerous to the bible thumpers. Free thinking and the metic system are the tools of the devil!
- AndreiOttawa, on 03/07/2008, -13/+12That was exactly my point. If you educate first-very few will believe in a magic bearded man in the sky.
- pinchduck, on 03/07/2008, -8/+22So AndreiOttawa would replace the judgement of his parents with that of his own and use the machinery of the State to enforce it? Real nice. Did it occur to you that people who homeschool are not forcing their views on to other people or the kids of other folks? Do you often feel the need to "correct" society by forcing your view on others? What would the penalties be for home schooling your kids? 10 years in prison and a 100,000 fine? How about you raise your kids however you see fit and let others do likewise.
- AndreiOttawa, on 03/07/2008, -15/+8I think a kid should have a right to hear a second opinion. That's exactly what a parent should do if they think a teacher is full of *****. Plus, having to deal with day-to-day problems at school would prepare them for real life. Don't you think it's selfish to only teach children what you think is right?
- MacEnvy, on 03/07/2008, -11/+9"Did it occur to you that people who homeschool are not forcing their views on to other people or the kids of other folks?"
Yeah, the homeschooled kids wait until they're adults and then vote for social conservatives to force their views on the rest of us. Totally different. - 5urr3al5am, on 03/07/2008, -5/+8@Socialists - Go back to 1984!
- Theli, on 03/08/2008, -2/+1@5urr3al5am
You've probably not even read that book.
- jimchou, on 03/07/2008, -6/+9Parents always indoctrinate their children with their religious beliefs. However, I don't see anything wrong with society mandating that certain things be taught, e.g. reading, writing, math, history, etc. Otherwise you end up with madrassas that teach ONLY the Bible. (Substitute Koran for Bible if that didn't bother you).
- WiseWeasel, on 03/07/2008, -1/+9Unfortunately, the three R's are not what this ruling was about:
FTA: Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare".
This is about state-controlled indoctrination, not about teaching basic skills. It's not like you can pick and choose which classes your child will attend, or control the level of hubris they are exposed to in public schooling. This is a nasty precedent for the state having some kind of right to raise your children as they see fit. The next step is to control the curricula in approved schools, to make sure they're making 'good citizens' (i.e. ones that don't ask too many questions). We end up with no ability to avoid the sometimes counterproductive education provided by public schools.
Note that I'm not saying all public schools are necessarily bad, or that home schooling is always preferable, and I personally attended mostly public schools, but I was fortunate to be living in an area where the public schools were of relatively high standards, and I'm sure there are many parents that find themselves without access to decent, affordable education for their children. To them, home schooling might be a perfectly valid option, and might yield better results than its alternative. The fact that they may not be accredited has no relevance to their abilities as a teacher, and accreditation is completely impractical for most parents, who don't have the time to attend the necessary courses. They may still be head and shoulders above the ten-yeared piece of ***** teacher no one can fire at the local public school. What's really needed is more competition between public schools, and the facilitation of the creation of public schools, along with dissolving teachers' unions and allowing schools to fire worthless teachers. - junolynn, on 03/07/2008, -4/+3Dissolve teacher's unions? Yeah, because teachers make so much money and only have to work 15-hour days, why would they have to have somebody represent them and their rights?
Do you even listen to yourself? - WiseWeasel, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3@junolynn: No teacher should be entitled to their job, no matter how poor their abilities. Good teachers deserve a shot at better compensation, and ineffective ones should be weeded out. Personally, I think the answer is school vouchers, so parents will have a wider choice of where to school their children.
- WiseWeasel, on 03/07/2008, -1/+9Unfortunately, the three R's are not what this ruling was about:
- dinostabOMG, on 03/07/2008, -3/+6@jimchou: heads up, bigot - The word "madrassa" means school. Nothing more and nothing less.
- InspectorGadget, on 03/07/2008, -1/+5Etymologically, it may only mean "school". In the language of our time, it means a religious school. Words change by use and context.
- dinostabOMG, on 03/07/2008, -3/+2@Gadget: Keep working on that minor in Arabic.
- jimchou, on 03/07/2008, -1/+3Why are you complaining? I used the word properly - "madrassas [schools] that teach only the Bible".
- dinostabOMG, on 03/08/2008, -2/+1I take it you lapse into Arabic all the time then? Or did you have some other reason?
- AndreiOttawa, on 03/07/2008, -35/+33Yes. How about let children reach the age of reason and let them choose what they want to believe in.
- donte, on 03/07/2008, -7/+26I've got my fair share of beef with those who bastardize their religious beliefs, but who is the government to tell you what you are and are not allowed to learn? Yes, provide public schools that have a curriculum to your liking, there's no reason it should be forcing any family to decide how their child is educated.
- ehalasey, on 03/07/2008, -4/+7Since when is FORCING your child to believe something you believe by not teaching them about their alternatives called education? I'm all for religious education; in fact, if we taught kids in this country just a little bit about even three or four major religions, maybe people would be more socially tolerant.
- adrianmonk, on 03/07/2008, -1/+4So you're saying that all homeschoolers do it only to indoctrinate their children? What about those people who aren't religious but merely believe that the public schools suck rocks and would rather do it themselves than pay for a private school?
- ehalasey, on 03/07/2008, -2/+4I say, GET CREDENTIALS.
- Gerz1219, on 03/07/2008, -3/+9I think the government should play an active role in determining some minimum body of commonly accepted facts and civic values, and creating some sort of standards for home-schooling. It's kind of a necessary prerequisite to living in a society, which is not the same thing as living in a totalitarian communist state. I used to think that mandatory schooling was intrusive on a philosophical level, until I saw the film Jesus Camp (as someone else noted above). There is a scene in which a homeschooling mother, who clearly has received only rudimentary education herself, blithely assures her kids that "science is make-believe" and opens up a creationist-approved picture book. I was aghast when I realized that this was the only science education those children will ever receive.
It's one thing to instill your own values in your kids, but it's quite another to indoctrinate kids with facts and biases which are objectively wrong, and will inhibit their cognitive development as they mature. Society doesn't function properly when there is an entire subset of kids who believe that 2 + 2 = 5, and these kids are at an enormous competitive disadvantage in the job market through no fault of their own. I say let the Bible-thumpers home-school their kids, but subject them to teaching certification and hold the kids to standardized testing requirements. If the parents can't meet the certification requirements, well, private schools are still legal.- NoNameFace, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1The government does play a role in that. Its called the ACT and SAT. Score low on those and you aren't going to college, and w/o a college degree good luck doing anything in "society" anymore. You can stay in your home town and work construction or something.
- KCLorelei39, on 03/07/2008, -2/+9my homeschooled children consistently test above public schooled children. Every year.
please stop spreading lies about a subject you obviously know little about. the latest winners of both the Scripps Nattional Spelling Bee and the National Geography Bee, as well as the latest Heisman winner, were all homeschooled. A debate team of homeschoolers whipped the Oxford debate team not too long ago.
The list of homeschooler achievements grow exponentially, while the list of public school failures also also grows exponentially.
There is currently a call for parents to withdraw their children from the public school system in CA. The schools are terrified of losing the $5000 per student paid to them by the federal government so of course homeschooling is under attack now.
sure, not everyone that homeschools, should. not everyone that has kids, should, either, but last time I checked we didn't need a license -yet- to procreate.
btw, the film Jesus Camp was a bit of theatrical scare tactics with an agenda. It isn't representative of anything much, expect the film makers' own bias and would have gained zero attention except for her celebrity connections. - junolynn, on 03/07/2008, -1/+4No, KC, it had actual homeschooling parents brainwashing their kids with flat-out lies and rings true with many homeschooling parents today. It's scary and frankly child abuse. And your child may have high test scores, but so did I and many others who went to a big, bad, nasty evil public school.
Your child is not a precious little unique snowflake and is no more special than any other child. I despise the arrogance displayed by homeschooling parents who teach their kids that creationism is reality. - g111y, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1@juno, your attitude towards kclorelei was uncalled for. perhaps that's what they teach in public school... i should know... i left there with an attitude too :o i think if i had taken my GED at 16 and gotten out of there sooner I would have been a much happier person. i'd rather educate my child with love because to me she would be a "precious little unique snowflake", and perhaps i'll take the extra time to help her with her studies that an overworked public school cattle herder won't. my child, my responsibility. and until this decision is overturned i guess raising a family in california is out of the question.
- ehalasey, on 03/07/2008, -4/+7Since when is FORCING your child to believe something you believe by not teaching them about their alternatives called education? I'm all for religious education; in fact, if we taught kids in this country just a little bit about even three or four major religions, maybe people would be more socially tolerant.
- SuckMyDigg, on 03/07/2008, -8/+14How is this not their prerogative? I think it has way more to do with creating greased cogs to push into the machine on a predictable basis. These homeschooled children might have their own minds and may not necessarily fit into the machine so well. They might have a few rough edges and ask questions and that's a dangerous proposition these days.
I'm not saying public school doesn't turn kids out this way, but in the public system that's all tracked and dealt with. With homeschoolers, they don't know until the kids hit the market. - calcm, on 03/07/2008, -14/+39The reason I choose to home school my child is because where I live the schools are infected with gangs and crime. I will not allow my daughter to be raped. My choice for home schooling is not a religious one. So, get over yourself.
- kingcam, on 03/07/2008, -25/+9You should get over yourself; you wont be able to protect your daughter form the "Horrors" of the real world forever, isolating her can not be of benefit in the long run.
- InspectorGadget, on 03/07/2008, -2/+17So rape is inevitable? Her objection was not to the wider culture, it was to specific criminal acts.
- dinostabOMG, on 03/07/2008, -2/+7I'm sure that would be a huge comfort to him as he kisses her goodbye on the first day of kindergarten.
- chrissandvick, on 03/07/2008, -2/+15***** you. Do you realize what some of these school districts are like? Kudo's to calcm for protecting her daughter.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -2/+13If you let your kids exposed to rapists and criminals you're not much of a parent. Nevermind education, you failed at the basics of parenting.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -3/+34I homeschool them because I met the teachers of the school they were supposed to go to. I can't let retards educate my kids. It's costing me a fortune (I now work half time), but it's worth it.
- aleololli, on 03/07/2008, -2/+9Seriously dude if you don't live in an area with gangs and crime than you have no room to talk. And I'm guessing you don't really care about what's truly best for this woman's child. Throwing your child out into a dangerous neighborhood and trusting that they'll be "stronger" for it is easier said than done.
- ehalasey, on 03/07/2008, -9/+4I'm sure that the parents of those children who are attending the public schools would LOVE to know that you consider their children delinquent, violent potential rapists without your ever having met any of them. And I'm SURE that your daughter's social skills are great, given how well you're teaching her that prejudice is okay.
- psion01, on 03/07/2008, -1/+4The trouble, ehalasey, is there are far too many parents out there who don't give a damn what their kids are doing.
- ehalasey, on 03/07/2008, -4/+3I get that, but the real world isn't something you can just keep your kid from because there are a few bad seeds. Your xenophobia is no reason that your child shouldn't be allowed to be in the real world with real people. Yes, bad things happen, and yes, we all want to keep our kids from ever getting hurt, but unless you yourself are equipped to teach your child yourself [i.e., credentialed - which, by the way, is the whole point of this issue], you have only a few choices. Send your kid to public school and have him or her meet the real world. Move someplace where the schools are better. Or. Save. Send your child to a private school. Cut corners where you have to in order to afford it. My parents lived without new things for YEARS because they were paying to send me to school, and I am SO thankful. Because the thing is, violence and sub-standard education in public schools isn't all that uncommon, but a parent who is truly willing to make a REAL sacrifice in order to make sure his child gets a decent education is. Pulling your kid out of school and saying, "I know better," isn't a sacrifice. It's selfish.
- KCLorelei39, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2do you know how to read? how to write? the basic steps of the scientific method? do you think your own abilities render you somehow incompentent to teach them to another? tell that to all the volunteers that spend their own (unqualified) time on any number of teaching and mentoring activities, working with disadvantaged children, or helping uneducated public school kids learn how to read.
I have sacrificed more than I care to think about, in order to give my children the ability to think for themselves, reason and question, and love learning. whether they choose to follow the Living God is up to them; I have little control over this very personal decision and only can influence them by living my beliefs. as do those who entrust their children to a failing system that seeks to not educate but indoctrinate them. I know, I spent countless hours volunteering in the public schools before deciding to homeschool; mine was a very well-informed decision that had little to do with my faith. my kids were learning next to nothing and being passed on to the next grade; there were social workers in the school; there was little discipline, etc. there were many reasons to make the move into homeschooling, and none of them were 'selfish'. my kids are very much in the 'real world' through outside activities, church, our neighbors, friends and group associations. - curtisag, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2You obviously have no idea how bad some inner city school districts are. It' s not about teaching prejudice, it's about reality.
- MistrezMayhem, on 03/07/2008, -0/+0First of all, no one is saying all kids in public schools are rapist or what have you. But in those neighborhoods where it is more of an issue, why shouldn't you if you can? I chose to home school because the SCHOOL put my child in danger. I took the issue all the way to the District HR Director and 3 new policies were invoked. Public Schools are terrible in certain areas, this was a school from a Very Weathly area. Kids were not that bad, it was the school. It wasnt the public school kids , it was the school I was avoiding. And home schooling when done right, is as effective and cheaper than private school.
- ehalasey, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1Oh, how short sighted.
I'm not saying that any one person is incapable of teaching his own children. And I'm not saying that there aren't schools that are unsafe. My own parents withdrew me from public schools for the very same reasons. But they DIDN'T then charge themselves with educating me because they realized that I would miss out on earning the extremely valuable social skills that are earned when being in a school environment. They DIDN'T force me to withdraw from the rest of the world simply because it's "unsafe" out there. And they DIDN'T make an incredible fuss to me about how all the kids at the school were bad people. They DID make some INCREDIBLE sacrifices to make sure I went to a good school, and they made damn sure that I was challenged. They realized that an enormous amount of what is learned in school is learned through social interaction and that I should be taught by people who are teachers by trade, not by them according to what they believed I ought to be learning.
Meanwhile, I've said it again and again here. You want to teach your own kids? GREAT! But California state law says you have to have credentials to do it. Otherwise, your kids are truant, and you're simply posing as a teacher. You want to talk about home schooling done right? Demonstrate for your children your committment to their getting a proper education by following the law. I cannot stress enough the importance of how, even if you consider this to be just another hoop to jump through, doing so sets an example for your children, and ensures that the state is powerless to try to take your children's educations out of your hands.
- MindStalker, on 03/07/2008, -1/+20Why is everyone digging down calcm? There are a lot of school districts where the schools literally are a crime zone. When I last moved I knew the local schools were bad (small county plenty of rich folks, but they all send their kids to private schools, the schools are 99 percent title I, I'm not kidding you) but thought I could afford private school. Economy downturned and I couldn't sell the place so after a few months of having my kid in one of these schools she started getting beaten up (elementary school so no real danger or rape etc) I cheated and used my parents address to send her to a better school. I'd homeschool if I could but I know I'd make a horrible teacher.
- junolynn, on 03/07/2008, -4/+3I went to a public school in the ghetto and wasn't raped. I know, I know, sometimes I stayed at school late doing activities for the Chess Club so how did I ever get out alive?
Homeschooling parents tend to be paranoid and overdramatic. Chances are, your kid isn't going to be raped. And wouldn't that suck if, God forbid, someone breaks into your house and rapes your kid? IT CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE.
If you're concerned that your local school is ridden with crime then that means your neighborhood also is and maybe you should MOVE. Ever think of that one? - g111y, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1@juno, not everyone can afford to move to the best neighborhoods. even the best neighborhoods have often the worst public schools. the quality of education in america is dwindling rapidly - because of standardization teachers cannot tailor lesson plans to their class' abilities. it's harder for talented kids to excel rapidly and harder for kids who need the extra help to get it. and again, i am amazed at your callousness...
- MistrezMayhem, on 03/07/2008, -0/+0Exactly g111y. Look at all the English teachers that have to pass Spanish speaking kids that CANT SPEAK ENGLISH. Yet if it was the average American kid regardless of their race/nationality, they would have to speak English to pass. They have dumbed down the curriculum for our kids so that substandard teaching is OK. The teachers are frustrated with the system too.
- jandsroberts, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1The reason I chose to homeschool my kids is because 80% of the kids in the local elementary school can't speak English.
- kingcam, on 03/07/2008, -25/+9You should get over yourself; you wont be able to protect your daughter form the "Horrors" of the real world forever, isolating her can not be of benefit in the long run.
- aleololli, on 03/07/2008, -1/+15Please define bogus crap. I might think socialized healthcare is bogus crap. I have a feeling you don't. So who defines what's bogus? This story says the state does. I disagree. If you haven't noticed American schools aren't exactly raising the bar on higher education. Why should I feel comfortable leaving my kids for 8 hours a day with someone who can't possibly have the same level of interest in my child. Perhaps homeschooling holds the state accountable for it's less than stellar testing record.
- alenox, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1well i agree with you that American education system has definitely dropped the ball, i think it might be impractical to advocate homeschooling on a large scale.
The best solution may involve giving parents more choice about which school their children attend (vouchers a possibility) and granting better schools more funding so that government funding follows students. Public schools in Europe use similar methods that cost less $$ and achieve better results
- alenox, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1well i agree with you that American education system has definitely dropped the ball, i think it might be impractical to advocate homeschooling on a large scale.
- GreyICE, on 03/07/2008, -2/+19Out of curiousity, got any statistics to back up your comment that homeschooled students are brainwashed instead of educated? Because I assure you, every study you find is going to show that they test better and are more educated than the average child.
- tokabowla, on 03/07/2008, -10/+3 *****. Post a independent study then!
- GreyICE, on 03/07/2008, -0/+19http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/
Major findings include: the achievement test scores of this group of home school students are exceptionally high--the median scores were typically in the 70th to 80th percentile; 25% of home school students are enrolled one or more grades above their age-level public and private school peers; this group of home school parents has more formal education than parents in the general population; the median income for home school families is significantly higher than that of all families with children in the United States; and almost all home school students are in married couple families. Because this was not a controlled experiment, the study does not demonstrate that home schooling is superior to public or private schools and the results must be interpreted with caution. The report clearly suggests, however, that home school students do quite well in that educational environment. - Malshew, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3Quick google search,
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.as ... - AlanLivingston, on 03/07/2008, -3/+1@GreyICE
Actually, what I think the report clearly suggests is, that in a non-controlled study, when comparing home-schooled children of dual-parent homes having higher formal educational levels and income with students from the general population, the former performed better on achievement tests than the latter.
Well, DUH! - GreyICE, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1You can't get a controlled study on homeschooled students. That would involve randomly selecting students from the public schools and homeschooling them, then seeing the performance change. So congrats, you just labeled every study about homeschoolers BS, thus reinforcing your prejudice.
So, you note that the average family has higher education levels then general (thus skewering the uneducated religious nuts stereotype), dual-parent homes (and aren't we always told the single-parent ones are just fine) and higher income levels (those dumb uneducated religious hicks are doing better financially than other people), and then discount the possibility that the stereotype of those who homeschool is inaccurate and poorly-informed. Pull your pants up, your bigotry is showing. - MalenfantX, on 03/07/2008, -0/+0@GreyIce: The educated people who homeschool their children to give them a better education aren't the problem. The religiously insane homeschool crowd also exists, and those parents are taking perfectly healthy children and raising them into morons in their parents image.
I don't think it's fair to those children to allow their potential to be stolen from them by idiot parents. - MindStalker, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1@MalenfantX Many states require home school children to take standardized test to prove they are keeping up. This is acceptable. California and apparently other states are requiring that parents become certified teachers. As having teaches in the family I can tell you that the certiftication process can take over a year and is highly biased against home schooler (if you work at an public school or some recognized private schools you can get temporary certification to teach while you go through the process and other biases, no such luck for homeschooling)
- GreyICE, on 03/07/2008, -0/+19http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/
- tokabowla, on 03/07/2008, -10/+3 *****. Post a independent study then!
- andrew1193, on 03/07/2008, -3/+9"The reason for this law is to reduce the number of so called "home schoolers" that instead of giving their children proper education brainwash their kids with the works of Jesus and other bogus crap."
So instead we brainwash them into believing Statism is good, and indoctrinate them in any other Politically Correct matters as the Wise and Good State sees fit. - tiraid, on 03/07/2008, -1/+5You are foolish. I bet you think you are enlightened, yet you refuse to learn the lessons of history. If we give the government this power, they will quickly abuse it. You'll change your tune when the government begins forcing things on you and your family. For this reason, we defend the fundamentalists right to mind their own business; so that we can mind ours.
- MalenfantX, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1Even though the fundies would never defend your rights. You're a good person tiraid.
- tiraid, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3This isn't about them. This is about me. I am not a good person. I just realize that the fundies losing their rights is a precursor to me losing mine. You should all realize that.
- MalenfantX, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1Even though the fundies would never defend your rights. You're a good person tiraid.
- DiogenesJr, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1Anecdotally, I would agree that most home school kids are taught mainly religious mumbo jumbo. However, if that's what a parent wants to teach their kids, it's their right to do so. If it fails to prepare the children for a life in modern America, so be it. I'm an atheist, technical professional, and student of philosophy and I have often contemplated homeschooling my two children because the level of incompetence of public school teachers is appalling. My focus would be on math, science, engineering, and secular philosophy with a healthy dose of OBJECTIVE religious philosophy so that they understand the belief systems that motivate so many people; but the emphasis would be on math and science, the most important subjects in our economy.
Bottom line, you have kids, its not only your right, but your responsibility to teach them as you see fit, right or wrong. It's not the state's place to do this for you. - Atomic1fire, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Because they should be taught your doctrines instead.
anyone see the Irony in this.
- abran1984, on 03/07/2008, -24/+31So if you were in charge parents couldn't pass on their religious beliefs to their children?
- exomni, on 03/07/2008, -18/+15What? Since when is the only alternative to Homeschooling public schools?
And besides, Cali isn't banning homschooling, anyone who believes homeschooling is the best option for their child can earn teaching credentials quite easily enough.- MindStalker, on 03/07/2008, -1/+5Sorry it takes over a year of extra classes to get the credentials even if you have a degree. Most schools will give you a temporary permit to teach while you take these classes if you can prove your worth if you get a job, but don't think they are going to be handing out these temporary permits to homeschoolers.
- Sinestro, on 03/07/2008, -3/+2You mean i have to invest an extra year of my time in myself in order to ensure a legal and quality education for my child, if i want to homeschool them myself. The horrors.
- g111y, on 03/07/2008, -0/+4@ Sinestro, I think the problem with this sudden legislation is that parents who are already homeschooling will now have to cease doing so and put their child in public schools for a year or two while they sort out the paperwork. the proof is in the pudding - home schooled kids don't need this "protection". it's about locking students (and federal funding) into the state's education system as much as possible
- tiraid, on 03/07/2008, -3/+4You seemed to have missed the point. The state doesn't have to give credentials to anyone they don't want to. The state decides the curriculum, then forces all children to be indoctrinated. Any dissenter who decides to pull their children out will simply be denied teaching credentials. The children grow up and automatically vote for the grand ol' party, just as they were programmed.
If your argument now is, "Sure, they could do that, we've given them the power to... But they would never..."
Well, I hope you rethink it.- tiraid, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2I forgot to mention, not only would dissenters be denied teaching credentials, but they would be thrown in jail. The law already exists. Everything is falling into place. I sure hope corrupt people don't somehow take office~
- MindStalker, on 03/07/2008, -1/+5Sorry it takes over a year of extra classes to get the credentials even if you have a degree. Most schools will give you a temporary permit to teach while you take these classes if you can prove your worth if you get a job, but don't think they are going to be handing out these temporary permits to homeschoolers.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -17/+13Socialists would encourage homeschooling. You're thinking of fascists.
- InspectorGadget, on 03/07/2008, -7/+12Same thing. Both enforce their views through the machinery of the state. Notice the resemblance between Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR.
- ilves7, on 03/07/2008, -5/+5LOL. Communism is NOT the same thing as socialism. Plus USSR was totalitarian as much as it was communist. Communism only applied to the regular folks, not the party leaders. If you actually think of the USSR as the prime example of socialism you're an idiot.
- InspectorGadget, on 03/07/2008, -2/+6Socialism is communal property plus coercion. The USSR was a great example of socialism, and totally exemplifies its failures. Painting a happy face on an atom bomb doesn't make it a children's toy. Socialism IS totalitarianism. The differences between the two are purely semantic, and purely in the mind of whoever advocates either.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1Ah yes, the world's Totalitarian states according to Inspector Gadget:
Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Hungary, Latvia, Yugoslavia, Finland, Belgium, The Czech Republic and Germany. - chrissandvick, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2Asso is obscuring the fact that every single one of those countries also have elements of Capitalism. They are mixed economies, just like the US. He's also ignoring that as the degree of socialism increases the less freedom there is. Advocates of socialism, when they pretend to care about freedom at all, have to smuggle in new definitions. "You're not free if you work for a paycheck. You're not free if don't get free healthcare. You're not free until the state tells you who to work for and what healthcare you can have." Ok you don't see the last one so brazenly stated.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1Socialism is a mixed economy you ignorant.
Communism: single economy. Capitalism: single economy. Anything in between: socialism.
It's an economic doctrine, not a form of government. God damn you people are ignorant. Seriously, read a ***** book. This is enfuriating. - chrissandvick, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2You are devolving into self-parody asso. Just curious. Along with your clearly cheaply-obtained sheepskin, what book did you get this gem of a definition in?
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1The one you wrote: "Everything I think I know, by the lowest common denominator". Also published as "I think I know, the way to an ignorant life" and "Appeal to authority, questions that defeat my own opinion".
- chrissandvick, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2Oh come dude, just cough up a title, even an author. I'll do the leg work. You afraid we are going to find it is published by Bechkam? Wileys? That Wiley's would laugh and say "Not even a dummy..."
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1I'm an anarchist.
First of all, quoting books doesn't change anything. I wrote two of them myself, on semantics and logic. Look at me, I'm suddenly an authority. I can find two authorities on any given subject that will have completely contradictory opinions and then you'll attack the validity of the authorities instead of attacking the argument: that everything in between capitalism and communism can be described as socialism. Which is inherently true, there are no other words for it.
Second, appeal to authority is a fallacy.
Third, you're typing on the biggest socialist project in the history of mankind.
Fourth:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=defin ...
Pick one.
Sixth, all the countries I listed, with the exception of Canada which likes to pretend that it's not socialist with free education and free healthcare, are governed by socialist parties and described themselves as socialist republics. - chrissandvick, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2It's gracious of you to not provide me a cite or reference to spare me the appeal to authority. Such kindness should be appreciated for what it is. But I think offthewagon is right. Your tautological defense of your definition is pretty odd for an academic. Reads like an education from the spliffstitute. But hey, with modern universities anythings possible. And dude, the googled definitions don't support yours.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/08/2008, -1/+1My argument was not a tautology because it wasn't a tautology.
That's a tautology.
And the point would be the number of different definitions not the definitions themselves. And they all contradict yours.
All mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mathematical ... - SteveMacGregor, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1what were the books you wrote?
- Vzylexy, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2Been reading Jonah Goldberg's book, eh?
- ilves7, on 03/07/2008, -5/+5LOL. Communism is NOT the same thing as socialism. Plus USSR was totalitarian as much as it was communist. Communism only applied to the regular folks, not the party leaders. If you actually think of the USSR as the prime example of socialism you're an idiot.
- FatherVic, on 03/07/2008, -1/+12Fascism was founded on socialist principles.
"authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism."
The key here is "subordinate to the interests of the state"
Socialism would NOT encourage homeschooling. But socialism is just an aspect of systems like fascism, communism, marxism, and progressivism.- InspectorGadget, on 03/07/2008, -1/+5Not to mention the "Progressives" in the US in the 1930s favored eugenics. I wonder if politicians that take up the progressive cause stop to ponder what they're actually endorsing.
- FatherVic, on 03/07/2008, -2/+4no... we just need to erase that from history so we can paint conservatives as fascists and re-invent liberalism once again because it fails.
- InspectorGadget, on 03/07/2008, -1/+5Not to mention the "Progressives" in the US in the 1930s favored eugenics. I wonder if politicians that take up the progressive cause stop to ponder what they're actually endorsing.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -4/+4Ladies and gentlemen, proof of the failure of the public education system.^
- chrissandvick, on 03/07/2008, -1/+3You say tomAto, I say tomAHto. Same difference to the victims.
- ilves7, on 03/07/2008, -3/+5Socialism, in itself, would neither oppose or promote home-schooling.
- jbmcb, on 03/07/2008, -4/+3Not quite. Socialism is an economic system and really has nothing to do with education. Fascism is a form of government, and has everything to do with nationalized education.
- chrissandvick, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2That's far too narrow a definition of socialism. Socialism is a form of government and there's definitely implications about education (state control over curriculum at a bare minimum) among a whole host of others things: politics, law, medicine, political philosophy, and many more. This is holistic, not plug-in play.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system of central planning.
A system based on public ownership of the means of production and distribution of wealth.
an economic system based on state ownership of capital
SOCIALISM : The core idea of socialism, in its democratic form, is that the working classes; that is, the majority, should form an extensive system of government which aims at securing all citizens the right to the equal satisfaction of vital needs. The purpose of socialist health care policy, for example, is to provide the citizens with all the medical treatments and other health-related services that they genuinely need. In this model all aspects of health care policy-making should be controlled democratically; that is, by the representatives of the people. Private citizens can often make ethical decisions when it comes to choices between treatment and non-treatment, or between two alternative lines of therapy. However, these decisions take place in the framework of a centrally controlled health-care system where no ones needs are allowed, in theory, to trump anybody else's. (See COMMUNITARIANISM; LIBERTARIANISM; LIBERAL UTILITARIANISM; UTILITARIANISM; DEMOCRACY).
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -3/+1You guys really need to watch the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIzBT-TbJL4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3YFx10kT60
- InspectorGadget, on 03/07/2008, -7/+12Same thing. Both enforce their views through the machinery of the state. Notice the resemblance between Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR.
- Whackly, on 03/07/2008, -5/+6What do you mean "stay together?" "Remain a group?" Is there something that would cause.... oh yeah.. you mean after he loses the election....
- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -14/+15i don't think it is crazy to ask that people who teach actually have some freakin' clue how to teach. it's great that they love god--the majority anyway, i know a few libertarian homeschoolers--but god shouldn't keep your kid from having the best chance to actually get a job later in life.
"Poor billy decided he wanted to be a chemist, but uh oh, mommy got a d in highschool chem. Sucks to be billy."- MrWhite7, on 03/07/2008, -1/+13I'm a product of the public school system and hold a teaching certificate in good standing. For socialization you can't beat public school. For actually learningthings, homeschooling is so much better.
- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -3/+3why
- MrWhite7, on 03/07/2008, -0/+6Any number of issues: trust, attention span, learning style, focus, wasted travel-time, behavior management, lesson planning. What would you like to focus on?
- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -2/+2let me be the devil's advocate....
in the strictest sense, homeschooling is an attempt by a parent to socialize a kid into believing their own fascist agendas. in effect, parents of homeschooled children are dictators ruling over a limited population, forcing them to follow their rules, punishing when their doctrine is questioned, and minimizing their interaction with undesirable countercultures.
back to your issues...
trust in the parents becomes strengthened, trust in everyone else is weakened because they are not parents.
attention span is strengthened, hearing questions from multiple students allowing one to better understand the material is weakened.
learning style depends on what the teacher enjoys more. as does focus. if the parent likes math they will teach more math, or at least, with greater zeal than other subjects. the student suffers.
wasted travel time? where do you live, the ozarks?
behavior management--sounds a little Orwellian. - Iamthechamp, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2Learning style depends on what the teacher enjoys? Are you kidding me? A big advantage of homeschooling is allowing the kids to concentrate on things they enjoy. My mom was terrible at math, I loved math, but I rushed through math twice as fast as the public schools teach it because I enjoyed it and taught myself.
- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1You.
Taught.
Yourself.
Meaning, your mother couldn't teach you. Meaning she shouldn't have been the one to teach you. - offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1i would have added this to my previous comment but i got locked out of my edit...
not everyone is a math whiz or a science whiz or a history buff. not everyone knows where they want their life to go at 13. stick one of those people in your mother's classroom and they suffer in math and don't care. later in college they might finally figure out what they want to do with their life, but if they had a poor background in that subject they are goign to have to haul ass to get caught up. I don't see that as the optimal plan. - MrWhite7, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2All of your arguments are based on presumptions. I had to laugh when you claimed Behavior management is Orwellian as it's a centerpoint of public education. I appreciate your concerns regarding the problems which may arise in homeschool, but based on my experiences as a public school student and teacher, they are as easily applied to public schools.
- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1i claimed it was orwellian because i figured it would be an easy out. :)
in truth, many of those things you mentioned were repetitive. focus, attention span, managing behavior--all related, unless you want to clarify what each of those terms mean. focus could individual focus or focus on specific courses.
- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -3/+3why
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -3/+17The fact that some people use homeschooling to waste their kids brains on fairy tales should have no impact on my right to educate my kids. Why should I, an atheist with a Phd, be deprived of my human rights because some idiot degenerates want to pretend that it's 1878 again?
Have you talked to a public school teacher recently? My local school wouldn't even grade my kids' work. That's a retard factory, not an education facility.- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -5/+5a man with a phd using the expression "retard factory." where did you get it, Trinidad polytechnic?"
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -6/+3So you think the great people of Trinidad can't possibly have a quality education system?
Because they're black right? http://www.utt.edu.tt/
I use the words that come to my mouth you *****.- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -2/+2why does a doctor study medicine in trinidad? because there scores weren't good enough to get them in an american school. using simple logic: better students, better school--if only because any of the teachers' failings at a prestigious school will be made up by the student's innate ability and intelligence. trinidad being black has nothing to do with it.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -3/+2That's not logic. That's not even an argument. You tried to be a smartass and you failed miserably. You assume that people would want to go to an American school. I'd rather be deported to Syria than have to deal with Americans on a daily basis. Better students: you claim americans are better students than the great people of Trinidad Better school: expensive dumbasses are still dumbasses. A student's intelligence has absolutely no impact on the quality of teaching, on the quality of services offered by the school, on the quality of the institution or even on the subject matter. Btw, I'm a logic professor.
- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2i doubt you are a logic professor, elassowipo. Your phd must be in spliffs, with a BS in b.s.
i'd hate to think a logic professor's winning argument would be "YOU DON'T LIKE TRINIDAD BECAUSE IT HAS BLACK PEOPLES!!!!!" - ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1Wow, ad hominem and strawman, you sure showed me. The last resort of the intellectually deprived. What are you going to do next, ask me to step outside?
Btw, next time you're trying to outsmart someone, try using proper english, it's superficial but it will really help you win the hearts of the simple minded. - offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2i was being facetious, my learned friend. how can you claim a better facility with the language when you have difficulty deciphering subtext and a habit of swearing when driven to anger.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1Apparently you still are, incorrect grammar and syntax again.
So you mean things that make you angry make you use vulgar words, right? - offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2my grammar is perfect. your spelling on the other hand...
straw man is two words. funny, you'd think a logic professor would know that - ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1Way to avoid the question, of course you did, it defeated your own argument. You did the same thing I did. It's called the Plato defense, stupid. I ***** made you say it.
Your grammar is deplorable.
Strawman can be a single word when describing a fallacy, you blithering idiot.
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Strawman
Also, this is the button you press to get capital letters, asshat:
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/58/1 ...
And finally, English is my third language. J'ai été élevé en Français, crétin. - offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1real wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
if i was attempting to publish i would capitalize. but this is digg, so i relax the rules - ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1And there you go, being completely off topic.
So far we've established that you think Americans are more intelligent than the people of Trinidad. That they are poor and therefore stupid. And that people with money go to USA number one for a "real" education. And that makes american schools better.
We've also established that your original argument was a fallacy, that you couldn't defend it and that you use flawed reasoning to defend your opinions.
And finally, that you are guilty of what you accused me of and are in no way shape or form able to use logic or proper argumentation to defend your own flawed little ideas of superiority. - offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1i took french in high school and college. i did ok. had trouble with some pronouns, like "lui."
also, the dictionary let me down. i'd find a word in there, use it as it was defined, and it would sometimes be contextually wrong, like if i wrote "allo" instead of "bonjour, salut," etc...
funny thing is, it would happen with words like "turnstile." - offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1we have changed subjects so many times that i think this pissing match is getting a little silly. but i'm game.
the topic was spelling and grammar. you showed proof yours was right, i showed proof yours was wrong. then you changed the subject.
i never said the trinidadians were poor and therefore stupid. that is you inventing something to strengthen your argument. again, you'll have to supply the term you've learned in your intro to philosophy class
never said all American schools were better. but many are, sure.
i don't know which argument you think i proved to be a fallacy. again, we've jumped topics so many times. - ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1This is the topic: "a man with a phd using the expression "retard factory." where did you get it, Trinidad polytechnic?" And we didn't jump anything, you jumped to avoid all rebuttals. You've proven that you can't use logic to argue. You are therefore dismissed as a reasonnable person. Continuing this massacre would be like attacking the handicapped so I'll let you go.
- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1how does "a man with a phd using the expression "retard factory." where did you get it, Trinidad polytechnic?" lead to...
"So far we've established that you think Americans are more intelligent than the people of Trinidad. That they are poor and therefore stupid."
and. you said this...
A student's intelligence has absolutely no impact on the quality of teaching, on the quality of services offered by the school, on the quality of the institution or even on the subject matter.
after this...
using simple logic: better students, better school--if only because any of the teachers' failings at a prestigious school will be made up by the student's innate ability and intelligence."
i presumed you would argue that better students does not equate to better schools, but my argument is that the students will be smart enough to overcome any limitations their teachers have, if they have any.
if trinidad accepts students with poorer skills, the teachers will have to have the more ability than american teachers, at least the sort found at the prestigious schools, to overcome them.
assuming a teacher would rather go to a bigger school where they will get more money, i doubt a school in trinidad will have the absolute best.
so. if the students are better...and the teachers are better...and american school will be better than a trinidadian one. - ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1""a man with a phd using the expression "retard factory." where did you get it, Trinidad polytechnic?"
"How did you get so stupid? Is it because you're American?"
If reason and intelligence distinguishes us from the rest of the great apes, you do not qualify as human. - offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1congratulations on ignoring my well-thought out argument. i was pretty sure you would attack the typos.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Bark bark, growel, bark, bark, moo.
- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1quel est le mot pour un homme qui aime--comment dites-vous "to grandstand"--quand il ne sait pas quoi dire.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Bark moo, growel, bark. Woof woof.
- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1blah
- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5btw, with the internet, cellphones, peers, what makes you think schools still have any ability to greatly affect a child's socialization, beyond being able to interact with people outside one's family unit.
- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -7/+3in other words, people aren't necessarily homeschooling to protect their children from the state, they're doing it to protect their children from other children who might try to influence their little darlings in a way they can't control.
- MrWhite7, on 03/07/2008, -1/+4in other words when someone begins a setence with in otherwords, they're going to reshape your statement and turn it into something they can actually challenge.
- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2delete "in other words" and respond to my statement if a clause threatens you.
- MrWhite7, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2Generally statements worth rebutting need some sort of basis. What was your statement founded on?
- offthewagon, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1it came from the thought that, if technology makes it so people are able to greatly socialize on their own--away from school--than any socialization the school imparts is minimal--aside from bringing many different children together--and if that is the case it begs the question about what the parents' true goal is in homeschooling. It would have to be pure education, right? But if that were the case, they would all gladly get certified and be happy to do it, knowing it would help them better teach their children.
instead we have fights, and parents trying to find ways to declare their residences private schools so they can avoid such instruction. it seems to me, these are the actions of people scared to let their children hang around with undesirable influences--not just the state educational system, including its heathen "health" classes--but the children who would corrupt theirs 8.00 to 3.00, five times a week.
- MrWhite7, on 03/07/2008, -1/+4in other words when someone begins a setence with in otherwords, they're going to reshape your statement and turn it into something they can actually challenge.
- chrissandvick, on 03/07/2008, -0/+7Both of my parents taught in the public school system They'd be the 1st to support private schooling or home schooling your kids in a bad district.
And as far as jobs go, one of the best programers I've met had a GED.- MrWhite7, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2I'll be the 3d.
- CoolWind, on 03/07/2008, -4/+3It's a drag for some parents to have to comply with this law, but it's a huge blessing for some children who are having their lives ruined by parents who couldn't care less about their education. Every kid should have a chance to succeed in society, even if their parents don't want to deal with society.
- MrWhite7, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2I agree, but now all we're left is "the ends justify the means."
- DiogenesJr, on 03/08/2008, -0/+0I agree with your sentiment, but the state has no right to trample your rights as a parent for the benefit of your child's education. The wonderful thing about the US is that you're judge on your personal merit and opportunity is limited only by personal ambition. If your parents wanted to teach you that Jesus invented dinosaurs to test your faith, fine. When you get out into the world and your re-treading tires for a living, you then have the option of filling in the blanks and moving on.
The state should not and, morally, does not have the right to enforce its will on you when it is wrong.
- MrWhite7, on 03/07/2008, -1/+13I'm a product of the public school system and hold a teaching certificate in good standing. For socialization you can't beat public school. For actually learningthings, homeschooling is so much better.
- JohnboiWaltune, on 03/07/2008, -11/+8Homeschooling should be allowed, but homeschoolers should be held to the same standards that public schools are. The problem is this. What if the parents sequester their child in an environment where every single person the child interacts with thinks that Religion XYZ is the most important thing in the world, and that people who don't believe in XYZ are evil sinners who deserve to be tortured forever? Then what happens when this kid is 18 and goes out into the world and starts meeting people who think that Religion XYZ is wrong or completely irrelevant? They are going to have serious problems adjusting.
I do have a big problem with children being brought up in that environment of willful ignorance. When you act as an authority figure to your kids you should not represent your personal opinions as facts. It is child abuse, plain and simple.- MrWhite7, on 03/07/2008, -2/+2No, it's not. It's sick, perverse and counter-productive. It's not child-abuse.
- alenox, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2in response to John, that 1st part pretty much describes my childhood (except i went to a christian school) where my parents controlled my life and taught me everything was black and white, Jesus was the most important thing. When i got to college, i began to question my beliefs and eventually, left my faith after doing a lot of research and studying Christianity from different perspectives. But as far as "serious problems" I really think I adjusted pretty well (besides having a little catching up to do with Da Ladies ;-) and still have a good relationship with my parents
- curtisag, on 03/07/2008, -1/+4Public schools have standards? That's a good one :). I sympathize with your argument that religious parents shouldn't brainwash their children to believe all sorts of nonsense that retards their future, but there's no way to prevent that without a police state. And there are plenty of atheists who would want to home school their children given the pathetic ability of our public schools to keep our children competitive with the rest of the world. Not all home schooled children are being brainwashed. Until the public schools raise their standards to a level equal to Japan and other industrialized nations that lead us in math and science teaching, parents should always have the option to opt out of such a broken system.
- DiogenesJr, on 03/08/2008, -1/+0I completely agree that most of the homeschooled kids I've met were taught mainly religious garbage. However, it is the parents right, absolute and undeniable, to teach their children as they see fit no matter what damage it does to the child's future. I don't like religious indoctrination anymore than you, but it is not the state's responsibility to save children from zealous parents (unless the children are facing physical harm, that is).
- Chompy, on 03/07/2008, -15/+2+28 diggs? Is this one of those crazy Ron Paul threads where all the nutbars digg up their fellow nutters and digg down anyone who dares to differ? I thought we were done with those.
- AndreiOttawa, on 03/07/2008, -3/+1Get over it, Chompy...
- kosser, on 03/07/2008, -3/+6Not only this, they will expel any student who doesn't take their vaccines. So, they try to dumb you down by sticking you to these horrible public schools, unwillingly, and then stick you w/ vaccines that have traces of mercury and are just horrible cocktails that destroy your body.
This shows how free we really are.
Check history, Hitler did this exact same thing. Just research.- TomK88, on 03/07/2008, -8/+1I can't tell if he is being sarcastic or not? I didn't know taking Hep B shots was considered an "infringement on your rights". I mean, trying to eliminate a deadly disease is just crazy!
- girlpirate, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5but what if I WANT Hep B? ( no worries, I Be HB Free[dumbest slogan ever btw]). Receiving the shot isnt an infringement. Being FORCED to take the shot is.
- MalenfantX, on 03/07/2008, -1/+0It's not any kind of infringement if you're allowed to leave the school/country/whatever if you refuse. You don't have the right to put others at risk by being a kook and not getting vaccinated.
- kosser, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Hep B is understandable because it's deadly. But, instead of using the obvious one why don't you explain the rest. Hib, HepA, HepB, IPV, PCV, MCV4, DTaP, Tdap, varicella and influenza.It's just like girlpirate said, it's being forced that is the worse part. They expel you and then you cant take homeschooling lol. So you then have to go to another school that's going to force you to do the same thing.
- junolynn, on 03/07/2008, -3/+1girl, it's a kid. I don't want kids running around with diseases because their parents were too idiotic and didn't care enough about them to give them vaccines. When you turn 18, don't get vaccines, hell don't get any health care if you want. You're an adult. Just stay away from the rest of the world (like homeschoolers do anyway).
- girlpirate, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5but what if I WANT Hep B? ( no worries, I Be HB Free[dumbest slogan ever btw]). Receiving the shot isnt an infringement. Being FORCED to take the shot is.
- TomK88, on 03/07/2008, -8/+1I can't tell if he is being sarcastic or not? I didn't know taking Hep B shots was considered an "infringement on your rights". I mean, trying to eliminate a deadly disease is just crazy!
- elamr, on 03/07/2008, -10/+5Why is your hair on fire? Homeschooling is not banned in California, the parents just have to have credentials. That is inconvenient, but not an absolute.
- Sogui, on 03/07/2008, -13/+6Oh yes that evil fascist curriculum... like "READING" *thunder crack*
and...and...
SCIENCE (THEY DON"T TEACH CREATIONISM, HOW WILL THEY LEARN ABOUT JESUS!?) *Double thunder-crack*
and don't forget the hateful orgy of sin.... RECESS
Quick pull your kids out before it's too late, the Ron Paul meetup groups will teach them everything they need to know, they're really smart and in touch with reality, I mean except for that whole "Ron Paul's gonna win, look at this straw poll numbers" thing.- aleololli, on 03/07/2008, -2/+8Dude your cynical sarcasm seems to be the trend on this board. At least these people believe in something and want to make our country a better place. You on the other hand seem to be okay with a failing education system and a completely screwed 2 party political system. How about having having a point of your own instead of just throwing a blanket stereotype on every one else's.
- junolynn, on 03/07/2008, -2/+2You think that teaching kids with absolutely NO credentials yourself is helping them? This is the biggest fault with homeschooling parents. They think only THEY can do a good job, while teaching their kids that creationism is true and science is evil. It's utter arrogance and ONLY serves to harm children and society as a whole. Not to mention the whole socially stunted part.
- aleololli, on 03/07/2008, -2/+8Dude your cynical sarcasm seems to be the trend on this board. At least these people believe in something and want to make our country a better place. You on the other hand seem to be okay with a failing education system and a completely screwed 2 party political system. How about having having a point of your own instead of just throwing a blanket stereotype on every one else's.
- quaxon, on 03/07/2008, -9/+9The people who truly want to homeschool to give their children a BETTER education (i.e. the real history of the US, more advanced math and science, etc.) wont fuss and most likely are already accredited to teach. Its the religious wackos who dont wanna give their children any form of education other than what the bible says and are too dumb to get properly certified that truly have a problem with this.
- CoolWind, on 03/07/2008, -4/+3I suspect there are more non-religious whackos who don't want to spend time or money taking their kids to school, where everyone would notice their dirty ragged clothes and bruises all over their bodies.
- MrWhite7, on 03/07/2008, -2/+2And truelly that's what school is about... detecting child-abuse.
- junolynn, on 03/07/2008, -3/+0Funny, most kids I knew in school who were abused were done so by Christian fundies.
- AndreiOttawa, on 03/07/2008, -5/+2Wanting to give children better education alone does not give parents the right to remove a child from school and qualify them to teach ALL the subjects.
- KCLorelei39, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5who are you to say who is 'qualified' to teach? do you need an accreditation to become a parent? any kid can pop out another child...and any fool can turn their kids over to strangers to 'educate'
the whole academic system currently in place in this country is little more than a giant scam, perpetrated by so-called 'scholars' to defleece the masses for worthless degrees, gain control and power, promoting themselves as 'experts', while serving their own specific passions. and they call persons of faith 'zealots' and 'wackos' but cannot see the exact same thing in themselves that they attack others for supposedly perpetrating.
- CoolWind, on 03/07/2008, -4/+3I suspect there are more non-religious whackos who don't want to spend time or money taking their kids to school, where everyone would notice their dirty ragged clothes and bruises all over their bodies.
- theutopian, on 03/07/2008, -7/+2Watch out folks, angry white selfish *
- TomK88, on 03/07/2008, -48/+98I love how "socialism" is blamed for this. Socialism is pooling resources when necessary (i.e. military, police, roads, etc.). Quit trying to act like socialism is complete thought control and communism.
