Child abuse ?

[Kousbroek]

You can't force people to love and respect another person and you should not try.

Love no, respect... in some ways the society i live in forces me to respect people so that is not a strange thing to do.

[Napoléon]

After reading this thread I find I can't really make up my mind. Or at the very least it's a lot more of a grey area in my opinion than the black and white 'freedom' vs 'no freedom' some people are making out.

To me, people should absolutely be able to think and say what they want. However I do think there is a line where that freedom of speech and that freedom of thought can impact others. Especially children. Now does that mean we should censor what parents teach their kids? Frankly I think it's impossible to do so, but I am having trouble figuring out whether it would still be acceptable to try though. I mean, if parents are teaching their kids to go out and murder, and people get murdered because of it, are those murdered people not then directly or indirectly affected by freedom of speech? I think I agree with TGAC in this department, education is not a democracy (hence my earlier post about classrooms), and I find being too liberal isn't necessarily what I'd call 'progressive'. But here's where I guess we all define progression as different things.

Is there a choice though over what you value more? A parents' right to teach their child what they wish, or a child's right to a correct view of the world.

Hell is it even that simple? Or maybe I'm completely overcomplicating it. One thing is for sure I haven't slept for fucking ages and my mind is going off on a bender.

[Something completely different]

They do it all the time. Just because someone is a bible quoting moron does not mean they have no other skills. The lack of any other skill is an entirely different issue. I have two very Christian family members who happen to be the most successful members of my family. They run a multi-million dollar tool business.

Oh how nice of you to bring up a argument based on personal expirience in a political debate. No offense but statistics and surveis are more convincing.
Everyone knows religious people. And everyone knows religious people who are productive and kind members of sociaty.
What I am refering to are the people who reffer to those who are not a member of their community as "the secular world", disregard those outside of their community and discriminate those.
One of the main arguments against homeschooling is, that it gives people the possibility to raise their children with a set of values which reject the very principles of the pluralistic democratic sociaty they live in.
I am not only talking about "working skills" (from which I do think that they are not properly tought by non-professionals) but "social skills".

Easy. Saying it is abuse is suggesting that it be treated in a manner fitting abuse, yes? Do children who are abused stay with their parents if that abuse is found out? Not in all cases.

Using ones powers as an adult to raise a intolerant unproductive adult - is abusing a child

Nor should it be determined by a bunch of people on the internet peppered by individuals who can't spell.

Nowhere did I suggest that, what is knowlege and what is not is determened by the scientific comunity - who can spell.

Cirliculum should be set by akademics and professionals, and a educational sector should be built arround the concept of bringing forth inteligent and therefor productive members of sociaty.

The OP was not about curriculum. It was about what parents teach children.

Parents might teach their children to use the toilet and other basics, but they shouldnt teach them biology and other educational experties.
Those subject should be tought by professionals who do not abuse their possition as educators for indoctrinational purposes.

Not talking about education. Talking about parents raising their children.

A parent indoctrinating it`s kids on a intolerant and pseudoscientific worldview - isnt raising (and it`s certainly not educating) it`s abusing.

You have to go with the lesser of two evils here, and the choice is obvious to me. As much as I despise religious indoctrination on kids, the alternative is the government regulating how parents raise a child. I will go with the former every time.

there is no lesser evil.
Homeschooling has been forbidden here since the foundation of the republic - what is tought at public schools is provided by the scientific community - and last time i have checked - we are not jet a savage mindcontrolling dictatorship - and certainly not unfree.

Natural selection will favor the kids whose parents or teachers provide them the best survival advantage.

I reject social darwinism as a concept on which to build up a sociaty.

I firmly believe that every kid and every young adult should have a equal start into life, meaning that everyone should be capable of having the best possible education.
which is the concept we have in Germany - we pump a enormous number on cash in our educational system and made it mandetory for everyone to visit such a school - FOR FREE!

Theres two factors prevailing here.
1. Parents love their kids more than teachers (the State)

Theres a cultural difference here, we dont have this liberterian state xenophobia some people in the US have.
Instead we have a trust for institutions and want to assure them to be in the best possible states.

2. Religion has conferred a survival advantage for a long time.

Can you explain that in a bit more detail? I think my english fails me here.

[Darkstar]

Can you explain that in a bit more detail? I think my english fails me here.

It isn't your english (unless that was sarcasm). Religion has always provided an evolutionary disadvantage, except when as defense against the inquisition and other heretic murdering zealots. It was a non-factor back then because everyone did it, so its relative evolutionary disadvantage nullifed itself.

[Shell B]

Love no, respect... in some ways the society i live in forces me to respect people so that is not a strange thing to do.

Not really. Respect is a feeling. They force you to treat people in a certain way so as not to trample on their rights.

---

Oh how nice of you to bring up a argument based on personal expirience in a political debate.

A. It was an example. B. This isn't a political debate. C. If you keep calling people dumb and making that many spelling errors, I am going to have to laugh. Sorry. Most browsers have built in spell check, so nationality is no excuse.

No offense but statistics and surveis are more convincing.
Everyone knows religious people. And everyone knows religious people who are productive and kind members of sociaty.

Well, then. Let's stop pretending that them teaching their children their religion is abuse.

What I am refering to are the people who reffer to those who are not a member of their community as "the secular world", disregard those outside of their community and discriminate those.

Why? What the fuck do you care if they are disregarding people? It's none of your business how they think and feel.

One of the main arguments against homeschooling is, that it gives people the possibility to raise their children with a set of values which reject the very principles of the pluralistic democratic sociaty they live in.

Tough shit. Sorry, but homeschooling is not going anywhere. Would you deny a handicapped child homeschooling?

I am not only talking about "working skills" (from which I do think that they are not properly tought by non-professionals) but "social skills".

Oh, so now it is child abuse not to teach a child social skills? What the hell?

Using ones powers as an adult to raise a intolerant unproductive adult - is abusing a child

Eh. Wrong. You are redefining a word. I am never, ever a fan of that.

Nowhere did I suggest that, what is knowlege and what is not is determened by the scientific comunity - who can spell.

Wrong again. What is knowledge is determined by people who write dictionaries. Besides, the ins and outs of a religion is knowledge. It's just not worthy knowledge in your eyes.

Cirliculum should be set by akademics and professionals, and a educational sector should be built arround the concept of bringing forth inteligent and therefor productive members of sociaty.

Parents might teach their children to use the toilet and other basics, but they shouldnt teach them biology and other educational experties.

Fuuuuuuck that.

Those subject should be tought by professionals who do not abuse their possition as educators for indoctrinational purposes.

You're scaring me.

[Something completely different]

A. It was an example. B. This isn't a political debate. C. If you keep calling people dumb and making that many spelling errors, I am going to have to laugh. Sorry. Most browsers have built in spell check, so nationality is no excuse.

I didnt call you dumb!, and I have oftern acknowleged that I make spelling mistakes - and eaven greatfully accepted corrections by other participants of this forum. I use other forums aswell as I write alot on word - so my spellcheck is always set on german language. If you can converse in perfect german - go ahead.

Well, then. Let's stop pretending that them teaching their children their religion is abuse.

If "teaching them their religion" includes teaching them a biggoted worldview, rejection of democracy, pseudoscience and a discriminatory view of others - it is abuse.

Why? What the fuck do you care if they are disregarding people? It's none of your business how they think and feel.

"disriminate those" - therefor.
If you think this only means "thinking" then you are wrong, it might aswell lead to violence and attempt to force their views on others.

Tough shit. Sorry, but homeschooling is not going anywhere. Would you deny a handicapped child homeschooling?

No, I would deny it being tought nonsence. Which is my point!

Oh, so now it is child abuse not to teach a child social skills? What the hell?

I dont know the correct term.
I will rephrase into: Not assuring that your child is a integrated member of the sociaty it lives in, is abuse.

Eh. Wrong. You are redefining a word. I am never, ever a fan of that.

A parent has the obligation to raise it`s child to be a integrated member of sociaty - if it does not it failes this obligation.
If it deliberatly teaches them nonsence it is abusing it`s parental commitment - therefor abusing the child.

Wrong again. What is knowledge is determined by people who write dictionaries. Besides, the ins and outs of a religion is knowledge. It's just not worthy knowledge in your eyes.

Write dictonaries? What?! Do you have an idea who we have and got to have, what we call knowlege?
What is the "ins and outs" of a religion?

Fuuuuuuck that.

So why should parents then be the teachers of their kids, eaven if they teach them nonsence?
Or was that the maturest argument you could give?

You're scaring me.

I cant stand it when people answere in emotional hogwash phrases and believe this to be a valid argument.
If you cant deliver facts to back up a rejection of an argument, dont answere.

[Annik]

Wrong again. What is knowledge is determined by people who write dictionaries. Besides, the ins and outs of a religion is knowledge. It's just not worthy knowledge in your eyes.

Not that I agree with Germans on this issue, but dictionaries just report how a word is used, not how it should be used.

[festive1]

To me, people should absolutely be able to think and say what they want. However I do think there is a line where that freedom of speech and that freedom of thought can impact others. Especially children. Now does that mean we should censor what parents teach their kids? Frankly I think it's impossible to do so, but I am having trouble figuring out whether it would still be acceptable to try though. I mean, if parents are teaching their kids to go out and murder, and people get murdered because of it, are those murdered people not then directly or indirectly affected by freedom of speech? I think I agree with TGAC in this department, education is not a democracy (hence my earlier post about classrooms), and I find being too liberal isn't necessarily what I'd call 'progressive'. But here's where I guess we all define progression as different things.

Well, from a legal standpoint, I know there have been defenses made of murderers that are basically, "They were raised surrounded by violence as children. They became violent. They are therefore not accountable for their actions." And they have pretty much been shot down every time. While it is true that a child born into violence learns that this is an acceptable practice, it doesn't negate the fact that the person is responsible for their own actions.

[Shell B]

Not that I agree with Germans on this issue, but dictionaries just report how a word is used, not how it should be used.

Not this again. Dictionaries list the meanings of words. Just because some people don't like to use the conventional meaning of words does not make dictionaries less valid. In fact, it is this very odd word anarchy that so often makes communication in the English language so utterly exasperating. If we all run around interpreting and using words as we see fit, communicating becomes less communicating and more grunting meaningless sounds at each other. I've seen and had conversations that wasted minutes to hours when in the end of that time period someone said, "Oh, we agree. We just have different definitions." Happened to me and Tibs the other day. Can't fucking remember what the word was.

[Annik]

Not this again. Dictionaries list the meanings of words. Just because some people don't like to use the conventional meaning of words does not make dictionaries less valid. In fact, it is this very odd word anarchy that so often makes communication in the English language so utterly exasperating. If we all run around interpreting and using words as we see fit, communicating becomes less communicating and more grunting meaningless sounds at each other. I've seen and had conversations that wasted minutes to hours when in the end of that time period someone said, "Oh, we agree. We just have different definitions." Happened to me and Tibs the other day. Can't fucking remember what the word was.

I'm just saying that the dictionaries are the end-all be-all of words. They report usage, which is why they change every year. So, no one "decides" what the definition of "knowledge" is. It's decided by the people who speak that language.