Child abuse ?

[Shell B]

I don't think his posts are like that. Then again, I actually bother reading his posts.

Personally I thought it was a pretty sloppy excuse for just trying to disagree with him for the sake of it.

Fine, Napo. There you have it. Those are your tactics. Barely talking to you, make one reference to you and then you jump in and decide that I am disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing and that I don't read his posts. Firstly, I strongly disagreed from the beginning of this thread because I disagree with the premise. Tough shit. Secondly, I did read them, as evidenced above. Those are your tactics. You do that because you decided you think I'm just a bitch a long time ago. For your information, I am a bitch, but I am not *just* a bitch. Regardless of how callous my posts are, there is always a point. Now, you are telling me I have a tendency of dropping sly comments without explaining them. Since when have you known me to shy away from being blunt? I've already stated that I am done with the debate in here. There is no point to continue the dramatic bullshit that stemmed from it.

---

Also, this made me think of you. The end.

[Napoléon]

Fine, Napo. There you have it. Those are your tactics. Barely talking to you, make one reference to you and then you jump in and decide that I am disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing and that I don't read his posts.

You brought me into it by saying how I'm an idiot because I gave Germans a kudos. Joking or not I'm going to say something on that aren't I.

So, I did, and then saw (what appeared to me) you blame Germans' English for not understanding his position, when I personally found his English to be pretty bloody good.

You responded to that, I responded to your response. Etc. Don't go on like I've been chiming in without good reason just to slander your name or something, that's just downright disingenuous and laughable.

Those are your tactics. You do that because you decided you think I'm just a bitch a long time ago.

Haha, right, I replied specifically to you just because I think you're a bitch (which seems to be your preconceived notion) and for no other reason (not like you called me an idiot or anything).

Someone has an over-inflated sense of how important they think they are to me if I'm being perfectly blunt.


I stand by my opinions earlier, while Germans was being convoluted (I said as much myself earlier in the thread), I didn't think his view was that hard to understand. That's the only reason I made a jibe about not reading his posts, not because I have this vendetta against you like you seem to think.


Oh, and sorry for the long off topic post.

*edit* Oh and that picture needs a correction

It should be:

"What do you feel like doing today Napoleon"

"Whatever the fucking hell I want."

Gosh just sounds too pansy.

[Shell B]

That's why I liked gosh.

[Rayaan]

I like that picture, too, but for some reason it went past my screen and I couldn't see the "gosh" part of it. So I scaled it down.

[Cyberman]

It looked to me like Old Bony was talking to someone named gosh. Sloppy grammar.

[Waratah]

I was watching an interview with Kirk Cameron on YT and as usual i was amused by his 'sincere stupidity' until he quite proudly stated "i'm a dad, i have children".
The 1st thing i thought was oh noo poor kids.
We as adults are able to see through the nonsense he is trying to force on us but his kids aren't.
The thought of him raising kids with ideas like: men walked with dinosaurs, 6000 yr old earth, a talking snake, a banana is proof of god etc ..
Shouldn't we stop calling this freedom of religion and start calling it what it is.

Child abuse.

I assume we are talking about christians in general and the use of the new testament and old testament.
From your examples, "men walked with dinosaurs, 6000 yr old earth, a talking snake, a banana is proof of god", I don't think it is child abuse because it brings no direct harm. I did not include your "etc" which could include things which I think could be thought of as child abuse.

Here in New South Wales, Australia, this is what is classed as child abuse (LINK) and psychological abuse is included.

psychological abuse or harm

Serious psychological harm can occur where the behaviour of their parent or caregiver damages the confidence and self esteem of the child or young person, resulting in serious emotional deprivation or trauma.

Although it is possible for ‘one-off’ incidents to cause serious harm, in general it is the frequency, persistence and duration of the parental or carer behaviour that is instrumental in defining the consequences for the child.

This can include a range of behaviours such as excessive criticism, withholding affection, exposure to domestic violence, intimidation or threatening behaviour.

The following verses I found HERE are from the World English Bible. The following could be used to inflict physical or emotion abuse in my opinion.

Proverbs 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, but one who loves him is careful to discipline him.

Proverbs 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: the rod of discipline drives it far from him.

Revelation 21:8 But for the cowardly, unbelieving, sinners, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

Deuteronomy 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and, though they chasten him, will not listen to them;
Deuteronomy 21:19 then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place;
Deuteronomy 21:20 and they shall tell the elders of his city, "This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard."
Deuteronomy 21:21 All the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Leviticus 20:9 "'For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Just from the above verses and the definition I provided it is quite possible for there to be child abuse within Kirk Cameron's family. I think it all depends on how the bible is interpreted and anyone who thinks "men walked with dinosaurs, 6000 yr old earth, a talking snake, a banana is proof of god" is a good candidate(not guaranteed) to inflict child abuse.

[liam]

That`s why homeschooling is forbidden by law, in Germany.

Germany has always been ahead of its time, das ist wo es mein zweisten Leiblingslande sind.

[Something completely different]

This should stop.

It has mutated from a debate, into a Mad Max 3 style cage fight.

It has? Here I thought I was simply asking questions. Still, I'd like to hear what shell thinks my old bullshit tactics are. When someone has a tendency to slyly make such accusations without even specifiying what it is they are accusing me of, I don't think it's unfair to ask what it is they are accusing me of.

I do want to continue this, the thing is, I am not getting an answere. Now if I post my opinions and someone tells me that I am contradicting myself and therefor my argument is invalid - I would like my contradictions to be shown to me. After, at first, she refused to do this, I posted my opinion again - very clearly point after point - underlining my argumentation.
She started asking more questions as if I hadn`t been clear enought, still refuseing to give a counterargument - based on the claim that previous posts were contradictory. She then pointed those "contradictions" out together with a statement of refusal to make a counterargument.
If in debate one delivers a argument, the oposition delivers a counterargument. - Or at least, that is what I perceive to be the common order on how debates are held. Of course there is no such thing as a set of rules on how one has to debate, but the form I perceive as being the most common one is the one I mentioned above.
Now, I defended my position and I am willing and have the arguments for such. I see this debate centered arrounf the question of where within the conflicting positions of personal freedom and sociatial wellbeing - concerning schooleducation - the limitations to both are. I made my point clear, based on laws, statistics and the possible threats to sociaty - if someone who has actual arguments wants to post them - please.

And to argue that "a law is not reality" is absurd.

To constantly repeat myself, only to get no counterargument is to me annoying and maybe to others amusing.

And at a certain point I got aggressive.

And if you have a other personal issue with her, I am not saying that I want to hinder you on resolving such, but I`d rather not get involved in such personal matters.

Germany has always been ahead of its time, das ist wo es mein zweisten Leiblingslande sind.

Nope, we usualy copy policies from scandinavian nations (especialy Norway) who (besides the legalisation of canabis) are the most progressive nations in Europe.
They invented social healthcare and compulsery schooleducation.
There is a reason why Norway is number one on the list of nations with the highest standerd of living.

[Shell B]

I do want to continue this

Tough shit. Read the thread if you want my counterarguments. I'm tired and have spent way too much time repeating myself. Goodnight.

[Something completely different]

Tough shit. Read the thread if you want my counterarguments. I'm tired and have spent way too much time repeating myself. Goodnight.

Ok, I now read all your posts in this thread. I will try to keep this short and still adress everything I understand as an argument, eaven if I had adressed it before.

Your argumentation on the use of the phrase child abuse in connection with raising a child:

---

It is not abuse. Therefore, we should not call it abuse. Every single parent on the face of this planet that is actually in his or her child's life teaches it their beliefs with or without knowing it. Are we going to start tearing up families now because parents are teaching children their religion? For it to be abuse, the child has to be hurt in some way. You could argue that the child's opportunities are fewer for believing stupidity, but a poor child's opportunities are fewer. Is being poor child abuse? I'm sorry, but this is as batshit as Christian's telling us what we can say to our kids.

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.

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

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

Wait, so rejection of democracy is also a problem? So, it is abuse if parents teach their kids that a Constitutional Republic is the way to go?

---

My counterargument:

I believe that raising a child in a way, which will make the child cause harm to others within it`s sociaty, can be called abuse of that child.
For instance: raising a child on the thought that blowing up abortion clinics or murdering a member of a ethnical minority or other sect is justifiable. One cannot intervene when a child is raised on a ground of racist ideas - But in the case of advocating violence, I would advocate taking the child from it`s parents - if the parents violent intentions can be proven.
Individual freedoms should be limited when it comes to the point when someone might potentialy cause harm to health or individual freedoms of others. Eaven if this means indoctrinating minors to cause harm as adults.

Something weird:

---

Scientists do not define knowledge, nor are they the only purveyors of knowledge. I'm not sure we are meeting up with the term knowledge here. Knowledge is just stuff that you know. It can be fucking anything. I know that my table is wood. I know that dog farts smell funny. A scientists did not pop his head in the first time my first dog farted and tell me that.

Scientists and science are not just another thing to be deified.

---

Maybe you dont know this, but those who define what is knowlege are not those who write dictonaries, or deterime what is writen about terms and definition, within a dictonary like Langenscheid publishing or the Academie francaise, - but by a school of philosophy whos research is based on the subject of what humans can know - called Epistomology.
One could debate what is knowlege and what is not in philosophy, and a child could be brought up by it`s parents to believe in one certain philosophical form of reasoning, but to debate in a mathslesson "if quadratic equasions are viabel to learning, because it might not be knowlege and maths as a natural science is only something else to be deified" - is to be completly out of touch with reality - for which there is no room in a schoolclass or any other educational sector, and should stay at home with the parents.

You on Homeschooling:

---

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

Because they are their parents, firstly. Secondly, because you don't get to decide what is nonsense. You do not get to be the thought police. You do not get to hinder society by limiting that which adults can teach their children within reason

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

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

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

---

Me on homeschooling:

I based my argument not on some weird fantasy of mine as you and Tiberius accused me of, but on the German code of law, to which I left links showing the specific paragrafs, and actualy quoted them in post 61.
And I really dont know how someone can come up with the phrase:

Laws are not "facts"

Tiberius should try telling that a judge after getting caught stealing a car!

It is true that laws should constantly be evaluated to assure their effectiveness and if they are actualy benefitial to sociaty.
But I gave the example of these laws to underline that my argument is not based on some weird totalitarian fantasy of mine.
To which that counter was just.............. laughtable!

My opinion in short:
Homeschooling should not be a option to use when one intends to replace the content of what is learned at a prive/publicschools, whos curriculum is provided by academic institutions, in order to replace that curriculum with non-scientific and antisocial learning content.
Parents who do homeschool have to use a curriculum provided by legitemate academic institutions and educators.
Academic institutions and pedagocic experts have a monopoly on determining what is education and what is not.

Influence on raising a child:

---

My conclusion: You're a couple of anti-theists who have an agenda to serve. You will not see the contradictions in your posts because they do not suit your agenda to discriminate against people of various faiths. It's not abuse. Go out and get abused for a bit, go get preached to and then come back and tell us how they are similar and do try to stay on topic

.

---

Me:

I want to underline, that I dont demand nore believe that anyone should be capabel to tell parents how to raise their children.
I seperate "raising a child" (done at home by parents) and "educating a child" (done at school).
One should only be capable to tell parents what they shouldnt do and what would lead to juristical consequences:
Sexual abuse, violent abuse, drug abuse, violating duty of care or abusing it, prohibiting a child from gaining acess to a schooleducation.

My clarification of a statement:

---

Oh, and TGAC, I'm going to stop responding to you at least try to comprehend what I am saying. Coming back with calling my argument pathetic horseshit when clearly you do not understand it is tiresome. I don't have to the time to bandy words with someone who doesn't bother to understand what a person is saying before going off on an anti-theist tangent. We may do a lot for disabled people who are capable of integrating into society. Apparently, you have never met the kind who can't. Fucking twatwaffle. There, now I feel better.

---

Now this was your answere on my agressive reply to you stating that some children are so disabled that integrating them into sociaty is not possible.
I will now give a less agressive reply.
Did you ever read through the basics of "Therapeutic Pedagogy" or "Special needs Education", it underlines that in every specific case, everything should be done by those raising mentaly or physicaly disabeled people, to assure that they could participate within sociaty as "normal" as possible. Why do think there are paraolympics, public buildings suitabel for disabeled people (weelchairs) and other adaptions by sociaty to make it a place friendlier for the participation of disabeled people?
I firmly believe that one can judge the "moral value" of a sociaty on observing how it treats it`s weakest.
To state that someone is not capabel to integrate and to participate within a sociaty as an equal - is only a small step away from outright discriminating those.
And in the case of disabeled people it is a very small step away from becoming a eugenic sociaty.

Sidenote:

Jesus Christ, Germans. You think you could scale down your monstrous replies and be more to the point?

Tiberius made two claims which were factualy wrong.
Nothing about perception or anything, simply two statements which were non fact!

1: The currently used method of epistomology used to gain knowlege in science is called Empirism

2: The nsdap gained power in germany through a democratic vote.

I provided the facts, backed up with links to refute his claims. This was lengthy but nececery - because false information must be called out.
I might aswell just ironicaly quote you to back that up:

You should educate yourself before you argue.

I believe I have adressed everything except for 2 things before.