Child abuse ?

[Something completely different]

quotes

We agree, to an extent. The actual belief is pretty stupid. Teaching your children something you truly believe is not.

And if one teaches his children violence? Surely one cannot prevent such things from happening on certain occasion, but when public school is mandetory children are at least interduced to the invorment of the pluralistic sociaty they live in.

No, I am being concise. I object thoroughly to the suggestion that teaching children anything other than a democracy in terms of government is abuse. That is even more ridiculous than the original claim.

No you are nitpicking - because the difference between the head of state in a constitutional monarchy and republic is only a formal one.
So you would find it alright if schools would start teaching kids about "the benefits of fashism" instead of interducing them to the benefits of a pluralistic sociaty?

Now, you are contradicting yourself completely. You have said you are against homeschooling, teaching a religion that is intolerant (which is virtually every religion), etc. Now, you are saying you don't care as long as it is not done at school. I agree with the caveat that it not be done in a public school. I have no say what is done in a private school as far as curriculum.

No I`m against homeschooling since it replaces public school and thereby opens the possibility for people to teach children rubish whilest posing as legit educators.
And as far as privat schools are concerned they sjould be bound by law to not teach nonsence.

Whether you know it or not, or any of us, I believe we have all been raised to be intolerant of some group or another. Whether you were raised that way, you are, as we speak, being intolerant of Christians.

Can you back that up with behavioral studies or is this simply a baseless assumtion?

Which is wonderful to test how well they are doing academically. Their "spiritual" teaching is another story.

"spiritual"? what?

I agree that it is ridiculous. That was the point, though the argument is a logical fallacy, if I am not mistaken. I'm sarcastically pointing out the flaws in your argument by pointing to ridiculous equivalents of it.

which equivalent?

Children born with developmental disorders that prevent them from working. Children born with immune system disorders that essentially keep them home or hospital bound. Children born with genetic disorders that cause them to become weaker and die over time. These children cannot integrate into society.

What a big steaming load of pathetic horseshit!

Not capable of integrating into sociaty?!
Do you know people with disabilities? The entire concept of how to treat such people is centered arround the concept of seeing them as a equal part of sociaty. A sociaty shouldnt build it`s moral standerds and framework around the strongest, but addapt itself towards the needs of it`s most weakend link! Children with disabilities have the possibility in germany to be homeschooled and get a teacher assigned to them, not because they cant integrate, but to integrate them!
A sociaty which makes the judgement that it`s weakest link cannot be able to integrate into the rest of sociaty and participate with it`s strongest isnt a sociaty worth living in!

And you call me intolerant and orwellian!

That is not abuse. There is no reason why parents should be forced to raise their child so as to have that child fit in with society to the optimal amount. Optimal here having to be some arbitrary amount set by the overzealous lawmakers in TGAC land.

This concept is not centered only arround the concept of bringing forth the most optimal ammount. actualy the contents of the curriculum are based on the concept of bringing forth the most optimum of result.
The concept of mandetory public schools - and that the education brought to students there should be brought to students who cannot go to school payed and provided by the state - is a concept that every person should from a educational level have the chance of having a equal start into life.

Is not significantly harmful to the child's well being.

Unless you dont see a doctor because it`s "science" and your child dies as a result of your ignorance and stupidity.

See above.

Radical possitions are also dangerous to a radicals surrounding individuals due to the violent behavior that usualy comes with it.

See above.

Intolerance is throwned uppon in a pluralistic sociaty, indoctrinating a child to be intolerant in a pluralistic sociaty is sending it into social isolation, which can be harmfull.

Do these old gentlemen suffer for that thought?

I dont know, they are individuals with their own personalities and I havent seen a psychological study on such jet and dont know if any such study exists.

I underestimate no such thing. I simply reject the control and authority you seem to think society should have over the raising of a child.

Schoollessons in a public school can be built arround the concept of a pluralistic sociaty and thereby further the participation within a democracy by it`s students.
Visisting a public school in a democracy does nto mean decline in creativity, diversity and other, actualy it can further such things if the educational sector is furthered to a certain extent.

And if this book says: the earth is 8000 years old, a woman is a cursed and wicked being, a homosexual should be put to death?
Most probably wont abide to such bronze age calls for execution.
But they will certainly have memorised these things as "moral values"
And it is eaven worse if they are told that these things are infalible, since they conflict with modern values on every base.

Yep.

Fine. As long as such is not teached at schools or by people posing as legit educators a parent can tell their children that nonsence at home.

You want every child to fit into said democracy. It's a stylized version of the same thing.

No I want everyone to respect the laws and moral values of the democracy they live in. aka: integration.

There are no such things. Expectations of people in a society are not obligations. People may feel compelled to abide by them, but that does not mean they are obligated to do so. Many people reject such things simply on the basis that it is expected of them.

So why should there then not be legal standerds on what one can and cannot do with his or her children?

They might not be the only ones looking for knowlege.
But you will have to explain the "not defineing part", since finding knowlege and broadening mankinds horizon is practicaly their job.

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

?

Do you know what you are writing about? deified?!?!
Science is reasoning out and finding out how things work and then to spread that "knowlege"!
A deity is a excuse for not learning anything, but simply putting that deities face behind the unknown.

I really do think there is a language barrier here with the word knowledge.

No. Erkenntnis, Wissen.

That is information. Knowledge is the acquisition of such information. I would even venture to say that it is also retention.

You are spinning arround with words in ways the most desperate apologists could manage to do better.

Information could be anything from the fact carbon monoxide is a tasteless gas, to the useless nonsence from the koran that saltwater and fresh water dont mix, to the info that David Foster Wallace was a professional tennis player although he is now known for his writing, to the halfnude pics of women in the tabloid press.

If that information can be called knowlege depends on it`s content.

Knowlege is usefull information
Carbon monoxide - tasteles gas = usefull
David Foster Wallace - former tennis plaxer = still usefull
saltwater and fresh water dont mix = useless nonsence, and only usefull for showing it`s stupidity and understanding the medieval mindset
Halfnude women in tabloid press = useless and only usefull for desperat morons

We already have laws protecting against discrimination. If that is your only problem, problem solved.

But you dont have laws preventing people who pose as legit educators to teach kids that the earth is 8000 years old and that all non christians are evil - as legit and importent "knowlege"

Because it seemed very much like you didn't want parents to teach children religion at home. You have since contradicted said statement so I'm not sure what you are suggesting.

I dont want homeschooling provided by inlegitemat, unscienticic, dishonest and intolerant sources to replace public schools which provide a basic knowlege for everyone.

What is with the parenthetical there? That is where there is a problem. You are advocating conformity..

conformity? yes to confirm the fact that they live in a democracy.
Dont you live in a democracy? didnt you go to a public school? didnt they teach you about democracy as a kid?


do you realy believe that educating children on the principles of what a democracy is is orwellian?

Directly above this.

No I`m not.

Which is the samekind of informative way of answering a question like you do.

That's what you think you're doing. That's what every zealot thinks he is doing.

difference is, I protect democracy i protect the freedom of opinion.
the thing you rant arround about is that i want everyone to start life with the same basic education.

You want to give the same zealots who would take the the rights given to them from those who gave them if they could - to be capable of indoctrinating children into their intolerant worldviews.

The contradictions are too much. I don't know if it is a language barrier or a convenient flux of position.

Point my contradictions out to me if you think there are any, and if there are any i will acknowlege them.
if there arent any dont use this phrase in a dishonest way.

I am interested in arguments. I dont want to control anything here.
But I will not answere someone who will think that emotional statements are a legit argument and who only seems to want to get a kick out of this for herself.

That's exactly it. I get a kick out of reading page after page of remarks from an atheist that are only slightly different from similar threads with Christians.

sarcasm has failed to amuse

Furthermore, I reiterate that my statement was not an argument. It was a statement. Two very different things.

you wrote:

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.

statement = fact
your family -christian = fact
the christian part of your family successfull members of sociaty = fact
biblequoting morons all successfull members of sociaty because of your families example = no fact

you tried to use the statement of your familiy for a argument and failed, emotional, private or family expiriences cannot be used for argumentational purposes in scociatal questions, only scientific studies can.

show me a unemployment statistic which shows how many unemployed people are christian and how many are not. you cant? well thats because your country doesnt make national polls which include religion.

but the fact that the poorest US state (Mississippi) is the most religious says alot from my short sketchy overview.

I smoke = fact

all atheists are smokers = i dont think so

As a statement of fact, I find your position deplorable. As an argument, I find it deplorable because it treads on the freedoms of others and suggests a conformist society.

taking the freedoms of someone who would take yours has nothing to do with conformity

i have no tolerance for the intolerant

You should educate yourself before you argue. Otherwise, it should not be an argument, but a lesson. If the two combine, it should only be a happy accident.

life is a learning process, humans are a learning species who learn each day, and could learn through each action they take.
to be aware of this and use it is importent.

Haha, I find stereotypes humorous. I quite clearly stated that I know it isn't true. Nonetheless, it is funny when someone plays into the stereotypes that their race, gender, class or geographic location disposes them. For example, hicks at a demolition derby are hilarious. Germans telling me not to answer if I am not going to behave how they want me to and saying that parents should be restricted in what they teach their children is funny. Come oooon. I'm white. Wouldn't it be funny if I tried to dunk and failed? I'm American. Me firing guns in my backyard whilst saying yee-haw, wearing an American flag for a t-shirt and topping the scale at 250 would be funny too. There is humor in stereotypes. At least I can laugh. Nonetheless, this could all come down to poor communication. It seems we agree on a lot of things.

if you want to talk about sterotyps dont derail this thread and open a new one.