(November 22, 2012 at 10:49 pm)Shell B Wrote: 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:
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:
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:
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:
Quote: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:
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:
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:
Quote: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:
Quote:You should educate yourself before you argue.
I believe I have adressed everything except for 2 things before.
