Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: War on Parenting 90

Journal by pudge

Some people are telling me that I have no right to forbid the government from teaching sex to my children, no right to forbid retailers from selling porn to my children, and no right to forbid doctors from cutting holes in my children.

Is it inaccurate to say that those on the left who believe such things are engaged in war on parenting itself? I never really thought of it that way until this week, but it's incessant. It used to be that decisions parents made were merely criticized and second-guessed by them, but now they are actually denying parents have the right to make those decisions at all.

Today the Seattle Times printed an article directly implying that homeschooling should not be allowed. What's wrong with these people that they can't just let parents be parents?

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

War on Parenting More

War on Parenting

Comments Filter:
  • ...are nuts, in my experience, so it's no wonder the woman who wrote this article has no clue what she's writing about.
    • A freethinker should be someone who is willing to second-guess and disagree with the establishment. Instead, she argues the establishment should be the only ones who matter, and that anyone who dares actually BE a freethinker should be suppressed.
  • Given that a person who chooses to homeschool their children is still responsible for paying their taxes wouldn't it stand to reason that there is a both a better student/teacher ratio and more dollars per student to go around? Or, and I'm sadly betting this is the case, does the federal government pay monies to a school district on a per-child basis?
    • does the federal government pay monies to a school district on a per-child basis?

      The federal government gives very little money to schools (and most of what it does, is blatantly unconstitutional, but that's another discussion). But yes, federal and state dollars to schools are per student. However, since that money is for the education of that particular student, the school by definition does not need that money if it does not have that student, so it's silly to say the schools lose money when they lose
  • Some people are telling me

    Which people?

    that I have no right to forbid the government from teaching sex to my children

    I don’t see that. You can home school them, keep them away from ‘government,’ shelter them to your heart’s content. I don’t see that right being abridged. I am, however, quite curious as to why you are so frightened by the thought of children learning about their bodies and their sexuality. It’s not like they won’t get horny until they’re told a
    • Which people?

      Um, I linked to one, did you not see? (Maybe you had a cached version; I did add it a couple minutes after posting.)

      I don't see that. You can home school them, keep them away from 'government,' shelter them to your heart's content. I don't see that right being abridged.

      That's specious. I should not have to exercise a fairly extreme and involved option to exercise such a simple right.

      And why do you put "government" in quotes?

      I am, however, quite curious as to why you are so frightened by the t
      • Some people are telling me that I have no right to forbid the government from teaching sex to my children, no right to forbid retailers from selling porn to my children, and no right to forbid doctors from cutting holes in my children.

        The article didn't say that, Pudge. It was just a wooly piece of nothingness wondering aloud about the long term effects of homeschooling.

        So who else is telling you these things? And how is "the left" engaged in a war on parenting? That's a pretty big claim. Perhaps you
        • The article didn't say that, Pudge.

          It implied it, yes, it certainly did. It said homeschooling may be good for the individual, but is bad for society, and therefore it should be discouraged. But the only way that can happen is by disallowing it, since parents certainly won't do what is bad for their children just to help out society.

          Further, when I responded directly to her and stated that she would be unsuccessful in any attempt to take away my right to homeschool, in her response back to me, she in no w
          • It said homeschooling may be good for the individual, but is bad for society, and therefore it should be discouraged. But the only way that can happen is by disallowing it, since parents certainly won't do what is bad for their children just to help out society.

            No, it said homeschooling may be good for the individual, but it *might be* bad for society long term, and therefore everyone should bear this in mind in the debate over homeschooling. This doesn't lead to, as you assume, that the article is in f
            • How can homeschooling possibly be deemed bad for society? In the beginning of the USA, over 200 years ago, that's just about all their was for the overwhelming majority of the people. It was in the era of homeschooling that our country was founded, and was made great.

              In fact, I'd say that public education seems to be UNDOING our society, which was done originally through the efforts of people who were by and large home schooled.

              You've got it backwards!
              • Have you replied to the wrong parent? I said the article gave some drawbacks of homeschooling. You don't know my opinion of it because I haven't told you it. And something isn't good because 200 years ago it might or might not have contributed to a nations success, that's a kind of illogical argument.
                • I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.

                  That's from Patrick Henry's famous speech.

                  It's perfectly logical and entirely reasonable to look to past successes. If something worked before, there's good reason to believe it could work again. Particularly if the new method you're trying is failing, which our public education system definitely is...
                • I said the article gave some drawbacks of homeschooling.

                  I think the confusion comes in that you said "The article just documents a couple of bad things about homeschooling," implying that you are agreeing they are bad, instead of a perhaps more accurate phrasing, "The article just documents a couple of things the author believes are bad about homeschooling."
            • No, it said homeschooling may be good for the individual, but it *might be* bad for society long term, and therefore everyone should bear this in mind in the debate over homeschooling.

              I disagree with you, and the author herself did not agree with you sufficient to correct me when I directly implied she wanted to remove my right to homeschool.

              The article just documents a couple of bad things about homeschooling #1 - It may be camouflage for religious or moral indoctrination

              That's not bad, of course, in any w
              • the author herself did not agree with you sufficient to correct me when I directly implied she wanted to remove my right to homeschool

                This really isn't concrete enough to move from your subjective interpretation of her intents ("I believe she wants to remove my rights") to direct statement of a fact of her intents ("directly implying that homeschooling should not be allowed"). But this is nit-picking. I don't think you can jump on this article and make the conclusion you have but this is my own subjecti
                • This really isn't concrete enough to move from your subjective interpretation of her intents ... to direct statement of a fact of her intents

                  I disagree. However, I realize others could disagree with me, which is one reason I linked to it: so that everyone could decide for themselves. I won't take back my statement.

                  Counter example: A neo-nazi raises his family to hate ethnic minorities and religions through selective and biased interpretations of history, and to take direct action against their enemies. O

              • should I choose to send my children to public schools -- remove my child from any class at any time and for any reason.

                You should move to Texas. :)

            • That's a ridiculous statement, Pudge. Despite all precautions, real life can and will intrude. Condoms split, etc.

              You're exactly right! Which is why last year when our contraceptive sponge failed to work we suddenly had a desperate need for emergency contraception. We looked all over, but sadly we were in one of those backwater Texas communities where pharmacists have the same rights as other human beings. So, sadly, my wife was forced to go through the horrors of p*egn*an*y (sorry for using such st

              • Your helpful contribution to the discussion is noted. Pharmacists obviously have the right to refuse treatment to *THOSE DAMN IRRESPONSIBLE KIDS*, lepers, AIDS patients, gay people, or "colored folk" as they see fit - IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION.

                • I should have confined myself to just my first two sentences so you could get my point. Or actually left out the sentence that began "We looked all over..." Let me try again:

                  That's a ridiculous statement, Pudge. Despite all precautions, real life can and will intrude. Condoms split, etc.

                  You're exactly right! Which is why last year when our contraceptive sponge failed to work we suddenly had a desperate need for emergency contraception. So, sadly, my wife was forced to go through the horrors of p*eg

                • Pharmacists obviously have the right to refuse treatment to *THOSE DAMN IRRESPONSIBLE KIDS*, lepers, AIDS patients, gay people, or "colored folk" as they see fit - IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION.

                  Sorry, no, this is not about discrimination. It'd be one thing if the pharmacists were refusing to sell only to a certain class of people. But the discussion about the rights of pharmacists was not about WHO to sell to, but WHAT to sell.

                  And even if it were about WHO to sell to, it is legal to discriminate against minors

      • Or do you mean, rather, that I can only forbid my children, and not the retailer? If so, then you therefore believe the retailer has the right to usurp my parental rights and responsibilities, without my knowledge or permission. By definition, this is what you believe, if you believe I cannot forbid the retailer.

        No lone retailer can usurp your parental rights. Your rights as a parent extends to control over your children, no further. It does not give you the right to control anyone else.

        You have the

        • No lone retailer can usurp your parental rights. Your rights as a parent extends to control over your children, no further. It does not give you the right to control anyone else.

          So I do not have the right to forbid someone from selling porn to my child? Alcohol? Tobacco? Guns? What about forbidding them from physically abusing my child?

          You are quite obviously wrong. I do have the right to control the behavior of other people in regard to my child. The question is only *which* behaviors.

          • The fact that you have a child does not give you the right to dictate the terms under which people buy porn, alcohol, tobacco, or guns.

            I don't see the connection to assault.

            Under what principle do you claim a right to control other people's behavior?

            • The fact that you have a child does not give you the right to dictate the terms under which people buy porn, alcohol, tobacco, or guns.

              TO my child, yes, I do have that right.

              I don't see the connection to assault.

              You forget what you said? I even quoted you. To remind you again, you said:

              Your rights as a parent extends to control over your children, no further. It does not give you the right to control anyone else.

              And so I said, yes, I do have the right to control other people. I have the right to control
              • I do have the right to control other people. I have the right to control them if they attempt to sell my child porn or alcohol.

                Nope. You have the right to prevent your child from buying such things. But how can you claim the right to deny someone their rights simply because it’s your child attempting to hand them money?

                I have the right to control them if they attempt to assault my child. I certainly do have such rights.

                That’s not the first time in this thread that you’ve equated things yo
                • You have the right to prevent your child from buying such things.

                  That's simply false, and thankfully, the government recognizes that fact.

                  But how can you claim the right to deny someone their rights simply because it's your child attempting to hand them money?

                  Because a child is a child, incapable of making adult decisions, and by definition not fully responsible for their own actions.

                  That's not the first time in this thread that you've equated things you don't approve of with outright violence. To call such
                  • You have the right to prevent your child from buying such things.


                    That's simply false, and thankfully, the government recognizes that fact.

                    I, of course, was referring not to what I actually quoted, but the notion that this is ONLY what I have the right to control.
                  • That's simply false, and thankfully, the government recognizes that fact.

                    Huh? Yes, I see your clarification. And while I’m able to parse the sentence... huh?

                    Overall, you seem to be viewing a transaction as the seller forcing a product upon the buyer, irrespective of the buyer’s wishes. That would, where I come from, more properly be classified as a mugging (albeit quite the thoughtful mugging if I’m robbed of only six dollars and left with a trinket of nearly that same value at the end of
                    • Overall, you seem to be viewing a transaction as the seller forcing a product upon the buyer, irrespective of the buyer's wishes.

                      Again, as I've already stated: children are by definition not fully responsible for their own choices and actions. If they were, they would be adults, or emancipated minors. So yes, the seller bears additional responsibility when the seller is a child.

                      (Indeed, since children are not allowed to enter into contracts, any sale made may be legally reversed by the parents, regardless

                    • simply by virtue of having failed to use a condom on the wrong day of the month, you now have the right to dictate the actions of every merchant in the nation?

                      Amazing. That's exactly the right question some of the other commenters in this thread need to hear.

  • Harvard-educated Diane Glass (dglass@ajc.com) is a writer and freethinker with a B.A. and M.A. in comparative religion.

    1) The author is a writer by trade, and her credibility hinges on the perceived value of her education. I have a hard time imagining degrees worth less than 'comparative religion'. I'll expect the teachers union (and its inculcatee) to endorse home schooling when TV stations start telling people to get off their butts, turn off the TV and go to church.

    It ain't going to happen.

    2) Some p

    • We need to lead these people into seeing that they are being judgmental and hypocrites.

      I know several people that are like this (in subjects other than home schooling), but it's impossible to get them to see it. They believe they are doing (or saying) the "right thing", and they'll be darned if they will change their mind about the matter.
  • Keep your kids away from retailers that sell porn, boyfriends that have sex, and those icky icky public schools. Don't ruin it for the rest of us.

    And I don't just mean adults - if I have kids I would want them to grow up in the world and not separated from it. As, as you so vociferously point out, would be my right.

    • Are you suggesting you WANT to expose your kid to porn?

      The fence here, Pudge (and everyone else) is parenting. There are a lot of really sucky parents. Don't do homework with their kids, don't read to their kids. Teachers are very frustrated by this. This bubbles up to admin and admin ultimately complains to the Board of Ed and the next thing you know they are teaching 6 year olds about sexuality becuase the fear is NO ONE will teach the kids this stuff.

      Me, I dunno if a 6 year old needs to be exposed to
      • No, of course not. But I am also realistic that kids talk to each other and learn things. Keeping them in a bubble is a recipe for disaster when they turn 18.

        If/when I have kids I am planning to teach them about sex at an early age, as I was taught by my parents (school health class was 100% redundant). But I don't see the point of avoiding realistic discussions of this and many other things at an appropriate age in school. As I said, kids talk about this stuff anyway. Best they know what they're talk

        • I don't think Pudge is suggesting that. I think he's, somewhat rightfully so, upset that some stranger, guided with a curriculum created by even further strangers, will be teaching HIS children about sex. If all parents were as good as yours, and as good as you are/will be this would be a non issue.
        • I am also realistic that kids talk to each other and learn things. Keeping them in a bubble is a recipe for disaster when they turn 18.

          You keep going to this straw man, but I never implied in any way that children should be kept in a bubble. Please stop with this fallacy.

          If/when I have kids I am planning to teach them about sex at an early age

          Me too. My children will surely know a lot more about sex than most public school children will.

          I don't see the point of avoiding realistic discussions of this and m
      • The flipside is if parents are going to send their kids off to school and then never discuss any of it at home then maybe it should be discussed SOMEWHERE.

        Not if the parent does not want it taught to their children, no.

        It's quite simple: citizens have the fundamental right to know what is going to be done in a public school, before it is done. Further, parents have the fundamental right to remove their child from school at any time and for any reason. Therefore, the parent has the right to not have their
        • I'm no Socialist :) but I think since we are at time when SEX == DEATH again it
          is probably wise to educate everyine about sexuality. Not being the one to do the teaching is irresponsible to the whole of the planet quite frankly. If you are willing to abdicate that responsibilty so be it.

          The a la carte system is rearing it's head in a lot of places now-a-days and I remember Line Item Vetos as being a great idea. I don't know that a la carte can work in education.
          • I think since we are at time when SEX == DEATH again it is probably wise to educate everyine about sexuality

            I do too. I just think the government is the last institution that should do it.

            Not being the one to do the teaching is irresponsible to the whole of the planet quite frankly. If you are willing to abdicate that responsibilty so be it.

            This is not about abdication. Even if I do it myself, the government will still do it for my children (if they are in public school), and that is anathema to me. Agai
            • Since I agree with you on the whole regarding the USGov via the Board of Ed via a school admin via a teacher telling my child about sexuality I'm not going to go on with that.

              ***

              A La Carte: As an upstanding member of my Church I do not agree with Evolution therefore my child need not attend Biology. Further any discussion of Dinosaurs is also completely out. And another thing... zero is not possible. I will pull my children from Math. I also disagree with the way American History is being taught. I th
              • A La Carte: As an upstanding member of my Church I do not agree with Evolution therefore my child need not attend Biology. Further any discussion of Dinosaurs is also completely out. And another thing... zero is not possible. I will pull my children from Math. I also disagree with the way American History is being taught. I think the Senecas WERE eating the Mohawks! I am pulling my child from American History. I don't like Windows - I am pulling my child from your computer development courses.

                And ... ? You
                • yeah sorry. wicked sick at work. hard to make whole thoughts.

                  so why this is bad.

                  In order to teach effectively you will simply run afoul with parents at some point and there needs to be a compromise. For instance I think my son's teacher is going far too slowly. There are several parents who agree. Our district went Full Time Kindergarten last year and clearly hasn't upped the ante in 1st grade because many kids are bored out of their skulls. So I don't pull Danny out of school over it. We're coming t
                  • In order to teach effectively you will simply run afoul with parents at some point and there needs to be a compromise.

                    Fine, but sometimes you can come to a compromise. Sometimes you cannot.

                    In a la carte a child could miss out on tons of educational opprotunities based on a parent's desire to "teach it themselves."

                    So what?

                    MiniPudge is going be OK. But you know that neighbor on the other block. The one in the KKK? The one who doesn't want his daughter to ever know about Blacks in America... well if he's allo
                    • I can't take a hardline on this A La Carte idea until I can be assured parents can be held accountable for their actions. In gross theory your idea sounds OK but the implications of it are simply not inline with what I believe in with regards to Education. When I was in college I really thought (and to a large part still do think) that a lot of Core Classes were utter wastes of my time. Had I been able to I would have certainly taken only classes that interested me and were to MY core competencies and MY
                    • I can't take a hardline on this A La Carte idea until I can be assured parents can be held accountable for their actions.

                      No. No no no. That's the point: you have no business and no right to hold the parents accountable.

                      In gross theory your idea sounds OK but the implications of it are simply not inline with what I believe in with regards to Education.

                      What you believe doesn't matter! The parents trump whatever you believe.
                    • Couldn't possibly disagree with you more on this. Sorry. We're not living in tribes here. If you'd like to live in the hills of your State and absolutely NEVER come down to town then fine. We live in communities in America. If you're going to teach your child that no one ever has sex and Negroes are bad people and the Jews run the world and dinosaurs never existed and OS/2 is the One True Operating System I don't want to deal with that human when they turn 18 and wander into town. They will be ill pre
                    • s/then/than/

                      s/should/shouldn't/
                    • Couldn't possibly disagree with you more on this. Sorry.

                      The moment someone tries to take my children and forcibly "instruct" them against my will is the moment I pull my gun from the safe. This is precisely the reason we have the right to bear arms, to protect us from the government's encroachment on our liberty. And the government taking away my child from him just because I don't fall in line with what the government thinks I should be teaching them is grounds for violence, if anything is. In my world

                    • I don't want to deal with that human when they turn 18 and wander into town.

                      Since in America you don't have to, what's the problem?

                  • Of all people, Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you.

                    And his view was consistent across his life time. Here's an earlier quote:
                    "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
                    opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
                    1777

                    And here's one from late in his life:
                    "It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his
                    child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible
                    asportation and education of the infant against the
                    • I could not possibly agree more with the 1817 quote. Except I'd include "mother" too. :-)

                    • The more I read that Jefferson wacko, the more I like him. That quote's been making the rounds lately in the online homeschool communities, and it's one of my favorites. Between that, the man's assertions about the purpose of government in that outdated Declaration document, and his seeing through the fact that copying intellectual property does not equal "theft," we have the makings of a fine citizen. It's a shame he's dead.

          • Sex has ALWAYS carried the potential of deadly diseases. For thousands and thousands of years.
            • but Penicillin gave humans a brief repreive from this death sentence thus the Sexual Revolution.
              • And thus the 60s and 70s were the exception to the historical rule.

                20 years of relatively safe sex, vs. 20,000 years of dangerous sex.

                Hmmm...
                • I totally agree. But let's think for a second about this phenomenon because it is important. There are people from their 50s down to their teens who STILL believe sex can be had with NO reprecussions. Yeah yeah yeah they see all the AIDS news in AFRICA but that's THOSE people not US. So to some extent it is encumbent upon parents to explain these things to their children. I am WITH pudge on his take that NO SCHOOL marm should be teaching my kid about sex - with that I want the parent to have this conve
      • The vast majority of the time, when people discuss porn, they start from the position that porn is unquestionably bad, and work from there.

        So, umm, why is it that suddenly, after squillions of years of peaceful coexistence, boobies have become so incredibly harmful to the human psyche? You of all people, ellem, surely must realize that merely hearing “bad words” or seeing “naughty pictures” doesn’t snap the mind like a rotted molar at a peanut brittle buffet.

        I ask this as someo
        • The vast majority of the time, when people discuss porn, they start from the position that porn is unquestionably bad, and work from there.

          Note that I am not doing that. I don't care if porn is good or bad; I only care that I, as the parent, get to make the decision of whether someone provides it to my children. And again, thankfully, the law recognizes my right to do that.

          I could argue, very well and convincingly, that porn is bad. But it's beside the point. All that matters is that *I* get to make the
        • pr0n and kids... here's my take. I like pr0n. I like admittedly TAME pr0n but I like pr0n none-the-less.

          I am uncomfortable with prepubescent kids seeing pr0n b/c it will skew their views on sex. For instance they may think that all sexual congress happens thusly:

          Cunnilingus
          Fellatio
          Vaginal
          Anal
          Fellatio
          Glaze Her Face while she sits there on her knees like a Venus Flytrap.

          More to the point it will will likely marginalize sex for the kid.
    • Keep your kids away from retailers that sell porn, boyfriends that have sex, and those icky icky public schools. Don't ruin it for the rest of us.

      Your logic is specious. Nothing is being ruined for anyone.

      And I don't just mean adults - if I have kids I would want them to grow up in the world and not separated from it. As, as you so vociferously point out, would be my right.

      First, I am separating no one from anything. You're misrepresenting.

      Second, yes, it would be your right, and I would not take it from
  • States don't allow parents to physically abuse their kids, but what about verbally? What about mentally? I'm not aware of social services placing kids in foster homes because of parents spending years making their kids into slackers, or rebellious drug abusers, or making them insecure, or crushing their self-esteem, or denying them enough love and care so their adolescent relationships are with guys as substitute daddy figures.

    It seems like the state should have an interest in what children grow up into w
    • States don't allow parents to physically abuse their kids, but what about verbally? What about mentally?

      Verbal, no, of course not. Mental, yes, they do, if it is extreme enough.

      I'm not aware of social services placing kids in foster homes because of parents spending years making their kids into slackers, or rebellious drug abusers, or making them insecure, or crushing their self-esteem, or denying them enough love and care so their adolescent relationships are with guys as substitute daddy figures.

      Thankful
    • It seems like the state should have an interest in what children grow up into with respect to their usefulness to society.

      That's a highly regressive attitude, typical of the Soviet Union or Communist China. SOCIETY may have an interest, but NOT "the State" (i.e. the government). Society is NOT "The State". Society is The People - you and me, neighbors, communities. And within a given community, there is going to be strong pressure on children to conform to the attitudes of the adults in that community
  • It's not so much a war on parenting as it is a war on the constitution, and a war on the very idea of america itself. See the 9th and 10th amendments.

    Too many people today don't understand the meaning of the 9th amendment. Or rather, they probably aren't even aware of its existance. They certainly act as if exactly the opposite were in force.

    The question is: Why do we have so many people so ignorant of our constitution and the spirit of what america is REALLY about? How many people today even would know
    • The war on parenting is merely a symptom of the above, deeper, problem. As is the War on Drugs, the War of Poverty and all other efforts at social engineering.

      I think this has got to be the most insightful thing, politically speaking, I've seen yet today.

    • The question is: Why do we have so many people so ignorant of our constitution and the spirit of what America is REALLY about? How many people today even would know what the heck you're talking about if you say "The Spirit of '76!"?

      Why indeed. The answer is not only simple, but damn worrisome. [hnn.us]

      The Carson City (NV) school district says 11th-grade history teachers should start teaching American history at the Civil War period and move forward.

      This is not unique. All around the nation our public schools

  • Moo (Score:2)

    by Chacham ( 981 ) *
    Is it inaccurate to say that those on the left who believe such things are engaged in war on parenting itself?

    Yes. They don't mind parenting, as long as you agree with them. They are more of a war of people who don't agree with them, but there's nothing that can be done for them, but their children, they, they can be saved. So, force a curriculum. But what if the parents fight that or don't send their kids, so we'll outlaw that.

    They want your children, for your children are their future.
  • No right to dictate sex ed, I presume is a reference to that recent 9th circuit decision, which held that it was impractical and infeasable to give individual parents the right to veto curriculum. That's what the school board elections are for. Or home-schooling/private school. Oh and that you can't get money if a guidance counselor does something stupid. It was the right decision, it would be incredibly impractical, and you already have ways to redress such grievances. They're called elections.

    Anywho,
    • No right to dictate sex ed, I presume is a reference to that recent 9th circuit decision, which held that it was impractical and infeasable to give individual parents the right to veto curriculum.

      No, it went further. It established that parents have no right to be informed about the curriculum, that they might then remove their child from school if they are opposed to it.

      That's what the school board elections are for.

      Yes, I am not speaking against local voters getting to choose curriculum. I am against pa
      • You are losing me pretty quickly on the right to marry off your children. Why is that a right? At what age can a child be "married off" in your opinion? If the local government allows marriage with parental consent at 14 would this be ok?

        Pudge, you've lived in SLC, right? Weren't you the one here on /. that found a bunch of barrels of waste near This Is the Place State Park that got burried? Anyhow, you have to be familiar with the abuses inherent in FLDS polygamist communities. The idea that women an
        • You are losing me pretty quickly on the right to marry off your children.

          I don't expect it to be a popular opinion. However, I take heart in the knowledge that this in no way impacts the rest of my argument, as all of us agree there is a line, and the question is only where to draw it.

          Why is that a right?

          Why wouldn't it be? That's the real point: the burden of proof is on you if you want to say I can't do something.

          At what age can a child be "married off" in your opinion?

          I have no real detailed thoughts a
          • Well crap. It must have been the guy that used to do the games section that found that waste... Chris diBona, right? Sorry about that. I now rememember that you are from MA. I voted for Mitt as well.

            The problem with polygamist marriages is that polygamy isn't prosecuted and follow on marriages are usually just religious rather than civil, so there is no opportunity for the government to do anything as simple as inform the child of options. Even if that was a possibility the children are so brainwashed
            • The problem with polygamist marriages ...

              Yes, but again, I am not speaking about polygamy, which being illegal for everyone and not just children, is a separate issue.

              I still don't see how in our society your rights over your children extend to marrying them off.

              Again, you're the one who must make the case for where my rights end.

              At what point does the child have rights that outweigh those of the parents?

              As far as possible.

              Why should the government protect this as a "right"?

              Why should it not?

              Doesn't doing s
              • Again, you're the one who must make the case for where my rights end.

                I thought I was doing a reasonable job of explaining why your rights should end prior to the right to marry off your children. I guess not.

                Doesn't doing so send the implicit message to the children that this is government approved behavior?

                To some people, yes, but that's unfortunate. In a free country, lack of a law forbidding free behavior should never be taken for approval of that behavior. Again, it's the opposite: you should only have
                • I thought I was doing a reasonable job of explaining why your rights should end prior to the right to marry off your children. I guess not.

                  I didn't think so. You were doing a reasonable job at explaining some of the problems with marrying off children, but centering almost entirely on polygamy, which I was not referring to.

                  once they've done that and allowed parents to totally shape a child's perception of the world, it seems to me that drawing the line prior to the right of marrying them off to someone 20
                  • I don't think that my arguements have been exclusive to polygamy. I have used that as an example of where abuses occur, but only because I know that they do occur in those situations. It isn't harmful because of the polygamy aspect, it is because of all the other factors that I mentioned.

                    I really fail to see why the burnden of proof falls on me to say why parents should not have the "right" to marry off their children. In fact, it would seem to me that you have to burden of proof to demonstrate why a thi
                    • I really fail to see why the burnden of proof falls on me to say why parents should not have the "right" to marry off their children.

                      Because you are arguing I should not have the right to do something. What better reason is there?

                      In fact, it would seem to me that you have to burden of proof to demonstrate why a third party has the right to impose a marriage agreement on another person.

                      It's a child. By default, I can force anything I want to on my child. I can force her to eat broccoli, I can force her to
                    • Let's revist the part where you provide a rational for why a parent should have the right to put there child into a sexual relationship with someone. It is easy to make it look like I'm having a tough time providing reasons when you leave the most compelling ones out and dismiss the others as simply being a result of other illegal/immoral behavior and therefore not applicable.
                    • Let's revist the part where you provide a rational for why a parent should have the right to put there child into a sexual relationship with someone.

                      No.

                      By default, the parent is right. You must provide a rationale for overriding the parent.
                    • By default the individual should have the right to decided to enter into a sexaul relationship with someone. Parents should have veto power up until a certain age, but I fail to see why "By default" the parents can force a child into a sexual relationship. Deciding when to exercise procreative powers is a right reserved to the individual and their partner.

                      I agree with you that parents have the right to brainwash their children, teaching whatever they want and controling what information the have access to
                    • By default the individual should have the right to decided to enter into a sexaul relationship with someone.

                      Marriage does not directly imply sex. I never said anything about forcing her to have sex. I was talking only about the legal and social union that joins a man and woman as husband and wife.

                      Could you as an example, please provide an arguement that would convince you that parents don't have the right to sell their children into slavery.

                      Easy: the 13th Amendment.
            • Generally if a right [...] isn't given to you under the constitution do you have it by default?

              Amendment IX
              The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

          • Bride kipnapping in central asia is an ancient practice. In fact, I've read that Attila's mother is believed to have been such a case. It was certainly common in central asia 1500 years ago. Apparently it remains common today?
            • Somewhat, apparently. And apparently it is becoming moreso, as the authorities exercise less control (fall of the USSR, decrease in power of the religious authorities, and so on).
        • There's a story here in Georgia that's all over the local news. Apparently a 14 year old boy was married to a 37 year old woman. The woman got pregnant by the kid and there is a law on the books here that allows minors to marry WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT in the event of pregnancy. The idea being to prevent out-of-wedlock births.

          Anyways, the woman is now being charged with child molestation because of the age of the boy.

  • You have to think about the long-term effects of what this trend means for the future of education and the segregation of our school system over ideology.

    Communist outlook. You have to think that way if you are trying to value the good of the community over the good of the individual. Myself, I hold with the quote from Ayn Rand on that matter that's been in Eric Raymond's sig for years.

    • Home-schooling is not about how public schools teach so much as what they teach.

      Ah, well, then, you know zilch about homeschooling.

      Parents who choose home-schooling want to instill in their children their own deeply held beliefs.

      That's right. For example, I want to impart to my children my deeply held belief that anyone who says things like "You have to think about the long-term effects of what this trend means for the future of education and the segregation of our school system over ideology" is

      • And our future is about all children, not just our own.

        To be perfectly, horribly blunt: I don't give a flying flip about your children. All I care about is mine. And frankly, please don't give a flying flip about mine, either. He is not your concern. He is not your future.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Turn on, tune up, rock out." -- Billy Gibbons

Close