"Whoa there. You're making us look bad."

[Streak]

You did. You said the society knows best and THAT is best for the child. Parents be damned.



You did. What else is society but the state? And you were quite clear that you believe society should be the final arbiter of what is good, best, better, quality, ad nauseum.

Welcome to living in a society.

You keep saying that but you can't even define "right" or "good" or "best." How the hell do you know I can't be any of those things if you can't even define them?

Given your history, I'm not really sure you're qualified to pass judgment on fitness for parenthood. You lack an appropriate model and have zero experience.

You make an overly ambitious assumption based on nothing more than your biased view of my so-called history. Sorry to spoil your fun chief, but I'm calling that one out as a bull****.

What, that doesn't make them ****ty parents? We shouldn't usher in the gubmint to take their kids away so they don't **** up anymore?

Truly it depends on the mistake. Leaving your kid at home so you can go on a heroin run may be a mistake, but it's one that should cost you your kid.

Why not? The government schools do it?

You mean those people with the degrees and expertise in education? You mean those academics?

I agree. I have been saying that about the government schools for a while now.

Tell that to the Japanese or Germans. I'm sure they'd love to hear how you think government schools produce stupid kids -- theirs certainly don't.

It shouldn't, but that hasn't stopped you from supporting a paradigm that lets the government intrude on my choices on raising my children, has it?

Because there are parents out there who wouldn't even send their kid to school if they didn't have to. You seem to think that this is about you. I've noticed that a lot of conservatives have this "me" attitude and apply that to every single thing everywhere. Requiring a minimum standard doesn't prevent you from raising your children how you want -- unless you don't believe your children should be as educated as the rest of the society you live in thinks.

See, we're back to you thinking you knows what's "best." And you said you didn't care. You had us going there for a minute.

I pointed out where a parent's opinion can have direct conflicts. There are other examples -- the point is that a single parent or even two parents can be wrong.

That's big of ya.

Sadly, I've yet to hold the same regard to anything you've said so far.

A child's education shouldn't need a supplement. One might think it wasn't good, quality or meeting the minimum standards.[/quote

Hey, look, we agree. But I suppose you're going to ruin the honeymoon by telling me that everybody has to have the same minimal standard, aren't you? Is this the same minimal standard that the government schools can't meet?

Which government schools? My high school met those needs. I would agree that overcrowded, understaffed, and underfunded inner city schools often have trouble. There are also home schooled kids who have social awkwardness and there have been more than a few that didn't pass entrance exams to my college. Clearly, based on your logic, if a few aren't doing good then the WHOLE SYSTEM is bad. You've just proven that home schooling doesn't work at all. Good job on ya!

I'd love to address the rest, but truthfully I've got work in the early AM. The hospital demands nothing less that utmost duty.

 

[Kurr]

All this argument over homescooling and a legal battle. I got to page 7 and decided to follow the link. It says MASSACHUSETTS.

In OUR society (Indiana) we have completely different laws governing the regulation of homeschooling. I'm proud to be in Indiana, and I homeschool.

Indiana "society" says I have the individual Right to determine my own children's education, and the good sense not to dictate what it considers to be best for them in that sense, and enshined it in the Indiana Statutes.

Proud Hoosier Here.

 

[88GT]

Welcome to living in a society.

So which is it? You do or do not believe you have the right to control my actions through the state because the state knows better than me?

You make an overly ambitious assumption based on nothing more than your biased view of my so-called history. Sorry to spoil your fun chief, but I'm calling that one out as a bull****.

Biased? So-called? I'm taking you at your word. Did you spin it? Make it up? Was it really not that bad and you just said those things to prove a point? Regardless, the childless child-hater probably doesn't have much credibility when it comes to making determinations on what's acceptable parenting? Didn't you just say the same thing about people not being qualified to pass judgment on your mental health?

Truly it depends on the mistake. Leaving your kid at home so you can go on a heroin run may be a mistake, but it's one that should cost you your kid.

And, of course, you get to decide.

You mean those people with the degrees and expertise in education? You mean those academics?

So parents can't make unilateral decisions for their children's education, but it's okay for the schools to do it because people who bought a piece of paper said so. Faceless strangers are better equipped to decide the best course of action for any given child than the parent. Is that your argument?

Tell that to the Japanese or Germans. I'm sure they'd love to hear how you think government schools produce stupid kids -- theirs certainly don't.

"Hey, Japs. Hey, Jerries. The U.S. government schools produce stupid kids. You're golden. "

Because there are parents out there who wouldn't even send their kid to school if they didn't have to.

You mean like the ones who don't send their kids to school even when they have to?

You seem to think that this is about you.

It is because you want to control me. If I don't do things the way you think I should do them, you want the government to intervene and control my behavior. But aside from that, I just use me as an example because i know it best and it's easier than being grammatically correct and gender neutral all the time. I don't really think you are targeting me specifically. But what you propose directly affects me and I have a problem with that.

I've noticed that a lot of conservatives have this "me" attitude and apply that to every single thing everywhere.

Would that be like the "me" attitude that thinks it's okay to use the government to make everybody behave the way you think they should?

Requiring a minimum standard doesn't prevent you from raising your children how you want --

Actually, it does. Or I suppose more accurately, it could. Did you not read the article? That minimum standard interfered with the family's ability to raise their child how they wanted.

unless you don't believe your children should be as educated as the rest of the society you live in thinks.

Have you not been paying attention? I homeschool. Of course I don't want my children to be educated the way "society" thinks they should be educated. Especially if you're representative of what society thinks. Nothing person. I just find your position to be morally repugnant and not a little Napoleonic.

I pointed out where a parent's opinion can have direct conflicts. There are other examples -- the point is that a single parent or even two parents can be wrong.

You are a master of deflection. The only conflict you are concerned with is the one that is created when I don't make the choices you think I should be making.

Sadly, I've yet to hold the same regard to anything you've said so far.

That's okay. I'm not looking to make friends or impress people. I know where I stand and it isn't on some raised dias playing Caesar.

Which government schools?

Society's.

My high school met those needs.

What needs? I thought we were talking standards.

I would agree that overcrowded, understaffed, and underfunded inner city schools often have trouble.

Why is that, do ya think?

There are also home schooled kids who have social awkwardness and there have been more than a few that didn't pass entrance exams to my college.

I don't believe I said homeschool had a 100% success rate. Just that it was better than the government schools.

Clearly, based on your logic, if a few aren't doing good then the WHOLE SYSTEM is bad. You've just proven that home schooling doesn't work at all. Good job on ya!

No, I don't judge government schools because a few of them fail. I judge government schools because all of them fail. And I'm using their standards, not mine. I find it not a little bit arrogant that an entity that can't succeed at its own internal standards has the audacity to tell me I can't reach mine and it could do a better job than I. (I have other issues with government schools, but those are a bit more philosophical and better left for a different thread.)

I'd love to address the rest, but truthfully I've got work in the early AM. The hospital demands nothing less that utmost duty.

Take your time. I'm patient.....enough.

 

[Streak]

So which is it? You do or do not believe you have the right to control my actions through the state because the state knows better than me?

Your actions are always controlled. Murder is illegal...that's the State controlling my right to just slaughtering every person I don't like. Rape is illegal...that's the State controlling my right to just go out and get any girl I want, no matter how she feels.

Speeding is illegal, that's the State controlling how fast I can drive so that I don't hurt OTHER PEOPLE on the road.

Perhaps you should be more specific and less general in your comments. There are a lot of good reasons to control actions, do you advocate for the rights of rapists to not have their actions controlled?

Biased? So-called? I'm taking you at your word. Did you spin it? Make it up? Was it really not that bad and you just said those things to prove a point? Regardless, the childless child-hater probably doesn't have much credibility when it comes to making determinations on what's acceptable parenting? Didn't you just say the same thing about people not being qualified to pass judgment on your mental health?

Understanding the role and responsibilities of being a parent is hardly difficult (that's not to say the act of achieving those goals is easy). Simply not being a parent doesn't mean I don't understand how parenting works and what the desired output should be.

You weren't passing judgement on my mental health. You were throwing out a strawman and a personal attack because I was making good points, you got pissy because I rightly called out your article as bull****. I showed the case they mentioned that it wasn't the bull**** spin the website said it was. I also pointed out that your title was nothing more than a populist-wannabe spin that attempted to make something seem like it wasn't. If you can't handle objectivity you would do far better for yourself to just shut up and ignore than to insult a person by accusing them of being "mental". It reeks of desperation and stupidity. And here I was beginning to think you were intelligent, even though you had different views than I did.

And, of course, you get to decide.

Society does. Go ahead, go out and buy heroin while leaving your kid at home with no food, get caught while doing it. Gonna guess there won't be a bleeding heart in the world when CPS comes plowing through your house and making sure that an unfit parent ceases to be a parent.

So parents can't make unilateral decisions for their children's education, but it's okay for the schools to do it because people who bought a piece of paper said so. Faceless strangers are better equipped to decide the best course of action for any given child than the parent. Is that your argument?

Sure. You just shouldn't have the right to give your kid a piece of paper from the State called a Diploma (or GED if that's your thing), if you didn't meet what the state said a minimum mandatory education. And yes, "faceless" people can come up with better ideas and can be, on the whole, more intelligent than a person that you feel has a face. Ever use any medication or advanced medical procedures? How many faceless people do you think it took to get those out there? You're using the internet -- how many faces do you know help you make it work? Do you know how it works?

"Hey, Japs. Hey, Jerries. The U.S. government schools produce stupid kids. You're golden. "

Sounds a bit racist or prejudiced, but sure.

You mean like the ones who don't send their kids to school even when they have to?

That would be what I said...

It is because you want to control me. If I don't do things the way you think I should do them, you want the government to intervene and control my behavior. But aside from that, I just use me as an example because i know it best and it's easier than being grammatically correct and gender neutral all the time. I don't really think you are targeting me specifically. But what you propose directly affects me and I have a problem with that.

Part of society is living with some means of control. The Constitution doesn't disagree -- that's what laws are. Controls. If you don't like it your only recourse is to move to an unincorporated, unowned, unclaimed, uninhabited territory and live out your life there. Otherwise you're part of some society and that society will always push controls.

Would that be like the "me" attitude that thinks it's okay to use the government to make everybody behave the way you think they should?

The issue is that you're under the belief that the government forces people to think a certain way. How old are you? Ever seen any of the kids coming out of high school? They're establishing guidelines, not brainwashing...I know, I know...just because Nixon was a Republican who got impeached, we shouldn't talk about him right?

Actually, it does. Or I suppose more accurately, it could. Did you not read the article? That minimum standard interfered with the family's ability to raise their child how they wanted.

Your article gives no back story, no argument from the other side. I, too, can write a story that only has one side. Let's try (this is gonna hit close to home and doesn't reflect my opinions):

"Guns are the sole reason innocent people get shot. You can't shoot people with knives or fists. A reasonable politician would seek out to ban guns because they cause a lot of undue murders."

Go ahead, pick that apart. Your article did the same logistics.

Have you not been paying attention? I homeschool. Of course I don't want my children to be educated the way "society" thinks they should be educated. Especially if you're representative of what society thinks. Nothing person. I just find your position to be morally repugnant and not a little Napoleonic.

And if your education doesn't meet the standards that the majority has, your child should not have the same paper that says "High School Diploma", because those are backed by the state and if you failed to live up to those expectations your children shouldn't receive the same level of degree. That's literally all I'm saying.

You are a master of deflection. The only conflict you are concerned with is the one that is created when I don't make the choices you think I should be making.

Aye. I have that same issue with parents who sexually molest their children.

That's okay. I'm not looking to make friends or impress people. I know where I stand and it isn't on some raised dias playing Caesar.

Society's.

What needs? I thought we were talking standards.

The word play is cute, but tiresome. My needs, at the time, were the high school diploma which is set out with standards. Try to keep up.

Why is that, do ya think?

You have politicians actively working to dismantle public education. So they don't allocate budgets correctly or they refuse to raise taxes in a time of inflation. They refuse to build/extend new buildings and/or to hire new teachers. Schools are staffed by people who think **** like sports matters more than the education so we dedicate land/resources/money to making those things happen.

I don't believe I said homeschool had a 100% success rate. Just that it was better than the government schools.

That's a cute thing to say. You're comparing a much smaller sample size against a much larger, more diverse one. Do you teach statistics? I hope not, for your child's sake.

No, I don't judge government schools because a few of them fail. I judge government schools because all of them fail. And I'm using their standards, not mine. I find it not a little bit arrogant that an entity that can't succeed at its own internal standards has the audacity to tell me I can't reach mine and it could do a better job than I. (I have other issues with government schools, but those are a bit more philosophical and better left for a different thread.)

Not all high schools fall below "their standards". Mine did not fail the state standards. There are public schools that exceed state standards. I find it more arrogant that make assumptions based on zero facts, zero evidence, and lies. I personally think most of your home schooling flag falls underneath philosophical, we can't have the government making more atheist, lazy, liberals, now can we? I would suspect it has far more to do with that than your own concepts of that you know better how to teach:

English
Science
Math
History
Arts/Music
etc

All by your lonesome self. You must have had a hell of an education -- tell me was it all private?



Take your time. I'm patient.....enough.[/QUOTE]

 

[HoughMade]

Wow....just wow.

One thing I will say is that this debate mirrors a debate we are having in society. Few people are fully satisfied with the government-run educational system. My family has responded to dissatisfaction on several levels by home-schooling. 30 years ago, there was concern as well. My parents responded by withdrawing me from public school and placing me in a private school. I know several people, whom I respect greatly, with kids in public school, but combatting what goes on there is a job for them.

Overall, I think there are any number of viable options for education. Having little to no trust in the government, it is clear to me that any meddling it does in home-schooling will be to the detriment of caring, concerned home-schoolers. If the government run schools were problem free and a model of perfection, maybe then the government would have a level of moral authority to be more involved in home-schooling, but that is a theoretical situation that has no basis in reality.

There is simply no identified, wide spread, problems with home-schooling. Why would we need government intervention...unless it's not to improve, but to control?

My point is simply this- I prefer freedom for each family to choose the best path for itself. For us, it's home-schooling. For another family, private or public school. Freedom- it's a wonderful thing.

 

[Rookie]

You really need someone else to stop you from murdering or raping someone? Let me know what your name is, because, sooner or later, someone won't be around to save you from yourself and I want to be able to say that I remember you.

Also, I want to make sure you never come near me.

 

[jamil]

Streak, you keep talking about "society" as if it were a monolithic, singular entity capable of owing and being owed. It's not. It's just a collection of associated individuals.

Government is not society either. Neither is society government. Society needs government only to organize those things that are clearly in the public domain. Courts, public infrastructure, non-militarized police, national defense, and not really much beyond that. Free societies prevent its government from infringing on individual liberty. Unfree societies end up with governments--by choice or otherwise--that allow its leaders, individuals afflicted with the uttermost instinct for self preservation, to rule over all the other individuals with impunity. I prefer not to be ruled.

On this topic, "society" does not know what's best for my son. Public school educators are administrated by individuals, elected or appointed. They are as subject to the same instinct as I am. Their uttermost instinct for self preservation doesn't benefit my son as much as mine does. By your own admission, their focus is to make "society" better. That makes me a much better advocate for my own son because my focus is to make HIM better. I have a vested interest in my son's success far beyond society's flowery whims.

 

[jamil]

Not all high schools fall below "their standards". Mine did not fail the state standards. There are public schools that exceed state standards. I find it more arrogant that make assumptions based on zero facts, zero evidence, and lies. I personally think most of your home schooling flag falls underneath philosophical, we can't have the government making more atheist, lazy, liberals, now can we? I would suspect it has far more to do with that than your own concepts of that you know better how to teach:

English
Science
Math
History
Arts/Music
etc

All by your lonesome self. You must have had a hell of an education -- tell me was it all private?



Take your time. I'm patient.....enough.

Dude, the US is way behind in education. Minimum standards have not helped us get ahead. They've only assured us of meeting mediocrity. I don't doubt that your school could meet the standard of mediocrity. Congratulations.

If we must have a public school system and standards, the standard should be to educate each child to his or her fullest potential. Do you honestly think our current public school model can do that?

I'll tell you one thing, nations with more successful public school systems probably don't expend much anguish worrying that poor little Hiroto might feel shame if he fails. And when they do, they'll start falling behind as well.

 

[buckstopshere]

You weren't passing judgement on my mental health. You were throwing out a strawman and a personal attack because I was making good points, you got pissy because I rightly called out your article as bull****. I showed the case they mentioned that it wasn't the bull**** spin the website said it was.

[/QUOTE]

O Rly? Where? Must be a different discussion. You lost this debate a long time ago. The statist vile you're spewing doesn't work and has no place in a constitutional republic.

If you do not want your mental health being brought up, don't bring your personal demons into the discussion and then compound it with crazy talk. All the *s doesn't help either. It cheapens your already weak argument.

 

[DRob]

Is it my imagination or does it still hold true that one's level of education, formal or otherwise, is sometimes displayed by the ability or inability to communicate in a civil manner without the use of profanity? Or, maybe that's just an indication that I'm older than most people here.

 

[Chewie]

Is it my imagination or does it still hold true that one's level of education, formal or otherwise, is sometimes displayed by the ability or inability to communicate in a civil manner without the use of profanity? Or, maybe that's just an indication that I'm older than most people here.

I guess that makes me an "Old" fart as well.
88GT has done an admirable job throughout this thread (as have others) in trying to communicate with Streak.

 

[Chewie]

88GT
Rep police wouldn't let me give you any points for you "conversation" with Streak.
Excellent job, Carry On!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Is it my imagination or does it still hold true that one's level of education, formal or otherwise, is sometimes displayed by the ability or inability to communicate in a civil manner without the use of profanity? Or, maybe that's just an indication that I'm older than most people here.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid the inability to communicate in a civil manner is more a matter of upbringing and environment - with emphasis on environment - rather than one's level of education. I've known a number of well-educated individuals who had truly foul mouths and I know from personal experience that being in an environment where personal attacks and crudity are endemic can have an influence on one's personal behavior.

In general, it seems to me that one whose response to reasoned argument is to attack the character of the opposition has either a limited intellect, a limited vocabulary, or has not thought his argument through well enough to be able to articulate his points in a manner that will be convincing. Of course, some folk be bat-**** crazy, dat's all.

 

[Hohn]

I'm thinking I now have a whole different meaning come to mind when I hear the phrase "losing Streak."

 

[Streak]

Dude, the US is way behind in education. Minimum standards have not helped us get ahead. They've only assured us of meeting mediocrity. I don't doubt that your school could meet the standard of mediocrity. Congratulations.

If we must have a public school system and standards, the standard should be to educate each child to his or her fullest potential. Do you honestly think our current public school model can do that?

I'll tell you one thing, nations with more successful public school systems probably don't expend much anguish worrying that poor little Hiroto might feel shame if he fails. And when they do, they'll start falling behind as well.

I agree that some of the most successfully educated nations have superior programs and we should look at copying some of those ideas. Can our current public school system do this? Yes. Would it be difficult and require the right leaders and resources? Yes. We have a good infrastructure and that's what's important.

I keep saying that home schooling isn't bad, per say. I think that there should be requirements as to what you teach your children. I'm sure there are ****ed up people out there who don't think their kid needs to read beyond a 3rd grade level. I suppose there are people out there who think anything more than basic arithmetic is "good enough". But it's NOT good enough for that child to work well in today's modern society.

Having standards is not a bad thing. Standards are why people's cars don't fall apart on the roads and why people's houses don't fall down when a leaf falls on it. I find it disturbing when people who are educating their children turn around and say "BY GOD, I SHOULD TEACH THEM WHATEVER I THINK THEY SHOULD KNOW"...not "I'll teach them what is necessary and expected".

Can anyone find a country with an education system that doesn't have standards for home schooled kids? Germany, Japan, Finland, etc all have standards of education. I guess I don't understand the argument to do less than what the majority of other children get, no one is saying you can't do more and I truly don't understand the amount of crying over it.

 

[lucky4034]

Streak... I admire your courage my good man.

 

[jbombelli]

A product of public schools:

[video=youtube;lj3iNxZ8Dww]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww[/video]

 

[Rookie]

Lulwut?

 

[Streak]

A product of public schools:

[video=youtube;lj3iNxZ8Dww]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww[/video]

A product of home schooling:

New Mexico homeschooled teen Nehemiah Griego accused of murdering family, planned to keep killing at local Walmart - NY Daily News




Or can we go ahead and just call this what it'll turn into: cherry picking. There are plenty of highly intelligent and successful "products" of the public education system.

At this point I'm bowing out of the conversation. I've said what I had to say. I didn't intend to get into a huge massive debate about home schooling. My original point was that the OP's source was ****ty. It present one side and one side only. It gave zero circumstances and doesn't speak the full story. The OP knows this and decided to go no further with the "why" and just stuck up a confrontational title. It was stupid of me to get even get into an academic debate with someone who doesn't have the fortitude to seek out both sides of a story. It was lazy and totally just to stroke a view.

I was stupid enough to allow myself to go outside of my original point and for that I'm sorry.

 

[buckstopshere]

A product of home schooling:

New Mexico homeschooled teen Nehemiah Griego accused of murdering family, planned to keep killing at local Walmart - NY Daily News




Or can we go ahead and just call this what it'll turn into: cherry picking. There are plenty of highly intelligent and successful "products" of the public education system.

At this point I'm bowing out of the conversation. I've said what I had to say. I didn't intend to get into a huge massive debate about home schooling. My original point was that the OP's source was ****ty. It present one side and one side only. It gave zero circumstances and doesn't speak the full story. The OP knows this and decided to go no further with the "why" and just stuck up a confrontational title. It was stupid of me to get even get into an academic debate with someone who doesn't have the fortitude to seek out both sides of a story. It was lazy and totally just to stroke a view.

I was stupid enough to allow myself to go outside of my original point and for that I'm sorry.

something we agree on