"White Pride" children taken away.

[Hurlshort]

The children are with a maternal aunt, not foster care.

 

Not sending your children to school is neglect.

[Volourn]

"Not sending your children to school is neglect."

 

No.

 

Plenty of people are productive without schooling. Espicially in regards to formal schooling. And, 39 days isn't neccesssarily end of the world.

[Sand]

I disagree.

[Jorian Drake]

"Not sending your children to school is neglect."

 

No.

 

Plenty of people are productive without schooling. Espicially in regards to formal schooling. And, 39 days isn't neccesssarily end of the world.

he didn't say armageddon, he said "neglect"

[Sand]

Without any good reason, such as a severe illness, it is plain neglect to keep a child from school for that length of time when school is in session. Hell, I don't even like the archaic three month break during the summer.

[Volourn]

"I disagree."

 

Many people have managed to find their way in this world over the years without formal training. There are other ways to learn a trade scale. Example, I was never much of a cook.. until I was trained ON THE JOB at my last job. *shrug*

 

My dad was very successful at his chosen profession which he started at 16 after he dropped out of high school (he eventually got his diploma many years later). He paid his taxes, took care of his family, work long hours, and was (and, still is at nearly 60) in general a very productive member of society without that preciosu piece of paper from his teen years.

 

Nice try, though.

[Sand]

It has nothing to do with a piece of paper. Its all nice that your dad got on without a proper education, but that is one case in millions. Also Canada tends to be more of a nanny state than the US so that makes a huge world of difference as well. Besides, an education is more about self improvement than getting a better job. Education allows a person to enrich themselves and become a better, more knowledgable person, which in my ever so humble opinion is more important than a higher paygrade.

Edited July 6, 2008 by Sand

[Volourn]

"It has nothing to do with a piece of paper. Its all nice that your dad got on without a proper education, but that is one case in millions."

 

L0L It is rathe rcommon in the boonies where I live. Not a smuch now; but espicially true back when my dad was growing up. He's definitely not unique or special.

 

 

" Also Canada tends to be more of a nanny state than the US so that makes a huge world of difference as well."

 

What does Canada being a 'nanny state' have to do with having a career at 16? If anything, a nanny state would imply forcing the child/teen into school espicially sinc epeople think a piece of paper = intelligence.

 

" Besides, an education is more about self improvement than getting a better job."

 

there's plenty of ways to 'self improve' yourself without education. My example of cooking is a fine example. Travelling abrod is another way to self improve (if it's an option).

 

" Education allows a person to enrich themselves and become a better, more knowledgable person, which in my ever so humble opinion is more important than a higher paygrade. "

 

Hate to go there; but George Bush? the guy you hate. Highly educated, and by all acounts, a pretty good IQ, and has quite a bit knowledge.. but, people make fun of his intelligence and the way he speaks all the time. Seesm to me that education isn't the be all end all you calim it to be.

 

You can enrich yourself, better yourself, become more knowledge in plenty of ways. Education is just the easiest ways to do so espciially in most Western countries where lower end education happens to be free or affordable. But, its' FAR from the only way.

[Sand]

Well, in this case removing children from education is grounds for charges of neglect. She should have her children removed from her because of it.

[Volourn]

Don't you think you need more information that? Why were they not in school? Sickness, problems with bullies? Problems with teacher? Why did this just start? Why did they miss 39 days but not all the other days?

 

Missing school by itself is not a reason to rmeove children. now, if they were rmeoved because the parents were abusing them or whatever then yeah take them away.

 

But, to me, removing chidlren form their parental home should be a last resort, and only used when said children are under extreme cases of abuse - physically or emotional.

 

Not just because you think someone is a poor parent.

[Hurlshort]

I already explained that a judge can decide if there is a legitimate reason behind the absences and they can place the children back in the home. But no judge is going to do so in this type of household. It's like putting an organized crime boss in jail for tax evasion. It's not necessarily illegal to be a mob boss, but the law is going to look for any legal excuse to get you in the end.

 

If the parent really doesn't want their child in school, then they can register for home schooling. There are legal responsibilies for that.

 

I aready explain, Volo, that High School and even Middle School are not nearly as rigorously watched as a 2nd grader. You learn to read in the k-3 grade range, so it's pretty dang important that the child attend school. The articles also don't say anything about absences just starting,t hey say 39 days and it seems to imply that was over the course of a single year. Given the "my parents were too lazy" explanation my guess is the absences were spread out, she probably went to school 3 days a week or so.

[Cycloneman]

Beyond which, raising children is CLEARLY a conditional right since you can lose it (by having your children taken away)

By that rationale, you can also lose your right to live, since cops can gun you down. Flimsy.

The right to life is already pretty damn flimsy - the state kills people in cold blood all the time.

 

The fact that a right isn't a fundamental human right does not give the state carte blanche to violate it arbitrarily, which is the concept that you don't seem to grasp.

And did they violate it "arbitrarily"? I guess it was "arbitrary" when the federal government forced the South to desegregate its schools, overriding what had been considered a state issue? I guess it was "arbitrary" when the NAACP filed a federal lawsuit and pressured the mormon church into allowing black boys to lead LDS boy scout troops? I'm afraid we've "arbitrarily" given the government a whole lot of power to combat racism.

 

Should children be made to suffer with terrible parents (such as these) merely due to an accident of birth? Are you for punishing people for being born to the wrong set of parents?

Keep the emotionally-charged blather out of this, please. There's a reason why the state must circumscribe its actions to what is prescribed by law. No amount of appeals to emotion justify an exception to this rule. "Being terrible parents" isn't a crime by itself.

And your counter-argument is... my argument is emotional. Frankly, it's not. It's perfectly rational based upon the idea that there is supposed to be legal equality in first-world countries, and allowing some children to live with horribly racist parents and not allowing others based upon their genetic origin is pretty much the definition of inequality.

[random n00b]

The right to life is already pretty damn flimsy - the state kills people in cold blood all the time.

So, what you're saying is that individual rights should mean nothing if the state believes there's some random good reason to step on them. Woohoo! I like the way you think.

 

 

And did they violate it "arbitrarily"? I guess it was "arbitrary" when the federal government forced the South to desegregate its schools, overriding what had been considered a state issue? I guess it was "arbitrary" when the NAACP filed a federal lawsuit and pressured the mormon church into allowing black boys to lead LDS boy scout troops? I'm afraid we've "arbitrarily" given the government a whole lot of power to combat racism.

The difference between all those and this particular case is that the parents were potentially raising a future nazi, but no action had been taken that affected OTHER people YET. That's where the state stops working towards egalitarianism and becomes Thinkpol.

 

Your willingness to have your criterion replaced by whatever society deems "correct" at any given time isn't shared by everyone, fortunately.

 

 

And your counter-argument is... my argument is emotional. Frankly, it's not. It's perfectly rational based upon the idea that there is supposed to be legal equality in first-world countries, and allowing some children to live with horribly racist parents and not allowing others based upon their genetic origin is pretty much the definition of inequality.

Wrong. It's based upon two idealistic dogmas, both closely related. First, the idea that the state can do whatever it sees fit to pursue a policy of absolute "equality", which in turn, is only possible if the Rule of Law stops applying to it - this potentially renders every other single individual freedom meaningless. That's why we have a system, you know? To avoid individual (and collective) excesses.

 

The second idea is that the state must do whatever it takes to ensure social equality, for everyone, at any cost. That simply doesn't work, it's Utopia. If a balance between welfare and individual freedoms is to be had, inequalities will always exist. Yes, it's a shame that some children will have to grow up under terrible but law-abiding parents, but no system is perfect and it ultimately comes down to the proverbial lesser of two evils. THAT is rational, refusing to accept the shortcomings of an imperfect system and aim for the unattainable is NOT.

 

That's all good however since all attempts to apply those ideas to the real world have been met with outstanding success, right?

Edited July 7, 2008 by random n00b

[Hurlshort]

It's weird because you guys are continueing to argue over this even though the scenario in question was completely false. The child was not taken out of the home for any moral reasons. The newspaper article left out crucial facts about the case.

[random n00b]

Meh. Clear-cut cases are boring.

[Cycloneman]

The difference between all those and this particular case is that the parents were potentially raising a future nazi, but no action had been taken that affected OTHER people YET. That's where the state stops working towards egalitarianism and becomes Thinkpol.

 

Your willingness to have your criterion replaced by whatever society deems "correct" at any given time isn't shared by everyone, fortunately.

Too bad judges are treated like elected officials and lawmakers are elected officials, which means that's exactly what happens, so wishing that random social whimsy didn't determine the law is a waste of time.

 

Wrong. It's based upon two idealistic dogmas, both closely related. First, the idea that the state can do whatever it sees fit to pursue a policy of absolute "equality", which in turn, is only possible if the Rule of Law stops applying to it - this potentially renders every other single individual freedom meaningless. That's why we have a system, you know? To avoid individual (and collective) excesses.

And I do not see the removal of a child from a home to be an "excess." It's like our requirements for getting a tax exemption as a church - you can preach whatever you like, you just won't get a tax exemption if you preach some things. You can do or say whatever you like, you just won't get to raise children. That's the system we'd have if the parents were infertile, why does the ability to biologically pop out a baby give them the right to raise children?

 

The second idea is that the state must do whatever it takes to ensure social equality, for everyone, at any cost. That simply doesn't work, it's Utopia. If a balance between welfare and individual freedoms is to be had, inequalities will always exist. Yes, it's a shame that some children will have to grow up under terrible but law-abiding parents, but no system is perfect and it ultimately comes down to the proverbial lesser of two evils. THAT is rational, refusing to accept the shortcomings of an imperfect system and aim for the unattainable is NOT.

 

That's all good however since all attempts to apply those ideas to the real world have been met with outstanding success, right?

I never said SOCIAL equality. Legal equality is the treatment of all people as equal by the law (though admittedly that's turned out pretty ****, lawyers making the rich get off and such). If people can't raise their own kids if we hold them to the standards required for adoption, one of the two is off (or both, I suppose).

[random n00b]

Too bad judges are treated like elected officials

Yeah, Common Law systems suck. Oh well.

 

 

and lawmakers are elected officials, which means that's exactly what happens, so wishing that random social whimsy didn't determine the law is a waste of time.

Nah. The fundamental pillars of the system are protected well enough against cojunctural action. Changing the statute in a significant manner takes more than just the will to do so.

 

 

And I do not see the removal of a child from a home to be an "excess."

Unless it's done as a last resort measure, it IS an excess and the state is poking its nose where it don't belong. Just ask any mother. But yeah, you have made clear your willingness to bow to The Man previously, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that you fail to realize why this is tragic.

 

 

It's like our requirements for getting a tax exemption as a church - you can preach whatever you like, you just won't get a tax exemption if you preach some things. You can do or say whatever you like, you just won't get to raise children.

Yeah, because birthing children and raising them is the same as getting some tax exemption. Great analogy, right there.

 

 

That's the system we'd have if the parents were infertile, why does the ability to biologically pop out a baby give them the right to raise children?

Parents are generally not infertile, which renders this point moot. Parents ARE NOT required to pass any kind of screening to get the thumbs up from the govt to have children. And that's a good thing too.

 

Also, why does the ability to biologically process food give you the right to take a crap? It's a basic physiological function, bud. The govt doesn't need to authorise it.

 

 

I never said SOCIAL equality. Legal equality is the treatment of all people as equal by the law

If you didn't mean social equality, why all the business about kids having a right to nice parents and all? That has nothing to do with legal egalitarianism.

 

 

If people can't raise their own kids if we hold them to the standards required for adoption, one of the two is off (or both, I suppose).

I already addressed this.

[Walsingham]

"Not sending your children to school is neglect."

 

No.

 

Plenty of people are productive without schooling. Espicially in regards to formal schooling. And, 39 days isn't neccesssarily end of the world.

 

I missed two months schooling when I was about 14 due to a lung disorder. two months missed makes a massive difference. Voluntarily absenting your kids from school for that length of time is abuse.

 

As for regarding schooling as an optional luxury I would encourage you to think again. Using some of that fine education you have.

[Volourn]

It's sad that the word abuse is tossed around so easy nowadays. pretty much anything is 'abuse' currently. L0L

 

"You looked a your child funny! That's abuse!"

[Walsingham]

It's sad that the word abuse is tossed around so easy nowadays. pretty much anything is 'abuse' currently. L0L

 

"You looked a your child funny! That's abuse!"

 

Abuse is a lot more prevalent than people were prepared to accept many years ago. Frankly I don't think you know what you're talking about. I've been a sponsor of the NSPCC here in the Uk for more than ten years and they give regular briefings. It's unsettling stuff.

 

The basic point of abuse is that you have a position of trust and control which has associated minimum standards. To not cause physical harm, through intent or negligence for example. In this case Society, through the law, has agreed that children (all children) deserve a minimum access to education. they deserve it because without it they become mentally stunted just as a child who was starved would become physically stunted.

[Meshugger]

I already explained that a judge can decide if there is a legitimate reason behind the absences and they can place the children back in the home. But no judge is going to do so in this type of household. It's like putting an organized crime boss in jail for tax evasion. It's not necessarily illegal to be a mob boss, but the law is going to look for any legal excuse to get you in the end.

 

If the parent really doesn't want their child in school, then they can register for home schooling. There are legal responsibilies for that.

 

I aready explain, Volo, that High School and even Middle School are not nearly as rigorously watched as a 2nd grader. You learn to read in the k-3 grade range, so it's pretty dang important that the child attend school. The articles also don't say anything about absences just starting,t hey say 39 days and it seems to imply that was over the course of a single year. Given the "my parents were too lazy" explanation my guess is the absences were spread out, she probably went to school 3 days a week or so.

 

Hmm...

 

Someone: -"Why weren't you raised by your own parents?"

The kid: -"Because they were too lazy and were ****"

 

Were is this "anti-****" law? I want to sue my parents retroactively for each time they treated me bad, as in not satisfying my material needs that i needed to grow in character. And in my humble opinion, for not always responding to my feelings when i felt sad.

[Walsingham]

My parents were lazy and a bit ****. That's why I was sent to boarding school to be raised by professionals. Damn fine idea, in my opinion.