|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Whatta loadda horseshit. One stupid judge and Canada is 1984. I'll take my chances in a Canadian courtroom over a Korean one any day, and I'll raise my children there, instead of this confucist ceasepool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Blase is absolutely right (about this decision demonstrating little about Canada, at any rate). This is one judge at the trial level. This will probably get reversed on appeal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
manlyboy
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Location: Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Whatta loadda horseshit. One stupid judge and Canada is 1984. I'll take my chances in a Canadian courtroom over a Korean one any day, and I'll raise my children there, instead of this confucist ceasepool. |
Only one stupid judge? Are the "judges" who presided over the Mark Steyn "hate speech" trial not stupid? Is the "judge" who deemed not allowing a girl to play on a boys hockey team as an abuse of her "human rights" not stupid? Is the "judge" who ordered a school to devote equal time and effort to pep rallies for girls' teams as it was for boys' teams not stupid? Is it not Orwellian to put a man on trial for hate speech for quoting someone else?, or to legally enforce "equal enthusiasm"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Is the "judge" who ordered a school to devote equal time and effort to pep rallies for girls' teams as it was for boys' teams not stupid? |
Well, why shouldn't they? The girls basketball team at my high school had a winning record most seasons and went to state. The boys team has not had a winning season since before Nixon was president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| the girl used a court-appointed lawyer in her parents' 10-year custody dispute |
Would you say this girl has a 1-2% or a 3-5% chance of growing up to be a reasonably normal adult? |
I'd say she has a 60-70% chance of growing up and working the pole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Is the "judge" who ordered a school to devote equal time and effort to pep rallies for girls' teams as it was for boys' teams not stupid? |
Well, why shouldn't they? The girls basketball team at my high school had a winning record most seasons and went to state. The boys team has not had a winning season since before Nixon was president. |
Because that isn't the proper role of government. We can't have, though in Canada do have, a state that tries to smooth over the emotional failings of the population. This is leading Canada off a cliff from a democratic and open society to one that has a predatory government ensuring none of the protected classes ever has any kind of hurt feeling or unequal experience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Suwon23
Joined: 24 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that the people should agree that women's sports are important of their own accord, without the need for government intervention. In a perfect world, the government wouldn't have to do much of anything, since we'd all be acting like responsible adults in the first place. If a problem does arise, I guess the absolute best way to deal with it would be a privately-funded public awareness campaign or a civic organization or something.
But unless your country is populated by Ayn Rand readers, the government is going to have to step in at some point, even if we'd like to see the problem ideally resolved at the private level.
There is a pretty strong precedent that this sort of "top-down" social engineering can work well. We waited a century for people to be responsible and fair concerning racial discrimination, but it took a few hardy whacks from the government to make progress happen at an acceptable speed.
You can argue about how far the principle should go, but the principle itself seems pretty well ensconced. I think the best test is time. Civil rights in America was several centuries old before the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If a problem persists for many generations without fixing itself, that's when government intervention is probably a good bet.
Overturning a parent's punishment? That's just stupid on numerous levels.
IF THE CHILD AINT HIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But unless your country is populated by Ayn Rand readers |
And with the tone set...
| Quote: |
| , the government is going to have to step in at some point, even if we'd like to see the problem ideally resolved at the private level. |
So, which problem? The girls athletic team "problem" or the parent punishing his kid "problem"?
| Quote: |
| There is a pretty strong precedent that this sort of "top-down" social engineering can work well. |
Slavery? Chinese head taxes? The reserve system?
| Quote: |
| We waited a century for people to be responsible and fair concerning racial discrimination |
"We" did? "People"? Canadians of all types are still very bigoted. Chinese hate the muslims, the Vietnamese hate the Philippines, the Indians hate the Pakistanis and the Whites resent not having been consulted about the total ethnic remaking of the country.
| Quote: |
| , but it took a few hardy whacks from the government to make progress happen at an acceptable speed. |
Was the government "whacking" against the bigotry of her population or the institutionalized, legalized and forced racial inequality?
...you have it backwards.
| Quote: |
| You can argue about how far the principle |
What principle? That the government should treat all people as individuals? The government undid racist policies that the government created. Ergo what?
| Quote: |
| should go, but the principle itself seems pretty well ensconced. |
Which principle? That the government should raise kids, or that schools are forced to give girls teams cred or that people should be treated as individuals?
| Quote: |
| I think the best test is time. Civil rights in America was several centuries old before the 1964 Civil Rights Act. |
Which undid what?
| Quote: |
| If a problem persists for many generations without fixing itself, that's when government intervention is probably a good bet. |
The government WAS THE PROBLEM in Canada and the United States. You act as if slavery 'just happened' or that the Chinese head tax 'just happened' or that the reserve system 'just happened' when in reality they were/are government directed/supported programs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Is the "judge" who ordered a school to devote equal time and effort to pep rallies for girls' teams as it was for boys' teams not stupid? |
Well, why shouldn't they? The girls basketball team at my high school had a winning record most seasons and went to state. The boys team has not had a winning season since before Nixon was president. |
Anyone remember the DKs song "California Uber Alles"? It sounds like so goes Canada.
I'm all for cultural understanding, but the rightards are right to shout "multy-culty bad" on this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If it had been my kid, and the judge ruled to overturn my punishment like that, I would simply have dropped her off at the judge's home doorstep. If he's going to make parenting decisions, he can parent. "Seeya kid, I love ya, but I hope you like your new home." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| manlyboy wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Whatta loadda horseshit. One stupid judge and Canada is 1984. I'll take my chances in a Canadian courtroom over a Korean one any day, and I'll raise my children there, instead of this confucist ceasepool. |
Only one stupid judge? Are the "judges" who presided over the Mark Steyn "hate speech" trial not stupid? Is the "judge" who deemed not allowing a girl to play on a boys hockey team as an abuse of her "human rights" not stupid? Is the "judge" who ordered a school to devote equal time and effort to pep rallies for girls' teams as it was for boys' teams not stupid? Is it not Orwellian to put a man on trial for hate speech for quoting someone else?, or to legally enforce "equal enthusiasm"? |
It's things like these that make me feel not the least bit guilty for being a student loans defaulter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Young FRANKenstein wrote: |
| If it had been my kid, and the judge ruled to overturn my punishment like that, I would simply have dropped her off at the judge's home doorstep. If he's going to make parenting decisions, he can parent. "Seeya kid, I love ya, but I hope you like your new home." |
Exactly. I'd tell the judge 'Congratulations, you've managed to make parenting pointless'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| manlyboy wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Whatta loadda horseshit. One stupid judge and Canada is 1984. I'll take my chances in a Canadian courtroom over a Korean one any day, and I'll raise my children there, instead of this confucist ceasepool. |
Only one stupid judge? Are the "judges" who presided over the Mark Steyn "hate speech" trial not stupid? Is the "judge" who deemed not allowing a girl to play on a boys hockey team as an abuse of her "human rights" not stupid? Is the "judge" who ordered a school to devote equal time and effort to pep rallies for girls' teams as it was for boys' teams not stupid? Is it not Orwellian to put a man on trial for hate speech for quoting someone else?, or to legally enforce "equal enthusiasm"? |
It's things like these that make me feel not the least bit guilty for being a student loans defaulter. |
How do you feel that you got 18 years of free education at good schools, with 4 years of university heavily funded also by taxpayers, while having police keep you safe, and healthcare available to you? Leech. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Re HRC's, I guess the "strong and free" part of the anthem will have to be changed now.. Maybe "unable and controlled" is more proper? Or "oversensitive and scared"? "emotional and passive"??
Back to the OP.
The courts shouldn't be raising our kids
| Quote: |
We are so dumbfounded by the decision of a Quebec judge last week to overturn a father�s grounding of his 12-year-old daughter that we hardly know where to begin dissecting it. The courts have no business � none � in such routine family business. This ruling is so profoundly intrusive we can only hope the Quebec appeals court strikes it down, and quickly.
A 12-year-old Gatineau girl repeatedly disobeyed her father�s rules about staying away from Internet chat rooms that he deemed inappropriate for a child her age. Eventually, she chose to circumvent his rules by going to a friend�s place to access Web sites he had banned her from viewing at home. She then compounded her disobedience by posting salacious photos of herself on one of the banned sites. So the father grounded her, telling her she could not go on the year-end camping trip for her Grade 6 class.
The girl, whose parents are divorced, then left her dad�s house and moved in with her mother, even though the father has 100% custody. But because she still needed her father to sign the consent form for the field trip, she and her mother convinced a court-appointed lawyer to take the father to court.
The lawyer, Lucie Fortin, defended her decision to take this case by claiming the camping trip � a common year-end activity across the country for students in their final year of elementary school � was a rite of passage. �This was something that would never happen again in the child�s life. And for me that was really important � This was not a question of going to the movies or not, or going online or not � because obviously, I wouldn�t have intervened in that.�
But just how is that obvious? We would have thought preserving the right of parents to impose appropriate, non-corporal punishments � including grounding from camping trips � would have been just as obvious. The distinction between acceptable and unacceptable punishments, as viewed by Ms. Fortin, isn�t obvious at all.
And that�s the danger of this ruling.
It�s our guess that most parents, even those who would style themselves permissive, would have found the father�s punishment entirely reasonable. Even if they might not have imposed the same grounding, it would not strike most parents as too harsh.
Now, thanks to Quebec Justice Suzanne Tessier, who sided with Ms. Fortin, her young client and the client�s mother, the obvious line on punishments for errant children is entirely blurred. Should this galling decision be permitted to stand, parents of testy teens will be on tenterhooks, no longer knowing where their authority over their children ends and the state�s begins. Every penalty they hand out will be subject to second-guessing by crusading lawyers and aggressive judges.
The only thing obvious in this case is that this lawyer and this judge believe the state knows better than parents what non-abusive punishments can be used and when � in all circumstances. Any clear, bright line across which the state would never intrude has been erased.
Raising a child is tough enough without parents having to worry about lawyers, judges and politicians looking over their shoulders every minute. The Quebec father in this case no doubt knows sexual predators are all over the Internet trying to coerce impressionable young girls into meeting them. He was merely trying to keep his daughter safe from them. That�s not easy at the best of times, but it is doubly difficult with the courts seek to superimpose themselves on parental decision-making. |
www.nationalpost.com.
If it were the mother making the punishment, would this court have passed the same judgment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
How do you feel that you got 18 years of free education at good schools, with 4 years of university heavily funded also by taxpayers, while having police keep you safe, and healthcare available to you? Leech. |
Um, taxes? The 50% of our parents income that the government jacks pays for their kids schooling. Ditto healthcare. The university education is all he leeched. And every English teacher in Korea would have been better served going to NAIT and getting a pipefitting ticket. The uni system benefits 1) professors (there is no reason to study the arts unless you are going to teach liberal arts) and 2) banks. The system is a big, dirty and naked scam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
