|
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 |
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Hanson wrote
| Quote: |
Plus, how would the state decide on how to teach fundamental ideologies the state itself flip-flops on; abortion, the right to bear arms, gay marriage, etc?
Simply, it isn't feasible.
|
c.f. my post on how the courts dtermine whether something is slander or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Novernae wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| Is it inconcievable that a democratic society (people and goverment combined) could make better decisions about what values should be instilled in children that a single couple. In my opinion a society that is not capable of teaching proper values to it's children is incompetent. |
It is not inconceivable that a democratic society could make better decisions about what values should be instilled in children, but our current 'democratic' societies are not capable of it. In order for those decisions to be properly made by society, society must be enlightened well beyond the stage we have reached, at which point such decisions would be obsolete anyway, but I'm not holding my breath for such a Star-Trekish utopia any time.
Let's look at the current roll of the state in educating a child. Barring the statistically small portion of home-schooled children, most children attend school, which is publicly monitored (curriculum) if not publicly funded and run. Would you say that the state is currently doing a good job of teaching its children? I would argue that it is not, therefore, to use your words, society is incompetent. Now imagine that same society, incapable of educating children, taking full charge of these children, deciding what values would be acceptable/unacceptable. To take the US as an example because it is somewhat extreme but also very plausible, imagine what values would be chosen as acceptable. Who gets to choose? Would you have referendums to decide if parents can teach evolution to their children? Rule by majority is not democracy. Would it become illegal to teach your children about sex as you see fit, or would you have to follow some sort of state sanctioned curriculum of the religious ideal of abstinence until marriage? How far would this go?
You mention the adoption scenario. Yes, it is a double standard, but it is based on the fact that they are trying to do as you suggest; weed out bad parents. Just a quick google shows many links of countries who do not accept unmarried couples for adoption (which weeds out many good stable families), the obvious issue of same-sex rights (society keeps same-sex couples from adopting now, imagine what they would do if given full reign), and even bias towards Christian families. There are also many cases of children being placed in very inappropriate homes where they suffer abuse, etc. Society is incapable performing this duty well, why would you want to give it full reign on all parenting.
And then there's the issue of implementation. How would you implement such a thing? Interview all pregnant women and their husbands? Have someone follow them around to watch their daily lives for awhile? Fill out a form stating their beliefs? (kind of like the airline form where they ask you if you are carrying any explosives... um, yeah, got one in my bag, darn, you got me now...). As it stands now, I would probably have to change my way of life to adopt a child; would I be forced to do so to have a child of my own in your world?
What you propose is not something our current society is capable of, and if society were ever to reach a point where it would be capable of such a thing, it would be unnecessary. It's an interesting thought, and I've often dreamed the same thing, but it always turns into some nightmarish Orwellian outcome
|
I found this to be a very good well-thought out post. I don't mean to be patronising, I simply regret that I am not going to answer it in full. It's just that the issues you raised I addressed in my next post after yours.
I have to admit that I am not in the least bit confident that my reading of the situation is more accurate than yours. I am merely hoping that it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| billybrobby wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
My answer is the state and by the state I DO NOT MEAN INDIVIDUAL POLITICIANS OR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY!!!
I mean the state as in the people and democratically elected government combined.
|
I'll say it again: it DOESN'T MATTER if a person is living in a democracy or in an autocratic state, they still ought to have right to personal liberty.
|
I honestly believe that whatever personal liberty is lost is negligeable compared to the liberty that is gained by children freed from the tyranny of damaging parenting.
this seems to be a case that you value one type of freedom more and I another.
Guess we'll have to agree to differ.
| Quote: |
| The reason we check governmental power is because even democracies have a tendency to be despotic. |
This simply is not born out by the facts. In the majority of cases despots tend to come to power in states where there is no democracy. Democracies tend to give more and more liberty to their citizens (including minority groups) and not less, thus becoming more democratic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Satori wrote
| Quote: |
| That's an old old law, and the definition does not apply to this situation. |
Some old laws are now considered defunct and tho' they have not been repealed they are no longer enforced.
Some old laws are updated to make then more applicable to the modern situation.
But this old law has stood the test of time. It is routinely enforced and to my knowledge nobody has ever suggested or tried to have it reformed in even the smallest way.
| Quote: |
| The problem here lies in deciding what is right thinking in the modern context. It's impossible. |
and yet as I pointed it out this is done routinely.
Let me reiterate. You cannot sue someone for libel or slander simply because they publish or say something about you that is untrue. It has to meet both criteria (1) That it is untrue and that it would damage your reputation to the extent to cause right thinking people to think ill of you
In the past you could sue someone for slander if they said you were homosexual and it was untrue.
Nowadays that is not sufficient. It is no longer believed by the courts that right thinking people would think ill of you simply because you are homosexual. There would have to be a further slur on your character such as that you were deceiving people about your sexuality.
You say it is impossible. The courts do it regulary. I think your definition of the word impossible is (to say the least) idiosyncratic. Or maybe it just suits your argument to interpret it any way you want.
|
Looking at slander laws to suggest that courts define what is right thinking is quite absurd. This law does not tightly define what is right thinking. It doesn't need to. For the purpose at hand this simply means normal people, the majority. Controlling people's parenting would require a much tighter definition of what is right. This can't be reached. Look at how the US is divided sharply over abortion, the death sentence, gay marriage, religion in schools and government, evolution, soft drugs, the environment, tax, and foriegn policy, and you can start to see the problems. I don't want any kind of majority based processes defining what is right for my child. After all, it seems the majority of people in the US wanted Bush as a president. That tells me everything I need to know about where the majority stands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
So lets see.
Our courts restrict freedom of speech so that people are not allowed to say things that would denigrate others, yet.... you feel that it is perfectly okay for parents to denigrate minority groups (racism, homophobia) by instilling these in their children.
|
That's a completely misleading representation of the hate speech laws. It's nowhere near as broad as "not being allowed to dengrate others", you can do a whole heap of denigrating and not be breaking the law. You can't say things that are racially or religiously inflammatory in a public forum or in print. You are trying to conflate public life with what goes on in the home, and that doesn't work when it comes to personal belief systems. Sure we get into homes if there is physical abuse, but that is clearly definable. Deciding what is right and wrong in the realm of parenting is the problem.
| Quote: |
| In fact, if this law were ever enacted, I would want you banned from raising children immediately. |
I can't help smiling at the irony. I would require a much more indepth evaluation of someone before suggesting that they required assistance in bringing up their children. I would require incontrovertable proof that they physically or emotionally abusing their children before I would want them banned from raising them. You would want me banned having evaluated me thro' a few posts made on an internet site.
You're a lot more right wing that I am.  [/quote]
So Im a reactionary for rejecting your reactionary-ism eh? Very good sir. I don't have to be Einstein to know that if you think this Orwellian idea of controlling parenting is a good idea then I will dissagree catagorically with you on everything that is important. You and probably plenty of people like you are part of the public, and that is why I do not want any kind of consensus based morality getting anywhere near my children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Satori wrote
| Quote: |
| Real, good quality, creative, principled parenting would be squashed under this system. |
.
This part of your post sent ice-cold shivers down my spine.
|
Well I got shivers down my spine when I realised that you thought "1984" was a fairy tale with a happy ending instead of a dystopian vision, so I guess we're even there.
| Quote: |
Who gets to decide if the parenting is 'Real, good quality, creative or principled'? At the moment only the parents themselves and their judgment is entirely subjective. |
When it comes to the morality of parenting everything is subjective. It doesn't become any more objective by involving more people and making it a consensus decision. That majority is made of up subjective human beings. The majority of people voted for Bush. I have no faith in your so called "objectivity".
| Quote: |
Like I asked in a previous post...would you hand the care of your children over to someone who could offer nothing in the way of proof but simply their word that they are fit for the job?
As for the creative part.
One of the problems besetting modern psychiatry in their attempts to find non pharmaceutical based tratments for illnesses like depression is that there is simply no way of evaluating such treaments.
Why?
It's a catch 22. It is unethical to use such treatments on patients without evaluating them. These treatments cannot be evaluated because it is unethical to experiment with the psychological well-being of patients.
And yet...
Creative parents are free to test out all their theories of child-rearing on defenseless children without any qualms or scruples about the lack of ethics involved.
You no doubt believe that you would make a real good, creative, principled parent.
But how do you know this objectively?
Most parents can only learn by their mistakes. The problem with this is that by the time they've realised that they've done things wrong their children are grown up and their mistakes cannot be rectified.
Parents rarely get a second chance. |
Creative was probably a bad choice of words by me. I don't mean weird experimental parenting processes. I simply mean raising children without the restriction of state interference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The reason we check governmental power is because even democracies have a tendency to be despotic. |
This simply is not born out by the facts. In the majority of cases despots tend to come to power in states where there is no democracy. Democracies tend to give more and more liberty to their citizens (including minority groups) and not less, thus becoming more democratic |
Again, you're either not understanding what people are saying or you are being deeply misleading on purpose. There is a difference, and I shouldn't have to point this out, between a bona fide "despot" coming to power, and a democracy developing a "tendency to be despotic". Don't let this turn into a discussion of political systems. Im just pointing out that a lot of what you say makes no sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Novernae
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| But how do you know this objectively? |
But how does the state know this objectively?
You keep harping on the idea that the state makes decisions on this ever day, but what about all the mistakes it makes (or are they not mistakes because they represent the views of the majority)?
You say parents don't get a second chance, well neither does the state. The state has as much of a second chance as parents in making mistakes with children (ie, choosing parents for those in need of parents). The state often fails. I wonder if you did an analysis whether you would find much difference in the failures of regular parents and the failures of state sanctioned parents (talking percentages here I would venture there wouldn't be that much difference). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
So lets see.
Our courts restrict freedom of speech so that people are not allowed to say things that would denigrate others, yet.... you feel that it is perfectly okay for parents to denigrate minority groups (racism, homophobia) by instilling these in their children.
|
That's a completely misleading representation of the hate speech laws. |
I wasn't referring to the 'hate speech laws'. Nowhere in my post did I mention them. I was referring to the law on slander and libel. That should have been obvious from my post!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Satori wrote
| Quote: |
| Real, good quality, creative, principled parenting would be squashed under this system. |
.
This part of your post sent ice-cold shivers down my spine.
|
Well I got shivers down my spine when I realised that you thought "1984" was a fairy tale with a happy ending instead of a dystopian vision, so I guess we're even there.
| Quote: |
Who gets to decide if the parenting is 'Real, good quality, creative or principled'? At the moment only the parents themselves and their judgment is entirely subjective. |
When it comes to the morality of parenting everything is subjective. It doesn't become any more objective by involving more people and making it a consensus decision. That majority is made of up subjective human beings. The majority of people voted for Bush. I have no faith in your so called "objectivity".
| Quote: |
Like I asked in a previous post...would you hand the care of your children over to someone who could offer nothing in the way of proof but simply their word that they are fit for the job?
As for the creative part.
One of the problems besetting modern psychiatry in their attempts to find non pharmaceutical based tratments for illnesses like depression is that there is simply no way of evaluating such treaments.
Why?
It's a catch 22. It is unethical to use such treatments on patients without evaluating them. These treatments cannot be evaluated because it is unethical to experiment with the psychological well-being of patients.
And yet...
Creative parents are free to test out all their theories of child-rearing on defenseless children without any qualms or scruples about the lack of ethics involved.
You no doubt believe that you would make a real good, creative, principled parent.
But how do you know this objectively?
Most parents can only learn by their mistakes. The problem with this is that by the time they've realised that they've done things wrong their children are grown up and their mistakes cannot be rectified.
Parents rarely get a second chance. |
Creative was probably a bad choice of words by me. I don't mean weird experimental parenting processes. I simply mean raising children without the restriction of state interference. |
This is not what you said before.
| Quote: |
| raising children without the restriction of state interference |
Is not synonymous with
| Quote: |
| Real, good quality, creative, principled parenting |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The reason we check governmental power is because even democracies have a tendency to be despotic. |
This simply is not born out by the facts. In the majority of cases despots tend to come to power in states where there is no democracy. Democracies tend to give more and more liberty to their citizens (including minority groups) and not less, thus becoming more democratic |
Again, you're either not understanding what people are saying or you are being deeply misleading on purpose. There is a difference, and I shouldn't have to point this out, between a bona fide "despot" coming to power, and a democracy developing a "tendency to be despotic". |
I said clearly in this post that democracies don't have a tendancy to be despotic on the contrary they have a tendency to give more and more freedoms to their to their citizens as time goes on.
You are not understanding what I am saying. You refute my arguments by blantantly changing what you've already said or by rejecting my interpretation of laws that I did not refer to at all.
Last edited by Grimalkin on Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Novernae wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| But how do you know this objectively? |
But how does the state know this objectively?
|
What I meant was that if parents assess their own parenting skills this is a subjective assessment. If their skills are assessed by an independent body this is an objective assessment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
So lets see.
Our courts restrict freedom of speech so that people are not allowed to say things that would denigrate others, yet.... you feel that it is perfectly okay for parents to denigrate minority groups (racism, homophobia) by instilling these in their children.
|
That's a completely misleading representation of the hate speech laws. |
I wasn't referring to the 'hate speech laws'. Nowhere in my post did I mention them. I was referring to the law on slander and libel. That should have been obvious from my post!!! |
In case you are confused, that distinction is not a crux that any of this hinges on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| Quote: |
| raising children without the restriction of state interference |
Is not synonymous with
| Quote: |
| Real, good quality, creative, principled parenting |
|
They are not synonymous, no. But you need the first condition to have the second. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
I said clearly in this post that demoncracies don't have a tendancy to be despotic on the contrary they have a tendency to give more and more freedoms to their to their citizens as time goes on. |
And I'm clearly telling you now that this is not always true. Take right now in the US where people freedoms are being eroded by the minute. A democracy can potentially tend towards despotism.
| Quote: |
You are not understanding what I am saying. You refute my arguments by blantantly changing what you've already said or by rejecting my interpretation of laws that I did not refer to at all. |
Me admitting that I chose the wrong word when I wrote "creative" is not blatantly changing what I've written. That is not how I've refuted your arguments. Neither is that fact that I thought you were refering to hate laws instead of slander. None of that undermines the way I've refuted you.
I've shown the the laws against slander and libel to not define what is a right thinking person adequately enough for the purpose of state intervention in parenting. Those laws are not a good pillar for your case because they are not nearly close enough in structure or function to be any kind of analogy for the state defining what is a good parent.
The problems with defining what is a good parent and legion and political. There is no objective way to do it. |
|
| 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
