Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Should parents be more closely monitored..

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Should parents be more closely monitored..
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Satori

Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:58 am Post subject:

Grimalkin wrote:

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.

Great, now you've made it easier to see why you are so deeply confused. You see, that independant body is still made up of people, who are by definition subjective. Thier consensus does not in any way create objectivity. They all bring thier own background, culture, beliefs, politics, and agenda's of all stripes to the table. The consensus in Texas is that it's really cool to fry lots and lots of innocent black men in the electric chair. That does not make it an objectively good thing to do.

Try reading "1984" again, this time with the idea in mind that it's a dystopia not a reactionary's wet dream...

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:53 pm Post subject:

Satori wrote:

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.

Ooookay so this is like an apology for accusing me of of giving a completely misleading representation of the hate speech laws?

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:58 pm Post subject:

Satori wrote:

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.

So following your reasoning everytime I talk about 'parenthood' I could just claim that I meant 'fertility' because parenthood is conditional on being fertile?

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:09 pm Post subject:

Satori wrote:

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.

One example alone is not indicative of the tendency, there are also examples of where the opposite has happened. You need to look not only at the overall picture of what has happened in all democratic countries but also what has happened in each country over over the period from the time of it's fledlging democracy up until now.

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:33 pm Post subject:

Satori wrote:

Grimalkin wrote:

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.

Ah I see....

So a person's own assessment of their parenting skills is subjective
and an independant body's assessment of the that persons parenting skill is also subjective. Another of your idiosyncratic interpretations of a word

This is similar to your assertion that something carried out routinely by the courts is 'impossible'

I'm being to to understand how you would be a 'creative' parent. Wink

Quote:

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.

Stating that something is so is not the same as showing that it is so.

But by now I'm being to suspect that that your whole argument depends on obfuscation, involving imprecise and inaccurate use of language (to say the least), imputing things to me that I never said so that you can appear to dismiss them.

It's hard to know whether this is deliberate or not. The time differance between my previous post and yours tends to comfirm my suspicions that it is just that you are in such a hurry to react to my posts that you are not taking the time to respond....

......which of course would not only take a lot more time and thought but would greatly improve the quality of your replies (which frankly are not really up to much!).

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:58 am Post subject:

Novernae wrote:

Grimalkin wrote:

But how do you know this objectively?

But how does the state know this objectively?

Because the state is not the parents therefore it's evaluation of the parents is by definition an objective evaluation.

The parents clearly are the parents therefore an assessment of themselves is by definition subjective not objective

Quote:

You keep harping on the idea that the state makes decisions on this ever day,

Where are when did I say this? Are you getting confused with where I said that the courts regularly make decisions about what is and is scandel/libel?

Nevertheless it's true that the state does often decide who is and who is not fit to be parents in the case of adoptions

Quote:

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.

So should the State stop trying to evaluate prospective parents in the case of adoptions and just hand over the children on a 'first come first served basis'? At least they employ trained professionals to assess the fitness of parents. The parents of 'biological' children are amateurs subjectively assessing themselves.

Quote:

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).

This is pure speculation unless you can find studies to back up what constitutes no more than a 'hunch' on your part (similar to the 'hunch' people have that they would make good parents I suppose).[/quote]

Satori

Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:08 am Post subject:

Grimalkin wrote:

Oh I'm starting to get it now. Lets consider you then, as a potential parent. I'm not you. Therefore, by definition, I'm able to be objective about your potential as a parent. And I say you are unfit to reproduce. You're just too conservative. No, scratch that. You're not a true classic conservative at all, becuase classic conservatives want less government, yet here you are wanting to let the government into our homes telling us how to raise our children. You're so far to the right of true conservatives you can only be called a raving reactionary.

Once again, read "1984" and this time try to keep in mind that it's a dystopia, not a reactionary wet dream...

Novernae

Joined: 02 Mar 2005

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:48 am Post subject:

Grimalkin wrote:

Novernae wrote:

Grimalkin wrote:

But how do you know this objectively?

But how does the state know this objectively?

I'm still not clear on how you feel that the state can be completely and perfectly objective in the case of parenting. Being objective does not simply mean evaluating from the outside. All of our definitions of 'good parenting' come from our own value set, and we are evaluating from within that, which to me is subjective. Yes, if the state makes a checklist of right and wrong their evaluation becomes objective, but even then it cannot be fully objective because it is based largely on subjective values.

Grimalkin wrote:

Quote:

You keep harping on the idea that the state makes decisions on this ever day,

I'm not getting confused. You used the case of libel to prove that the state can objectively decide what 'right thinking people' are to say that it would therefore be possible in the case of deciding what 'right parenting' was. Does this mean that the state should decide what 'right thinking' is? Just because it exists in one aspect of the law doesn't mean it can or should be applied across the board.

Grimalkin wrote:

Quote:

Of course you know I don't think that. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't apply a flawed system to the current one. The trained professionals are people, liable to make mistakes within their generally overworked underpaid roles. They are also doing so under imperfect laws, under an imperfect court system and an imperfect state.

Grimalkin wrote:

Quote:

This is pure speculation unless you can find studies to back up what constitutes no more than a 'hunch' on your part (similar to the 'hunch' people have that they would make good parents I suppose).

Of course this is pure speculation, that's why I began with "I wonder." How would you suggest I go about gathering this information? You are the one who feels that good and bad parenting can be completely objectively defined, so why don't you give me some parameters so I can begin my research. Or do you suggest I just go ask people if they had good parents and compile the numbers and then compare the adopted to non-adopted. Or I could just find some criminal statistics... Criminals are bad people, so they must have had bad parents, right? Compare them to the overall adoption stats? Or maybe I could ask successful people, since those who are adopted are parented by state selected parents (a good objective system in your eyes) then there should be a greater percentage of adopted people who are successful compared to the overall stats, right?

Here's an idea, rather than all of us continuing to debate you on a philosophical level, why don't you compile a concrete list of credentials people would have to achieve to be allowed to become parents in your world and then we could see how we all do, or how our parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents did.

ChopChaeJoe

Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:50 am Post subject:

What innocent black man was fried in Texas?

Satori

Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:51 am Post subject:

ChopChaeJoe wrote:

What innocent black man was fried in Texas?

Many of them have been...

ChopChaeJoe

Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:29 pm Post subject:

Who?

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:08 am Post subject:

Satori wrote:

Grimalkin wrote:

Oh I'm starting to get it now. Lets consider you then, as a potential parent. I'm not you. Therefore, by definition, I'm able to be objective about your potential as a parent.

Congratulatons you finally have got the difference between subjective and objective

and just to further your education...

subjective does not necessarily mean wrong and objective does not neccessatily mean right (having helped you out on this I wouldn't want to mislead you simply because I favor objective evaluations over subjective.

Can I recommend a website www.dictionary.com (start with 'impossible').

Quote:

And I say you are unfit to reproduce. You're just too conservative. No, scratch that. You're not a true classic conservative at all, becuase classic conservatives want less government, yet here you are wanting to let the government into our homes telling us how to raise our children. You're so far to the right of true conservatives you can only be called a raving reactionary.

And you're a little bit to the right of me. I wouldn't want to declare someone 'unfit to reproduce' on such flimsy evidence (and the word 'reactionary' in another sense) fits you as well. I doubt you've understood the points I've made sufficiently even to be able to recap them adequately.

I'm not going to disparage your intelligence (I simply can't tell one way or another) but I do get the impression that you are in such a rush to reply that you don't adequately consider what's been written or your responses to it.

I also suspect that you are to some extent or other dyslexic and therefore are having a problem processing written arguments. That's not meant to be insulting. But it would explain certain features of how you conduct your argument.

Last edited by Grimalkin on Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:28 am; edited 2 times in total

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:09 am Post subject:

Novernae wrote:

Grimalkin wrote:

Novernae wrote:

Grimalkin wrote:

But how do you know this objectively?

But how does the state know this objectively?

...and yet I bet you wouldn't agree that university students should be allowed to evaluate their learning on the grounds that what constitues learning in any given discipline is based on the subjective views of the examing board.

Grimalkin wrote:

Quote:

You keep harping on the idea that the state makes decisions on this ever day,

I'm not getting confused. You used the case of libel to prove that the state can objectively decide what 'right thinking people' are to say that it would therefore be possible in the case of deciding what 'right parenting' was. [/quote]

I'm afraid you are confusing two issues I've raised.

One was that I said parents should be prevented by law from inculcating certain values in their children the same way that the law forbids people from disseminating 'scandalous' (in the legal sense) and 'libellous' views (and uses the yardstick of 'right thinking persons' to determine what is 'scandal and what is libel.

The other issue I raised was that all propective parents should be evaluated as to their parenting skills as we routinely evaluate people the competency of people who enter into any trade or profession since parenting is a more important activity.

I did not suggest that anyone should be stopped by the law or any other means from continuing to parent but rather they should be offered assistance if they are deemed in need of it with the exception of phsical or mental abuse (which is also the case with the laws in existance today)

Grimalkin wrote:

Quote:

but what about all the mistakes it makes (or are they not mistakes because they represent the views of the majority)?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Of course you know I don't think that. [b]All I'm saying is that we shouldn't apply a flawed system to the current one. The trained professionals are people, liable to make mistakes within their generally overworked underpaid roles. They are also doing so under imperfect laws, under an imperfect court system and an imperfect state.

All systems devised by humans are going to be flawed. That doesn't mean there is no merit to replacing a flawed system with one you believe to be less flawed.

Quote:

Grimalkin wrote:

Quote:

This is pure speculation unless you can find studies to back up what constitutes no more than a 'hunch' on your part (similar to the 'hunch' people have that they would make good parents I suppose).

Of course this is pure speculation, that's why I began with "I wonder." How would you suggest I go about gathering this information?

This was badly stated on my part. I wanted to underscore the point that as it was speculation it could add no weight to your argument. I put in the disclaimer unless you can find studies... on the off-chance that any such studies existed.

(I did have reservations about making that post in reply to yours as I was in somewhat of a hurry yesterday. However since you had gone to the trouble of posting I felt it would be rude to give the appearance of ignoring you. This isn't a cop-out. I genuinely haven't ignored on this thread anyone who has taken the trouble to direct a to me.)

Quote:

You are the one who feels that good and bad parenting can be completely objectively defined,

(...but nowhere do I claim that completely objectively = completely correctly)

Quote:

so why don't you give me some parameters so I can begin my research.

I wans't suggesting that you do any research. If that seemed to be implied it is probably that I wasn't expressing myself well.

Quote:

Or do you suggest I just go ask people if they had good parents and compile the numbers and then compare the adopted to non-adopted.

Tut tut.. you know I favor objective evaluations

Quote:

Or I could just find some criminal statistics... Criminals are bad people, so they must have had bad parents, right?

Again I would never decide on that without seeing evidence

Quote:

Compare them to the overall adoption stats? Or maybe I could ask successful people, since those who are adopted are parented by state selected parents (a good objective system in your eyes) then there should be a greater percentage of adopted people who are successful compared to the overall stats, right?

...again requires a subjective evaluation.

...but yeah I do get that you're being ironic.

Quote:

Here's an idea, rather than all of us continuing to debate you on a
philosophical level, why don't you compile a concrete list of credentials people would have to achieve to be allowed to become parents in your world and then we could see how we all do, or how our parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents did.

I wouldn't do that. I'm simply not remotely qualified. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that somebody else could be. Which is the crux of where I differ from the other posters on this thread.

As for debating this on a philosophical level...I never intended to debate it on any other level.

Satori

Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:57 am Post subject:

Grimalkin wrote:

If you really believe that objective simply means assessed by someone other than the self, then we just can't have a rational discussion. That view is either willfully obtuse or just utterly simplistic. Either way, communication cannot be achieved.

Objective:

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

So the people in this parenting assessment group don't have personal feelings, prejudices, don't make interpretations, and are unbiased? They deal strictly in facts?

6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings

The assessment group will have no thoughts or feelings, they will deal only with things external to the mind?

7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject

As soon as the assessment group starts to think about good parenting they become subjective. Will they achieve thier task without thinking?

8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

The assessment group will devise standards for parenting that can be confidently known and exist independant of thought and of themselves as part of reality?

You are deeply confused about the terms you are using. I'm guessing your area of tertiary study was not literary. I'll leave the rest of your ad hominem babble alone, it only shows you're struggling. You've failed to address the actual topic for several posts in a row now, and clearly have not understood what is being discussed in the last couple of pages.

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject:

Satori wrote:

Grimalkin wrote:

Frankly I'm shocked!!!

Even with the aid of a dictionary you are unable to grasp the meaning of an objective assessment.

Let me take you thro' it one by one.

Quote:

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

So the people in this parenting assessment group don't have personal feelings, prejudices, don't make interpretations, and are unbiased? They deal strictly in facts?

Objectivity does not require a person to be devoid of personal feelings, interpretations or prejudice. It requires them when making an objective assessment to set these aside, and base their judgment on facts not on their previous feeling, interpretations or prejudice.

Doctors, judges and juries (among many others) are routinely expected to do this.

Quote:

6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings

The assessment group will have no thoughts or feelings, they will deal only with things external to the mind?

Again an assessment group can have thoughts and feelings, but they are expected to be objective by basing their assessment on external facts not on their personal thoughts and feelings.

Quote:

7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject

As soon as the assessment group starts to think about good parenting they become subjective. Will they achieve thier task without thinking?

Not so. They are expected to become/remain objective by focusing on external facts not personal thoughts or feelings.

Quote:

8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

The assessment group will devise standards for parenting that can be confidently known and exist independant of thought and of themselves as part of reality?

Yes these standards should be capable of being known.

Yes they should exist independent from the thoughts of their devisors.

Yes they should have their own reality.

Again I have to say it....I am truly shocked!

In each case above you have a definition and then in your follow up comment clearly shown that you have misunderstood it. This illustrates your difficulty with language far more graphically than any example I could have come up with.

(And not only do you have this difficulty but you seem to be completely unaware that you have this difficulty.)

Quote:

You are deeply confused about the terms you are using

All I can do is quote this back at you.

Quote:

You've failed to address the actual topic for several posts in a row now

Because I've had to constantly correct your misapprehensions.

Quote:

clearly have not understood what is being discussed in the last couple of pages

Laughably ironic given your above performance.

If your finding my 'babble' to be ad hominem your either taking it too personally (I'm not criticising you, I'm criticising your arguments and method of arguing) or misunderstanding this term as well.[/quote][/b]
I'm not trying to show that you are a bad person. I'm trying to show how your arguments are bad and why.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe