Why Can't This Person Stay Away from Online Forums?

[Townsend]

You're protecting the right of the mother to teach her kids what she pleases. Who protects the rights of the kids to a safe upbringing? Can you say this isn't different from child abuse? Or should it be okay for parents to abuse kids as long as it's their own kids ?

It's really quite simple...if you believe that only one set of morals is correct for everyone then it's fine to inforce those morals. Otherwise it is not fine to enforce those morals.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

hung?

Hanged. Let 'em sing. If you don't, you end up with a baby/bathwater ratio problem.

 

[russ_watters]

It's really quite simple...if you believe that only one set of morals is correct for everyone then it's fine to inforce those morals. Otherwise it is not fine to enforce those morals.

We do have such a code: it's called the US Code and the courts have ruled many times in the past that religious free exercise does not cover violating laws that do not have an expressed religious purpose. Ie, the laws against murder were not put in place to limit a specific religious practice, so they do not violate religious free exercise. So the two women whom Evo cited cannot use religious free exercise as a defense against the murder of their children.

Child abuse works the same way when it comes to medical care: there are a number of sects that do not believe in getting medical care, but the courts always rule that it is child abuse (or murder) to allow your child to die because of a religious belief against medical treatment.

So my thesis is that there is no fundamental difference between the above cases and the case we're talking about: it's just different types and degrees of abuse.

edit: Let's look at this from the other angle: if a law were passed that extended child abuse laws to include the teaching of self-destructive beliefs, what would be the argument for the courts to strike-down that law? Ie, what specific article, amendment (clause), etc. in the Constitution would that violate? I already showed how it does not violate the free-exercise clause, but this argument has to be approached from the other way around.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes but those two nazi blonde freaks like the olsen twins. By the transitive property, the olsen twins are nazis and should be hung. Algebra rules!

Pengwuino, there's a place for poorly thought out, snide, trash humor:
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/index.php?
You'd be so much happier over there.

 

[Townsend]

We do have such a code: it's called the US Code and the courts have ruled many times in the past that religious free exercise does not cover violating laws that do not have an expressed religious purpose. Ie, the laws against murder were not put in place to limit a specific religious practice, so they do not violate religious free exercise. So the two women whom Evo cited cannot use religious free exercise as a defense against the murder of their children.

This has nothing to do with religion. i.e. religion != morality

Child abuse works the same way when it comes to medical care: there are a number of sects that do not believe in getting medical care, but the courts always rule that it is child abuse (or murder) to allow your child to die because of a religious belief against medical treatment.

Child abuse DOES NOT work the same way...in the example you are saying that people cannot use their religion to abuse their children. That is fine...but keep in mind that religion has nothing to do with morals and morals have nothing to do with child abuse.

So my thesis is that there is no fundamental difference between the above cases and the case we're talking about: it's just different types and degrees of abuse.

You CANNOT abuse a person by teaching them morals. The definition of abuse does not include teaching people what is good or bad and things of that nature. It might be morally wrong to teach my kid to be racist but it is NOT physically or mentally abusive to do so.

edit: Let's look at this from the other angle: if a law were passed that extended child abuse laws to include the teaching of self-destructive beliefs, what would be the argument for the courts to strike-down that law?
Ie, what specific article, amendment (clause), etc. in the Constitution would that violate?

It seems to me that there is no constitutional problem with passing this kind of law...but who really cares if the law could be passed when it should not be passed?

You are assuming that there is one absolute moral perspective and that the government knows what the correct one is. However what is considered to be "self-destructive" is a variable...it is not constant. It is possible that what is currently considered by most to be "self-destructive" will in the future be the norm and not acting that way will be considered "self-destructive."

Do you really feel like you know what is absolutely morally correct? Do you feel that if a large enough group of people all decide that something is morally correct that it some how makes it morally correct?

I think it be would be funny if such a law passed and then your kids were taken away because you tried to teach them that capitalism is a good thing and it was decided by a majority that such ideas are "self-destructive." Then they could be force to learn and appreciate Marxism and you get labeled a child abuser and sit in jail...

Society is not always right and while we can be fairly sure that what these two girls are being taught is morally wrong we cannot be so sure in all cases.

 

[Moonbear]

Perhaps the better approach is to view their social isolation and restriction from a proper education as the child abuse aspect, rather than the morals their parents are teaching. Why is it that we have laws requiring students receive a mandatory education until age 16 (give or take depending on the state), but then a loophole that allows parents to deprive their children of this education via homeschooling? If a child is sent to a public or private school, their teachers need to reach a certain degree of competency in the subjects they teach and have a certification indicating this. Why is the same competency not required of those who homeschool? Perhaps any parent who wishes to homeschool their children needs to have a college degree and obtain a license after comprehensive testing to ensure they are competent in the subjects they will be teaching to the children before they are allowed to remove them from the schools. This won't prevent parents from teaching hatred to their children in their spare time, but it would at least ensure these children have a chance to experience and learn about other people and views in addition to what their parents are teaching. It would also prevent ignorant people from dooming their children to ignorance as well.

 

[russ_watters]

This has nothing to do with religion. i.e. religion != morality.

Fine - I'm trying to figure out your basis for your argument. What freedom are we talking about, then?

Child abuse DOES NOT work the same way...in the example you are saying that people cannot use their religion to abuse their children. That is fine...but keep in mind that religion has nothing to do with morals and morals have nothing to do with child abuse.

You CANNOT abuse a person by teaching them morals. The definition of abuse does not include teaching people what is good or bad and things of that nature. It might be morally wrong to teach my kid to be racist but it is NOT physically or mentally abusive to do so.

This, apparently, is where we differ. Do you believe that teaching these girls abject racism will harm them in any way? Ie, do you not think that this will inhibit their ability to be functional members of society? If these girls act on these beliefs and commit crimes, they would go to jail. Who'se fault would that be?

I think it should be clear that by teaching these kids racism, the parents are harming them psychologically. Psychological abuse is, absolutely, a justification for removing a child from their parents - it's done.

It seems to me that there is no constitutional problem with passing this kind of law...but who really cares if the law could be passed when it should not be passed?

Since I'm a pretty big fan of the Constitution (see Ivan's thread on what beliefs are most important to you), it's important to me: I think the two questions are one in the same. I think this issue is already covered by the constitution.

You are assuming that there is one absolute moral perspective...

I do, but that has nothing to do with this discussion because:

...and that the government knows what the correct one is.

No. All that matters is that the government has a code of morality (laws) and by living here, everyone has agreed to abide by it.

What you just said is a big reason why people don't accept moral absolutism (see new thread in philosophy), but it is a strawman argument - a misunderstanding of the issue.

However what is considered to be "self-destructive" is a variable...it is not constant. It is possible that what is currently considered by most to be "self-destructive" will in the future be the norm and not acting that way will be considered "self-destructive."

In order for what these girls are learning to not be self-destructive, this country must some-day be fully-white and fully-racist. Besides being pretty much impossible, that most certainly goes against US law and the Constitution.

Do you really feel like you know what is absolutely morally correct? Do you feel that if a large enough group of people all decide that something is morally correct that it some how makes it morally correct?

No, and no. See above: all that matters is that we live in a country that has a set of laws, so we must obey those laws.

I think it be would be funny if such a law passed and then your kids were taken away because you tried to teach them that capitalism is a good thing and it was decided by a majority that such ideas are "self-destructive." Then they could be force to learn and appreciate Marxism and you get labeled a child abuser and sit in jail...

How realistic do you consider that, in a capitalistic society? Don't fool yourself into thinking there is a slippery-slope here. Your hypothetical example is of a reality that doesn't currently exist, but these two girls are a done-deal. Their future is already decided and it isn't a good one.

Society is not always right...

My argument does not require society to always be right. One of the beauties of the Constitution is it's ability to adapt.

...and while we can be fairly sure that what these two girls are being taught is morally wrong we cannot be so sure in all cases.

Don't go broadening the scope because you are worried about a slippery-slope. Such issues are decided on a case-by-case basis, so there is no need for such a concern. If these girls are being harmed, then the law needs to protect them. That's all I'm after here - a means to protect them, not an absolute commandment by which arbitrary decisions are made.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps the better approach is to view their social isolation and restriction from a proper education as the child abuse aspect, rather than the morals their parents are teaching.

That's what I was getting at - I guess I wasn't really all that clear. It isn't the holding of ideas that's an intriniscly a bad thing, it's how holding those ideas will affect their behavior and their interpersonal relations. Teaching these girls these ideas will cause these girls to take actions that are self-destructive. That's psychological damage/abuse.

Why is it that we have laws requiring students receive a mandatory education until age 16 (give or take depending on the state), but then a loophole that allows parents to deprive their children of this education via homeschooling? If a child is sent to a public or private school, their teachers need to reach a certain degree of competency in the subjects they teach and have a certification indicating this. Why is the same competency not required of those who homeschool? Perhaps any parent who wishes to homeschool their children needs to have a college degree and obtain a license after comprehensive testing to ensure they are competent in the subjects they will be teaching to the children before they are allowed to remove them from the schools.

I guess it's because homeschooling is outcome based. As long as the kids are passing their standardized tests, their parents are judged to be doing a good enough job. I'm a little ambivalent about that. On the one hand, outcome is what we're after - on the other, there is so much that you learn in school beyond just what is on the tests.

More abstractly, I'm not really sure what the justification for allowing homeschooling to exist is. Anyone know?

 

[Townsend]

Fine - I'm trying to figure out your basis for your argument. What freedom are we talking about, then?

It’s simple….Under NO circumstances should anyone be forced to capitulate with the moral values of society. The only time I think a law is just is if it protects the rights of people from a person or person who would violate a person rights.

What a parent teaches their kids is entirely based on their moral values what do not have to comply with societies moral values. Period!

You are the one who brought up the constitution and I pretty much could careless about it, as far as this argument is concerned anyways. My entire argument is based on the fact these people could be entirely correct in their beliefs since there is no way to prove them wrong. I don’t think the governments job is to go around making judgment calls about what is morally right and wrong when since day one the government has been immoral.

I tell you what russ….when you find me a government that doesn’t make mistakes then I will believe they should be making moral judgment calls….until then I see making a moral judgment call on the part of the government that forces it citizens to be a certain way as no better than the worst governments in history.

If the day ever comes when a parent dose not have the right to teach their children how they see fit I am out of here….I have no desire to be a part of something that is so completely anti-libertarian.

The only reason I even like the US is because it is suppose to protect the freedoms of the individual from the tyranny of the majority…(you know, the kind of people who think it is ok to force moral values on to other people) . That is what James Madison was fighting for when he drafted the constitution. I guess you could say the constitution had a good run but when people start using it to defend actions that are the very things the constitution was written to defend against, then perhaps it is time to start over.

 

[Gokul43201]

You CANNOT abuse a person by teaching them morals. The definition of abuse does not include teaching people what is good or bad and things of that nature. It might be morally wrong to teach my kid to be racist but it is NOT physically or mentally abusive to do so.

And if you teach your kids that it is morally reprehensible to do anything but bang your head against a wall a hundred times a day ?

 

[Townsend]

Teaching these girls these ideas will cause these girls to take actions that are self-destructive. That's psychological damage/abuse.

Can you prove that for a fact? Just so you know I accept NO moral premises...all your premises must be based on facts that are clear and obvious to everyone.

Just so you know you will run into a big problem trying to establish what is considered "self-destructive." Because that really is a subject thing.

The point being that you shouldn't state opinions as facts.

And I am almost certain that psychological damage does not mean that people who have different beliefs from everyone else. A person can be a 100% normal and healthy racist with no psychological problems.

 

[Townsend]

And if you teach your kids that it is morally reprehensible to do anything but bang your head against a wall a hundred times a day ?

What if? What is your point? Some people are strange...who are you to judge them?

 

[Gokul43201]

And by the age of 16, when the kids have all kinds of disorders from simply doing what they're taught, who is responsible for that ?

I could take this a step further a propose a situation of a parent instilling in a child that the morally right thing to do is commit suicide at the age of 18. That okay too ?

 

[Townsend]

And by the age of 16, when the kids have all kinds of disorders from simply doing what they're taught, who is responsible for that ?

I could take this a step further a propose a situation of a parent instilling in a child that the morally right thing to do is commit suicide at the age of 15. That okay too ?

There is a clear difference between teaching your children what to believe and teaching your children to do something that is physically harmful. Ideas like Nazism, racism, bigotry, etc. are all subjective beliefs. Now, teaching someone to do something that is physically harmful can be measured and made objective. Much like mental abuse can be clearly defined. If you can show me that you can make things like racism objective then I could perhaps see this type of thing as being a form of abuse. However, you cannot and neither can anyone else because it is NOT objective and I do not accept arbitrary standards based on current norms as a reason for taking away a person’s liberties.

 

[Entropy]

I said it once and I'll say it again: People should have to get a license to have children. If you have a kid and don't have a license the penalty is castration.

 

[Entropy]

And by the age of 16, when the kids have all kinds of disorders from simply doing what they're taught, who is responsible for that ?

There were lots of people who were raised in Nazism and they got over it. You aren't going to get some disease from being raised by racists. Oh, and people are reasonsible for their own actions.

 

[Townsend]

I said it once and I'll say it again: People should have to get a license to have children. If you have a kid and don't have a license the penalty is castration.

I would agree that people should have to get a license to have kids...

I don't think people have right to have kids.

 

[Gokul43201]

There is a clear difference between teaching your children what to believe and teaching your children to do something that is physically harmful.

Recall a couple of posts ago when you claimed I was no one to judge parents for teaching their kids to do something that was physically harmful.

And if you teach your kids that it is morally reprehensible to do anything but bang your head against a wall a hundred times a day ?

What if? What is your point? Some people are strange...who are you to judge them?

Do you now rescind this objection ?

 

[Gokul43201]

I would agree that people should have to get a license to have kids...

I don't think people have right to have kids.

I'll third that...though I haven't thought much about it.

 

[Townsend]

Recall a couple of posts ago when you claimed I was no one to judge parents for teaching their kids to do something that was physically harmful.
Do you now rescind this objection ?

Yes...

If something can be demonstrated as abuse in an objective manner then I will agree that it is abuse.

 

[Moonbear]

Yes...
If something can be demonstrated as abuse in an objective manner then I will agree that it is abuse.

How about contributing to the delinquency of a minor? If they are being taught things that lead them to hurt others out of the belief that those other people are unimportant and that hurting others is okay, isn't that harmful? How is the upbringing of these children, isolated from anyone different from them and intentionally taught only what fits with their parents' bigotry, any different from children raised in a cult?

 

[Pengwuino]

Man too bad none of this would ever fly in the real world. God i'd love it if people weren't allowed to have kids until they were able to show an active brain.

 

[hitssquad]

if people weren't allowed to have kids until they were able to show an active brain.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Eugenics_and_the_state.2C_1890s-1945

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How about contributing to the delinquency of a minor? If they are being taught things that lead them to hurt others out of the belief that those other people are unimportant and that hurting others is okay, isn't that harmful? How is the upbringing of these children, isolated from anyone different from them and intentionally taught only what fits with their parents' bigotry, any different from children raised in a cult?

The problem is that this assumes they are being taught to hate and to harm. Though the word "hate" flew around in the article quite a bit they never showed any evidence that the girls promoted hatred. They made statements about "racial pride". Is that really synonymous with hatred? Are people who promote "black pride" or "brown pride" promoting hatred? They referred to the nazis but does that necessarily promote murder? Many people use Che Guevara as an icon and I don't see them being accused of promoting murder much.
You know I actually used to hang out quite often with a girl who was against intercultural marriage. Funny enough she was actually very much a liberal. She was against intercultural marriage because she had such a strong reverance for all cultures that she did not want to see them diluted through mixing them together. Ofcourse if I simply said that she was against intercultural marriage you would probably assume that she was a bigot.

So it's not so clear and easily defined here is it.

 

[devil-fire]

How about contributing to the delinquency of a minor? If they are being taught things that lead them to hurt others out of the belief that those other people are unimportant and that hurting others is okay, isn't that harmful? How is the upbringing of these children, isolated from anyone different from them and intentionally taught only what fits with their parents' bigotry, any different from children raised in a cult?

these kids don't live in an ethnicly diverse area. they just try to avoid minoritys all together.

 

[laminatedevildoll]

Townsend got kicked out?

 

[Evo]

Townsend got kicked out?

No, he asked to be banned because he can't stay away on his own.

 

[Smurf]

Pfft, he's just trying to avoid responding to my thread. He's been putting it off since August, this is his last attempt to get me to let him get away with it.


WELL IT WON'T WORK! YOU HAVE TO COME BACK EVENTUALLY TOWNSEND!

 

[revelator]

Still too bad, we just get TSM and back, and now Townsend's gone... :(

 

[Smurf]

Pretty good trade off if you ask me.

Hey, I wonder if we can trade pengwuino for Franz.

 

[Entropy]

No, he asked to be banned because he can't stay away on his own.

Damn, these forums are like crack.