warning this can offend law abiding citizens - Which I'm not one of.

reply to post by nenothtu


OK I GET IT. YOU DON'T THINK CHILDREN HAVE RIGHTS TO AN EDUCATION.


That big enough for you to see?

reply to post by sirnex


You continue to lie in this thread, twisting words in the most obvious ways in order to disguise your own tyranny. You acknowledge, indeed you insist the state should demand parents obtain licensing to educate their own children, and then insist that I and other parents have the right to home school our children. A license by legal definition is the granting of permission that would otherwise be illegal, but to you these are subtle nuances that are way over your head. In the end, what is it you want?

OH I GET IT! YOU WANT EVERYBODY'S CHILDREN TO BE INDOCTRINATED BY STATE CURRICULUM, AND YOU'RE FINE IF PEOPLE WANT TO PAY MORE AND SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL, YOU'RE EVEN FINE WITH PARENTS HOME SCHOOLING THEIR CHILDREN, JUST AS LONG AS THEY ABIDE BY THE STATES INDOCTRINATION PROGRAM. I GET IT, YOU'RE A TYRANT, AND A BULLY!

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by nenothtu

 

OK I GET IT. YOU DON'T THINK CHILDREN HAVE RIGHTS TO AN EDUCATION.


That big enough for you to see?

I said that WHERE? I believe my statement was more along the lines of 'YOU don't get to determine what MY child's rights are', but I'm open to your justification of your excessive, unjustified, and erroneous statement.

Let's see that justification. I can wait.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by sirnex

 

OH I GET IT! YOU WANT EVERYBODY'S CHILDREN TO BE INDOCTRINATED BY STATE CURRICULUM, AND YOU'RE FINE IF PEOPLE WANT TO PAY MORE AND SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL, YOU'RE EVEN FINE WITH PARENTS HOME SCHOOLING THEIR CHILDREN, JUST AS LONG AS THEY ABIDE BY THE STATES INDOCTRINATION PROGRAM. I GET IT, YOU'RE A TYRANT, AND A BULLY!

It appears to be more than that. It appears he believes that everyone has the 'right' to educate their own children, as long as they follow the state mandate as to what they should be indoctrinated... err... 'taught', and further believes that his children have a 'right' to be educated at the expense of others. Personal responsibility seems not to enter his equation. You can educate 'yours', as long as you also continue to pay the state to educate 'his'. In other words, he has the 'right' to demand you to pay DOUBLE educational expenses, for his benefit, so that he can avoid personal responsibilities.

reply to post by nenothtu


OK... No one can determine the right's of your children but you.

DO you have the right to abuse?
DO you have the right to neglect?
DO you have the right to refuse education?

Where do their right's begin and your infringement upon those rights end?

What is your problem with the government enforcing the protection of their rights to make sure they are receiving basic education to function in society? Are you so adamant on protecting your ill perceived rights that you wish to infringe on your childrens rights?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


*SIGH*

What in the hell is the issue here? Seriously.

There is no enforced curriculum, you are FREE TO CHOOSE the curriculum. Some states have required SUBJECTS, you are free to choose the curriculum for those subject.

Are you saying you don't want to teach your children math, reading, etc?

Move to Mississippi then, they don't have those requirement. Quit bitching that this is being FORCED on you when it's NOT.

reply to post by nenothtu


THERE IS NO ENFORCED CURRICULUM, ONLY ENFORCED SUBJECTS. YOU ARE FREE TO CHOSE THE COURSE OF STUDY SO LONG AS THOSE SUBJECTS ARE BEING TAUGHT.

DO YOU HAVE A DAMN PROBLEM WITH TEACHING MATH, READING, ETC.? IF NOT THEN THIS IDIOTIC BITCHING IS ALL MOOT AND POINTLESS.

reply to post by sirnex


Sigh.

www.merriam-webster.com...

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Debating you is like fighting an unarmed man. I wonder if you realize just how proud you are of your own ignorance?

Originally posted by sirnex

OK... No one can determine the right's of your children but you.

DO you have the right to abuse?
DO you have the right to neglect?
DO you have the right to refuse education?

Where do their right's begin and your infringement upon those rights end?

What is your problem with the government enforcing the protection of their rights to make sure they are receiving basic education to function in society? Are you so adamant on protecting your ill perceived rights that you wish to infringe on your childrens rights?

Those are all non-sequiturs. Defense of MY rights is also defense of my children's rights, and yours as well.

One of my rights is to refuse anything at all. Another is to provide what I desire to provide, not what you or anyone else DICTATES that I provide. Neither providing nor refusing in any way infringes on the rights of another, unless you somehow believe that you have a right to what I produce, from my own labors.

That still doesn't point out where I said that I don't think children have rights to an education. I guess I'll have to wait a little longer.

reply to post by sirnex

DO you have the right to abuse? DO you have the right to neglect? DO you have the right to refuse education? Where do their right's begin and your infringement upon those rights end?

This lame form of dialectics has been addressed in this thread and refuted. No one has the right to infringe upon the rights of another. Thus, abuse is not a right. Rights begin where they cause no other undue harm, and end when others begin to accept the tyranny you advocate.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by nenothtu

 

THERE IS NO ENFORCED CURRICULUM, ONLY ENFORCED SUBJECTS. YOU ARE FREE TO CHOSE THE COURSE OF STUDY SO LONG AS THOSE SUBJECTS ARE BEING TAUGHT.

DO YOU HAVE A DAMN PROBLEM WITH TEACHING MATH, READING, ETC.? IF NOT THEN THIS IDIOTIC BITCHING IS ALL MOOT AND POINTLESS.

A convenient sidestep. Nowhere have I said that i have a problem with teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, the only state mandated subjects you dared to mention. The issue is whether you have the right to demand I provide same for your children, and absolve you of that responsibility.

There is of course an enforced curriculum. Where you get the idea there isn't I can't even guess. Your insistence that I must move elsewhere in order to secure my basic rights is laughable. Why would my rights not apply right where I am? I've had a wee bit of experience with Reservation living, and I think I'd prefer that you not attempt to place me on another, just to secure my rights. Kind of negates the concept of basic human rights, doesn't it?

Somehow, I managed to say all that without resorting to all caps. Imagine that.

reply to post by nenothtu

One of my rights is to refuse anything at all.

Your right, you can refuse to teach your children to read and do math if you want and the state reserves to protect your children from your blatant negligence just as they would if you were abusing them.

Your arguing against an enforcement of subject matters that you would be teaching them anyways. What is the point in that?

Another is to provide what I desire to provide, not what you or anyone else DICTATES that I provide.

Your arguing against an enforcement of subject matters that you would be teaching them anyways. What is the point in that?

Neither providing nor refusing in any way infringes on the rights of another, unless you somehow believe that you have a right to what I produce, from my own labors.

Calling public schools a tyranny enforced by the government and wishing for the dismantling of that system of education infringes upon my right to choose that and upon the rights of my children to have access to education that I can't personally provide myself. That is a true tyranny.

That still doesn't point out where I said that I don't think children have rights to an education. I guess I'll have to wait a little longer.

Your telling me that public schools are a form of tyranny or that the protection of a child's right to education is a form of tyranny as well. Telling me my children don't have the right to that option is no different than telling my children they have no right to an education. I can't teach, I don't have the patience, though I am considering trying, maybe. Even if I could teach, I'm not qualified to teach. I have the personal choice to ensure my children are being taught by someone who knows how to teach and has the patience to teach.

If your going to tell me my children don't have that right, then you are telling me they have no right to an education. Your form of tyranny is worse than the government protecting their rights from morons like you.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Debating you is like fighting an unarmed man. I wonder if you realize just how proud you are of your own ignorance?

LMFAO... Debating with you is like trying to interview the winner of the Special Olympics.

Please read your definition link carefully and then go above and beyond that for more clarification.

All the courses of study offered by an educational institution.

Key word here is courses

course - education imparted in a series of lessons or meetings

Ah, it get's clearer now!

A curriculum is a course of study offering a series of lessons to teach a SUBJECT.

Ah, a subject is NOT a curriculum.

Don't get me wrong, I did appreciate that little joke. It was kind of cute, even if poorly thought out.

reply to post by nenothtu

The issue is whether you have the right to demand I provide same for your children, and absolve you of that responsibility.

Alright, let's go down the list of services provided by the government that you don't want to pay for others to receive through taxes but still want provided by the government for yourself.

There is of course an enforced curriculum.

Sources.

Your insistence that I must move elsewhere in order to secure my basic rights is laughable.

OK, let's take away public schools and let everyone fend for themselves on the educational front. What happens if a private school is not in your area and you don't have the time to home school? Just say screw it? OR MOVE?

[edit on 1-6-2010 by sirnex]

Found this and it made me chuckle inside.

In the US, the government imposed the No Child left Behind act, which allowed each state the freedom to create their own curriculum under certain limited federal regulation.

...

In America, the curriculum is not nationally standardized.

link

[edit on 1-6-2010 by sirnex]


[edit on 1-6-2010 by sirnex]

reply to post by sirnex


In regards to education, course and subject are inextricable. The subject of math requires courses in order for that subject to be taught. Your circular reasoning only demonstrates all that is wrong, and has been wrong for quite some time with public schools. Clearly you spent more time in the play ground playing the; "I know you are but what am I" game then you did actually learning how to think. Of course, you vehement insistence on remaining ignorant demonstrates that it is not entirely the fault of the public school system, as in the end, each person has to accept responsibility for their own actions, a truth you clearly wish was not true.

reply to post by nenothtu

the only state mandated subjects you dared to mention.

The required subjects varies from state to state with some states that don't enforce any required subjects, such as Mississippi. I can't mention every single subject required by every single state for that very reason, is that simple enough to understand for you?

What subject are you objecting against here? What subject that is enforced by your state that you DO NOT want to teach your children?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The subject of math requires courses in order for that subject to be taught.

Lesson plans are not enforced nor standardized by the government. You can home school and use free printouts to teach math if you so choose. My wife says if your that anal, you can use counting cats to teach the math. I'm guessing your THAT anal.

each person has to accept responsibility for their own actions

I am accounting for my own responsibility by ensuring that my children get a better education than I can personally provide myself.

My wife brings up a good point, besides your love for counting cats because you can't stand textbooks.

Let's take away public schools. What happens if you lose your job, die or whatever other unforeseen thing happens that hinders your ability to finance and or transport your children to there place of education.

Who pays for that whilst the unforeseen event is playing out and your personally unable?

Sure as hell won't be my taxes because you want to take away that alternative that ensures against those unforeseen events. I won't gamble my kid's education like that, but I'm glad you want to.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by sirnex]

Originally posted by sirnex

Neither providing nor refusing in any way infringes on the rights of another, unless you somehow believe that you have a right to what I produce, from my own labors.

Calling public schools a tyranny enforced by the government and wishing for the dismantling of that system of education infringes upon my right to choose that and upon the rights of my children to have access to education that I can't personally provide myself. That is a true tyranny.

Dismantle that system? You have me confused with someone else. I've not said to dismantle it, I've said that if I have to educate my kids myself, then I should not be required to pay for that AND your kids. In other words, if I opt out of your system, I should be allowed to opt out of it, not just half way. See, your argument is that my rights end where yours begin, and I agree with that. The converse is also true, and your rights end where mine begin. Your rights then, do not include the right to insist that I pay for a system that I am forced not to participate in, at your insistence.

That still doesn't point out where I said that I don't think children have rights to an education. I guess I'll have to wait a little longer.

Your telling me that public schools are a form of tyranny or that the protection of a child's right to education is a form of tyranny as well. Telling me my children don't have the right to that option is no different than telling my children they have no right to an education. I can't teach, I don't have the patience, though I am considering trying, maybe. Even if I could teach, I'm not qualified to teach. I have the personal choice to ensure my children are being taught by someone who knows how to teach and has the patience to teach.

Your deficiencies are not my problem, any more than mine are yours.

If your going to tell me my children don't have that right, then you are telling me they have no right to an education. Your form of tyranny is worse than the government protecting their rights from morons like you.

Your children's right to an education lays in your hands and theirs, not mine. Why would you want to delegate something that important to me?

Since you can't carry on civil conversation without resorting to name calling, I leave you to sort this out for yourself.

reply to post by sirnex


You keep pretending that the state of California thinks they have a right to demand I obtain a license to home school my children, and they are so tyrannical about this, they threaten to use Social Services to take my child away from me. Frankly, I don't think you are nearly as stupid as you come across in this thread, I think you're just a troll who believes that all he has to do is keep posting in this thread, and sooner or later those who oppose tyranny will surrender. You couldn't be more wrong. There is not a soul that understands the importance of their inalienable rights, that doesn't see right through your game.

Originally posted by sirnex

Alright, let's go down the list of services provided by the government that you don't want to pay for others to receive through taxes but still want provided by the government for yourself.

I'm game, if you think you can manage it without resorting to unfounded name calling. I have my doubts about that, but we'll see.

Here's my list of what you specify above:


/end list

Now it's your turn.

You see, NOWHERE have I said that I want government services provided to me that I'm unwilling to pay for. My contention is that if I have to opt out of those services, I should not be required to keep them up for YOU. You should be capable of doing that on your own, or else not require me to opt out.