Loyalty to the State by canttakesky

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Well, anyway, the point is homeschoolers are not isolated unless they want to be."

But when ANY parent wants to isolate children especially from the school or legal system, it should send up red flags.

Nixzmary lived and died in a two-bedroom apartment on Greene Avenue in Bedford-Stuyvesant with her mother, her stepfather and five half-siblings. At the trial, a portrait emerged of a poor family plunged into chaos after Ms. Santiago had a miscarriage in late November 2005, less than a year after giving birth to her sixth child. Ms. Santiago was depressed, and, according to many sources, blamed Nixzmary for the miscarriage and called her a devil.

The parents stopped sending the children to school regularly. Mr. Rodriguez lost his job as a security guard. He said he began to beat Nixzmary daily and to tie her to a chair with duct tape, rope and bungee cords because she was trying to harm her siblings and destroying the family’s precious food supplies.

Nixzmary’s injuries did not escape the notice of her teachers on the rare occasions she came to school. They notified the city’s Administration for Children’s Services, which sent workers to the family’s home several times in early January 2006 but failed to make meaningful contact with the family, in part because Mr. Rodriguez was unreceptive.

On Jan. 10, 2006, the welfare agency assigned case workers to visit the home after hours, but the case workers decided to wait till the morning.

Before dawn on Jan. 11, Ms. Santiago woke an upstairs neighbor and asked her to call 911, saying that Nixzmary had drowned. Paramedics found her dead on the floor, most of her rail-thin body covered with cuts and bruises and black eyes in various stages of healing. An autopsy revealed that she had died of bleeding on the brain caused by blows to the head.

In the hours that followed, Mr. Rodriguez gave a series of statements to detectives and prosecutors in which he said that on the last night of Nixzmary’s life, she got in trouble for taking a snack from the refrigerator — a yogurt or pudding — without permission and for jamming his computer printer with toys. He said he had pounded her with his hands, demanding to know why she was so destructive, and had shoved her head under a cold bathtub faucet.

When he was done, he said, he feared he had beaten her more seriously that night than he ever had before, that she looked “more pale than any other day,” would not meet his gaze and appeared “dazed out.” He says that after beating her, he left her moaning and went to his room, and that when his wife told him she was concerned that Nixzmary was having trouble breathing, he told her not to worry because “I thought it was just one of her scams.”

***************************************************************
I want to point this out in particular. Children are defenseless and at the mercy of the whims of adults. People need to understand what the last few hours of Nixzmary's life were like in order to specifically comprehend what 'child abuse' means.

Abuse is TOO WIDESPREAD TO BE IGNORED. http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm
Composition of substantiated child abuse in 2000:
879,000 children were victims of child maltreatment.
Neglect ~ 63%
Physical ~ 19%
Sexual ~ 10%
Psychological ~ 8%

Simple calculation based on percent of population under 19, total population and number of documented cases of neglect or abuse indicates that 1% of children in the US are neglected or abused.

BTW, I WOULD conclude that isolating a child is suspicious behavior in and of itself and warrants investigation.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 3:37 PM

CANTTAKESKY

As a point of clarification, when I spoke of homeschoolers wanting to be isolated, I didn't mean the creepy kind of isolation. There are different kinds of isolation and different degrees of isolation.

The Amish, for example, are purposely isolated. They have religious and social reasons for isolating themselves from society at large. However, their kids are not isolated from their community.

I know homeschoolers who, either because of personality or other preferences, choose to associate themselves with only a relatively small group of people. However, their kids still interact with the public, to shop for groceries or play in the park or take piano lessons. This is the type of isolation I meant.

The creepy kind of isolation, where kids almost never get to interact with the public, should raise red flags. Even those who have limited interactions (including attending public school) could be severely abused and neglected at home.

How do you tell the difference? It actually doesn't come from counting the number of interactions, though that certainly is a factor to keep in mind. A child who is not abused/neglected is happy and well-adjusted. A child who is unhappy is suffering some level of stress; an unhappy child is a red flag in and of itself.

If you ever meet an unhappy child, take the time to ask them what is wrong. The level and type of unhappiness will point the way to the problems at home. Now how many and what type of problems at home constitutes abuse--that is a judgment call that probably deserves its own thread.

If a child is never around enough for ANY adult to ask why he/she is unhappy, THAT is too much isolation and definitely deserves to be investigated.

Just my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:24 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Homeschoolers in America are far from being isolated. Of course, it depends on where one lives, and if one WANTS to be isolated. But in general, there are significant homeschooling communities everywhere. Many homeschoolers also get together to form co-ops, where they teach each other's kids in a pseudo-classroom setting.

Where we used to live, our co-op met once a week. We rented an empty office building, which was partitioned into "areas." Parents volunteered to prepare and lead activities in each area, anywhere from a first-time violin lesson to geography or science. There was always an arts and crafts area and a toddler's area for the younger siblings. Many homeschooling parents there were well educated (depending again on where one lives), so there was a lot of expertise to draw from.

so in other words you are setting up a type of school, a community school if you like, but something that mirrors that part of schools where expertise comes from more than one person alone and children learn in groups and resources are shared.
I have spoken to homeschoolers here and they have said the same thing about isolation, oh you send them to classes, set up group learning environments...well then, what's the point?

Quote:
True, there are less people in this community than the other. But there is something to be said for quality of community as well. My kids may play with other kids less frequently, in general, but when she does play with them, the interactions are well supervised by a very small parent-child ratio. The kids don't get bullied or humiliated. They don't learn bad habits or learn to talk like teenagers when they're 6.

see now this is the control aspect of homeschooling that doesn't appeal to me. one of the most interesting things about sending my son to school is watching him choose his own friendship group and learn how to handle conflict without constant parental/adult intervention. Now that isn't appropriate when a kid is 3, but as the next few years roll by they need to learn those on their own, IMO. That's not to say bullying needs to be tolerated, btw, but that adults don't need to constantly watch and intervene with primary age children.

And has for learning bad habits, meh! Unless you are talking about your 7 year old child smoking weed, and I assume you are not, I'd say bad habits does not a bad child make. They learn, test things out, test out their parents reactions to things they pick up at school and elsewhere, both good and bad but in the end its the family life and how they have been/are being parented will be the main influence on any child.

Part of parenting is letting go of parental control bit by bit and enabling children grow into autonomous beings.

Quote:
Edited to add: The USA is estimated to have anywhere from one to over 2 million homeschoolers. This is VERY different from the roughly 20,000 homeschoolers in Australia.

True, its not as big here, maybe there are more educational options. Maybe the public system doesn't suck quite as much. But remember you are talking about a significantly smaller population (20 million) compared to???? whatever hundreds of millions you have in the US.

My understanding is that homeschoolers can be involved in homeschool communities here.

When I talk about isolation, I'm talking about what i would miss. School forms a big part of our life, we mix ( as a family) with a lot of other families from the school, and as I said, are involved with the school. I'd really miss that and it would feel strange to just not have that in our life and I find it hard to imagine why others wouldn't want something like that either.

I'd imagine I'll probably feel different come secondary school days. Speak to you then.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:58 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
...well then, what's the point?

The main difference between school and homeschool is who manages the child's education. You can hire someone else to choose the curriculum and activities, or you can do it yourself. Parents who are ultimately responsible the curriculum can tailor it to the child's needs in a way that is not possible in a school setting.

Plus, co-ops are very different from school. One, they meet less frequently, once or twice a week, leaving a lot of free time for other types of learning. Two, co-op "classes" are not compulsory. My daughter has chosen to spend all day at the arts and crafts station instead of attending any of the classes offered. Three, co-ops involve children of all ages in their classes--learning with kids of different ages and abilities is a uniquely different environment than that of schools. The point is, homeschool kids can get a sense of community and group learning, without having it be ALL they have.

Quote:
one of the most interesting things about sending my son to school is watching him choose his own friendship group and learn how to handle conflict without constant parental/adult intervention.

Homeschool parents can choose not to intervene. But the ability to intervene is always there. That is the beauty of homeschooling--more choices and more flexibility. You can exert as much control as you want.

Now I am not saying homeschooling is generally better than schooling. I am saying it is better in certain areas, such as individualization. I am also saying the benefits does not necessarily come with the cost of isolation and overcontrol, as some people imagine. There are potential downsides to homeschooling, as there are with schooling. But isolation and overcontrol aren't them.

Quote:
And has for learning bad habits, meh!

This depends on the school. Some schools have primary age children smoking and drinking. Others don't. Some schools have very horrible and serious problems with bullying. Others don't. I talked to a mom once whose 6 year old boy was raped in the school lunchroom by a 12 year old. Some schools have insufficient supervision for clearly inappropriate behavior; others don't.

Quote:
Part of parenting is letting go of parental control bit by bit and enabling children grow into autonomous beings.

Why do you say that as if homeschooling parents don't know this? I don't want you to be under the mistaken impression that homeschooled children are led around on leashes by control freaks. I mean, some parents are control freaks, whether their children are in school or homeschool. But most parents are regular folk like you and me who want to raise their kids to be independent and well-adjusted.

Quote:
When I talk about isolation, I'm talking about what i would miss. School forms a big part of our life, we mix ( as a family) with a lot of other families from the school, and as I said, are involved with the school. I'd really miss that and it would feel strange to just not have that in our life and I find it hard to imagine why others wouldn't want something like that either.

Homeschooling families can mix with other homeschooling families in very much the same way. I guess, I am wondering why you would assume they don't have exactly the same thing in their lives.

--------------------------
An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't.
-- Anatole France

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm sure everyone's seen this by now ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080327/ap_on_re_us/daughter_s_death_praye
r

Parents pick prayer over docs; girl dies

She had probably been ill for about a month ...

The girl's mother, Leilani Neumann, said that she and her family believe in the Bible and that healing comes from God, but that they do not belong to an organized religion or faith, are not fanatics and have nothing against doctors.

She insisted her youngest child, a wiry girl known to wear her straight brown hair in a ponytail, was in good health until recently.

"We just noticed a tiredness within the past two weeks," she said Wednesday. "And then just the day before and that day (she died), it suddenly just went to a more serious situation. We stayed fast in prayer then. We believed that she would recover. We saw signs that to us, it looked like she was recovering."

Her daughter — who hadn't seen a doctor since she got some shots as a 3-year-old, according to Vergin — had no fever and there was warmth in her body, she said. (what the hell does THAT mean?)

Family members elsewhere called authorities to seek help for the girl.

But less than an hour after authorities reached the home, Madeline — a bright student who left public school for home schooling this semester — was declared dead.

Leilani Neumann said she and her husband are not worried about the investigation because "our lives are in God's hands. We know we did not do anything criminal. We know we did the best for our daughter we knew how to do."

So where was the safety net for this girl ? She was isolated from the medical system and school system, the 'community' (whatever that is) didn't step in and the relatives did everything they legally could to help. And yet she is dead b/c some severely misled parents tried to live in a fantasy land. So - do I just chalk this up to 'parent's rights' ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:21 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sure, why not? Everybody else does!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 3:40 AM

The other day I heard about a traffic accident. One driver was doing the speed limit, had his seatbelt on, and was not following the car in front too closely. Another driver going the opposite direction feel asleep at the wheel, crossed the center line, and collided head-on with the first driver killing him instantly. Should we ban all driving because someone died while following all the rules?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 5:36 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 5:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The other day I heard about a traffic accident. One driver was doing the speed limit, had his seatbelt on, and was not following the car in front too closely. Another driver going the opposite direction feel asleep at the wheel.

Other drivers beeped their horns as the asleep driveer weaved all over the road. Pedestrians shouted and waved their arms, trying to wake him up. Unfortunately the driver didn't wake up, and collided head-on with the first driver killing him instantly.

When asked about the accident, the asleep driver said he had done the best he could, given that he didn't believe that humans actually needed sleep, and growled that it was nobody's else's business but his own, that they shouldn't be interfering with his right to drive.

"And thanks for playing Really Bad Analogies!"

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 5:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Your post makes absolutely no sense.

Neither did yours.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 5:59 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

If you have problems understanding the story maybe you should click on the link to get the complete version before it goes away. The link will stay active for a week, more or less.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The other day I heard about a traffic accident. One driver was doing the speed limit, had his seatbelt on, and was not following the car in front too closely. Another driver going the opposite direction feel asleep at the wheel.

Other drivers beeped their horns as the asleep driveer weaved all over the road. Pedestrians shouted and waved their arms, trying to wake him up. Unfortunately the driver didn't wake up, and collided head-on with the first driver killing him instantly.

When asked about the accident, the asleep driver said he had done the best he could, given that he didn't believe that humans actually needed sleep, and growled that it was nobody's else's business but his own, that they shouldn't be interfering with his right to drive.

"And thanks for playing Really Bad Analogies!"

Thanks for making my point.

No matter how many laws and/or policies are in place, bad things will continue to happen. In my analogy, someone died even though driving is one of the most highly regulated 'rights' that we posess. No matter how many laws and/or policies are in place to regulate home schooling and/or 'parental rights', bad things will continue to happen to kids. The couple in Rue's scenario will face the consequences of their actions, as will the driver in my analogy.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you have problems understanding the story maybe you should click on the link to get the complete version before it goes away. The link will stay active for a week, more or less.

It's not the story but the context that I have problems understanding.
If one child dies because of their parents religious beliefes, do you outlaw religion?
If one child drowns in a swimming pool, do you ban all swimming pools, rivers, lakes, and oceans?
If one child chokes to death on their lunch, do you make all food illegal?
Why not just ban all child birth so that no children will die at all?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:32 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"No matter how many laws and/or policies are in place to regulate home schooling and/or 'parental rights', bad things will continue to happen to kids."

If you had read the thread you'd understand that the issue has devolved to parents isolating children from school, doctors and the legal system. Is it their 'right' to isolate their children from any safety nets out there ?

And if you had read the article at all you'd understand that it's not a case of 'how many laws and/or policies' because there currently are no laws in that state. Which does render your post rather moot, I might add.

Finally, the argument you seem to be making is that since 'bad things will continue to happen' no matter how many laws/ regulations there are on the books perhaps we should just get rid of all laws/ regulations. Because zero is a number too and 'how many' there are makes no difference. Or, to use your really bad analogy we should get rid of any laws about which side of the street to drive on, about driving while impaired (being too tired is being legally impaired), and about taking away licenses for cause.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:44 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And on a more general note, I'm sure a lot of people would read this and think THEY wouldn't be so ignorant, so unrealistic, so foolish - because they know better, they have good reasons for doing what they do.

But I keep thinking - except for people who are truly batshit crazy and hearing voices - and sociopaths (who outright admit to anyone who asks that pain is the only thing they can connect with) - everybody has a socially-formulated 'reason' that makes what they do all right. Nixzmary's stepfather did what he did b/c she was evil and ruining food. These people did what they did b/c it was a matter of faith.

And it's a truism. Everyone thinks that their reasons are good. People in general do really backwards and brutal things that way. No one is going to think: I did this because it was a stupid mean thing to do and that's why I picked it. And I think any parent here should see themselves in these stories - at least in the potential for their ideas to blind them to the reality of their choices.

So, justifications and rationalizations aside, how does a parent get feedback on what they're doing ? Personally, I would never put myself in the position of claiming to be the perfect and only authority. I would want some feedback, oversight and external perspective.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 7:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you had read the thread you'd understand that the issue has devolved to parents isolating children from school, doctors and the legal system. Is it their 'right' to isolate their children from any safety nets out there ?

First off, are you saying only posts addressing your topic of choice are allowed.
Second, I believe we live by the adage "innocent until proven guilty". I think 'parental rights' should supercede 'state rights' unless proven otherwise.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And if you had read the article at all you'd understand that it's not a case of 'how many laws and/or policies' because there currently are no laws in that state. Which does render your post rather moot, I might add.

And your position is?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finally, the argument you seem to be making is that since 'bad things will continue to happen' no matter how many laws/ regulations there are on the books perhaps we should just get rid of all laws/ regulations. Or, to use your really bad analogy we should get rid of any laws about which side of the street to drive on, about driving while impaired (being too tired is being legally impaired), and about taking away licenses for cause.

You really didn't get the gist of my post at all.
Show me where I advocated getting rid of all laws.
It is your position that parents should not be allowed to raise their kids without some agency checking up on them.
Driving, as stated above, is one of the most highly regulated 'rights' we have. Still accidents happen and many deaths occur even though laws exist and police enforce those laws.
Perhaps if you could clarify how you think we can prevent bad parents from doing bad things it might clear things up. Are you advocating home visits from some government agency? Perhaps monthly parenting tests (perhaps this could occur for drivers as well). Maybe a year long course where instead of a diploma, you recieve your child rearing certificate. How would Rue accomplish this without forcing the majority of good parents to not only go through this process but fund it as well.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 7:12 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You are saying it doesn't matter HOW MANY laws there are. If it REALLY doesn't matter then zero is as good a number of laws as any other number. So how about zero ?

What you mean to say is that MORE laws won't help. But your formulation isn't logical and can lead to the conclusion above.

You need to refine your argument so that it doesn't fall apart at the very start.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 7:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You are saying it doesn't matter HOW MANY laws there are. If it REALLY doesn't matter then zero is as good a number of laws as any other number. So how about zero ?

What you mean to say is that MORE laws won't help. But your formulation isn't logical and can lead to the conclusion above.

You need to refine your argument so that it doesn't fall apart at the very start.

How about addressing my point, not how I'm making it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 7:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I would address your point if I could figure out what it is. Logically, what you are saying is that having no laws for anything would be reasonable. By your example what I THINK you mean is that having some laws and regulations can be useful in preventing the vast majority of 'bad things'. But that some bad things will happen anyway.

So what you seem to be looking for is where to draw the line on how closely things are regulated, not whether to have regulations at all.

But then, I'm not sure. I have two choices in front of me to discuss, and there are probably more, but only you can tell me what it is you mean.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 7:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BDN; Your point- or anyone's for that matter- IS "how they make it".

For example, if someone says they believe in the sanctity of human life but don't worry about collateral damage, then clearly something is missing from at least ONE of those statements because on their face they cannot both be true at the same time. So altho we know what the person has said, we're left not knowing what the person means

So instead of having us guess what you mean, you might want to clarify your statements, which are..... ???

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 7:45 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And on a more general note, I'm sure a lot of people would read this and think THEY wouldn't be so ignorant, so unrealistic, so foolish - because they know better, they have good reasons for doing what they do.

But I keep thinking - except for people who are truly batshit crazy and hearing voices - and sociopaths (who outright admit to anyone who asks that pain is the only thing they can connect with) - everybody has a socially-formulated 'reason' that makes what they do all right.
.....

And it's a truism. Everyone thinks that their reasons are good. People in general do really backwards and brutal things that way.

I once read of an interview the Allies did with a concentration camp officer after WW2. He said that the SS understood that what they were doing was a barbaric act, but that they had to force themselves to do it for the survival of the German people. There was some concern as to what other Germans would think when the scale of the final solution was known but the SS was sure that in time the necessity of the action would be accepted and their men hailed as heroes.

People do bad things for what they believe are good reasons. It wasn't the case that every Nazi was a born sociopath, many understood that what they were doing was wrong, they did it anyway for "the greater good."

If people can find a way to justify genocide as the "right" thing to do then they can find justification for doing any kind of evil.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 7:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If people can find a way to justify genocide as the "right" thing to do then they can find justification for doing any kind of evil.

Which is why I come down to "How many people did you kill, maim, injure, or intimidate?"

Don't bother telling me WHY. I really don't want to know what you thought your reasons were. I don't want to hear about rights, democracy, god, capitalism, or some future possibility. There are only two justifications in my book that aren't rationalizations (1) It was an unavoidable accident, or (2) you helped far more than you harmed.

ETA: And in my book, that is the only way to judge a policy.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So instead of having us guess what you mean, you might want to clarify your statements, which are..... ???

I was looking for a discussion and all I got was a dancing lesson.

In my analogy there are drivers out there that cannot look out for the needs of other drivers.
It is your position that there are parents out there who cannot look after the needs of their children.
There are laws that dictate safe driving such as speed limits, use of signals, one-way roads etc.
There are presently laws concerning safe child rearing.
Even with the 'rules of the road', drivers still speed, make unsafe lane changes, and drive the wrong way down one way roads.
Even with state oversight, children will still be abused.
How would you go about making sure the children of 'bad' parents are taken care of without needlessly intruding on the lives of 'good' parents?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 8:34 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

There are laws that dictate safe driving such as speed limits, use of signals, one-way roads etc.
YES
There are presently laws concerning safe child rearing.
NO
Even with the 'rules of the road', drivers still speed, make unsafe lane changes, and drive the wrong way down one way roads.
YES
Even with state oversight, children will still be abused.
REMAINS AT QUESTION and is the point of this ongoing discussion.

But for the sake of moving this discussion forward, since you do NOT advocate rescinding all driving laws just b/c they aren't 100%, I presume you would be in favor of child-rearing laws that would prevent the vast majority of child abuse cases, though not 100%.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 8:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
How would you go about making sure the children of 'bad' parents are taken care of without needlessly intruding on the lives of 'good' parents?

What is "needless"?

"Needless" as in Infinging on the rights of parents?

"Needless" as Having no positive effect, or having a negative effect on child mortality?

"Needless" as in Costing too much money?

First tell me what your constraints are, and what purpose they serve. Otherwise I don't know how to answer the question.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 8:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There are presently laws concerning safe child rearing.
NO

Do you not have Social Services?
Are you saying that presently, with proof of abuse, the State can do nothing?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But for the sake of moving this discussion forward, since you do NOT advocate rescinding all driving laws just b/c they aren't 100%, I presume you would be in favor of child-rearing laws that would prevent the vast majority of child abuse cases, though not 100%.

I am all for protecting children. If parents cannot look after their kids, find someone who can. But I'm not sure what you mean by child-rearing laws. How specific are these proposed laws?
Did you happen to catch a little flick called Serenity? Do you remember what happened on Miranda? The 'State' decided that they knew what was best for the 'People' and it did not turn out too well.
Why is it okay to sacrifice liberty for children's security but not ours?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 9:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The 'State' decided that they knew what was best for the 'People' and it did not turn out too well.

Well, comparing a real live (or in this case dead) child to a movie isn't rational. That's part of my "I don't want to hear about some future possibility".

Quote:
Why is it okay to sacrifice liberty for children's security but not ours?

Because they're helpless bystanders in our decisions?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 9:06 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"But I'm not sure what you mean by child-rearing laws. How specific are these proposed laws?"

Uuhhmm, you claim these regulations already exist, just like with driving, so you tell me. ('There are presently laws concerning safe child rearing.') How specific are these regulations ? How close the oversight ? How costly the license ?

***************************************************************
Now before you complain I don't understand, I want to say that I DO understand. What I'm trying to point out is that you can't have your arguments both ways - there are laws but they wouldn't help if we had them.

So, you tell me - WHICH argument are you making ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 9:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What is "needless"?

"Needless" as in Infinging on the rights of parents?

"Needless" as Having no positive effect, or having a negative effect on child mortality?

"Needless" as in Costing too much money?

First tell me what your constraints are, and what purpose they serve. Otherwise I don't know how to answer the question.

There are no constraints in real life so, all of the above.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 9:17 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

OH, BTW BDN, since you are the one complaining about 'constraints' I believe it's up to you to explain your position. And some hand-waving gesture towards some unexamined, unexplained personal notion of 'real life' with no connection to the issue is merely ducking the discussion of your point, not engaging in it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 9:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Uuhhmm, you claim these regulations already exist, just like with driving, so you tell me. ('There are presently laws concerning safe child rearing.') How specific are these regulations ? How close the oversight ? How costly the license ?

You are proposing preventative measures (I think). Reactive measures exist now,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Abuse_Prevention_and_Treatment_Act
How are you proposing to better this, and please be specific. How would you ensure that Parents were 'properly' raising their children?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 9:36 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Reactive measures exist now,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Abuse_Prevention_and_Treatment_Act"

I take it you didn't actually look at the text of this supposed 'law'.

What it says is:

Coordinate and execute subchapters I and III which call for

I
Advisory board
National clearinghouse for information
Research and assistance activities
Grants
Coordination

III
Grants

***************************************************************
So, considering that the child rearing laws and regulations you claim to exist don't actually exist, do you have another point to make ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 9:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I take it you didn't actually look at the text of this supposed 'law'.

Yes, I did.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/ch67.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 9:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

dbl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 9:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
How would you go about making sure the children of 'bad' parents are taken care of without needlessly intruding on the lives of 'good' parents?- BDN

What is "needless"?
"Needless" as in Infinging on the rights of parents?
"Needless" as Having no positive effect, or having a negative effect on child mortality?
"Needless" as in Costing too much money?
First tell me what your constraints are, and what purpose they serve. Otherwise I don't know how to answer the question.- SignyM

There are no constraints in real life so, all of the above- BDN

WHOA! I wish I lived in YOUR real world!

Anyway, you dodged the question. So let me put it to you this way:

In the tradeoff between "parent's rights" and child deaths, how many child deaths are acceptable? 1? 10000? 2%?

In the tradeoff between child death and money, how much money is a child worth? $1000? $20,000?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 9:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Then please point out specifically where this law makes any child-rearing practice criminal. In other words it has to have at a minimum prohibitions and penalties to be an enforceable law, like a motor vehicle code. Because I looked and it wasn't there - this supposed 'law' was merely the establishment of a government body for research, information and coordination.

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Yes, I did.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/ch67.html

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 9:57 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

S'wenyways, since I DID look and the law isn't what you claim it is, what does this mean to your position ?

Does this devolve to the position that since there are no laws they wouldn't help even if we had them ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Then please point out specifically where this law makes any child-rearing practice criminal. In other words it has to have at a minimum prohibitions and penalties to be an enforceable law, like a motor vehicle code. Because I looked and it wasn't there - this supposed 'law' was merely the establishment of a government body for research, information and coordination.

Please stop being cute and pick a State.
How about Wisconsin.
http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/Children/CPS/PDF/2005CANReport.pdf

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 10:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
WHOA! I wish I lived in YOUR real world!

Anyway, you dodged the question. So let me put it to you this way:

In the tradeoff between "parent's rights" and child deaths, how many child deaths are acceptable? 1? 10000? 2%?

In the tradeoff between child death and money, how much money is a child worth? $1000? $20,000?

Are we talking local or worldwide? Are we talking one death in Wisconsin or hundreds of deaths in Africa?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 10:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Local, since that's where we would have some form of jurisdiction.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 10:51 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 11:08 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well double drat, this is my third attempt to reply. And since my computer ate the first two times now you get the really, really short version.

The Wisconsin 'neglect' code sounds great, except as noted in the case above other portions of Wisconsin law exempt medical care (and possible charges of neglect) if the parents really believe the child will get better with prayer. In other words, there are provisions elsewhere in the law which nullify the 'neglect' rules. Therefore parents aren't held to any standard.

The emotional abuse definition is a crime (read it).

These laws, where they are enforceable and not exempted by other laws, are minimal - about what is required for pets.

Laws vary from state to state (Utah being one of the notorious ones, but there are others).

And finally, all CPSs are invoked only when a complaint is filed. That doesn't help the child who is isolated or 'disappeared' - which means that they really do live, or die, without any protection at all. And parents or other caregivers of dependents (the mentally retarted pregnant woman who was slowly tortured to death by an entire family) who understand this know that the way to keep out of trouble is to keep their victims out of sight.

So, are you willing to live with this as the best children can expect ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And finally, all CPSs are invoked only when a complaint is filed. That doesn't help the child who is isolated or 'disappeared' - which means that they really do live, or die, without any protection at all. And parents or other caregivers (the mentally retarted pregnant woman who was slowly tortured to death by an entire family) who understand this know that the way to get keep out of trouble is to keep their victims out of sight.

So, are you willing to live with this as the best children can expect ?

I don't know, are you willing to describe your measures to prevent these 'disappeared' children?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 11:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

IF we had universal health insurance.... which we don't... we could have well-baby nurse visits: at one moth, six months, and yearly until the age of 5. It appears that most dead children < 5 years old.

We actually had a nurse visit our house a couple of times and an evaluator from the Regional Center visited once because our child was so "at risk" from a lot of things: seizures, mental retardation, behavioral issues, and the attendant possibility of abuse.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 12:33 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I would not prevent 'disappeared' children - I would investigate their circumstances at regular intervals. Just as having a person run at the sight of a police officer is legally considered in and of itself cause for pursuit (knowledge of guilt), having a child drop off the map would also be cause for investigation.

But perhaps you should indicate what YOU would do for these children, or if indeed you think they are worthy of any protection, all things considered.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 28, 2008 8:13 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
... if indeed you think they are worthy of any protection, all things considered.

Let's look at the nature of this argument, since it's the only one you and Signym have been making for the last couple hundred posts.

1. I think X would make things better.
2. If you don't think X will make things better, then clearly you don't want things to be better.

Right. You scream "It's for the children!!!!", and we're all just supposed to crap ourselves and give in to whatever hare brained scheme you think needs to happen. The problem with such cheap demagoguery is that anyone, on any side, can play.

Haven't you got anything else?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge, I asked how much $ kids were "worth", and how many kids "parent's rights" were worth and got... nada.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 29, 2008 2:59 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SergeantX

Well, for one thing you dropped out of the conversation about the time we started posting actual reports of kids who were removed from school and then died or were killed; and after we posted statistics about how many children were documented to be abused and neglected (btw the newly linked state report puts the figure at 3%.)

If you have something to say about it, then say it.

Or if you need a personal invitation to have an opinion about it, let me ask you then - kids who are disappeared are at higher risk of abuse and neglect. Is that worth doing anything about ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 30, 2008 2:37 AM