Derail from Planned Parenthood video thread

[Sparko]

One side is literally advocating to take away the fundamental right to marry from millions of people. That's about as evil as it gets. Dehumanization of an entire class of people, leading to thousands upon thousands of people getting stigmatized, depressed, chronically stressed, turning to drugs, alcohol, and suicide...

And yet you do the very same thing if you oppose marriage to animals, objects, or among siblings, or polygamy, etc.

[Starlight]

There's a difference between losing a priviledged position, and that of losing freedom. Namely the freedom to raise your children the way you want.

What about the freedom of the children to access knowledge and to make informed choices? I don't see it as a matter of taking freedom away from parents. I see it as a matter of giving thought about what sort of balance we want to strike in our societies between the freedom of the parents and the freedom of the children.

For that reason, would you support laws against home education, or must everything be pre-approved by the state?

Yes, I would advocate the banning of homeschooling, except in cases of disability. (See the addendum to my previous post that I added in a later edit)

Is that all you're arguing for? One hour of material?

I was thinking of current programs that are literally one hour and parents currently strongly object to their existence. As I mentioned, I would like to see sex-ed dialed up by an order of magnitude. I think three days of lessons on the topic would probably be ideal. So 24 hours or so total, give or take, spread out over 7 or so years of school as necessary/appropriate.

However, its interesting that you wouldn't even allow a parent the freedom to have their children opt out of that one hour.

Parents don't get to opt their children out of math. They don't get special permission slips for opting out of science. Why should they get the ability to opt out of sex education? I've heard enough horror stories of children who grew up in conservative Christian families whose parents opted them out of all sex education and then totally failed to tell them anything at home about sex education whatsoever... it was only after getting pregnant that these girls learned that sex can cause pregnancy.

[Leonhard]

What about the freedom of the children to access knowledge and to make informed choices?

What freedom? You mean the children would have the freedom to opt out of those classes, if they didn't want them?

[Leonhard]

I sometimes see US commentators express the idea that parents have some sort of fundamental and undeniable right to raise their children in any way they see fit, up to and including the idea that parents can essentially go to extreme lengths to make sure their children believe exactly the same thing as their parents.

Yes, they have and its a good thing. I don't believe parents have the right to abuse their children physically, or mentally. However, when it comes to social, cultural and moral values, parents have an inherent right that supercedes the state to teach their children according to their principal values. It is highly immoral for the state to take this role of being caregiver, and child raiser, upon itself. The communists did that, and it wasn't a pretty sight.

I think most people in my country would agree with my view on this,

Do you live in Britain? Just guessing here.

I have no idea where typical Danish opinion lies on that spectrum.

Ever since we were occupied by Germany (twice, in both World Wars), we danish have valued the ethos of freedom and responsibility very highly. It is perfectly legal to home educate your children if that's what you want. The school exams are standardized, and its only the exams which are. This is the best and fairest way to do it, and is the reason why there's different kinds of school systems in Denmark, according to different philosophies. There's no drama at all when someone asks to opt out of sex classes, because its understood that there are cultural and moral sensibilities on this question that are different.

Only the worst kind of nationalists are arguing that muslim immigrants have to be forced to have sex education in order to slowly assimilate and danify them.

(I should add perhaps, that homeschooling is currently legal here, and there is no significant political debate on that issue currently, however I suspect that it will be banned in the long-term as an increasing number of people see it as being used primarily for extremists to indoctrinate their children)

Now that sounds like Britain.

[Adrift]

Do you live in Britain? Just guessing here.

He lives in New Zealand. Chances are very good that most people in his country don't agree with his view on this. He's shown on a number of occasions that he's not really clued in on the historical facts about NZ, and is out of step with general societal concerns and attitudes.

[Starlight]

What freedom? You mean the children would have the freedom to opt out of those classes, if they didn't want them?

In practice school children can almost always find ways to opt out of a class for a brief period if they really really don't want to be there. But, no, that wasn't what I was talking about, and education is obviously compulsory in most countries and children don't get a say about the fact that they get to receive an education.

The situation I was talking about was if the parents try to prevent the child ever making certain choices by depriving the child of the knowledge that would have been necessary to make those choices, then the parents have intentionally removed freedoms (that choices) from the child. The parents thus force the child to make the 'right' decisions by depriving them of the freedom to make those decisions through depriving them of knowledge necessary to even know those choices exist in the first place. Any time a parent does this sort of thing it's inherently the parents using their freedoms to strip freedoms from the child. I feel that limits ought to exist on the parents' ability to strip freedoms from their children and make life choices for their children.

Parents should be sharing their values with children and explaining why their own values differ to the values of 'the world' (if they do), and offering reasons why the child ought to adhere to the parents' moral code rather than the world's. But they should not be trying to shape the values of their children in a coercive manner that seeks to deliberately hide knowledge of 'the world' from the children in order to try and force the child to follow the parents' view by preventing them ever hearing or knowing any alternate views. When parents start expressing fears about what things their kids might be learning at school, then I start to get angry, because it indicates the presence of a coercive and manipulative home environment that seeks to control children and strip them of their own free choice and their own knowledge of the world.

[Cow Poke]

The situation I was talking about was if the parents try to prevent the child ever making certain choices by depriving the child of the knowledge that would have been necessary to make those choices, then the parents have intentionally removed freedoms (that choices) from the child. The parents thus force the child to make the 'right' decisions by depriving them of the freedom to make those decisions through depriving them of knowledge necessary to even know those choices exist in the first place. Any time a parent does this sort of thing it's inherently the parents using their freedoms to strip freedoms from the child. I feel that limits ought to exist on the parents' ability to strip freedoms from their children and make life choices for their children.

So, for example, a child has an interest in guns, and the parents don't allow guns in the house, or the child to have books or magazines about guns, or to touch guns..... you would counsel those parents to stop removing choices from the child?

[Leonhard]

Well you can have your over reaching state government if you want it Starlight, I'm not having any of it.

[Starlight]

The communists did that, and it wasn't a pretty sight.

Seriously? You're going to play the communism card?

Do you live in Britain? Just guessing here.

New Zealand. But it's largely identical to Britain in general attitudes about most things. Less religious now than Britain though. Historically a tad more socialist than them. And a bit more socially liberal than them.

Only the worst kind of nationalists are arguing that muslim immigrants have to be forced to have sex education in order to slowly assimilate and danify them.

Hmm, okay, different priorities. No one here would even consider that as a possible reason. The concern for everyone would be the well-being of the children, and how that balanced against the wishes of their parents.

Now that sounds like Britain.

Yeah, well we are. We are a British colony, and are much more like Britain than the US is.

[Irate Canadian]

Yes, I would advocate the banning of homeschooling, except in cases of disability. (See the addendum to my previous post that I added in a later edit)

Well, this is illogical coming from someone who claims to be rational. Almost every homeschooled child I know was brighter then a majority of the other students when it came to knowledge about the various subjects. But I know why you are against it. If the state can teach its values over what the parent value, that's a win in your book.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, well we are. We are a British colony, and are much more like Britain than the US is.

Cause we decided to no longer be a British colony.

[Starlight]

So, for example, a child has an interest in guns, and the parents don't allow guns in the house, or the child to have books or magazines about guns, or to touch guns..... you would counsel those parents to stop removing choices from the child?

A ban on the child actually having a gun might be reasonably warranted due to concerns about safety, depending on the age of the child. A ban on books or magazines about guns...?! That's getting into the draconian territory I'm concerned about. Any time you're banning knowledge about the world from a child, when the child would have wanted to have that knowledge, then I have a problem with it. If a child wants to learn something about the world then they should be able to learn it. Fortunately the internet largely means that such knowledge-denying parenting is a thing of the past.

[Cow Poke]

A ban on the child actually having a gun might be reasonably warranted due to concerns about safety, depending on the age of the child. A ban on books or magazines about guns...?! That's getting into the draconian territory I'm concerned about. Any time you're banning knowledge about the world from a child, when the child would have wanted to have that knowledge, then I have a problem with it. If a child wants to learn something about the world then they should be able to learn it. Fortunately the internet largely means that such knowledge-denying parenting is a thing of the past.

OK, so you'd be for unrestricted internet access for the child?

[Leonhard]

Seriously? You're going to play the communism card?

Eeyup.

New Zealand.

Cool, I wasn't far off. Geographically yes, but not culturally. :D

Hmm, okay, different priorities. No one here would even consider that as a possible reason. The concern for everyone would be the well-being of the children, and how that balanced against the wishes of their parents.

As I said, the government should stick to its knitting when it comes to such things, and but its big nose out of it.

[Starlight]

Cause we decided to no longer be a British colony.

I find it a bit weird you're so smug about it. The history here is basically that Britain never had any interest in trying to govern New Zealand (or Australia for that matter) and just waved their hands at us and were like "you guys should establish a democratic government, that's a thing, go govern yourselves". So we did. And there was no paying of taxes to the British crown or anything like that. We just govern ourselves democratically, just like the US does (only minus the corruption). We get the arguably added bonus of a sometimes-photogenic royal family who occasionally gets married or has a baby (in practice they have zero power here, and we pay them zero money).