German Police Storm Home, Seize Children... Scary.

I'm curious -- when you say that member states can vote against EU laws, do you mean that a member state can vote not to have some particular EU law apply within their country? For the smoking ban, do they believe that the law is invalid continent-wide? Or have they simply voted not to follow that law within their own country? Is that something the rest of the EU would try to enforce? Also, it appears that not only does Germany not want a smoking ban, but takes the stance that smoking must always be allowed? So, an individual restaurant with a bar could not say that smoking is not allowed at all anywhere in their establishment -- must it be allowed in the bar area or, if large enough, then in some larger portion of the restaurant, even if the owner does not want it?

 

The information I have is from a friend who lives in Germany, so it is second hand (but last time I was there my wife went for a cigarette in the indoor smoking section of the local pizzeria). As far as I know Germany's stance is that it is unfair for smokers to be denied the right to smoke (so therefore a separate section should be available). The European law is there to protect the workforce from the effects of second hand smoke. As far as I know (and I could be wrong - anyone who lives in Germany can you confirm or refute this?) any bar that is not big enough to have a separate section must allow smoking.

As to whether a member state can vote against a law or not, perhaps it helps if you have a constitution - the UK does not.

Here in France, one of my friends (who runs a bar that sells tobacco products) defied the European law for 4 years (he smokes, all his employees smoke, most of his customers smoke - he sells the stuff. He says it is like selling beer but telling his customers they have to drink it outside). He has been fined a couple of times (60euros each time - the equivalent fine in the UK 2500euros - he asked for donations by his customers to cover the fine), by Gendarmes from outside the town (i.e. everyone knows you can smoke in his bar - you can choose to go in it or you can choose not to). He now mostly discourages his customers from smoking, but I have been there where he and others smoke.

In the UK councils actually employed people to enforce this law (in Britain they adopted it on 1st Jan 2007, France 1st Feb 2007). In France most bars just stopped (with no enforcement required, until people complained to the police).

 

Seems to be a part of this discussion, since it was you who stated it, not me.

I would like to know what your definition of 'extreme' is. I teach my children that the universe was created by an omnipotent God and I teach them the concept of sin and why God had to send his own son to be sacrificed for the sin of mankind. I teach them to love all people, as the Bible tells us to. I teach them that homosexuality, divorce, adultery, lying, stealing, etc are wrong. So am I an 'extremist'? My son is 11. He is the smartest kid I know and he has been exposed to evolution and homosexuality and he has stood firm in his faith. His faith in God is a part of who he is and he is happy. Should he be taken away because he's been indoctrinated to live 'parallel' to society. The Bible says that Christians are supposed to be 'in' the world but not 'of' the world. We are meant to be set apart from society. That's the whole point. Secularism and Christianity are incompatible.

I would also like to know how exactly someone should 'expose' their children to this utopian society they are missing out on? Should I allow my children to watch Jersey Shore? Listen to Jay-Z? Take them to a strip club? Do all the things that 'society' does that us crazy Christians miss out on?

Look, you raised your son how you thought was best and I think that is amazing. But you really need to understand that freedom and tolerance goes two ways, not just the way you want it. That's called bigotry.

 

Why, then, do Republicans keep trying to enact Biblical laws in our legislatures? Why do Republicans keep saying the USA is a Christian nation and should be governed by Christian laws? It's hard to be set apart from society if you're always trying to absorb that society and make it Christian.

 

Maybe because Republicans, as a political party, use Christianity as an excuse to implement their own personal agenda?

 

What?

The fact is, 80+% of the parents in the US who want to home school the kids state their reasons are, they believe public school curricula goes against their religious teaching.

If you want to limit the debate to the principles of parental rights and limited government, fine. Stop completely ignoring/dismissing the other side of the debate, the community also has a vested interest.

This:

And this:

Resorting to straw men does not move the discussion forward. We were talking about mandatory school attendance.

I'm pretty sure no matter what I post or how I say it, you will continue to ignore the issue which is where people draw the line on the continuum, not whether parents have rights and government has limits.

 

If you are unable or refuse to elaborate or explain your own statements, then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. Once again you ignore your own statements and resort to 'labeling' the argument as a means to avoid it.

Perhaps if you actually answered the question instead of quoting from your 'Fallacies for Dummies' handbook, the conversation could move forward. But I digress...

 

Is that aimed at supporting your straw man argument?

Straw man

For example, changing my position on public and home schooling to a position I've not stated about other elements of child rearing.

 

Stop it with your straw man arguments.

 

Are you possibly able to articulate Selbbin's straw man? I'm not seeing it.

 

Now you know how the rest of us feel.

 

I'm not sure "rest of us" is applicable. I was pretty clear what and why your paragraph was a straw man. I'm not trying to sound condescending, we all have things to learn, but you seem to not understand what I meant so allow me to clarify in all sincerity. Certain debate tactics are just that, tactics, they offer no substance to a debate but instead only serve as cover for the person using them. A straw man is one such tactic. And I find it much more useful to point a straw man out rather than waste time addressing it.

This was a classic straw man:

Since no one in the least suggested any of these things, what benefit is there to answer them?

"I would also like to know how exactly someone should 'expose' their children to [insert long list of things no one in the thread came anywhere close to suggesting a parent should expose their children to, and in no way are anything analogous or anything equivalent to what people are suggesting a parent do]?" It's like asking, when did you stop beating your wife? You've created a pile of straw that was easy to knock down, expecting I guess, that the answer had some relevance. The answer has no relevance, no one is arguing for the things on your list, aka, classic straw man.

 

On the contrary, your statement was, and I quote:

So then I asked you the question, and I quote:

To which you avoided answering the legitimate question. I would repeat my question, but I think I have been quite clear.

 

Which is the only thing you have been doing throughout this entire topic.

https://www.writingforums.org/threads/german-police-storm-home-seize-children-scary.127158/page-2

Selbbin- "Yeah, this is pretty much a knee-jerk reaction to something we, a world away, know nothing about."

Apparently, your words apply to everyone except for yourself?

 

You're not nearly as aware as you believe, because the similarities have absolutely nothing to do with sensationalism. Rather, the extremely slanted, pro-liberal nature of Western news media, where they put ridiculous spin on some stories, or intentionally bury others, was very much the calling card of the USSR press in the 70s. It's eerie, to the point where, looking through 70's issues of Pravda, the language they use is the same.

Care to provide a shred of evidence besides a flat rebuttal? On my side, I can provide you PAGES of cases and direct quotes from leading judges.

There is far more censorship under socialist than capitalist governments. To argue otherwise is silly. Speaking of George Orwell, both "Animal Farm" and "1984" were banned in the Soviet Union.

No it's not. Last I checked, The Evil Dead was a popular movie shown in US theaters, whereas in Britain, selling it on VHS could land a shop owner in jail.

What you call "conservative" in terms of economic policy I call "liberals who are a tiny bit more more right-wing than the other guys".

It's the same in the US. Most "Republicans" are just slightly less extreme Democrats when it comes to fiscal policy.

I specifically wrote "single payer healthcare" in my post above, and if you're not familiar with it, I suggest reading up on the subject;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_payer_healthcare

Hint- The UK is one of the countries discussed therein.

When the government is in charge of a formerly private enterprise like healthcare, and begins severely regulating every aspect of the economy, then yes, they are moving towards socialism.

I'm well-acquainted with his biography. And I'm also aware that Orwell considered many laws flagrant tyranny by the government. A violent armed kidnapping of children easily meets this criteria, even if it's a crime perpetrated under the name of "government".

What a shocking lack of empathy. Are you really this cool with ordinary citizens being victimized because of a fucked-up law? My Rosa Parks analogy still works perfectly in this regard.

 

Nice attempt to change the topic of discussion. At the end of the day, you're an Australian commenting about the US while claiming Americans can't talk about Germany since it's " a world away" and "we know nothing about".

 

I see. Well that brings up the issue we've been trying to get you to address and you have not yet addressed , that is, you can never get everyone to agree where the line should be drawn, but the society cannot function without drawing those lines somewhere.

So first the straw man. "Exposure to other ideas and other people's beliefs" is not the same as saying, "exposure to any and all beliefs in any form at any age." Your examples were still straw men.

That does, however, lead back to the main problem you continue to refuse to address. Take images of a baby in a bath tub, for example, which are different from images of child porn. There have been cases where the line between the two was not always clear. I recall my grandmother once complaining, "they should put some clothes on that baby," referring to a photo. The baby had a diaper on. Most naked baby pictures are clear to most people which are porn and which are innocent but there will never be perfect agreement.

So we are back to the problem. You see it as black and white, parental rights, government overreach. But those are not black and white issues. Parental rights have some limits, and government interference in parental rights has a time and a place it is appropriate. I don't envy you living in a world where so many people don't agree with your world view. But the bottom line is, like it or not, the individual in most cases is also a member of a group. And in this case, societies draw lines where parental rights end and a child's rights begin and the State, with the authority of the community, maintains the right to step in on behalf of the child.

 

A professional for what? I don't need help. The last two years he was the only child in the district to get 100% on his ELA tests and scored 98% for math. We're doing quite well, and I'm confident that if I decide to home school he will continue in that vein. He's a brilliant kid, all he needs is guidance.

Also I have no desire, at ALL, to put him in a private school, whether I could afford it or not. Especially since very nearly all of the private schools here where I am are catholic or christian based. I don't feel the need to have him taught creationism, though he is well aware of it, and most religions, because he's a very curious kid. He's come to his own decisions. He would not enjoy that kind of schooling.

 

You're a fine example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

And here's the part that you don't understand, which I will explain again. You, as an Internet user, don't know the details on the ground about the US either, only second and third hand sensationalism from a few very specific, likely biased sources.

Do you get the parallel now?

Yet these considerations didn't stop you from making ridiculous, far-ranging conclusions about the US, even in this very topic.

https://www.writingforums.org/threads/german-police-storm-home-seize-children-scary.127158/

Really, let's drop the charade. Your "we don't know both sides, so we can't judge yet!" is strictly an attitude towards embarrassing news stories that don't support your particular political biases.

If this were a story about a German couple home-schooling children and teaching them neo-Nazi beliefs, you would have no problems making judgments before "hearing both sides".

And I have also visited Germany several times, and have friends who live there. So by your logic, I can now make judgments about it, right?

 

Just going to jump in here. I don't disagree with JJ. I think it's a problem when the government can tell us what our children should learn, who they should learn it from, and how they should learn it. Public school is a good and helpful thing, but I see making it illegal to home school children as a major overstep on the part of the government. Basically, they're saying, No, you teach them MY way... what right do they have?

Because they need to be exposed to ALL forms of religion? No they don't. Why do they? They can't be normal people if they're not aware of everything out there?? That makes no sense. I know plenty of kids that go to school with my kids and are racist, intolerant little clones of their parents. And they are IN school. Is the world going to slap them in the face? Maybe. Probably. But the situation wouldn't be any different if they were home schooled. They would still be mini-clones of their parents.

To me, the government INSISTING that ALL children be taught the same way reeks of propaganda that everyone should be wary of. I didn't drink the kool-aid. Think about The Hitler Youth and this lovely quote for a minute "I am beginning with the young, we older ones are used up, we are rotten to the marrow. We have no unrestrained instincts left. We are cowardly and sentimental. We are bearing the burden of a humiliating past, and have in our blood the dull recollection of serfdom and servility. But my magnificent youngsters! Are there finer ones anywhere in the world? Look at these young men and boys! What material! With them I can make a new world." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

 

I was only going by your posting of frustration with the school. I wasn't thinking along the lines of your child needing help. The professional help I had in mind, assuming you've tried approaching the school yourself, was someone who might help you get the school to address the issues.

In our school district there are multiple programs for kids with advanced skills who aren't getting as much from school as they could be. When my son was placed in an advanced program, it was much more satisfying. But I've had to advocate for him many times in school from the day a kid bit him and no one told me (he had a huge bite mark) to arguing that he should be allowed to drop a chemistry class with a teacher that wasn't the best. The school saw it as me allowing my son to get out of something while I saw it as an unnecessary class load and stress for a high school freshman that was in several advanced classes.