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

I see. No, even the 'advanced' classes are too slow for him. He's bored out of his mind. Of course we're talking about a kid that asked for books about the Civil War for Christmas when he was 7.

I advocate for him often, there's no one that would fight harder in the world than I do for my kids, but sometimes if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.

 

But home schooling here in the US is still regulated. Parents are not just allowed to skip certain curriculum.

Germany's requirement kids attend school is only a little different from the US requiring home schooled children are taught a certain minimum.

I've added some bolding to point out the things in your post that neither I nor anyone said. But it doesn't surprise me though that people put the round pegs here into square holes.

The State has an interest in all children getting SOME exposure to other beliefs and preventing children from growing up with an inadequate education. That's all this is about. Ginning it up into an exaggerated claim of Nazi-like indoctrination is truly misrepresenting the facts and the other point of view.

 

I disagree. I think there's a rather large difference between requiring some things be taught and requiring that every child be taught all of the same things, in the same way, in the same environment.

Other beliefs, not everything, fine. Still, it is a slippery slope, as someone (who I can't remember, I'm sorry) said above. And they absolutely are insisting they be taught the same way, if they all have to go to schools.

I don't think it is misrepresenting anything. It's my opinion that thinking that the government knows best, has its reasons, etc. is a particularly dangerous mindset.

 

By the way, I have known somewhere between 20-30 home-schooled children.

Some of them were fucking weird. Some were well-adjusted. Some were insufferable. Some were chill. All were way smarter than the average kid, (quite a few homeschooled kids were classmates of mine at Caltech) and a couple were world-class smart. (International Math Olympiad gold medalists, for instance) None were religious wackos.

Tell me, Ginger; how many home-schooled children have you actually known?

 

Yes, the USA allows parents to homeschool freely and Germany bans it and imprisons parents who homeschool. A little difference?

By the way, I was home-schooled and my curriculum was approved by my local school district and was Christian-based curriculum which taught creationism and traditional Biblical values.

I guess they are still in fear of 'social exposure.'

 

First, thanks for the links on home schooling debate!
I 'd wager most home schooling actually does not isolate the children from other beliefs, it's not like the kid has to live in a bubble except in some extreme cases. I mean, if the parents are crackpots, there's no guarantee that putting the kid through public school keeps said crackpots from screwing up their kid.

However, I can relate to the parents' concerns, like what Trish had about public schools just not being, well, "good enough," even damaging the development of a child.

@Trish I'm wondering why they won't put your child one class higher (understandably it can be stressful if all his friends are on that class)? Or you could discuss with the teacher about giving your son different activities and assignments on class. It's challenging but doable -- especially if the teacher has an assistant, another arrangement quite common here, but I don't know how the situation is over there. Perhaps there's another school in the district that has a special class for kids who don't quite fit in the regular classroom? There's one successful program here in Finland, the classes are really popular, and specifically targeted to kids who struggle with motivation or advance at a different pace than their class mates.

Anyway, back to homeschooling. The reason why I'm quite shocked that they actually banned this in Sweden is that their social problems aren't all that different from Finland's, my home country's: people in the North, Lapland, can live in very isolated places and even now in Finland, depend on homeschooling. I wonder if parents in Northern Sweden have to jump through hoops to have their kid schooled at home or if the state is like "you just have to take a 2-hour taxi ride 10 times a week to get to school and back, sorry! And no, never mind we'd save tax payers' money if you homeschooled your kid, you'd screw him/her up anyway, state knows best!"

Municipalities fix budgets by closing schools, again leaving homeschooling the only option. Another thing that contribute to keeping it legal here, is our government's negativity towards elitism; we have very few private schools here (the number is growing though), so if the parents are not happy with the public school nearby, the chances of a private school being close-by aren't terribly high. Still, homeschooling is very rare here. In mid 00's only ~300 kids were homeschooled. However, homeschooled kids still have to follow the national curriculum which pinpoints the goals, what the child has to know by the end of basic education. Part of the education can be study sessions set up over the internet with other students, led by a "real" teacher, who study from home -- this is particularly common in isolated, scarcely populated areas.

However, I think one of the reason why over here homeschooling is very marginal is that the parent really doesn't always know best. The level of education teachers receive is so high. It took me two academic years to complete my pedagogy studies, a big part of which is practice, real teaching, while you yourself and other teachers and teacher trainees analyze your performance. The studies for a teacher to grades 1-6 (elementary school) take even longer, at least I'll only teach two subjects!

I have read about the challenges Germany has when it comes to integrating immigrants (especially the Turkish, I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong), so I wonder if that has something to do with their decision to ban homeschooling. Then there's, of course, the Nazi Germany past, so the ban feels like a preemptive strike. I could ask a German friend of mine about this, though she doesn't think too highly of the German education to begin with, having herself moved to Finland to get a college degree...

This same thing caused hubbub just recently in Finland as we haven't implemented the ban quite as per regulations either (that being said, my dear home country shits on her constitution all the time). I'm not that much in the know of EU legislation and to what extent the member countries have flexibility, but in a way I appreciate that Germany'd rather respect their constitution than EU regulations, yet on the other hand, this whole "ban homeschooling and storm people's homes" -business is just the type of government control that sickens me.

 

So ... what you are saying is warped Marxism is somehow allied to Liberalism? This is pure piffle.

You seem to think that a any motion to Liberalism is a slip to Socialism and historically this isn't really the case. In fact, more liberal policies just tend to allow Socialists to voice their opinions, and debate tends to moderate more extreme views. And besides, Socialism is at its most interesting when it is suppressed and has something to fight for. No point in going for Socialism when the working class is wealthy and happy

The similarities is due to the fact that the UK needs it's propaganda, as does any country, even the US. There are only so many ways propaganda can be shoveled before it all starts smelling the same.

I don't really need to. Courts here are not allowed to have political bias, it's how the British justice system works. They are subject to the sovereign and crown, not any ideology. Typing 'Liberal courts in the UK' into Google brings up nothing too.

Besides, you don't have to prove a negative, that's a law of logic - since I'm stating they don't happen, I'm the one stating the negative, the ball is in your court.

What I said was that censorship is not a definition of Socialist countries but how they tend to operate. It's not a hard distinction, and it tells me you don't know what Socialism is. If it happens in Capitalist countries, as you even say, then it is not a defining characteristic of Socialist countries or regimes; instead it's a characteristic of all governments. That's just logic.

Dude, it's 2013 - VHS is not the thing anymore. I can go to any HMV in the country and buy the DVD of Evil Dead or Cannibal Holocaust whenever I like. Evil Dead is also shown here on Halloween along with other, much worse horror films. What is there else to say? It's not the 1980s anymore.

Also, America has banned a good few books too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_censorship_in_the_United_States) so by your definition America is Socialist too.

Then you don't know a lot about British politics. Besides, this line is pretty irreverent, unless you want to try calling Margret Thatcher a Socialist.

Oh, right. Still not Socialism. In fact, it is now very clear you don't even know what Socialism is. http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php There you go because I'm nice.

Nonsense, and ahistorical. Now can you provide evidence for this, as this again a positive claim?

You seem to have missed the part where I said 'I'm not even sure he would have seen it that way'. He's been dead for 60 years, the world was different in the 1940s and 1950s. I'll repeat myself again: he had a respect for the law, and he was not in any way some firebrand anarchistic libertarian.

I studied law at college, and a dear family friend is a criminal court judge, I know how he would think. Judges are no-nonsense types (you should hear them in court, they are amazing) if a law is broken action must be taken regardless feelings. Appealing to emotion rather than the cerebellum is never a good idea, and in this case a law was broken. If you have a problem with a law you should write to your representative, talk to people, use the democratic purpose. What you don't do is break the law. I have said this before.

 

In fact, it defines Australia as borderline communist. I'm surprised Fidel Castro hasn't buggered off to Australia.

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

 

Haha, but that's exactly what modern liberalism is! A move towards socialism. You can discount it as "piffle" (as usual, without any explanation), but that's precisely the case.

Ah, but historically, that has been the case time and again. Look at the Soviet Union in the 1910s; it was incredibly liberal, with student agitators, right before the October Revolution. Look at China before the Cultural Revolution.

Of course, the same "liberals" that brought the dictators to power were the first killed by the new regime, but nevertheless...

Yes, and citizens aren't allowed to murder others. I'm happy to hear the crime of murder has been abolished in your country!

What an amazing, convincing argument! No, if you type that exact phrase, you get zero results. And if you type "conservative courts in the US", you get only 9 total results!

This is true, but since you have brought so few facts of any kind to the table, I'm waiting on you first.

Impressive recovery! In your last post, you displayed a complete ignorance of what "single payer healthcare" was, and that it was precisely the system used by United Kingdom.

When your ignorance was exposed, you continue on completely abated, and even claim it's the other person who doesn't understand! Unfounded arrogance at its finest.

Again, I will repeat myself; medical coverage is traditionally the realm of private companies. When government takes over traditionally capitalist enterprises, that's known as socialism.

What part of it is either "nonsense" or "ahistorical"?! This is a really strange point to argue, dude.

That socialism taking over a private enterprise is socialism? That's the definition! That healthcare is a private enterprise in many countries? Well, look at the US!

I see. So if a law was passed requiring the immediate imprisonment of anyone who has a wolf avatar on an Internet forum, you would happily march off to jail, since you're so respectful of tyrannical laws?

 

Reported, but I do appreciate posts like this!

Look at how utterly fact-less his ad hominem insults are. He claims I don't know "shit about England", yet can't come up with a single instance where I'm wrong. Surely, he could find at least one in all the lengthy posts I made! He also foolishly mis-attributes a quote by Selbbin (about being unable to argue about something occurring an ocean away) to me.

I'm actually surprised he is from France, though. I have come to such feces-flinging bullshit from lowly-educated American liberals.

 

That's your view.

The many years of Tzarism was liberal? And the failed Revolution of a few years before wouldn't make a monarchy sweat? The first world war was nothing? What is this?

Look at France too, and Germany, all had profoundly liberal revolutions, didn't slip into Socialism dispute strong socialists movements like the Paris commune, and the socialist movement in Germany of which one Richard Wagner was a member. The United States is founded on liberal ideals like that of John Locke and Adam Smith. Aside from maybe the Jefferson ideal of small-time home-owning farmers, what about the United States is particularly Socialist? Was it liberalism that lead to Cuba going for The Beard?

These are just words now, I'll take this as you conceding my point.

And yet you claimed pages of evidence. Until you show it I can only assume you don't.

That isn't how logic works dude, you make a positive claim, I made a claim to the negative. It's you who must show me why I should accept your positive. That is called 'rhetoric' and it's worked since Socrates. I'm not going to make an exception in your case.

Besides, I explained a few reasons why the UK isn't Socialist, and I even gave you evidence in the form of points and now a link to what Socialism is. I've stated my case, and proven my point. Now it's your turn.

I'll admit I was unfamiliar with the term, but certainly not the concept as I happen to live in the United Kingdom. And after reading up on it I found it just wasn't Socialism. I'm not bending the definition here, as I've now even shown: that could be called collectivism, collectivism isn't socialism. Collectivism is more an underlying mood or backbone idea, much like Altruism.

No it's not. Socialism is the common and collective ownership of the means of production and the resulting products. Having a national health care isn't Socialism, otherwise you also must claim the IRS is Socialism and so America is Socialist to by your definition. If you want to argue that then, fine. But that just isn't what the word actually means.

Calling something a nonsense is not a point. I don't know what makes you think it is. I've already dealt with this anyway, at least three times as far as I can see.

Again, just words. You've obviously conceded this to me.

I would comply since it's the law, and I don't want to go to jail. But I would work to appeal against it. If that fails I'd do other things, go other routes. The problem is, such a law would never happen because such a thing is never going to be seen as having value to the public. An avatar isn't harming people, and yet if someone thinks that home schooling can harm people and has successfully argued it as law I would shut up and listen to him.

I've said all this before, you are just going around in circles now.

 

I should have been more specific, since most people aren't familiar with pre-revolutionary Russian history. (Nor should you be expected to)

There were 3 major Revolutions in Russia against the czars; in 1905, the early one in 1917, and the October 1917 Revolution. During that time in Russia, virtually ALL the intellectual elite considered themselves "liberal" and were strongly against both the czar and the bourgiese.

And all three of those Revolutions were largely spawned thanks to liberals and student agitators, and men like Kerensky were a strong example of that. Of course, during the October Revolution, Lenin used them as "puppets" to achieve his aims, and promptly killed them after winning power upon the conclusion of the Russian Civil War...

What is the Richard Wagner reference for? He was a legendary musician and also a virulent anti-Semite. What is his relevance?

You're making absolutely no distinction between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, which is a huge mistake.

Adam Smith, for instance, is the founder of free-market economics, and a subject of scorn and derision for every liberal economist. Really awful example.

Conceding what? You made a ludicrous argument that British courts have no biases because political biases are "not allowed", and I asked whether this applied to even more serious transgressions which are "not allowed", like murder.

To this, your reply is to claim you have won the argument?

I must have missed those...

So medical supplies, services, insurance, etc. somehow doesn't count, according to you?

The IRS is a fucked-up institution, but what "industry" are they taking over, according to you?

Much like the German family you have no sympathy for!

For such a fan of Orwell, you certainly have an awful lot of faith and trust in human governments!

 

I kind of indicated, and actually am, familiar with the history of Revolutionary Russia. Just because I'm British doesn't mean I've never picked up a history book. This shows me that there was a subversive liberal movement, the actual government ended up shooting protesters and wouldn't allow political parties like the Bolsheviks, would not let factory workers strike- how liberal. The Russian Duma under Nickolas II was a farce, and after his deposition the Bolsheviks had far too much power for the liberals to do anything. The only result possible then was the Russian Civil War. Repression, as I've already said, is what makes Socialism interesting. Debate and liberalism tends to dampen extreme views. That's not just historically true, that's human nature.

Unless, of course, you want to try and tell me that Socialism became popular overnight.

I was giving context. His anti-Semite had nothing to do with his political views as he wasn't exactly a political person. I was just trying distance it from another revolutionary period in German history. Forgive me, I just don't want to talk about the Nazi party for personal reasons.

So the founder of free market capitalism is treated with scorn by every liberal economist? Why is it, then, that he was treated as a major economist and inspiration in the economics classes of my university? Not so much scorn if he's still required reading. Smith's ideas may not be outdated, no denying that, but they were not at the time of America's founding. That is what we are talking about here, don't try to bend the issue.

Modern liberalism, maybe it's a quirk of the differences in Anglo-American politics but the Liberal Democrats, the main British Liberalism party, are capitalist by nature here, they are the center party. And every self-confessing Liberal over here is not a Socialist, they are Liberal. I don't know about Liberals over there, but if that's true they are not like Liberals over here. And I don't believe they are really like that. Can you provide evidence for your claim?

You claimed British courts were political by nature, I said they weren't. You've not bothered to prove otherwise so I win, despite 'pages of evidence'. Logic.

Again, I'm not going to let you get away with it, Socratic dialogue works, I'm not making an exception for you. If you try to argue a positive and don't have the evidence to back it up don't make the argument. That's a law of logic: put up or shut up.

And yes, I don't know if this is a shock to you, but murder isn't allowed here. Do you honestly think murder is a political act? What madness is this?

Isn't my problem, my posts are not hard to find.

Yes, because it's not generalized in the economy. Again, by your own definition you live in a very socialist country, and if you want to argue that then fine, but that just isn't what the word 'Socialism' means.

I'm not arguing that it is, quite the opposite - I'm just going about it in a way you are obviously not used to. I'm drawing attention to the fact you don't know what Socialism is, and have no reason to keep pretending that you do.

I do, kind of. I think it's a pity. Appealing to emotion over the cerebellum just isn't a good idea in things like this. A law was broken, action was taken. You have to be cold about certain things. If you want me to cry tears over a man braking the law then you are looking at the wrong guy.

... erm. Have you read Orwell, at all? Most of his literary output was how people taint good ideas and ideals and how governments can be so easily corrupted. What, do you think that Burmese Days was a shining example of how the British were really jolly to the Burmese people and didn't basically enslave an entire nation? You think that Down and Out in Paris and London is about jolly working class people gathering together to enjoy life? What is Nineteen Eighty-Four if not an example of how total power can be orchestrated? Even 'Politics and the English Language' an essay you claim to admire, is an example of how people can be dicks, and twist language.

Oh no. Shoot me, I'm a left-wing libertarian.

 

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

How so? Maybe instead of using latin to look smarter, you could maybe provide decent arguments.

You're wrong in every single post you've made. It would be foolish to quote several pages of your mindless babble, so I didn't.

Trust me, there are alot more than one.

I did not quote anything, though you obviously don't know what a quote is.

I live there, though I am British. Not surprising you don't know the difference between birthplace/nationality and ancestry though.

You may not know this, but "American" designates Canada, the united states, and South America too. You just insulted two continents. Of course, perhaps you meant the United States of America, an understandable mistake.

 

I find it shocking that anyone, anywhere, believes that any part of government is not political. For instance, when there is an opportunity for a new judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court of the UK, a board is made up of the President, Deputy President, and several judicial appointment commissions/boards. Correct?

If this is the case, are you saying that no one on that board would favor someone with like opinions to their own vs. someone who is highly intelligent, has a brain, and isn't afraid to the rock the boat? That someone with similar views wouldn't have a better shot?

No one is arguing that a law wasn't broken. It's the logic and validity of the law itself, and the lack of questioning it, that rankles. No government is entirely (or even mostly) benevolent.

 

The term used was 'Liberal courts' I was just saying they don't exist in this country. British courts are not political by nature anyway, though obviously politics is involved - it always is, they are judicial by nature. British law is set up to be as neutral as is possible, in service of sovereign and law. Judges are not allowed to be members of political parties, and if they have known views, in cases where it is an issue they are required to have someone else in their place. What any individual judge does in his or her own court is up to him - they are not supposed to be political in nature, but judicial.

My argument is that sensible and rational routes should have been taken to appeal against, not breaking the law.

 

I'm sorry... am I reading this wrong? They're not supposed to be political, but they're political by nature, and they're supposed to be judicial, but politics are always involved and they are judicial by nature? Also, they can do as they wish in their own courts, but I'm to expect that their political views won't have any influence over what they do in it? If they're not a member of a political party, they don't have opinions on it? I realize that's somewhat hyperbolic, but I'm trying to make a point.

What sensible and rational routes were available to them? Go ahead and send the kids to school while they argue it in court for years and by the time they're done the government already schooled the kids the way they wished and the whole point is moot?

 

Sorry, thought I answered this, KaTrian.

They are willing to move him. Issue being they would need to move him up two grades to even make things mildly interesting for him, and three if they want to challenge him at all. He doesn't want to do that, and I don't blame him at all. So I keep him learning at home. It's a balance, you know?

 

Sounds like the best solution at this point. It's nice to hear you take so much interest in his school work. Many particularly bright kids are just left on their own, they get bored and often start trouble out of boredom, which is a pity.

 

That's how I see it. I don't think I could leave him on his own if I tried, lol. He wants to know everything about everything, lol. His thirst is contagious. He's also a rather incredible anime artist, but wants to be an architect.

But yes, they often are, and I've found that people most often want to medicate kids with ADHD. The school tried to force me to. He didn't want meds and we did behavior modifications, and he's doing amazingly well now, though it was an admittedly rough road in the beginning. He was on meds briefly, but I didn't like it and neither did he... and he couldn't draw anymore! Huge red flag, and off of them he went. Now he's back to his old smartass, artistic self. Shouldn't really be bringing ADHD into it, because it's another subject entirely, but is a large part of the reason why I have to help him outside of school.

 

Yes, I think you are reading that wrong. I admitted that judges are not automatons, they can think what they like, but they are not allowed to let their political bias influence their judicial decisions. If you want to say that a judge happening to agree with and vote for the Labour party makes his court automatically a Socialist Court then, fine.

I'm arguing the exact opposite of saying they are political by nature, and they are not supposed to be. That is against the law, and undermines the idea of fair judgement by pairs. I find the implication you have political courts in the US troubling if that is what you are saying, and I've never heard of them.

As I've said a few times before, write to representatives, get people talking. Germany is a democracy these days, use the democratic process. I can't speak for anyone else but I don't like the idea of facing a fine, or going to jail, because I couldn't think of a more mature way of expressing my opinions, and making a change to the law.

 

Also there was a typo in my post that I've only just noticed. Sorry about that.

 

That's not what I was saying. I'm saying that whether or not it's against the law for their political views to color their judgments it still happens. And it's not like it's unheard of for Judges to do favors for politicians and vice versa. Is it legal? No. Do they get busted for it? Sometimes. Does that mean it doesn't happen because it's against the law and they're all such morally stand-up people that it wouldn't (or doesn't) happen? Hell no.

I can only assume that you're joking. Please? You're joking right? Of course they don't call them that and it's all very illegal, but you'd have to live under a rock or wear rose-colored glasses the whole of your life to think that it's not happening.

And comply with the law in the meantime, correct? Because that's the only way you're going to avoid the fines, jail, etc. I don't think it's immature to refuse to comply with something that you believe is wrong or harmful. I think it's called standing for something. Be a wolf instead of running with the flock of mindless sheep. I think it's called having balls. I'm not going to 'comply' with something that I believe is going to damage my child, just because someone threatens me. That's simply assinine, IMO.

 

I'm glad to hear you don't have courts devoted to political ideologies then. That's what the original debate was about between Iron and myself when he claimed the UK is a Socialist country because it has 'liberal courts'. The law here is not dictated along a party line, and nor is it lenient, it's the law of a civilized country.

Again. I don't. And that wasn't what was being said anyway.

I didn't realize being labeled a criminal was standing up to something. Especially when there is a number of other alternatives. You shouldn't take the law into your own hands, the law is in the hands of everyone and the people represented by their representatives have decided this law was a good idea, that's how democracy works. I'm not going to cry tears for someone who willfully broke the law, and you can't expect me to do it.

 

I can ignore everything else, can let it all go, but not this. If the 'alternative' is to put my child in mental or emotional danger, I absolutely would go to jail, would be labeled whatever the hell anyone wants to call me, etc. I don't give a rat's furry ass what 'society' thinks of me. Just because it's the majority (see - sheep) doesn't mean they're right. And certainly doesn't mean I'm going to fall in line like a good little sheep.