Conquer Club

Nobunaga wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:No time to read 6 pages.

Children are the responsibility of their parents. That responsibility is shared with nobody.

Should parents be unavailable (dead, in prison, etc..), then they become the responsibility of their nearest relative. Should none of those be available, they become the responsibility of the family that adopts them. Should this option also be removed, they become the responsibility of the community.

You say this as if it is black-and-white. Yet if there is a child who is not being cared for by the parents, you actually believe that the community should not take responsibility for helping that child? Have you thought through the consequences of that position? Barring that, have you considered the heartlessness of that position?

And here we go.... Please read again what I said. Saying that children are the responsibility of their parents does not mean all parents are capable or willing to take on that responsibility. Did I say otherwise?

Yes, you did. "That responsibility is shared with nobody"...that is exactly the portion of your statement that I am referring to. There is plenty of shared responsibility for children. Certainly, the school systems share some smaller part of responsibility. Neighbors MAY also share some smaller part of responsibility. The parents of close friends MAY also share some smaller part of responsibility.

You are obviously correct, but we're thinking along different lines. Why does my son's school call me after he's decked some kid in the face for being pushed around (I taught him to do that)? Because at the end of the day, my son and his actions are my responsibility.

So my opening was a bit strongly worded. Let me edit:

Children are the responsibility of their parents. That responsibility is shared with nobody. - - - - (Change to):

Children are the responsibility of their parents. Responsibility for their care and supervision during day-to-day activities must be shared with schools and other family members.

I think others have responsibility for your kids too. Granted some of these refer to anyone, but kids especially:

If I see your kid getting attacked or abducted especially by an adult...I have a responsibility to report or stop if able.
If I see your kid attacking or abducting...I have a responsibility to report or stop if able.
If I see your kid get hurt...I have a responsibility to report or help if able.
If I see you attacking or abusing your kid...I have a responsibility to report or help if able.

If you feel I am incorrect, which of these responsibilities do you not want me to carry out, if your kid (God forbid) is in any of these situations.

I like the statement about community. "It takes a village to raise a child."

Nobunaga wrote:Children are the responsibility of their parents. Responsibility for their care and supervision during day-to-day activities must be shared with schools and other family members.

I think I agree with we're you're going.. In the case of somewhat capable parents, they are primarily responsible to help their children grow and learn. Sharing the responsibility with people and organizations they choose to trust. ie. school, relatives, hospitals and baby sitters.

In the case of death or other incapacitation of the parents, if they have no extended family they hopefully live in a city/state/Provence etc. capable of finding good foster parents who take on the role of the biological parent.

Close?

Many people move to Canada to improve the community available to trust for their children. Canada used to be a better place for that. It is still better than many, with a few areas being excellent much like a few areas in the US. in Canada there is also jobs and some affordable accommodations. The weather sucks.

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:In that education thread that BBS and I started (or whatever), BBS noted distance/internet learning. I liked that idea (which would take the state education part out of it) and had not thought about that. I foresee there being great resistance to distance learning over the internet, mainly from teachers unions.

Certainly, teachers unions (and probably teachers) would fight it, because it would mean less employable teachers.

I do think it's a VERY interesting idea, and probably a good one from the perspective of costs. Really, the only complaints I would have would be in the socialization arena and in the assessment arena.

My personal experience with a very small number of homeschooled children shows me that socialization doesn't HAVE to be a problem, but that it usually IS a problem. At least as how I understand you to mean "distance learning", so your context might change my thoughts on that.

I would also wonder how you could demonstrate that a particular student has learned the material over the internet, given that such things are not difficult to fake.

I admittedly did not think about the socialization issue and that is a serious one. I have some relatives who are/were homeschooled. I would say only one of them is good from a social perspective; the others are dependent upon their parents for everything and lack social skills. I've also noticed, anecdotally, that students who attend public school (that is diverse - racially, culturally, economically) tend to have better social skills than students who attend private schools (that are not diverse - racially, culturally, economically).

I would think there is a good solution for testing and grades, so I'm not as concerned with that. I'm certainly not the one to come up with that solution.

The biggest problem is that there is no real uniform agreement on what actually constitutes a "good" education. More and more evidence is showing that many of the things we have historically pointed to, like early literacy and math skills, may not be as important as things like the ability to stick with a task without getting distracted, the ability to get along with a variety of people AND the ability to convince (not necessarily debate) people to listen to what you have to say.

Yet, little of that is tught in any school. Add on top of that the fact that a lot of people go to homeschooling because of failures... their child was bullied, or they want to teach views that are not supported by the school (often very narrow views like racism or narrow religious views that exclude tolerance) AND, you have those who are purely into this for "the money".

In PA, one issue is that home-schooled, cyber schooled kids assessment tests are considered part of the schools assessments, they are not segmented out. The public school can then be penalized for failures of a cyber school that the brick and morter public school has no real control over.

PS nice to see you back Woodruff.

PLAYER57832 wrote:PS nice to see you back Woodruff.

Thanks, but I suspect it's not going to last long. I can only tolerate indiscriminate intolerance for so long, and that level is getting lower and lower the older I get.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:PS nice to see you back Woodruff.

Thanks, but I suspect it's not going to last long. I can only tolerate indiscriminate intolerance for so long, and that level is getting lower and lower the older I get.

Do what I do and channel ur rage into trolling, rather than outright abuse. Whenever PS really riles me up I just go down tangent alley in the troll forest. Probably still bannable, but most people round here are pretty hesitant to click the ole report button.

Strolling subtly through Troll Forest leaves few tracks.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:PS nice to see you back Woodruff.

Thanks, but I suspect it's not going to last long. I can only tolerate indiscriminate intolerance for so long, and that level is getting lower and lower the older I get.

if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, amirite?

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:PS nice to see you back Woodruff.

Thanks, but I suspect it's not going to last long. I can only tolerate indiscriminate intolerance for so long, and that level is getting lower and lower the older I get.

if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, amirite?

Ah yes, Mr Moderate...as soon as you can point my indiscriminate intolerance, then we'll be good to continue the conversation.

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:PS nice to see you back Woodruff.

Thanks, but I suspect it's not going to last long. I can only tolerate indiscriminate intolerance for so long, and that level is getting lower and lower the older I get.

if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, amirite?

Ah yes, Mr Moderate...as soon as you can point my indiscriminate intolerance, then we'll be good to continue the conversation.

you just said that you were unable to tolerate indiscriminate intolerance, making you intolerant. that's the irony of your post.

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:PS nice to see you back Woodruff.

Thanks, but I suspect it's not going to last long. I can only tolerate indiscriminate intolerance for so long, and that level is getting lower and lower the older I get.

if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, amirite?

Ah yes, Mr Moderate...as soon as you can point my indiscriminate intolerance, then we'll be good to continue the conversation.

you just said that you were unable to tolerate indiscriminate intolerance, making you intolerant. that's the irony of your post.

Actually, I said I could tolerate it...but only for so long before I had to remove myself from the situation, which I would suggest is absolutely a form of tolerance. Nice try, but you've failed spectacularly.

It's good to know you're still an idiot.

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:you just said that you were unable to tolerate indiscriminate intolerance, making you intolerant. that's the irony of your post.

Actually, I said I could tolerate it...but only for so long before I had to remove myself from the situation, which I would suggest is absolutely a form of tolerance. Nice try, but you've failed spectacularly.

It's good to know you're still an idiot.

so removing yourself puts you in a quantum state between tolerance and intolerance... wat?

you either tolerate something or you don't. there's no third option lol

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:you just said that you were unable to tolerate indiscriminate intolerance, making you intolerant. that's the irony of your post.

Actually, I said I could tolerate it...but only for so long before I had to remove myself from the situation, which I would suggest is absolutely a form of tolerance. Nice try, but you've failed spectacularly.

It's good to know you're still an idiot.

so removing yourself puts you in a quantum state between tolerance and intolerance... wat?

you either tolerate something or you don't. there's no third option lol

You used to have a better grasp of logic. What has happened to you? Perhaps your desire to argue with me has tainted your ability to think clearly?

If I do nothing to try to stop something from happening, I am tolerating its existence. It is simply easier for me to tolerate if I am no longer being subjected to that situation, so I remove myself from that situation. Intolerance is actively trying to get that situation to stop by some action.

You're trying too hard, John.

I've wasted my time on worse arguments. Carry on, gentlemen.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I've wasted my time on worse arguments. Carry on, gentlemen.

Gentlemen ios overstating a bit, but yes, i concur ole chap, what what.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I've wasted my time on worse arguments. Carry on, gentlemen.

With some people, wasting time is the goal...

Lootifer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I've wasted my time on worse arguments. Carry on, gentlemen.

Gentlemen ios overstating a bit, but yes, i concur ole chap, what what.

JOHN BLUE IS TOO A GENTLEMAN! He and I are both survivors. I understand what he goes through and he handles it like a gentleman!

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I've wasted my time on worse arguments. Carry on, gentlemen.

With some people, wasting time is the goal...

Disagree, some conversations might become less productive than others here. I don't think they are a waste of time.

2dimes wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I've wasted my time on worse arguments. Carry on, gentlemen.

With some people, wasting time is the goal...

Disagree, some conversations might become less productive than others here. I don't think they are a waste of time.

I agree. But for some people, wasting time is their goal

Only in the same way buying beer is eating money. After all you can get water out of the faucet for much less.

is this thread now about time-wasting arguments we've had with woody?

i'm not sure if i can convince him that "i can only tolerate it for so long before i tolerate it" is an idiotic thing to say.

i won't get my hopes up though...

john9blue wrote:i'm not sure if i can convince him that "i can only tolerate it for so long before i tolerate it" is an idiotic thing to say.

I wouldn't expect you to understand what the concept of tolerance means, John, but you're still trying way too hard. Not that I particularly mind you continuing to embarrass yourself, but I would think that you'd mind it.

would it be accurate to say that i'm tolerating your bullshit right now?

john9blue wrote:would it be accurate to say that i'm tolerating your bullshit right now?

I suppose if you consider it bullshit, sure. Alternatively, you could explore the English language and discover its vast complexity for yourself!

why not both?