nearly 400 or about 28 per year based solely on news articles and a couple databases.
So, exactly as I said, then? Again, I don't buy the 'If it saves just one' bullshit logic; I'm someone who cares about freedom over safety, and a situation involving children is no different. I don't care for banning/placing restrictions upon something merely because it could be abused. You're not going to win me over with such logic.
I generously assumed that those statistics are actually correct and wrote that in response. Whether they are correct is an entirely different matter, and I almost never trust them.
Children are a different matter.
Incorrect. I disagree with ageism, and I care exactly as much about children as I do about adults.
They deserve special consideration not only for moral reasons
Nope. No more so than with adults.
but also for simple economics
What a vague argument. That can be used any restriction. In fact, it could be used to argue *in favor* for unrestricted homeschooling.
The benefits of driverless do not come close to out weighing the negatives.
To you. Your suggestion is that because people will abuse them, that the pros don't outweigh the cons; that's absurd. What do you suggest? Banning them? That's anti-freedom. Or do you just not like the idea.
Are there any other deadly toys you fucking assholes would like to demand that places me in danger?
Are there any other freedoms you'd like to take away from innocent people in the name of safety, authoritarian scumbag? You already have the TSA, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, protest permits, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, and a number of other freedom-violating garbage. Is that not enough for you?
Nothing. Even if what I said about me wanting to risk death weren't true (and I maintain that it is, and you have no proof that it isn't), those things would all be egregious violations of the constitution and people's fundamental liberties regardless.
Furthermore, when I said I would rather risk death, I was referring to death from criminals/terrorists/whatever it is they claim we're being protected from. It seems you've utterly misunderstood my message.
yet I bet you dutifully obey each and every one of those.
You base this on nothing, and you cannot read minds. You're wasting your time attacking my character instead of focusing on the larger point. It will convince me of nothing, and it will accomplish nothing.
There is no "US education system" that can be said to be good or bad. There are numerous different education systems, with certain commonalities.
Actually, I can say right here that they're abysmal.
If nobody makes sure a child is properly home-schooled, then how do you know they're getting some sort of decent education?
They're not getting a decent education from the US education system (a term you don't like, apparently), that's for sure.
But as for how you can tell, you can't.
If it's the child's right to education, and it is to be enforced, somebody needs to see that right is upheld among home schooling as well as more institutional schooling.
I think it's more important that the government stay the hell away from homeschoolers. Their one-size-fits-all rote memorization approach to education is poison, and I'd rather not have them trying to corrupt homeschooling with their flawed standards.
*sigh* Once again, no, the founders were not perfect. However, the rights of 'first-class citizens' were treated quite well. And also, the constitution took steps to prevent a number of other government abuses that the founders were aware of at the time, so again, there's no reason to think they wouldn't have similarly acted against NSA-style surveillance.
I might be convinced of that regarding secondary education. Primary education though, not a chance. Aside from the basic need for literacy, basic math skills, and such in our society, there's the child welfare aspect.
It is extremely unlikely that someone would willingly pull their child from schools (which are often seen as little more than daycare by many people) just to do nothing. Homeschooling parents tend to care more about their children's educations than our worthless schools do. This is especially true when it comes to the absolute basics.
If a simple once a year assessment of a child's well being can prevent or stop a single William Flynn Walker, Order of the Solar Temple/Twelve Tribes, LoReyna Barea, M. L. Lloyd III, Lora/Aubrey Thomas's 6 kids or... sadly I could go on for some time.
So you're going to list extremely unlikely scenarios and use it to justify your restrictions? The 'If it saves just one...' mentality is poisonous. That's what leads to the TSA, the Patriot Act, and a whole host of other nonsense. Guess what? It isn't any more rational when the situation involves children.
So yes, it would "affect" parents in that they might have to do some paperwork but would protect kids from falling through the cracks and receiving inadequate/no primary education.
I'd rather the state just stay out of it, rather than try to 'protect' children from not receiving what it thinks is a 'proper' education.
Well, I agree with you there, but what does this have to do with the constitutional aspect of this? It's blatantly unconstitutional, which was the entire point of all this.
Right, but I still don't see your point. Yes, most people were treated badly, but the rights of 'first-class citizens' were generally respected. Again, I see no evidence that they'd let something this huge slide. You can keep pointing out slavery and other such things, but it's meaningless.
but a yearly test for assessment is both reasonable and probably necessary.
I disagree. It forces people who want to get away from the education system to participate in its nonsense. In addition, current tests are absolutely abysmal and useless.
And nobody even considered "teaching to the test".
People seem to have this strange view of the past. The US education system was always absolute garbage. It might have been slightly better in the past in some regards, but it was always about rote memorization, busywork, and being a one-size-fits-all 'solution.'
But again, my state currently doesn't force homeschoolers to take any sort of tests or do anything. I don't think you can get anymore homeschool-friendly, actually. If that changes, then homeschooling would indeed be affected, which you claimed it wouldn't be.
They have to collect it all to know who to target with software or hardware to get around individual use of encryption.
Then their jobs are unconstitutional. It's like saying that the police have to break into everyone's homes in order to better find criminals. Not like they care, though.
Meaning the state needs to monitor the child's educational development (usually done by a test once or twice a year) to make sure they are getting an education, but they do not have to force anyone into a particular institution.
My state currently does not require that the state do anything, so this would affect homeschooling. Standardized tests are not only useless, but they are poison. Many people take the results seriously, but they just test for rote memorization and encourage people to teach to the test.
But you also said, ""home school" is a valid "school" under Article 28 so long as it is meet's the state's own educational standards." So, would anything really change, or am I misunderstanding something?
Well guess what? Guantanamo Bay isn't on U.S. soil.
This seems like one of those 'clever' loopholes that aren't really loopholes at all if you take into account the spirit of the constitution. Then it is a clear constitutional violation, just like the TSA, free speech zones, and all the other things the government tried to 'justify' using awful, awful logic.
You know, it isn't always just about you. When people want to speak normally, they can't do so when other people are trying to control what words they use.
It works both ways. Also, nice appeal to popularity, there. What "most adults" think is inappropriate is irrelevant, because it's 100% subjective. All that means is that most adults need to get over their irrational hatred of certain words.
When people say things that other people find offensive and rude, and most adults have decided isn't appropriate for polite society, other people find that rude and offensive behavior creates an unpleasant work environment.
You know what I find to be an unpleasant work environment? Whiny, irrational people who are offended by particular words for absolutely no reason, though they'll give you reasons that sound mighty religious (or perhaps even cite religious texts).
If those people want others to stop, perhaps they'd better come up with rational, logical reasons that the words are inherently bad. And if they don't think they are? Then deal with it.
Especially when they cannot simply walk away from you or ignore you because their desk is next to yours.
I hear a lot of stupid things that I'd rather not hear (nothing to do with 'swear words'), but that doesn't mean I'm going to try to control what others say. I just deal with it.
The founding fathers weren't exactly the pillars of individual freedom you seem to think they were.
I don't see where he said that they were. The founding fathers were far from perfect, but that does not mean that they did not have a number of good ideas; they did.
Does your post have a point, or is it just, "They weren't perfect, so absolutely everything they believed was 100% incorrect."? I'm not sure, but that's what it looks like to me. His real point was that they wouldn't have tolerated this. They took action against a number of other rights violations that they knew of at the time, and general warrants were unconstitutional, so there's absolutely zero reason to think they would have let something this huge slide.
Slashdot Mirror
Executions shouldn't be legal, either.
nearly 400 or about 28 per year based solely on news articles and a couple databases.
So, exactly as I said, then? Again, I don't buy the 'If it saves just one' bullshit logic; I'm someone who cares about freedom over safety, and a situation involving children is no different. I don't care for banning/placing restrictions upon something merely because it could be abused. You're not going to win me over with such logic.
I generously assumed that those statistics are actually correct and wrote that in response. Whether they are correct is an entirely different matter, and I almost never trust them.
Children are a different matter.
Incorrect. I disagree with ageism, and I care exactly as much about children as I do about adults.
They deserve special consideration not only for moral reasons
Nope. No more so than with adults.
but also for simple economics
What a vague argument. That can be used any restriction. In fact, it could be used to argue *in favor* for unrestricted homeschooling.
The benefits of driverless do not come close to out weighing the negatives.
To you. Your suggestion is that because people will abuse them, that the pros don't outweigh the cons; that's absurd. What do you suggest? Banning them? That's anti-freedom. Or do you just not like the idea.
There are sound reasons for this approach
Not if you want to live in a free country.
Are there any other deadly toys you fucking assholes would like to demand that places me in danger?
Are there any other freedoms you'd like to take away from innocent people in the name of safety, authoritarian scumbag? You already have the TSA, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, protest permits, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, and a number of other freedom-violating garbage. Is that not enough for you?
is immaterial.
No, it is very important.
Everything.
Nothing. Even if what I said about me wanting to risk death weren't true (and I maintain that it is, and you have no proof that it isn't), those things would all be egregious violations of the constitution and people's fundamental liberties regardless.
Furthermore, when I said I would rather risk death, I was referring to death from criminals/terrorists/whatever it is they claim we're being protected from. It seems you've utterly misunderstood my message.
yet I bet you dutifully obey each and every one of those.
You base this on nothing, and you cannot read minds. You're wasting your time attacking my character instead of focusing on the larger point. It will convince me of nothing, and it will accomplish nothing.
There is no "US education system" that can be said to be good or bad. There are numerous different education systems, with certain commonalities.
Actually, I can say right here that they're abysmal.
If nobody makes sure a child is properly home-schooled, then how do you know they're getting some sort of decent education?
They're not getting a decent education from the US education system (a term you don't like, apparently), that's for sure.
But as for how you can tell, you can't.
If it's the child's right to education, and it is to be enforced, somebody needs to see that right is upheld among home schooling as well as more institutional schooling.
I think it's more important that the government stay the hell away from homeschoolers. Their one-size-fits-all rote memorization approach to education is poison, and I'd rather not have them trying to corrupt homeschooling with their flawed standards.
The let slavery slide for nearly a century.
*sigh* Once again, no, the founders were not perfect. However, the rights of 'first-class citizens' were treated quite well. And also, the constitution took steps to prevent a number of other government abuses that the founders were aware of at the time, so again, there's no reason to think they wouldn't have similarly acted against NSA-style surveillance.
Otherwise, a grand majority of the products of the education system would be in trouble.
I might be convinced of that regarding secondary education. Primary education though, not a chance. Aside from the basic need for literacy, basic math skills, and such in our society, there's the child welfare aspect.
It is extremely unlikely that someone would willingly pull their child from schools (which are often seen as little more than daycare by many people) just to do nothing. Homeschooling parents tend to care more about their children's educations than our worthless schools do. This is especially true when it comes to the absolute basics.
If a simple once a year assessment of a child's well being can prevent or stop a single William Flynn Walker, Order of the Solar Temple/Twelve Tribes, LoReyna Barea, M. L. Lloyd III, Lora/Aubrey Thomas's 6 kids or... sadly I could go on for some time.
So you're going to list extremely unlikely scenarios and use it to justify your restrictions? The 'If it saves just one...' mentality is poisonous. That's what leads to the TSA, the Patriot Act, and a whole host of other nonsense. Guess what? It isn't any more rational when the situation involves children.
"First-world problem" is an idiotic phrase. What, because X is less of a problem than Y, that means that X isn't bad? What is this awful logic?
So yes, it would "affect" parents in that they might have to do some paperwork but would protect kids from falling through the cracks and receiving inadequate/no primary education.
I'd rather the state just stay out of it, rather than try to 'protect' children from not receiving what it thinks is a 'proper' education.
Well, I agree with you there, but what does this have to do with the constitutional aspect of this? It's blatantly unconstitutional, which was the entire point of all this.
Right, but I still don't see your point. Yes, most people were treated badly, but the rights of 'first-class citizens' were generally respected. Again, I see no evidence that they'd let something this huge slide. You can keep pointing out slavery and other such things, but it's meaningless.
Once again, everyone is already aware that the founders were far from perfect. Do you have a point?
Oh, that wasn't even you that made that post. Nevermind.
but a yearly test for assessment is both reasonable and probably necessary.
I disagree. It forces people who want to get away from the education system to participate in its nonsense. In addition, current tests are absolutely abysmal and useless.
And nobody even considered "teaching to the test".
People seem to have this strange view of the past. The US education system was always absolute garbage. It might have been slightly better in the past in some regards, but it was always about rote memorization, busywork, and being a one-size-fits-all 'solution.'
But again, my state currently doesn't force homeschoolers to take any sort of tests or do anything. I don't think you can get anymore homeschool-friendly, actually. If that changes, then homeschooling would indeed be affected, which you claimed it wouldn't be.
They have to collect it all to know who to target with software or hardware to get around individual use of encryption.
Then their jobs are unconstitutional. It's like saying that the police have to break into everyone's homes in order to better find criminals. Not like they care, though.
Meaning the state needs to monitor the child's educational development (usually done by a test once or twice a year) to make sure they are getting an education, but they do not have to force anyone into a particular institution.
My state currently does not require that the state do anything, so this would affect homeschooling. Standardized tests are not only useless, but they are poison. Many people take the results seriously, but they just test for rote memorization and encourage people to teach to the test.
But you also said, ""home school" is a valid "school" under Article 28 so long as it is meet's the state's own educational standards." So, would anything really change, or am I misunderstanding something?
Well guess what? Guantanamo Bay isn't on U.S. soil.
This seems like one of those 'clever' loopholes that aren't really loopholes at all if you take into account the spirit of the constitution. Then it is a clear constitutional violation, just like the TSA, free speech zones, and all the other things the government tried to 'justify' using awful, awful logic.
You know, it isn't always just about you.
You know, it isn't always just about you. When people want to speak normally, they can't do so when other people are trying to control what words they use.
It works both ways. Also, nice appeal to popularity, there. What "most adults" think is inappropriate is irrelevant, because it's 100% subjective. All that means is that most adults need to get over their irrational hatred of certain words.
When people say things that other people find offensive and rude, and most adults have decided isn't appropriate for polite society, other people find that rude and offensive behavior creates an unpleasant work environment.
You know what I find to be an unpleasant work environment? Whiny, irrational people who are offended by particular words for absolutely no reason, though they'll give you reasons that sound mighty religious (or perhaps even cite religious texts).
If those people want others to stop, perhaps they'd better come up with rational, logical reasons that the words are inherently bad. And if they don't think they are? Then deal with it.
Especially when they cannot simply walk away from you or ignore you because their desk is next to yours.
I hear a lot of stupid things that I'd rather not hear (nothing to do with 'swear words'), but that doesn't mean I'm going to try to control what others say. I just deal with it.
What does pulling over my car if told to do so have to do with the validity of any of my arguments? Nothing.
That's irrelevant to whether or not he should be impeached.
The founding fathers weren't exactly the pillars of individual freedom you seem to think they were.
I don't see where he said that they were. The founding fathers were far from perfect, but that does not mean that they did not have a number of good ideas; they did.
Does your post have a point, or is it just, "They weren't perfect, so absolutely everything they believed was 100% incorrect."? I'm not sure, but that's what it looks like to me. His real point was that they wouldn't have tolerated this. They took action against a number of other rights violations that they knew of at the time, and general warrants were unconstitutional, so there's absolutely zero reason to think they would have let something this huge slide.