Homeschooling: Your Views, Please

[PaintMyHouse]

Society has no business playing any role in raising a child. That is the responsibility of the parents (and extended family & friends if so deemed by the parents).

I love how you people all deny you are communists, then turn around and quote the Communist Manifesto almost verbatim. Only in communism does society have a roll in raising children. And that's because communists have a vested interest in indoctrinating/brainwashing the next generation.

A child does not belong to the state - no matter how much you wish they would winger.

Cat toy, I missed you.

Okay, so if the parents are starving or beating a child to death, we don't step in right? Or they keep them locked in a cage, we pass on by? What if they are teaching them that God didn't create white people and therefore it's perfectly fine to steal from and murder them because they are actually devils not humans? What is they are training them to be a suicide bomber who will attempt to blow up the GOP headquarters?

 

[Pogo]

No offense to teachers, the absolutely most noble profession, but I wish home schooling had been an option. I hated every minute of school from literally the first day of first grade to the day of HS graduation. Loathed, detested, pick your verb. It's a cookie cutter factory that squelches creativity, destroys personality and visits authoritarian bullshit on innocent children that never needed it. It grinds out obedient drones of lobotomized character and traumatized psyche. I never want to go through another experience like that as long as I live.

So uh, I guess I vote "yes".

 

[P@triot]

Society has no business playing any role in raising a child. That is the responsibility of the parents (and extended family & friends if so deemed by the parents).

I love how you people all deny you are communists, then turn around and quote the Communist Manifesto almost verbatim. Only in communism does society have a roll in raising children. And that's because communists have a vested interest in indoctrinating/brainwashing the next generation.

A child does not belong to the state - no matter how much you wish they would winger.

Cat toy, I missed you.

Okay, so if the parents are starving or beating a child to death, we don't step in right? Or they keep them locked in a cage, we pass on by? What if they are teaching them that God didn't create white people and therefore it's perfectly fine to steal from and murder them because they are actually devils not humans? What is they are training them to be a suicide bomber who will attempt to blow up the GOP headquarters?

Well, considering starving and beating a child is a crime (it's called child endangerment chief), I would say it's very clear that it is appropriate to intervene on those extreme and illegal situations.

I just love when liberals are incapable of making a rational argument and so they try to make the case that constitutional government = anarchy

Properly noting that society has no business playing any role in raising a child does not mean it is ok to molest a child, or starve a child, or murder a child (we leave child murder to you pro-abortion liberals).

 

[Samson]

Again you struggle with different levels of government. Local, State, Federal......they are all government. And yes, they are telling you what to do

In the case of education, 90% of control is at the local and state level

But a VILLAGE is LOCAL government.

If Hilary says "it takes a Village to raise a Child," she is not referring to the US Congress or a State's Department of Education.

Only if you take the term villiage literally rather than as a symbol of the role society plays

Simply take "the great" Hilary's" interpretation:

When I wrote It Takes a Village ten years ago, our daughter Chelsea, a lively teen, was engaged with school, church, ballet, and friends. Now that Chelsea is grown up, I look back and see more clearly than ever how much we benefited from the village every step of the way and how much better off she is for having not just two parents, but other caring adults in her corner. And I have yet to meet a parent who didn’t feel the same way.

Source: 2006 intro to It Takes A Village, by H. Clinton, p. xi-xii Dec 12, 2006

note that no where is the US Congress mentioned is any description of how "we benefited from the village."

 

[rightwinger]

But a VILLAGE is LOCAL government.

If Hilary says "it takes a Village to raise a Child," she is not referring to the US Congress or a State's Department of Education.

Only if you take the term villiage literally rather than as a symbol of the role society plays

Society has no business playing any role in raising a child. That is the responsibility of the parents (and extended family & friends if so deemed by the parents).

I love how you people all deny you are communists, then turn around and quote the Communist Manifesto almost verbatim. Only in communism does society have a roll in raising children. And that's because communists have a vested interest in indoctrinating/brainwashing the next generation.

A child does not belong to the state - no matter how much you wish they would winger.

You never fail in demonstrating you are one of the more ignorant posters on the board

No further response is warranted

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Society has no business playing any role in raising a child. That is the responsibility of the parents (and extended family & friends if so deemed by the parents).

I love how you people all deny you are communists, then turn around and quote the Communist Manifesto almost verbatim. Only in communism does society have a roll in raising children. And that's because communists have a vested interest in indoctrinating/brainwashing the next generation.

A child does not belong to the state - no matter how much you wish they would winger.

Cat toy, I missed you.

Okay, so if the parents are starving or beating a child to death, we don't step in right? Or they keep them locked in a cage, we pass on by? What if they are teaching them that God didn't create white people and therefore it's perfectly fine to steal from and murder them because they are actually devils not humans? What is they are training them to be a suicide bomber who will attempt to blow up the GOP headquarters?

Well, considering starving and beating a child is a crime (it's called child endangerment chief), I would say it's very clear that it is appropriate to intervene on those extreme and illegal situations.

I just love when liberals are incapable of making a rational argument and so they try to make the case that constitutional government = anarchy

Properly noting that society has no business playing any role in raising a child does not mean it is ok to molest a child, or starve a child, or murder a child (we leave child murder to you pro-abortion liberals).

You're the one who made the blanket and stupid statement cat toy, I'm simply pointing that out. Obviously society has a role to play in how you raise your children. We set the rules eh, and enforce them if you break them. The interest of the State in children is well established law, which you pretend does not exist.

 

[rightwinger]

No offense to teachers, the absolutely most noble profession, but I wish home schooling had been an option. I hated every minute of school from literally the first day of first grade to the day of HS graduation. Loathed, detested, pick your verb. It's a cookie cutter factory that squelches creativity, destroys personality and visits authoritarian bullshit on innocent children that never needed it. It grinds out obedient drones of lobotomized character and traumatized psyche. I never want to go through another experience like that as long as I live.

So uh, I guess I vote "yes".

Too bad....I thrived in public school and found my teachers to be some of the most influential people in my life
No question that your parents are your most influential, but having good teachers broaden the scope of what you are exposed to.

 

[P@triot]

No offense to teachers, the absolutely most noble profession, but I wish home schooling had been an option. I hated every minute of school from literally the first day of first grade to the day of HS graduation. Loathed, detested, pick your verb. It's a cookie cutter factory that squelches creativity, destroys personality and visits authoritarian bullshit on innocent children that never needed it. It grinds out obedient drones of lobotomized character and traumatized psyche. I never want to go through another experience like that as long as I live.

I would like to add something to Pogo's exceptional post here - most teachers I know are fantastic people and the current state of our public education is not an indictment on them (key word is clearly outlined - most).

But sadly, the entire system has been hijacked by unions and communists with an agenda. Most teachers I know, while leaning left, absolutely detest Common Core. It is making their jobs miserable. One told me she has even gone home crying at the end of some days.

Why? Because Common Core is not about children or education. Sadly, Common Core is the result of a two-tier agenda by Bill Gates: create a universal customer base for educational software which will minimize the R&D necessary for customized needs while maximizing profits and having society foot the bill for the labor force to save corporations money on training and further improve the bottom line of Gates' baby.

But don't take my word for it - here is Bill Gates in his own words...

BILL GATES: "— to create just these kinds of tests—next-generation assessments aligned to the common core. When the tests are aligned to the common standards, the curriculum will line up as well—and that will unleash powerful market forces in the service of better teaching. For the first time, there will be a large uniform base of customers eager to buy products that can help every kid learn and every teacher get better."

In other words, Gates can invest in the R&D and product development of ONE package but then sell it nation-wide to millions and millions of customers - drastically improving his profit margin (hey, he's not the wealthiest man in the world for nothing - the man knows how to corner markets).

Bill Gates admits the real purpose of Common Core

 

[Pogo]

No offense to teachers, the absolutely most noble profession, but I wish home schooling had been an option. I hated every minute of school from literally the first day of first grade to the day of HS graduation. Loathed, detested, pick your verb. It's a cookie cutter factory that squelches creativity, destroys personality and visits authoritarian bullshit on innocent children that never needed it. It grinds out obedient drones of lobotomized character and traumatized psyche. I never want to go through another experience like that as long as I live.

So uh, I guess I vote "yes".

Too bad....I thrived in public school and found my teachers to be some of the most influential people in my life
No question that your parents are your most influential, but having good teachers broaden the scope of what you are exposed to.

Maybe it's worth noting that the first half of my saga was not in a public school but a religious one. That might have made a difference, but I never got to find out.

 

[Samson]

Again you struggle with different levels of government. Local, State, Federal......they are all government. And yes, they are telling you what to do

In the case of education, 90% of control is at the local and state level

But a VILLAGE is LOCAL government.

If Hilary says "it takes a Village to raise a Child," she is not referring to the US Congress or a State's Department of Education.

I vehemently disagree with you here. That is exactly what Hillary is referring to - the federal government. Like all Dumbocrats, she has to convince the people that nothing can survive (education, healthcare, hell - even life) without the federal government. It's her cash cow and she wants to make sure the money and power keep flowing towards her.

Well that is the RW interpretation.

Interestingly it seems to be the LW interpretation as well, since the literal interpretation (which could not mean anything BUT an actual local village government since there were no centralized authorities when the African saying originated).

You are both incorrect in believing Hillary took the African saying, which probably means that local government is the best way to assist in the raising of children, and "interpreted" it to mean that ALL government is the best way to raise children, including the monolithic Federal bureaucracies beloved by both Democrats and Republicans:

Some critics of public schools urge greater competition among schools as a way of returning control from bureaucrats to parents and teachers. I find their argument persuasive and I favor promoting choice among public schools, much as the President’s Charter Schools Initiative encourages.

Charter schools are public schools created and operated under a charter. They may be organized by parents, teachers, or others. The idea is that they should be freed from regulations that stifle innovation, so they can focus on getting results. By 1995, 19 states had enacted charter school laws about 200 schools have been granted charters.

The Improving America’s Schools Act, passed in October 1994 with the President’s support, provided federal funds for a wide range of reforms, including launching charter schools. Federal funding is needed to break through bureaucratic attitudes that block change and frustrate students and parents, driving some to leave public schools.

Source: It Takes A Village, by Hillary Clinton, p.244-245 Sep 25, 1996

Interesting that both LWers and RWers like to ignore the comments quoted above because they do not fit the memes you've been spoon fed through the media sources you've been drooling over.

 

[P@triot]

Only if you take the term villiage literally rather than as a symbol of the role society plays

Society has no business playing any role in raising a child. That is the responsibility of the parents (and extended family & friends if so deemed by the parents).

I love how you people all deny you are communists, then turn around and quote the Communist Manifesto almost verbatim. Only in communism does society have a roll in raising children. And that's because communists have a vested interest in indoctrinating/brainwashing the next generation.

A child does not belong to the state - no matter how much you wish they would winger.

You never fail in demonstrating you are one of the more ignorant posters on the board

No further response is warranted

That's only because no further response is possible - since you're incapable of supporting your position. There's a reason you lashed out - you're angry at your inability to dispute what I stated. Hell, you can't even illustrate a single point to support your statement that I am an "ignorant" poster because I'm running circles around you with facts.

 

[rightwinger]

But a VILLAGE is LOCAL government.

If Hilary says "it takes a Village to raise a Child," she is not referring to the US Congress or a State's Department of Education.

Only if you take the term villiage literally rather than as a symbol of the role society plays

Simply take "the great" Hilary's" interpretation:

When I wrote It Takes a Village ten years ago, our daughter Chelsea, a lively teen, was engaged with school, church, ballet, and friends. Now that Chelsea is grown up, I look back and see more clearly than ever how much we benefited from the village every step of the way and how much better off she is for having not just two parents, but other caring adults in her corner. And I have yet to meet a parent who didn’t feel the same way.

Source: 2006 intro to It Takes A Village, by H. Clinton, p. xi-xii Dec 12, 2006

note that no where is the US Congress mentioned is any description of how "we benefited from the village."

And Dumb assed conservatives interpreted it as.......Hillary wants the Government to raise your children

The key is that parents are not in it alone. Ideally, your neighbors look out for the well being of your child, so is your local community concerned with them

But beyond that, your state and federal government are concerned with their health and educational opportunities.

 

[P@triot]

Cat toy, I missed you.

Okay, so if the parents are starving or beating a child to death, we don't step in right? Or they keep them locked in a cage, we pass on by? What if they are teaching them that God didn't create white people and therefore it's perfectly fine to steal from and murder them because they are actually devils not humans? What is they are training them to be a suicide bomber who will attempt to blow up the GOP headquarters?

Well, considering starving and beating a child is a crime (it's called child endangerment chief), I would say it's very clear that it is appropriate to intervene on those extreme and illegal situations.

I just love when liberals are incapable of making a rational argument and so they try to make the case that constitutional government = anarchy

Properly noting that society has no business playing any role in raising a child does not mean it is ok to molest a child, or starve a child, or murder a child (we leave child murder to you pro-abortion liberals).

You're the one who made the blanket and stupid statement cat toy, I'm simply pointing that out. Obviously society has a role to play in how you raise your children. We set the rules eh, and enforce them if you break them. The interest of the State in children is well established law, which you pretend does not exist.

The same LAWS apply to adults too genius. Having laws does not mean you somehow are magically vested with the power to raise other people's children how you see fit....

The fact that you could not back up your absurd statement here is a clear indication of far your stretching to support your indefensible position that you want to control other people's children (most likely because you're incapable of finding a woman desperate enough to mate with you).

 

[rightwinger]

Society has no business playing any role in raising a child. That is the responsibility of the parents (and extended family & friends if so deemed by the parents).

I love how you people all deny you are communists, then turn around and quote the Communist Manifesto almost verbatim. Only in communism does society have a roll in raising children. And that's because communists have a vested interest in indoctrinating/brainwashing the next generation.

A child does not belong to the state - no matter how much you wish they would winger.

You never fail in demonstrating you are one of the more ignorant posters on the board

No further response is warranted

That's only because no further response is possible - since you're incapable of supporting your position. There's a reason you lashed out - you're angry at your inability to dispute what I stated. Hell, you can't even illustrate a single point to support your statement that I am an "ignorant" poster because I'm running circles around you with facts.

You never fail in demonstrating you are one of the more ignorant posters on the board

No further response is warranted

 

[Pogo]

No offense to teachers, the absolutely most noble profession, but I wish home schooling had been an option. I hated every minute of school from literally the first day of first grade to the day of HS graduation. Loathed, detested, pick your verb. It's a cookie cutter factory that squelches creativity, destroys personality and visits authoritarian bullshit on innocent children that never needed it. It grinds out obedient drones of lobotomized character and traumatized psyche. I never want to go through another experience like that as long as I live.

I would like to add something to Pogo's exceptional post here - most teachers I know are fantastic people and the current state of our public education is not an indictment on them (key word is clearly outlined - most).

But sadly, the entire system has been hijacked by unions and communists with an agenda. Most teachers I know, while leaning left, absolutely detest Common Core. It is making their jobs miserable. One told me she has even gone home crying at the end of some days.

Why? Because Common Core is not about children or education. Sadly, Common Core is the result of a two-tier agenda by Bill Gates: create a universal customer base for educational software which will minimize the R&D necessary for customized needs while maximizing profits and having society foot the bill for the labor force to save corporations money on training and further improve the bottom line of Gates' baby.

But don't take my word for it - here is Bill Gates in his own words...

BILL GATES: "— to create just these kinds of tests—next-generation assessments aligned to the common core. When the tests are aligned to the common standards, the curriculum will line up as well—and that will unleash powerful market forces in the service of better teaching. For the first time, there will be a large uniform base of customers eager to buy products that can help every kid learn and every teacher get better."

In other words, Gates can invest in the R&D and product development of ONE package but then sell it nation-wide to millions and millions of customers - drastically improving his profit margin (hey, he's not the wealthiest man in the world for nothing - the man knows how to corner markets).

Bill Gates admits the real purpose of Common Core

Again, I should point out that my teachers and school authorities had nothing to do with unions, but with religion. And they were virulently anti-communism. More to the point of everyday school stuff, they were authoritarian sadists on power trips.

That's why I have always referred to the place as "prison". The day-to-day goal was never education or grades; it was survival.

 

[P@triot]

Only if you take the term villiage literally rather than as a symbol of the role society plays

Simply take "the great" Hilary's" interpretation:

When I wrote It Takes a Village ten years ago, our daughter Chelsea, a lively teen, was engaged with school, church, ballet, and friends. Now that Chelsea is grown up, I look back and see more clearly than ever how much we benefited from the village every step of the way and how much better off she is for having not just two parents, but other caring adults in her corner. And I have yet to meet a parent who didn’t feel the same way.

Source: 2006 intro to It Takes A Village, by H. Clinton, p. xi-xii Dec 12, 2006

note that no where is the US Congress mentioned is any description of how "we benefited from the village."

And Dumb assed conservatives interpreted it as.......Hillary wants the Government to raise your children

The key is that parents are not in it alone. Ideally, your neighbors look out for the well being of your child, so is your local community concerned with them

But beyond that, your state and federal government are concerned with their health and educational opportunities.

The Communist Manifesto parroted once again...

Ideally, your neighbors should mind their own ******* business and not worry about what you are doing unless you have a beneficial, mutual understanding otherwise.

In my development, there is a large number of us with children the same age. Because of that fact and the fact that we have forged a friendship over time, we all help each other in an endless myriad of ways. But we do this of of our own free will and out of a mutual understanding. Not because of the unconstitutional communist manifesto ramblings of a radical bureaucrat in Washington.

 

[rightwinger]

No offense to teachers, the absolutely most noble profession, but I wish home schooling had been an option. I hated every minute of school from literally the first day of first grade to the day of HS graduation. Loathed, detested, pick your verb. It's a cookie cutter factory that squelches creativity, destroys personality and visits authoritarian bullshit on innocent children that never needed it. It grinds out obedient drones of lobotomized character and traumatized psyche. I never want to go through another experience like that as long as I live.

So uh, I guess I vote "yes".

Too bad....I thrived in public school and found my teachers to be some of the most influential people in my life
No question that your parents are your most influential, but having good teachers broaden the scope of what you are exposed to.

Maybe it's worth noting that the first half of my saga was not in a public school but a religious one. That might have made a difference, but I never got to find out.

And that is one of my biggest objections to home schooling

Parents are great. They have the biggest influence on your life

But should they be the ONLY influence ? Teachers are experts in their fields in spite of how much the rightwing demeans them. I had teachers who traveled the world, teachers who had extensively studied history, Mathmatics and science.....my parents had not
I had teachers with different political views, teachers of different races and religions, teachers who broadened my horizons

I am a better person for it

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well, considering starving and beating a child is a crime (it's called child endangerment chief), I would say it's very clear that it is appropriate to intervene on those extreme and illegal situations.

I just love when liberals are incapable of making a rational argument and so they try to make the case that constitutional government = anarchy

Properly noting that society has no business playing any role in raising a child does not mean it is ok to molest a child, or starve a child, or murder a child (we leave child murder to you pro-abortion liberals).

You're the one who made the blanket and stupid statement cat toy, I'm simply pointing that out. Obviously society has a role to play in how you raise your children. We set the rules eh, and enforce them if you break them. The interest of the State in children is well established law, which you pretend does not exist.

The same LAWS apply to adults too genius. Having laws does not mean you somehow are magically vested with the power to raise other people's children how you see fit....

The fact that you could not back up your absurd statement here is a clear indication of far your stretching to support your indefensible position that you want to control other people's children (most likely because you're incapable of finding a woman desperate enough to mate with you).

Nothing absurd about it at all there cat toy. It's the same logic that allows the State to take an interest in the developing fetus, at some point.

There's a difference between "owning" something and being "responsible" for something. Parents are "responsible" for their children, unless we terminate their parental rights, which we have the "right" to do, but they do not "own" them to do with as they please. Society has a very strong interest in how you raise your children which is why we set the boundaries and you'd best stay within them or the State will step in hard. The fact that we can do so is well-known, to most.

 

[Pogo]

Simply take "the great" Hilary's" interpretation:

Source: 2006 intro to It Takes A Village, by H. Clinton, p. xi-xii Dec 12, 2006

note that no where is the US Congress mentioned is any description of how "we benefited from the village."

And Dumb assed conservatives interpreted it as.......Hillary wants the Government to raise your children

The key is that parents are not in it alone. Ideally, your neighbors look out for the well being of your child, so is your local community concerned with them

But beyond that, your state and federal government are concerned with their health and educational opportunities.

The Communist Manifesto parroted once again...

Ideally, your neighbors should mind their own ******* business and not worry about what you are doing unless you have a beneficial, mutual understanding otherwise.

In my development, there is a large number of us with children the same age. Because of that fact and the fact that we have forged a friendship over time, we all help each other in an endless myriad of ways. But we do this of of our own free will and out of a mutual understanding. Not because of the unconstitutional communist manifesto ramblings of a radical bureaucrat in Washington.

I'm kinda jumping in the middle without reading back but.... it occurs to me that when you keep citing "communist manifesto" you're treading dangerously close to a truism:

"Communism" is related to community -- meaning related to the greater cultural whole. Community is a sense that has been lost in our culture, especially since we've been channeled into individual home boxes each with its individual boob tube, the whole cultural emphasis having shifted to individual/competition and away from community/cooperation. That's only happened in the last half-century, and it's cultural poison. Having a community around builds strong and confident members of that community without pitting them against each other in eternal boxes of isolation.

I see the phrase "it takes a village" quoted earlier; that's what it means to this observer.

 

[P@triot]

Too bad....I thrived in public school and found my teachers to be some of the most influential people in my life
No question that your parents are your most influential, but having good teachers broaden the scope of what you are exposed to.

Maybe it's worth noting that the first half of my saga was not in a public school but a religious one. That might have made a difference, but I never got to find out.

And that is one of my biggest objections to home schooling

Parents are great. They have the biggest influence on your life

But should they be the ONLY influence? Teachers are experts in their fields in spite of how much the rightwing demeans them. I had teachers who traveled the world, teachers who had extensively studied history, Mathmatics and science.....my parents had not
I had teachers with different political views, teachers of different races and religions, teachers who broadened my horizons

I am a better person for it

Who in the hell are you to decide that? If you want to make that decision, have your own children and then you can let as many people as you want influence them. But you have no business, no authority, and absolutely no rights by any law giving you the power to decide that a parent shouldn't be the only influence on their child. If that's what they want, that's their right as parents.

Furthermore, Barack Obama has a degree from Harvard, has traveled the world, and has "extensively studied" marxism. And he is the most incompetent, unqualified buffoon to ever sit in the White House.

A degree does not mean you are qualified for shit. It just means that you passed tests by the institution which issued you the degree (and sometimes it doesn't even mean that - just ask all of the athletes like Dexter Manley who were greased by just to keep playing football).

But you don't deal in reality - you only deal in ideology.