NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by Homophobic scare-mongering (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=569601), I'm wondering what people think.

Are the minds of children the property of their parents?

If I "own" something, I have the right to interfere with it, use it and modify it, while other people don't. So when parents argue that they have the right to teach their children what they want, and that other influences teaching different values or ideas are wrong, they are ultimately arguing that they own the minds of their kids.

Of course, if parents teach their kids stupid things, that can have a profound impact on the child's ability to function as a part of society in the future. It also raises question about the ability to consent and live one's own life - if a child has been raised to be part of some crazy cult, they may stay in this colony all their life, even though they are mistreated or miserable for some other reason, because they're either unaware of alternatives or have been "brainwashed" to an extent that makes it difficult to properly consider them.

So clearly the idea that parents should have complete control over the things that enter their kids' minds is flawed. The idea that the child itself has ownership of its mind in this sense also falls flat, since a child can't really choose how and what to learn about the world. And that the mind is owned by the public doesn't resolve many issues either, plus most of us would be sceptical of a world in which all children were exclusively raised by some representative of society as a whole (in all likelihood the State).

So how do you think about this issue? Should parents have the right or ability to screw up their children for life, if they choose to? What if the beliefs being taught aren't obviously factually wrong, but what some people would dare call "issues of opinion", such as homophobia - or even things like political orientation? And stemming from all this, what do you think about home schooling? In the US it's obviously legal (and often, though by no means exclusively, used to indoctrinate kids according to a certain religious/political direction), in Germany for example all children must go to a public or (regulated) private school.

And if a child is being seriously messed with by its parents' control of its learning. would the answer be physical removal from this family?

How can you even ask this question? A child's mind is owned by no-one. Society as a whole has responsibility to shape it positively, particularly the parents, but it is not a piece of property to be exchanged or exclusively possessed to the exclusion of all else.

All childrens' minds belong to me...

Fortunately I'm horrible at keeping track of my possessions.

How can you even ask this question? A child's mind is owned by no-one. Society as a whole has responsibility to shape it positively, particularly the parents, but it is not a piece of property to be exchanged or exclusively possessed to the exclusion of all else.
The word is just a stand-in to try and get across the thing I'm trying to say. I'm not talking about it as property to be traded - merely about who has the right to shape it. When parents say schools shouldn't teach their kids things they don't want them to learn, they're saying that they have a veto over what enters their kids' mind, meaning some sort of exclusive right to decide what their kid ends up believing and being like (as far as that is feasible) - much like I'm the only one who "owns" my body. Incidentally, you could make the same argument with regards to parents who object to Miss Jackson's boobies on TV.

The point is, a child is obviously its own human being. But before it is able to do the things a person does independently, there is a phase in which outside influences determine just what sort of person the child is going to be, and some parents claim to have the exclusive right over what happens during this phase. What do you think about this claim?

I do actually own the mind of a child...
http://thenetworkgarden.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/braininjar.jpg

why you lookin to buy one?

The point is, a child is obviously its own human being. But before it is able to do the things a person does independently, there is a phase in which outside influences determine just what sort of person the child is going to be, and some parents claim to have the exclusive right over what happens during this phase. What do you think about this claim?

Well, if I don't want my child to be influenced from outside sources such as troublesome kids then I should be allowed to.

I wonder what some people on here would say if a religious organisation was talking to their kids?

Regardless we or at least I with a few other posters had this discussion not that long ago, so I won't be as active here as that one because I can't really be bothered to do it again.

I think a lot of people will relate it back to the homophobia thing and say well no schools should be able to do that etc. but I don't think that is what they believe as a general umbrella thing, if the opinion being taught at the school was something they didn't believe in then I suspect we would be seeing different responses from a few posters.

Kids own their minds.

You don't 'own' your child's mind. You shouldn't have the right to program your children any way you wish with whatever knowledge and values you wish. That kind of control over another human being is just as wrong when they are four as when they are forty. Parents don't have the right....they have the responsibility to teach their children how to learn. Critical thinking and the knowledge base to generate informed decisions will serve a child better than brainwashing him to fear God.

On a semi-related subject, I got a call from Little Goofball's teacher a couple days ago. Apparently during recess, Little Goofball did a swan dive into a mud puddle on the playground and six other kindergartners followed his example thus damaging their teacher's sanity. Where do kids pick this stuff up from? :D

I'd like to think that I own my mind and it's nobody elses.

On a semi-related subject, I got a call from Little Goofball's teacher a couple days ago. Apparently during recess, Little Goofball did a swan dive into a mud puddle on the playground and six other kindergartners followed his example thus damaging their teacher's sanity. Where do kids pick this stuff up from? :D

:eek2: Indoctrination :p

Well now we know the answer to the other 6 kids when they are asked if your frineds jump of a bridge will you jump off as well? And as for Little Goofball I think he would reply with a "I will be the first to jump"

:eek2: Indoctrination :p

Well now we know the answer to the other 6 kids when they are asked if your frineds jump of a bridge will you jump off as well? And as for Little Goofball I think he would reply with a "I will be the first to jump"

My mom asked me that, and I replied, "If they survive, yes!"

On a semi-related subject, I got a call from Little Goofball's teacher a couple days ago. Apparently during recess, Little Goofball did a swan dive into a mud puddle on the playground and six other kindergartners followed his example thus damaging their teacher's sanity. Where do kids pick this stuff up from? :D

I'm more curious as to how you do that on your average mud puddle, which is very shallow, and not break your neck.

I think I know what is behind your question, Neu Leonstein....you're wondering about your own parenting. To doubt is good...Cogito ergo sum. I guess that you have to trust yourself to guide your children. You won't be alone. You'll most likely have a partner plus the extended family. And after the first kid, each other kid will have siblings who will be a powerful influence.

And then your kids will get input from all sorts of social institutions - pre-schiool, the media, friends etc. It is an awfully big adventure.

Yes there are some crappy parents out there and there are some great ones. Just try hard to be a great one. Laugh a lot and love your kid(s). And some wise person said, "Your kids choose YOU!"

I'm more curious as to how you do that on your average mud puddle, which is very shallow, and not break your neck.

It's a skill I have passed on to the next generation. :cool:

i can influence other peoples kids. Whether they like it or not. With a simple sly look over a parents shoulder in a grocery store when the kid is doing something the parent doesn't like. That child will then know that there are people out there who agree with him/her. So ownership has nothing to do with influence.

And how well are these parents doing anyway? If little Jimmy knows that five plus five is ten, but he doesn't know why he shouldn't bite his brother, who really has control over that child's mind? Owning something means being able to take it with You when You leave; anyone can come over and move Your furniture, but only i have the right take my chair out of my house.

i say would-be parents should have to pass psychological tests before being given a license/permit to raise children. If should be more difficult than getting a gun permit.

Who owns the mind of a child?
No one exactly, but the closest to come to that is society. Humans are inherently worthless, lazy and selfish beings, who only want to eat, sleep, fuck and spit on others. What turns them into good, respectable members of society is upbringing and social indoctrination.


And that the mind is owned by the public doesn't resolve many issues either, plus most of us would be sceptical of a world in which all children were exclusively raised by some representative of society as a whole (in all likelihood the State).
This is an issue of the representative and the state itself, since they too consist of humans, as well as of a uniform system lacking variance.
But ultimately, we all want the children to be raised by the society as a whole - and that includes parents, as they are a part of the society. However, only as far as they are.

There is a point of view that since the parents have produced the physical body and paid most of initial upbringing cost, they have the right to it, and that the family is a small society in itself, but it's only true as far as the children aren't members of the bigger national society. If they are, then, as in any society, there are entrance requirements, and they should be met.

Kids own their minds.
Kids can't decide what they learn though. Who a person is depends to a big degree on the experiences they make and the things they learn when they grow up. The question is: do parents have some sort of exclusive, or supreme right to decide on these influences and mold the child into something to their liking?

I think I know what is behind your question, Neu Leonstein....you're wondering about your own parenting.
I'm 22 years old, single and a uni student for one more year, hopefully followed by the jetsetting high life of international finance. Kids aren't really on my agenda at this point. :wink:

I'm more curious as to how you do that on your average mud puddle, which is very shallow, and not break your neck.

bellyflops are best :D and messiest, especially if you can egg the BIGGEST fatso in the class to do one as the teacher is passing ;)

Nobody owns a child's mind except for the child. Parents, and society have a responsibility to help the child's mind develop; and I personally, beleive that children should be introduced to as many viewpoints as possible. I would want my children to make thier own decisions on who they are, what they beleive, and what they want to do with thier lives. Some people are horrified by my view on parenting though...

And now, for some science.

It it generally believed within the scientific community that, indeed, "kids own their own minds." Or, more specifically, "kids' genes own their own minds."

There have been many surveys on the personalities of adopted siblings (including identical twins) who were separated at birth (one goes to family X, one to family Y). The results came to the conclusion that personality is up to 90% genetic. The results themselves showed large similarities between the personalities of identical twins, smaller but still very relevant similarities between those of fraternal twins, and still smaller but still very relevant similarities between ordinary siblings. These results were then mathematically analyzed to remove the effects of "they were adopted by similar families" and the conclusions still stood. It should be noted that similar studies regarding intelligence found the opposite results: intelligence is environmentally based, with genes seeming only to give a maximum level ("this child will be, at its best, this smart").

This is in no way genetic predetermination. Genes don't make someone a religious nut or an atheist. They just simply say "this person is more/less likely to rationalize" or something of the sort.

So yes, society and parents both have an effect on a child when it comes to specifying these genetic predispositions. And it is my personal belief that the "ownership" of the child should be shared between the parents and society at large in a similar way as children are shared between divorced parents: two weeks with one, two days with the other. In this case, I do believe parents have a larger right to the child's mind than society does, but society also has some right to it as well. If the parents want to turn their child into a religious nut, let them. They'll just have to out-compete society.

Obviously, I'd rather the parents not turn their child into a religious nut, but at the same time, I don't want society having control of our children, because if that is the case, within a few generations a lot of variance in opinion will disappear, which is quite sad and, to be honest, dull. Differences are what make life fun.

Primarily, the people who make kids' tv programmes.

If a parent wants to raise their kids so that they believe that homosexuals are evil spawns of satan, then that's fine. But it is up to schools to teach that homosexuals are accepted in society and that harassing or discriminating against them for being homosexual is not accepted. Schools teaches kids what IS, parents teach their kids what should be.

If a parent wants to raise their kids so that they believe that homosexuals are evil spawns of satan, then that's fine. But it is up to schools to teach that homosexuals are accepted in society and that harassing or discriminating against them for being homosexual is not accepted. Schools teaches kids what IS, parents teach their kids what should be.

Parents shouldn't be teaching kids what should be, they should be teaching kids to decide for themselves.

Well no doubt, parents will shape the minds of their children, so my answer is yes, parents do own their minds, up until adolecence

Parents shouldn't be teaching kids what should be, they should be teaching kids to decide for themselves.

Schools are meant to teach children independent and critical thinking. The fact that schools haven't been doing this much is the fault of the education system. Moreover, critical and independent thinking should be part of school cirriculum from kindergarden to year 12. Parents can't be trusted to teach their kids how to think for themselves, because so many parents weren't taught that themselves.

http://oculosis.com/maraby/tmp/pedobear.png

Schools are meant to teach children independent and critical thinking. The fact that schools haven't been doing this much is the fault of the education system. Moreover, critical and independent thinking should be part of school cirriculum from kindergarden to year 12. Parents can't be trusted to teach their kids how to think for themselves, because so many parents weren't taught that themselves.
And what does that mean for home schooling?

-snip-
I'd say he owns the body rather than the mind.

[/extreme inappropriateness]

Schools are meant to teach children independent and critical thinking. The fact that schools haven't been doing this much is the fault of the education system. Moreover, critical and independent thinking should be part of school cirriculum from kindergarden to year 12. Parents can't be trusted to teach their kids how to think for themselves, because so many parents weren't taught that themselves.

There is a difference between Independent and Critical Thinking, and making up your own mind about your life choices.

Parents, within the set framework of the given society with strong influences from the economic/religious/ethnic group that the parents belong to assuming those are at odds with the society at large where they live in.

It's all fine and dandy to speak of critical thinking skills and individual choice, but the truth of the mater is that we are all, whether we like it or not, a product of our parent's values. And those values were allowed to pass to us based upon how well they messed with the society we lived in while going up.

Yes, as adults, we can accept those values, reject them, modify them, play football, anything, but they are the basis of which we see the world through.

So a child's mind is 'owned' by those factors that will shape its behavior and customs, which by the way, ranges from views on religion and its place in society to the proper way to greet someone, and those are, in turn, allowed to be passed on as long as they are tolerated by the society at large. In other words, if a society does not tolerate the notion that, say, purple people eaters are human too, even if they eat purple people, it will step in and remove children from their parents should their parents attempt to teach that viewpoint.

And what does that mean for home schooling?

Homeschooling is okay if you have educated parents doing the best for their childs education, but it needs to be heavily regulated and checked. Overall, I'd say that parents should have to be at least as qualified as teachers before being allowed to home school their kids.

The notion that anyone or anything (parent or society) can own the mind of another is distateful in the extreme to me.

I agree with those who say that parents do not have rights over the development of their children's minds. They have a responsibility for it. Not the same thing.

Of course, my thinking was shaped largely by the influence of my family -- both positively in terms of examples of what is right, and negatively in terms of examples of what is wrong.

But I was lucky to have been raised primarily by a mother whose parents believed they owned their child. Her negative experience with them shaped her thinking by making her vow never act that way with her own child. She believed she had a responsibility to help me become what I would become, not a right to make me into something of her choosing. And so all of my early "indoctrination" was to reject doctrine, question authority, critique everything (including myself), and always make up my own mind about things.

Note: my OWN mind.

So, the shaping that I got from my upbringing -- my own experiences with my whole family, not just my mom, as well as other members and authorities of my larger community -- is the shape that I gave it within my own mind. That is why I was able to accept some teachings of my social group and reject others. That is why I was able to learn from others' accomplishments and from others' mistakes -- because I was taught to think independently enough to judge the difference.

God owns it.

There is a difference between Independent and Critical Thinking, and making up your own mind about your life choices.
Could you explain that difference, please?

Because, shaped as I was by my upbringing, I don't see how you can make up your own mind about your life choices unless you are able to think critically and independently.

God owns it.

Which god?

Which god?

You know, God god. The big cheese, cosmic creator, magical man, the unknown, the nothing, the everything.

Which god?

Anubis.

You know, God god. The big cheese, cosmic creator, magical man, the unknown, the nothing, the everything.
Who? :confused:

Anubis.
Oh, him. Really, though? *goes looking for Anubis's resume in the files*

Corporations. Their official purchase of the minds of children was concluded on 12th August 1993, in the same agreement which gave them ownership of the souls of the entire human race.

It's a very good question, although it's framed in a way that tends to make people rather uneasy.
I agree, though. At the end of the day, the debate about who isallowed to teach what to children is about who "owns" the right to teach their opinion/knowledge/approach to kids and who doesn't. That is, in a way, a debate on who owns the child's mind.

The one thing that keeps my hopes in humanity up is that no matter what you teach a child, no matter how much you indoctrinate it, there is always a very good chance that at one point, the child's character will allow it to turn round and question everything it's been taught and in the end make up its own mind.
And as I observe it, with more and more information available to more and more people, there are more people than ever doing just that. I know it sometimes seems as if the willfully uninformed are the growing majority, but I think they really just shout louder. Well, at least I hope that's the case.

That said, I do think that an education which allows the child access to all that society is and represents is invaluable. I'm not a fan of home-schooling, but given that there is a national curriculum that the parents need to teach the kid, and regular exams to make sure the kid doesn't fall behind too much, I think it's an acceptable alternative for some kids and in some areas.

The point that was made earlier that parents have a responsibility to teach their children, not a right, very much sums up my own opinion as well.

Could you explain that difference, please?

Because, shaped as I was by my upbringing, I don't see how you can make up your own mind about your life choices unless you are able to think critically and independently.

Ok, to ME there is a difference, but I'm one of those wierdoes who seems to make a difference between everything aren't I?

Actually... now that I think about it I have no idea what I'm blabbing about, I'm just fucking tired...

Could you explain that difference, please?

Because, shaped as I was by my upbringing, I don't see how you can make up your own mind about your life choices unless you are able to think critically and independently.

Well, the way I see it, there are people who will think critically, wether they've been taught to or not, and people who will always be tools, no matter how much parents and schools tried to teach them to think for themselves...

Ok, to ME there is a difference, but I'm one of those wierdoes who seems to make a difference between everything aren't I?

Actually... now that I think about it I have no idea what I'm blabbing about, I'm just fucking tired...
Oh, okay. :D

Well, the way I see it, there are people who will think critically, wether they've been taught to or not, and people who will always be tools, no matter how much parents and schools tried to teach them to think for themselves...
Yeah, but tools don't make up their own minds about their life choices. They let others do that for them. So, if you're making up your own mind, then you are thinking independently, and if you are making choices for yourself, then you are thinking critically. And if you're not, then you're not.

Well it's better to have Nazi parents, than no parents at all.

Yeah, but tools don't make up their own minds about their life choices. They let others do that for them.

That's what I mean... some people are thinkers, others are sheep.

Then again, I think the majority of people is somewhere in between those two and will benefit from being taught how to think critically.

Well it's better to have Nazi parents, than no parents at all.
Why?

Oh, okay. :D

Late night drinking plus 18 hour work shifts. Life of a radio DJ (read 24 year old single male)! I should so not be trying to do anything remotely intelligent atm.

Well it's better to have Nazi parents, than no parents at all.

As a person who can say "been there, done that", allow me to say : No. It's not.

As a person who can say "been there, done that", allow me to say : No. It's not.
First of all let me release the biggest 'oh that explains it' ever.

OH, THAT EXPLAINS IT

Second of all, you may have grown up with nazi parents but you then, obviously, didn't grow up with no parents, so you still lack half of it, if you're using your personal life as a source.

Edit: Also, were your parents real Nazis or were they just Conservative and a bit Authoritarian which clashed heavily with your wild leftist streak?

Edit 2: Also, there is no reason that just because they hold incorrect political opinions that they wouldn't love you as a child, care for you, provide you food and shelter and all that....In fact, it's ridiculous to think that growing up with no parents would be better than growing up with Nazi parents. And, if I may be so ridiculous as to state this, but the Nazi parents may love you even more because they are 'securing the future and health and saftey of the white children of the future' or whatever their motto is :D.

Why?

Love can't be reproduced by some government. Hey, even Nazi parents, can be good parents, despite their Nazi way of thinking

Sure, some parents are not capable at all to be parents, but the current law scheme is protecting most situations.

As a person who can say "been there, done that", allow me to say : No. It's not.

So you became a Nazi?

So you became a Nazi?

Nope. I didn't become a convinced Catholic either, despite religious parents and 9 years at a convent school.

I'm a internationalist atheist, if I had to put it into words.
Parents only influence you so far. Once you're an adult, and have the ability to inform yourself, blaming your upbringing for your stupidity no longer cuts it.

First of all let me release the biggest 'oh that explains it' ever.

OH, THAT EXPLAINS IT

Second of all, you may have grown up with nazi parents but you then, obviously, didn't grow up with no parents, so you still lack half of it, if you're using your personal life as a source.

Edit: Also, were your parents real Nazis or were they just Conservative and a bit Authoritarian which clashed heavily with your wild leftist streak?

Edit 2: Also, there is no reason that just because they hold incorrect political opinions that they wouldn't love you as a child, care for you, provide you food and shelter and all that....In fact, it's ridiculous to think that growing up with no parents would be better than growing up with Nazi parents. And, if I may be so ridiculous as to state this, but the Nazi parents may love you even more because they are 'securing the future and health and saftey of the white children of the future' or whatever their motto is :D.

1) While I had parents, my best friend (who I met when I was 3 and have been best friends with ever since), didn't. And we both agree she was better off.

2) My father was (and probably still is, I haven't spoken to him in well over a decade) a convinced Nazi, born and raised by my Nazi grandparents.
My mother is just an airhead who believes whatever anybody with authority tells her.

3) Love is nice, but Nazi parents tend to make it conditional. They will love you, but only if you turn out the way they hoped you would. Which I didn't. That's when they resort to name-calling, among other things.

3) Love is nice, but Nazi parents tend to make it conditional. They will love you, but only if you turn out the way they hoped you would. Which I didn't. That's when they resort to name-calling, among other things.

That sucks... I get the distinct feeling that I could show up at my parents house carrying the dessicated corpse of some random stranger I freely admit murderng and raping and they would still love me even as they called the police...

Love can't be reproduced by some government. Hey, even Nazi parents, can be good parents, despite their Nazi way of thinking

Sure, some parents are not capable at all to be parents, but the current law scheme is protecting most situations.
Your comment was too broad.

If you had said something like, "Loving parents, even if they are Nazis, are better than no parents," I would not have questioned it. Details do matter sometimes.

1) While I had parents, my best friend (who I met when I was 3 and have been best friends with ever since), didn't. And we both agree she was better off.
Then she may have been lucky or you may have been very unlucky. Either way, it is, in my opinion, a rare case and usually children with no parents honestly lack from the experience.
2) My father was (and probably still is, I haven't spoken to him in well over a decade) a convinced Nazi, born and raised by my Nazi grandparents.
My mother is just an airhead who believes whatever anybody with authority tells her.
Unfortunate. Ich erinnere nicht. Kommt ihr (also du und deine Familie) aus Bayern?
3) Love is nice, but Nazi parents tend to make it conditional. They will love you, but only if you turn out the way they hoped you would. Which I didn't. That's when they resort to name-calling, among other things.
Even if that's true, you'd still recieve unconditional love for your baby years, your toddler years, your childhood and your early teenage years, before you become political (in any politcal leaning).....which is by far superior to none of that from the get go.

I'm more curious as to how you do that on your average mud puddle, which is very shallow, and not break your neck.
a swan dive isn't headfirst, but chest first. so a swan dive into a mud puddle would be almost like a belly flop but with more grace and control. ;)

Parents shouldn't be teaching kids what should be, they should be teaching kids to decide for themselves.
so parents shouldn't be teaching kids to not play with fire, not going with strangers, playing with knives and other dangerous items but those are things kids need to decide for themselves?

While the child is the responsibility of the parent/guardian, they do have the right to teach their child anything they want. wether it be religion, or how to live, it's the parent's right and responsibility.

some parents give up that responsiblity to others. say the Child's Preachers, Teachers, or friends. Others want the sole responsiblilty to mold their child's mind. which is right? both are. There's no manual or 'correct' way to parent. there is no proven method that would work for every child. so there will be as many failures as there are successes.

...depends on the type of governance.

Then she may have been lucky or you may have been very unlucky. Either way, it is, in my opinion, a rare case and usually children with no parents honestly lack from the experience.

That might be. However, the statement that every child with parents, no matter who or what the parents are, is always better off than a child with no parents just isn't true. I'm not claiming the opposite is true, either, just that such a blanket statement is wrong.


Unfortunate. Ich erinnere nicht. Kommt ihr (also du und deine Familie) aus Bayern?

Politisch, ja, leider.


Even if that's true, you'd still recieve unconditional love for your baby years, your toddler years, your childhood and your early teenage years, before you become political (in any politcal leaning).....which is by far superior to none of that from the get go.

Being a Nazi isn't only about politics. It's a lifestyle. Some people will fit in, others won't. I noticed very early that I didn't (I can't remember my exact age, but I was still in Kindergarten). And that's when things started turning nasty.
Besides, who says only parents can give you unconditional love? My friend grow up with her grandparents, and she certainly never lacked anything.

That might be. However, the statement that every child with parents, no matter who or what the parents are, is always better off than a child with no parents just isn't true. I'm not claiming the opposite is true, either, just that such a blanket statement is wrong.
But it's obvious that such a blanket term is wrong because there will always exist good and bad exceptionist, but I'd say, and I feel most would agree, that in most cases, it's better off to have parents than not.


Politisch, ja, leider.
Tut mir so leid daß du nazi Eltern hattest. Das bedeutet aber nicht, daß du Bayern schlecht finden sollst. Ehrlich ist Bayern doch das schönste Bundesland und warscheinlich die schönste Region der Welt, außer der Schweiz.:)


Being a Nazi isn't only about politics. It's a lifestyle. Some people will fit in, others won't. I noticed very early that I didn't (I can't remember my exact age, but I was still in Kindergarten). And that's when things started turning nasty.What does all that mean? You didn't actually explain anything.


Besides, who says only parents can give you unconditional love? My friend grow up with her grandparents, and she certainly never lacked anything.Nobody, says that, as anyone with a loving grandmother will tell you, it's not confined to parents. However, having said that, there is a different relationship between parent and child than grandparent and child.

Tut mir so leid daß du nazi Eltern hattest. Das bedeutet aber nicht, daß du Bayern schlecht finden sollst. Ehrlich ist Bayern doch das schönste Bundesland und warscheinlich die schönste Region der Welt, außer der Schweiz.:)

Tut mir leid, ich kann's nicht ausstehen. Stellenweise schoene Landschaft, ja, aber die Leute sind absolut unertraeglich.


What does all that mean? You didn't actually explain anything.

To many Nazis, the ideology is more than just a political position, it's a religion. And people are viewed through the filter of that religion, including family members.
A girl who doesn't like playing with dolls, a girl who hates wearing skirts, a girl who cuts off her hair cause she hates having it long and a girl who just won't fit into a good, German, traditional role model will soon find the shit kicked out of her.
One of my father's favourite sayings used to be "Maedchen die pfeiffen und Hennen die kraehen muss man beizeiten den Hals umdrehen."


Nobody, says that, as anyone with a loving grandmother will tell you, it's not confined to parents. However, having said that, there is a different relationship between parent and child than grandparent and child.

I would argue that it doesn't matter who raises a child. A child doesn't need its biological parents, it can thrive just as well with its grandparents, other family members, adoptive parents... the biological relationship is irrelevant. What matters is the emotional relationship.

Nope. I didn't become a convinced Catholic either, despite religious parents and 9 years at a convent school.

I'm a internationalist atheist, if I had to put it into words.
Parents only influence you so far. Once you're an adult, and have the ability to inform yourself, blaming your upbringing for your stupidity no longer cuts it.



Maybe that's my whole point. It was not the German parents that raised their children to Nazi people in the 20ties and 30ties.

Some parents are very good ones, most are average, some are bad and few are dangerous.

Only in the last case, children and parents should be separated, in all other cases the government should stay out.

I'd like to think that I own my mind and it's nobody elses.

You'd like to think that, but, you're mind is actually...

a) MINE!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!

b) Property of our Crab-People/Illuminati Overlords

c) A myth perpetrated by the Liberal Media.

d) a jar of peanut butter.

No one owns it, but parents are responsible for helping to mold said child into a functioning and productive individual within society. It's kind of like the responsibility to serve on juries and vote. You have the freedom to do it, but you'd better do it right, gawdammit.

I would argue that it doesn't matter who raises a child. A child doesn't need its biological parents, it can thrive just as well with its grandparents, other family members, adoptive parents... the biological relationship is irrelevant. What matters is the emotional relationship.
^ THIS ^

but I thought the OP was including anyone who raises a child. be it Grandparents, Aunts/Uncles, Foster Parents, Siblings, etc.

no one. you can't own a childs mind. You can take their life but you can't take their freedom(thoughts)

You'd like to think that, but, you're mind is actually...

a) MINE!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!

b) Property of our Crab-People/Illuminati Overlords

c) A myth perpetrated by the Liberal Media.

d) a jar of peanut butter.
He could be the exclusive owner of the jar of peanut butter.

Inspired by Homophobic scare-mongering (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=569601), I'm wondering what people think.

Are the minds of children the property of their parents?

If I "own" something, I have the right to interfere with it, use it and modify it, while other people don't. So when parents argue that they have the right to teach their children what they want, and that other influences teaching different values or ideas are wrong, they are ultimately arguing that they own the minds of their kids.

Of course, if parents teach their kids stupid things, that can have a profound impact on the child's ability to function as a part of society in the future. It also raises question about the ability to consent and live one's own life - if a child has been raised to be part of some crazy cult, they may stay in this colony all their life, even though they are mistreated or miserable for some other reason, because they're either unaware of alternatives or have been "brainwashed" to an extent that makes it difficult to properly consider them.

So clearly the idea that parents should have complete control over the things that enter their kids' minds is flawed. The idea that the child itself has ownership of its mind in this sense also falls flat, since a child can't really choose how and what to learn about the world. And that the mind is owned by the public doesn't resolve many issues either, plus most of us would be sceptical of a world in which all children were exclusively raised by some representative of society as a whole (in all likelihood the State).

So how do you think about this issue? Should parents have the right or ability to screw up their children for life, if they choose to? What if the beliefs being taught aren't obviously factually wrong, but what some people would dare call "issues of opinion", such as homophobia - or even things like political orientation? And stemming from all this, what do you think about home schooling? In the US it's obviously legal (and often, though by no means exclusively, used to indoctrinate kids according to a certain religious/political direction), in Germany for example all children must go to a public or (regulated) private school.

And if a child is being seriously messed with by its parents' control of its learning. would the answer be physical removal from this family?

Children should be taken away from abusive environments. Brainwashing is abusive. Also using children in ways other than for their well-being can be potentially abusive. Though parents may own their children up to 18 years of age parents have a biological duty to the human race to ensure that child is brought up well with minimal mental, physical and spiritual (for the spirituals out there) health problems as possible.

Secondly schools exist purely to educate not to indoctrinate. Ergo a school may present proven facts and inform students of the existence of beliefs, theories and lifestyles however to push opinions and beliefs that people should form themselves is wrong.

so parents shouldn't be teaching kids to not play with fire, not going with strangers, playing with knives and other dangerous items but those are things kids need to decide for themselves?

Thats a silly argument, that goes under what is.

What should be is all a matter of opinion. Like, all gays are evil sinners who will burn in hell and all blacks are damned just because they exist. Those count as 'should be's' and are opinions.


While the child is the responsibility of the parent/guardian, they do have the right to teach their child anything they want. wether it be religion, or how to live, it's the parent's right and responsibility.

some parents give up that responsiblity to others. say the Child's Preachers, Teachers, or friends. Others want the sole responsiblilty to mold their child's mind. which is right? both are. There's no manual or 'correct' way to parent. there is no proven method that would work for every child. so there will be as many failures as there are successes.

Nobody has a right to do that as far as I am concerned, they have a wrong to do that. They have the right to present thier own viewpoint but that have no right to force thier children to beleive things the way they do. Thats a violation of the basic tenant of induvidual freedom.

Tut mir so leid daß du nazi Eltern hattest. Das bedeutet aber nicht, daß du Bayern schlecht finden sollst. Ehrlich ist Bayern doch das schönste Bundesland und warscheinlich die schönste Region der Welt, außer der Schweiz.:)
Watch this movie (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dog_days/#). I did once, and I can't think of anything that describes the ugly underbelly that is Bavaria and Austria as well. That, and the scene near the end of Downfall, where the Bavarian guy runs around accusing people of being cowards and stringing them up.

Homeschooling is okay if you have educated parents doing the best for their childs education, but it needs to be heavily regulated and checked.
What kind of regulations and checking? I homeschool to get away from arbitrary curriculum choices of my district and as far as checking, I'm required by law to provide instruction, I'm not required to ensure they are educated, same rules as the public school. If you want to put restrictions on me or my children they better be the same as the public school kids have.

Overall, I'd say that parents should have to be at least as qualified as teachers before being allowed to home school their kids.

There have been numerous studies that show that the certification of a parent has no bearing on the success of a homeschooled child. Why would you require this when it apparently doesn't make any difference?

Thats a silly argument, that goes under what is.

What should be is all a matter of opinion. Like, all gays are evil sinners who will burn in hell and all blacks are damned just because they exist. Those count as 'should be's' and are opinions. ah, so it's only certain issues that parents (and guardians) should teach their child. too bad one's opinions and choices on how to live can't be filtered from a child's environment.

Nobody has a right to do that as far as I am concerned, they have a wrong to do that. They have the right to present thier own viewpoint but that have no right to force thier children to beleive things the way they do. Thats a violation of the basic tenant of induvidual freedom. except that by living the way I chose to I am exposing my viewpoint and lifestyle on the child. it's being forced because it's the only life the child knows for the first 10 or so years of their life. If my wife and I go to church every sunday, of course we'll take out children because to leave them alone is child negligence. yet according to you, forcing them to come to church is a violation.

sorry, but the health and welfare of my child dictates that my child would NOT be left alone at home while my wife and I attend church.

(this is assuming 'Child' is any child from less than a year old to an age where they can watch out for themselves. Thus not Teens)

What kind of regulations and checking? I homeschool to get away from arbitrary curriculum choices of my district and as far as checking, I'm required by law to provide instruction, I'm not required to ensure they are educated, same rules as the public school. If you want to put restrictions on me or my children they better be the same as the public school kids have.

I thought homeschooling had some sort of generalized structure to it. what subjects to teach and books and supplies (more to help the parent) as well as some form of aptitude testing?

FWIW, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm) states in relevant part:

Article 12
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

Article 14
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 18
1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern

Article 19
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.

Article 28
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:
(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;

(b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;

(c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;

(d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;

(e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.

Article 29
1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:
(a) The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

(e) The development of respect for the natural environment.

Intersting point TCT. If I can emphisise some parts tho.
FWIW, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm) states in relevant part:

Article 12
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

Article 14
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 18
1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern

Article 19
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.

Article 28
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:
(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;

(b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;

(c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;

(d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;

(e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.

Article 29
1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:
(a) The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

(e) The development of respect for the natural environment.




so it appears that the primary responsibility for raising the child is the parents. of course this does not say that the parent's 'own' the child's mind but they are the one's primarily (not only) responsible for the child's mental, emotional, and physical development.

As the child grows up and develops his/her own personality, then the parent's are supposed to 'back off' (article 12.1) but that is in relation to how well the child is developing.

ah, so it's only certain issues that parents (and guardians) should teach their child. too bad one's opinions and choices on how to live can't be filtered from a child's environment.

except that by living the way I chose to I am exposing my viewpoint and lifestyle on the child. it's being forced because it's the only life the child knows for the first 10 or so years of their life. If my wife and I go to church every sunday, of course we'll take out children because to leave them alone is child negligence. yet according to you, forcing them to come to church is a violation.

sorry, but the health and welfare of my child dictates that my child would NOT be left alone at home while my wife and I attend church.

(this is assuming 'Child' is any child from less than a year old to an age where they can watch out for themselves. Thus not Teens)

Your either mistaken, or intentionally turning my argument around Junii. It is not bad parenting to take a child to church if thats where you are going so that you can be sure your child is safe. It however, is bad parenting when you take your child to church, force them to be baptised, and enforce the idea that what they teach at church is the only right way to do things. A child is going to observe a parents beleif more than anyone else's yes, but all a parent has to do is let it be known that there are other viewpoints and as long as the parent remains objective and does not say whether or not a certain set of viewpoints is right or another is wrong you are approaching it in the best possible way.

The best you can and should do is to present your views, and allow a child to make the decision from there. A child throughout his or her life will even beyond childhood be constantly introduced to new beleifs and it is the responsibility of parents to ensure they understand that any and all decisions about who you are should only be made by you.

I thought homeschooling had some sort of generalized structure to it. what subjects to teach and books and supplies (more to help the parent) as well as some form of aptitude testing?

It depends on the state. Children in public school are tested yearly and if they fail, nothing happens. Fair is fair.

Your either mistaken, or intentionally turning my argument around Junii. It is not bad parenting to take a child to church if thats where you are going so that you can be sure your child is safe. It however, is bad parenting when you take your child to church, force them to be baptised, and enforce the idea that what they teach at church is the only right way to do things. A child is going to observe a parents beleif more than anyone else's yes, but all a parent has to do is let it be known that there are other viewpoints and as long as the parent remains objective and does not say whether or not a certain set of viewpoints is right or another is wrong you are approaching it in the best possible way. but by taking them to church, you are not allowing another choice to present itself by way of Religion and Beliefs. If the church you go to preaches "People who wear plaid are evil sinners". the child will remember that and grow up thinking that because no other viewpoint may be presented. so basically it's forced by way of no other alternative viewpoint/opinion being presented and not deliberate.

The best you can and should do is to present your views, and allow a child to make the decision from there. A child throughout his or her life will even beyond childhood be constantly introduced to new beleifs and it is the responsibility of parents to ensure they understand that any and all decisions about who you are should only be made by you.
and how that child accepts those new beliefs and concepts is determined by how they live during their developmental years.

by living one set pattern in life (in reguards to religion, beliefs and lifestyle) that child will be inadvertently 'indoctrinated' in that pattern. if that pattern allows for acceptance of new ideas and concepts (including other patterns of life) then that child will grow up being an accepting teen/adult. if the pattern they were raised in doesn't allow for such acceptance...

I'm not saying 'it's ok to teach them...' I'm saying "[they] will unintentionally teach them..."

the only thing we can do is help teens/adults break out of their pattern and that is a difficult thing to do.

Intersting point TCT. If I can emphisise some parts tho.


so it appears that the primary responsibility for raising the child is the parents. of course this does not say that the parent's 'own' the child's mind but they are the one's primarily (not only) responsible for the child's mental, emotional, and physical development.

As the child grows up and develops his/her own personality, then the parent's are supposed to 'back off' (article 12.1) but that is in relation to how well the child is developing.
I'd just like to note that, in what you bolded, "rights" of parents are mentioned only once, while there are two other mentions, one of "duties" and one of "responsibility," which could be taken to suggest that the burden of duty is greater than the power of right over the child, for the parents.

Also, what you bolded does make clear that the parents are expected to support the child in freely expressing their own (the child's) opinions. This suggests that the parents are not seen as "owning" the mind of the child.

In addition, there is nothing in what you bolded that gives a parent the right to deny their child access to the kinds of ideas/principles outlined in the rest of what TCT quoted. This suggests that parents, regardless of whatever powers and/or privileges their rights and duties/responsibilities may give them, are still expected to conform to societal expectations, further suggesting that parents do not own the mind of the child.

I think what TCT quoted makes it clear that the child owns the child's mind. The parents are expected to assist the child in learning how to express his/her own mind, and further expected to do so in a way that conforms with the rights of the child, as listed.

It depends on the state. Children in public school are tested yearly and if they fail, nothing happens. Fair is fair.
so Homeschooled children are not given an aptitude test? I thought, at least that was happening.

Intersting point TCT. If I can emphisise some parts tho.


so it appears that the primary responsibility for raising the child is the parents. of course this does not say that the parent's 'own' the child's mind but they are the one's primarily (not only) responsible for the child's mental, emotional, and physical development.

As the child grows up and develops his/her own personality, then the parent's are supposed to 'back off' (article 12.1) but that is in relation to how well the child is developing.

I certainly wouldn't deny that primary responsibility for raising a child rests with the parents. As you admit, that is a far cry from saying the parents "own" the child's mind.

Moreover, it is clear from the Convention that society has an interest and a role in the development of children's minds:

Article 28
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:

(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;

Article 29
1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:
(a) The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

(e) The development of respect for the natural environment.

To put this all in the context in which the question first arose, society and government have an interest in seeing that children are exposed to ideas that may be different from or even opposed to the ideals of the parents.

so Homeschooled children are not given an aptitude test? I thought, at least that was happening.

Each state has different laws. My state doesn't test, but I have a responsibility to provide equivalent education. My state is unique in that we are the only state in the US that has a constitutional right (state right) to homeschool.

You can check the homeschooling laws for any state here (http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp). You can see they vary quite a bit.

I'd just like to note that, in what you bolded, "rights" of parents are mentioned only once, while there are two other mentions, one of "duties" and one of "responsibility," which could be taken to suggest that the burden of duty is greater than the power of right over the child, for the parents.

Also, what you bolded does make clear that the parents are expected to support the child in freely expressing their own (the child's) opinions. This suggests that the parents are not seen as "owning" the mind of the child.

In addition, there is nothing in what you bolded that gives a parent the right to deny their child access to the kinds of ideas/principles outlined in the rest of what TCT quoted. This suggests that parents, regardless of whatever powers and/or privileges their rights and duties/responsibilities may give them, are still expected to conform to societal expectations, further suggesting that parents do not own the mind of the child.

I think what TCT quoted makes it clear that the child owns the child's mind. The parents are expected to assist the child in learning how to express his/her own mind, and further expected to do so in a way that conforms with the rights of the child, as listed.

yep. the parent's have rights, duties and responsibilities in raising the child, but they don't 'own' the child's mind. as the child grows, the RDR (rights, duties and responsiblities)change. being lightened in some cases as the child show their maturity and shifting emphasis in others like giving the child more experiences and personal responsiblity to help their development.

Each state has different laws. My state doesn't test, but I have a responsibility to provide equivalent education. My state is unique in that we are the only state in the US that has a constitutional right (state right) to homeschool.

You can check the homeschooling laws for any state here (http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp). You can see they vary quite a bit.

ah. quickly looking through some states... it seems regulated at some level... even if no reporting is necessary.

*snipped*

You are arguing that there will always be passive indoctrination.

I am arguing that we have a responsibnility (call it moral, divine, civic, etc.) to not force a child into indoctrination.

I'm not arguing the fact that children will pick up things from thier envireonment, I'm arguing that children should be left to decide on thier own from what is presented, by doing that you provide an example from life and your child will continue to develope as it reaches teanage and adulthood years.

The thing that started this exchange is when you made a statement that sounded a lot like "Parents are allowed to force whatever beleifs they wish upon thier children." Which is what I am primary arguing against.

So are you saying that Parents are allowed to force whatever beliefs they wish upon thier children!" or are you saying "Children will always pick up thier basic principles from thier parents." ?

The child owns their own mind.

I'm sick of this modern Western thought that seems to subhumanise children not only legally, which is understandable, but socially and philosophically as well as fragile beings incapable of independent or coherent thought, self-perception, or moral reasoning.

You are arguing that there will always be passive indoctrination.
yep. the thing is tho. wether it be forced or passive, the results tend to be the same.

rarely would you find a parent/guardian who says "Yep, I taught by child to be narrow minded." Almost all the time, the statement would be "I raised my child to live right."

The Majority of indoctrination is passive. that includes Religion.

yep. the parent's have rights, duties and responsibilities in raising the child, but they don't 'own' the child's mind. as the child grows, the RDR (rights, duties and responsiblities)change. being lightened in some cases as the child show their maturity and shifting emphasis in others like giving the child more experiences and personal responsiblity to help their development.

But the only mention of rights of parents in what I quoted and/or you bolded is this:

Article 14

1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

That says, at most, that parents have a right (AND duty) to help a child develop his or her own free thought, conscience, and religion.

yep. the thing is tho. wether it be forced or passive, the results tend to be the same.

rarely would you find a parent/guardian who says "Yep, I taught by child to be narrow minded." Almost all the time, the statement would be "I raised my child to live right."

The Majority of indoctrination is passive. that includes Religion.

So wtf are we arguing about when we are basically making the same point?

So wtf are we arguing about when we are basically making the same point?

arguing? I was just conversing. not arguing. :confused:

arguing? I was just conversing. not arguing. :confused:

Arguing was a bad choice of word I guess... we should be politicians, we'll run against each other in every major election, making our positions sound different to see who gets the most votes :p

But the only mention of rights of parents in what I quoted and/or you bolded is this:

Article 14

1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

That says, at most, that parents have a right (AND duty) to help a child develop his or her own free thought, conscience, and religion.
"in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child"

and the other part I bolded "the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. "

I take that to means it's not a static value. as the child grows and develops, the rights/duties/and responsiblilities also shifts. you don't treat a 10 yr old the same as a 3 yr old. nor do you treat a 6 yr old the same as a 16 yr old. and while the parent's rights are only mentioned once. that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ;)

"in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child"

and the other part I bolded "the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. "

I take that to means it's not a static value. as the child grows and develops, the rights/duties/and responsiblilities also shifts. you don't treat a 10 yr old the same as a 3 yr old. nor do you treat a 6 yr old the same as a 16 yr old.

Um, yes. All that is true, but completely irrelevant and non-responsive.

and while the parent's rights are only mentioned once. that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ;)

I was referring to the context in which that mention of "rights" occurs and the inherent limits of those rights in the quoted statement.

Um, yes. All that is true, but completely irrelevant and non-responsive. but that was what I was talking about in the post you quoted.

I was referring to the context in which that mention of "rights" occurs and the inherent limits of those rights in the quoted statement.which supports what I said about the parent's not "owning" the child's mind in the fact that while the parent's have rights, Duties and Responsiblities it does shift while the child grows. I'm not arguing against what you posted, if that's what you think.

It depends on the state. Children in public school are tested yearly and if they fail, nothing happens. Fair is fair.

Wow... crappy system. I went through the German school system, you have tests all troughout the year, of which an average is calculated at the end of the year.
If you fail, you repeat that year.
If you fail again, you'll be either sent off to a school for kids with special needs, or else if you're over 16 you have to leave school.

Well, if it's a Druuge child, clearly the planetwide megacorp owns it. *hides*

But seriously, just because you own something doesn't mean you have carte blanche. Video game EULAs forbid decompiling the programs, for example, and RIAA thinks that stopping someone from torrenting a song yet getting viewed as the next Hitler is a good move not a bad move.

isnt owning a child's mind kinda like owning the air in your house? sure its "yours" but you cant really control it without extreme measures.

Tut mir leid, ich kann's nicht ausstehen. Stellenweise schoene Landschaft, ja, aber die Leute sind absolut unertraeglich.
Agree to disagree (not on the schoene Landschaft, though :p)


To many Nazis, the ideology is more than just a political position, it's a religion. And people are viewed through the filter of that religion, including family members.
A girl who doesn't like playing with dolls, a girl who hates wearing skirts, a girl who cuts off her hair cause she hates having it long and a girl who just won't fit into a good, German, traditional role model will soon find the shit kicked out of her.
Hmm....that's also true of parents and people who don't like 'tomboys' as we call them, though without the "kicking the shit out of her" part.
One of my father's favourite sayings used to be "Maedchen die pfeiffen und Hennen die kraehen muss man beizeiten den Hals umdrehen."
Das hab ich noch nie gehoert und nicht total verstanden....? Geht's auf Englisch? Vielleicht "one must know one's place"?
I would argue that it doesn't matter who raises a child. A child doesn't need its biological parents, it can thrive just as well with its grandparents, other family members, adoptive parents... the biological relationship is irrelevant. What matters is the emotional relationship.
Again, agree to disagree. I am a strong believer that having a mother and father raise the child is the healthiest not only for the child but for the family unit. Of course there are unfortunate exceptions but in most cases that's what I believe.

Watch this movie (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dog_days/#). I did once, and I can't think of anything that describes the ugly underbelly that is Bavaria and Austria as well. That, and the scene near the end of Downfall, where the Bavarian guy runs around accusing people of being cowards and stringing them up.

I'll check it out, but it's still a movie and made to show exactly what the director wants to show. As you know I've spent alot of time in Central Europe, exactly in the places you don't like and I've seen only good things and good people who are not backwards but often quite intelligent. And, as you also know, Baveria is one of the most advanced and richest states in Germany, also very enviornmental, and Munich is a huge international business city, while at the same time Bavaria also remains the most traditional, conservative and religious state in the country with a relatively small number of immigrants and is, overall, not very multicultural and "diverse".

If we were hive minded, we wouldn't have this sort of problem

Again, agree to disagree. I am a strong believer that having a mother and father raise the child is the healthiest not only for the child but for the family unit. Of course there are unfortunate exceptions but in most cases that's what I believe.

Does it have to be the biological mother and father? Why?

You do realize the idea of a nuclear family is a recent invention.

Regardless, there is ample evidence that this belief of yours isn't true. See, e.g. (http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html), link (http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html), link (http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_template.php?id=1138), link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15482501?dopt=Abstract)

Hmm....that's also true of parents and people who don't like 'tomboys' as we call them, though without the "kicking the shit out of her" part.

Anybody trying to force their lifestyle and views on their children, is that what you're saying? ;)


Das hab ich noch nie gehoert und nicht total verstanden....? Geht's auf Englisch? Vielleicht "one must know one's place"?

It would translate as "A girl who whistles and a chicken that crows need their necks twisted and broken as soon as possible"


Again, agree to disagree. I am a strong believer that having a mother and father raise the child is the healthiest not only for the child but for the family unit. Of course there are unfortunate exceptions but in most cases that's what I believe.

I find that hard to believe... many children don't even know that the people raising them are not their parents. Does that mean it negatively impacts them?
I remember reading a statistic once (I might try and find it, although not right now) that an estimated 35-40% of men raise children that are not their biological offspring. Most of them are unaware of the fact, and in many cases not even the mother knows for sure.
Considering that in most of those families, all members are unaware of their not being biologically related to each other, does that mean their families aren't healthy and functioning?

I'll check it out, but it's still a movie and made to show exactly what the director wants to show. As you know I've spent alot of time in Central Europe, exactly in the places you don't like and I've seen only good things and good people who are not backwards but often quite intelligent. And, as you also know, Baveria is one of the most advanced and richest states in Germany, also very enviornmental, and Munich is a huge international business city, while at the same time Bavaria also remains the most traditional, conservative and religious state in the country with a relatively small number of immigrants and is, overall, not very multicultural and "diverse".

Bavaria is one of the richest, true.
However, having lived there for the first 30 years of my life, I can assure you that it's nowhere near as advanced as most of the rest of Germany, neither culturally nor technologically.
Munich is not a city, it's a massive big village that thinks that size equals urbanism.

And I think one of the reasons that make the place so unbearable and claustrophobic is the fact that it's conservative beyond all hope, religious to the point of being ridiculous and homogenic to the point of being populated for a large part by inbreds (I include my family in that).
It's a place that doesn't leave any room for individuality, creativity, or simple plain thinking.
Children at its higher schools are still forced to learn Latin for a minimum of 5 years, while computer courses remain optional and are difficult to fund.
Religion dictates when and for how long pubs can be open. Butcher's shops have been know to have their window's smashed in for opening on Good Friday.
People demonstrate against the modernisation of railway lines to make them suitable for more modern and energy-efficient trains.
The minister president of the country recently declared on TV that it's perfectly ok to drink 2 litres of beer and then drive home.

The place is fucked up beyond hope, seriously. The best thing I ever did in my life was leave there. And it does speak volumes that Ireland seems liberal and progressive to me compared to Bavaria.

FINE I WILL SETTLE THIS!!!! all children will be taught according to my will.

FINE I WILL SETTLE THIS!!!! all children will be taught according to my will.

lol KneelbeforeZod will have something to say about this. :tongue:

Disney owns the minds of all children. And of some adults too.

lol KneelbeforeZod will have something to say about this. :tongue:

KneelbeforeZod was fucking awesome.

Disney owns the minds of all children. And of some adults too.

http://gregladen.com/wordpress/wp-content/graphics/evil%20mickey%20mouse.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/117848873_441bec5937.jpg
http://powerlineblog.com/media/archives/image_fmabspic_0_0-1106149504.jpg

:hail::hail::hail:OBEY OBEY OBEY! :eek:

KneelbeforeZod was fucking awesome.

Even so he will still need all the help he can get against our new rodent overlords.

Soon I will own the minds of all humanity with this mass hypnotism device!

*looks at device, falls asleep*

Disney owns the minds of all children. And of some adults too.

Oh noes! :eek:

fifty cent

We must destroy Disney
I have a shotgun, 4 molotov cocktails, and a crowbar, what are your freedom fighting tools?

nature, 'god', and its own inhierent spirit.

parents and peers of course coerce it into what antropologists call 'enculturation'.
(as do, ever increasingly, corporate media. and i dont see eroticism as any part of the problem with that, seeing themselves as consumers, and being brainwashed into seeing symbolic value as a natural and inevitable way of looking at things, is. as is the makiavellianism it romantacizes)

once upon a time, story tellers were the real educators, and for the most part a positive influence, because while they did exert a not always accurate influence on world view, they also imparted a bit of good sense as to how things actually work. today's corporate media story tellers, often pretend to do the same, but pretend with little or no connection to any kind of reality, other then their own motivation by symbolic value, which in and of itself, has little to do with how the real economics of nature, where the air we breathe, and none of us could survive without, comes from.

who DOES 'own' the mind of a child, veries greatly with individual situation, but who ShOULD 'own' the mind of that child, is like who should own the earth, and that is the earth itself, just as each of us, are born with certain inhierently good leanings intrinsic to our individual souls/spirits.