1
   

A RIGHT TO COMPEL POLITICAL BELIEFS ?

 
 
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 05:10 am
Do parents have the moral right
to compel their childrent to accept and BELIEVE
their political n economic filosofies ?

Does a kid have a moral right to REBEL ?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 849 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 08:41 am
A kid should learn to spell. Why didn't you?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 08:55 am
contrex wrote:
A kid should learn to spell. Why didn't you?

I did; and spelled rong for many decades.
Now, I have repented, and corrected my misbegotten ways,
in favor of fonetic spelling.

David
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 09:00 am
I don't know if you can compel a child to adhere to his parent's political philosophy. With religion, parents can coerce a child to go to church, and become involved in church ceremonies and activities.

With politics, the inculcation is more subtle. If a little child hears, over and over again about the rightness of a particular political stand, it is reasonable to assume that some of the teachings will rub off on him. What can you force a child to do with politics? Work in a political campaign??.


Being indoctrinated in the home does not mean that the youngster has to accept the parent's political view. And yes, it is perfectly resonable for a child to rebel against the parent's teachings, as many of them do, during the adolescent and post-adolescent years. That is the time when a youngster is discovering his own way in life, which may or may not be in concert with the parents' beliefs.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 09:09 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
contrex wrote:
A kid should learn to spell. Why didn't you?

I did; and spelled rong for many decades.
Now, I have repented, and corrected my misbegotten ways,
in favor of fonetic spelling.

David


The problem is, David, that some people perceive your writing as either wrong, or simply a way of being rebellious. IMO, you would enjoy far more credibility if you took the time to spell in universally understood English.

I have a free little program on my computer that is absolutely invaluable to me. It is called "one click answers", and is a free download. you can get it at:

http://www.answers.com/main/product_info.jsp

You can "control/click" on any word that you are writing, and get the spelling, as well as information about the word. The program also puts a tiny tab on your desktop. If you want a meaning of a word, you click on the tab, and a little box shoots out. You write the word you want, and the program gets not only the definition, but information on the word. Actually, it does much more, but you can see that for yourself.

You would be very surprised to know how many times during the day that I use that little program!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 09:56 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
contrex wrote:
A kid should learn to spell. Why didn't you?

I did; and spelled rong for many decades.
Now, I have repented, and corrected my misbegotten ways,
in favor of fonetic spelling.

David

Except your phonetic spelling is NOT consistent David which is why you look like you just can't spell.

Why do you use double consonants since the second t or l has the same sound as the first? Why do you use the letter "c" since it has no phonetic sound of it's own? Why does the letter "e" have different pronunciations when you use them in your words? Why do you use the letter "y" as a vowel?

Your "fonetic spelling" is nothing but an excuse to be lazy it seems. You don't have to spell words correctly but you don't bother to write them phonetically either.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 10:09 am
parados wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
contrex wrote:
A kid should learn to spell. Why didn't you?

I did; and spelled rong for many decades.
Now, I have repented, and corrected my misbegotten ways,
in favor of fonetic spelling.

David

Except your phonetic spelling is NOT consistent David which is why you look like you just can't spell.

Why do you use double consonants since the second t or l has the same sound as the first? Why do you use the letter "c" since it has no phonetic sound of it's own? Why does the letter "e" have different pronunciations when you use them in your words? Why do you use the letter "y" as a vowel?

Your "fonetic spelling" is nothing but an excuse to be lazy it seems. You don't have to spell words correctly but you don't bother to write them phonetically either.


Aw shoot, parados - you're bursting my bubble. Here I was thinking Omsick was an ahead-of-his-time literacy pioneer, and you go and confirm what seemed obvious all along; that he's a longwinded dimwit.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 12:18 pm
parados wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
contrex wrote:
A kid should learn to spell. Why didn't you?

I did; and spelled rong for many decades.
Now, I have repented, and corrected my misbegotten ways,
in favor of fonetic spelling.

David

Quote:
Except your phonetic spelling is NOT consistent David
which is why you look like you just can't spell.

Good point; thank u.




Quote:
Why do you use double consonants
since the second t or l has the same sound as the first?

Well, the second one ( like the 2nd e in need ) is a guide to pronunciation,
telling the reader to use a long e.
As to double consonants,
I don 't want to be unreasonable in deviating too far
from paradigmatic spelling all the time,
in that such a choice may yeild unreasonable results;
may be too much trouble for readers to figure out.
Thay complain enuf as it is now.





Quote:
Why do you use the letter "c" since it has no phonetic sound of it's own?

By building a recognition factor,
it can be an efficient usage; short work for the folks.
The basic idea is to show faster n easier ways to spell,
in hope that thay will be adopted.

I believe that thay WILL be adopted,
and wud, if I had never existed,
but I like to accelerate the process of change.




Quote:
Why does the letter "e" have different pronunciations
when you use them in your words?

In an effort to avoid being TOO radical,
and too labor intensive for the reader,
I sometimes adhere to the older spellings.
I don 't want to OVER DO it.




Quote:
Why do you use the letter "y" as a vowel?

That is the only useful letter in the older word " why ".
The other letters are wasted; inefficient.

I wish to SHOW that; to point it out.




Quote:
Your "fonetic spelling" is nothing but an excuse to be lazy it seems.

Well, that 's true too,
but I wanna make ease n swift speed the norm for everyone.
It will make a better world for pre-literate children.
Teaching paradigmatic, non-fonetic spelling is CHILD ABUSE.




Quote:

You don't have to spell words correctly but you don't bother to write them phonetically either.

I hope that I 've explained sufficiently hereinabove.

David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 12:19 pm
snood wrote:
parados wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
contrex wrote:
A kid should learn to spell. Why didn't you?

I did; and spelled rong for many decades.
Now, I have repented, and corrected my misbegotten ways,
in favor of fonetic spelling.

David

Except your phonetic spelling is NOT consistent David which is why you look like you just can't spell.

Why do you use double consonants since the second t or l has the same sound as the first? Why do you use the letter "c" since it has no phonetic sound of it's own? Why does the letter "e" have different pronunciations when you use them in your words? Why do you use the letter "y" as a vowel?

Your "fonetic spelling" is nothing but an excuse to be lazy it seems. You don't have to spell words correctly but you don't bother to write them phonetically either.


Aw shoot, parados - you're bursting my bubble. Here I was thinking Omsick was an ahead-of-his-time literacy pioneer, and you go and confirm what seemed obvious all along; that he's a longwinded dimwit.

Is THAT the best u can do, snood ?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 12:53 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
contrex wrote:
A kid should learn to spell. Why didn't you?

I did; and spelled rong for many decades.
Now, I have repented, and corrected my misbegotten ways,
in favor of fonetic spelling.

David


Quote:
The problem is, David, that some people perceive your writing as either wrong, or simply a way of being rebellious.

True.
( Note, however, that all my life I have been free
to be rebellious, if I wanna. )




Quote:
IMO, you would enjoy far more credibility
if you took the time to spell in universally understood English.

I know.
When sufficiently motivated by the substantive value
of what I post, I MINIMIZE my deviation from the norm,
to make my point.



Quote:

I have a free little program on my computer that is absolutely invaluable to me. It is called "one click answers", and is a free download.
you can get it at:

http://www.answers.com/main/product_info.jsp

You can "control/click" on any word that you are writing, and get the spelling, as well as information about the word. The program also puts a tiny tab on your desktop. If you want a meaning of a word, you click on the tab, and a little box shoots out. You write the word you want, and the program gets not only the definition, but information on the word. Actually, it does much more, but you can see that for yourself.

You would be very surprised to know how many times during the day that I use that little program![/color][/b]

Thank u very much, Phoenix; it is very kind of u.
I have downloaded it and I 'm ready to explore it.

I 've gotta get to the airport soon,
but I 'm looking forward to it; THANKS AGAIN !
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 02:42 pm
depends on what you want the kid for. Seems to me like a lot of folks want them as pets, plus for the respect of society, and to remove the burden of egoism from themselves. Some folks want little clones of themselves, or little units to continue their work, or whom they can live vicariously through. Other than that, prolonged communal stability, continuing the family, or making new Christians. Any way you slice it - unless you're just following your instincts, it's hard to argue against training the hell out of the little monsters.

Doesn't seem very moral, kindof like playing with a stacked deck, when obviously it doesn't take a genius to be a parent. The upshot, I'd say is that the more times a belief set is handed off without really being discovered or learned, the older and crappier it gets (I'm painting in broad strokes here), and of course there's no benefit for the wee ones in obtaining it this way, unless it's balls-on correct, so I think for the most part it's a self-limiting practice kept alive only inadvertently by the narcissism of small minds - such as those fascist, book-burning, church marms that tried to put the skids to 'The Golden Compass'.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 03:41 pm
Re: A RIGHT TO COMPEL POLITICAL BELIEFS ?
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Do parents have the moral right
to compel their childrent to accept and BELIEVE
their political n economic filosofies ?

Does a kid have a moral right to REBEL ?


I should begin the statement that I do not believe children have all of the rights (moral or legal) afforded to adults.

I don't believe anyone can compel anyone else to believe anything.

They certainly have the right, be it moral or legal, to instruct their children in their beliefs and encourage them to accept them. Assuming they sincerely hold their beliefs, I would go as far as to say that they have an obligation to teach them to their children.

I think they also have the right to prohibit their children from exploring or expressing contrary beliefs, but their ability to enforce such a prohibition would be limited to whatever measures are deemed appropriate for parents to correct or punish disapproved behavior. Further I think that imposing such a prohibition, in many cases, would constitute poor parenting, particularly in the case of political and economic theories.

The child has the right to not accept the teachings of the parents, and if they have been instructed by the parents not to express that disagreement they are compelled not to, only by the level of their respect for their parents' rules and the degree to which the parents' means of enforcement coerce them.

The child's right to deliberately disobey the rules established by the parents is limited to cases where those rules can be considered abusive and materially detrimental to the good health and well being of the child.

While it is possible that prohibiting children from exploring alternative political and theoretical theories may inhibit intellectual growth, it is not clear that it represents material detriment to their well being. On the other hand, it may very well be detrimental to the health and well being of children for parents to not prohibit the exploration of bomb making techniques, and so I think we have to be careful not to view the scenario with absolute premises such as "All Knowledge is Good."

Personally, I have always conveyed my political and economic beliefs to my children with certainty, but have also encouraged them to explore alternative opinions and come to their own decisions. I have also for most of their lives engaged in debates with them on these issues as if they were adults. These are my parenting preferences though and do not reflect a position on rights.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A RIGHT TO COMPEL POLITICAL BELIEFS ?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 03:24:09