@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
Quote:You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Can you show me where ?
Ionus wrote:What about knowledge of non-religion, or evolutionary science ? Why do parents have the right to brainwash their children with one religion or another whilst other parents brainwash their children with science ?
Ionus wrote:If it is about the rights of the child, then what about the example of Evolution versus Creation ? What are the rights of the child to be raised free of prejudice, the better to enable fulfillment of its rights ?
Seem to be contradicted by:
Ionus wrote:You know the child's rights are at the mercy of the parents. There is no freedom of religion for a child.
Ionus wrote:Children are not exposed to the world, nor do they want to or should be exposed to the world. They want to learn what is right from their parents. Conflict between parents as to what is right, is harmful.
On the one hand you seem to be arguing for a child's right to freedome of thought and on the other you seem to be arguing that the parent's control of that thought is appropriate.
Perhaps you can explain the seeming contradiction.
Ionus wrote:Quote:The repetitive flaw in Liberal thinking involves the notion that the minority should always drive our actions.
It is not clear who are the minority nor what action they are driving. So I put it down to being a pet theory of yours that you dragged out of the cupboard. I would be interested in specifics...
And that's an advertisement?
Still don't get it.
It is a Liberal conceit that the State can take better care than parents of the education of children. Typically they will argue that what amounts to a minority of verified abuses justifies their argument.
Yes there are a few and sad number of children who are taught incredible nonsense by their parents, but this, by no means, is evidence that children must be protected by the State from the presumed "brain-washing" of their parents. Interestingly enough Liberals tend to define "brain-washing" in terms of teaching children lines of thought with which they disagree, and so a home schooling mother who teaches her child, among other things, that the Bible in the literal word of God is guilty of brain-washing, while a mother who teaches her child that violence is never justified, is a wise woman.
It is the same with virtually every Liberal social program.
On the way home this evening I was listening to NPR and they ran a story about a woman who after 25 years at a job has been laid off and will soon be without health insurance. The implication was clear - this is why we need, at least, health reform and should seriously consider a single payer system.
First of all, there are already laws on the books that require employers to offer terminated employees continued health care benefits in accordance with the plan they had. It is referred to as COBRA and it is not indefinate but it is designed to continue health insurance for terminate employees until they can find new employment. Not sure how long it must be offered , but I'm pretty sure that it is at least 12 months.
It is not subsidized of course, but if the concern is availability of health insurance the concern is answered.
Secondly, this woman represents a minority of the people who can be said to not have health insurance and yet Liberals would have us turn the existing system upside down to accomodate this minority.
This pattern of making sweeping and far reaching changes to "protect" or "serve" a "minority" can be seen in many Liberal arguments.
Perhaps it is overly harsh to suggest the pattern represents a "flaw" in their thinking but it is an indulgence we cannot afford, not because we cannot afford to protect and serve those who truly fall into the minority of citizens who need our help, but because the manner in which Liberals what to do so always expands the group who need our help with people who can find a way to obtain our help.
The thought seems to be that it is worth paying for ten welfare freeloaders if we take care of one young mother who really deserves our help. It is worth freeing ten violent criminals if we prevent one innocent man from being incarcerated. It is worth depriving 10 families of the right to home-school if it prevents one child from being filled with apocolyptic nonsence and general ignorance.
