4 ms·

I don't defend that policy, but on the other hand, the children who stay and live the Yenish life will often not get a good education and will have to continue

I don't defend that policy, but on the other hand, the children who stay and live the Yenish life will often not get a good education and will have to continue to live a life outside the regular society.

hef19898 3y ago
So, while not defending taking children away from their parents, you think it has benefits? Interesting take.
- flakeoil 3y ago
  I don't think it has any benefits to remove children from their parents. That's why I think that was a bad policy. I think however it would be beneficial for the children if their parents adapted their lifestyle to fit the modern society and better integrate into society. 150 years ago their lifestyle might have made sense, but less so today where they could get better jobs if they had a better education and they could also get support from society if needed. It's sad to see these parents taking away so many opportunities for their children.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Well, luckily that is the parents call, and not ypurs. Nor is it mine or anyone elses call to make. Exceptions are those cleqrly defined illegal things like abuse, sexual abuse and so on. And heck, even those get abused and misused by authorities all the damn time. If anything, minorities with somewhat different life styles should even be more protected as well, or not so well, meaning social workers can use those rules arpund child protection to really ruim peoples lives. Systematically taking away children is just the most extreme, and overt, form of that.
  - slushh 3y ago
    >150 years ago their lifestyle might have made sense, but less so today where they could get better jobs if they had a better education and they could also get support from society if needed. Today, there are expats and mobile internet. Doesn't the world change? With automated production processes, workers won't be needed locally. Like many pensioners today, society could change and the majority could travel depending on seasons. In other words, isn't the sedentary population missing out on receiving advice from hundreds of years of traveling? If the traveling children lack opportunities, shouldn't we find a way to offer those opportunities because sooner or later, many children will be traveling?
    - hef19898 3y ago
      But that would be digital nomads, or van life. That is hip, isn't it? And alos totally legal, those people don't steal or cause problems. Unless, of course, they do. Working without proper visas is illegal and tax fraud, for example. But those a white collar crimes, so obviously it is less bad. /s
- konschubert 3y ago
  Not op: I think that a child primarily belongs to itself and not to the parents. A child has rights that limit what the parents can do with their child. Society should take care that children’s rights and freedoms are respected. Going to school is such a right. There are ways to live on the move and still send your kids to school. If a child doesn’t go to school, I think society is responsible for making sure it does.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Yes, there I agree. Within legal.limits, meaning kids have to go to school for nine years starting age 6. No obligation to graduate in any form. Me supporting that form of publoc education flies in the face of the "public schools bad fpr reasons home schooling better" crowd. Funny so, that a lot that crowd seem to have a harder time allowing minority groups to home school their children. Either way, whatever parents and their children can do and decide is usually very well defined in various laws. As long as those laws are not discriminatory in nature, whatever is allowed is not anybodies business when it comes to other families. How society sees those things, well, the only way to codify that is througj laws. And those have to got through the normal, democratic, legislative process. Everything else is just an opinion. And those become dangerous sometimes if acted upon, especially if backed by well meaning, knowing better than you, convictions. Because those convivtions give moral high ground, and that allows tp cope with all kinds of attrocities in the name of the higher good. Examples: Every single church run orphanage, home for single mothers in Ireland, boarding schools (including those for minorities) in Canada, the US, Australia, the various adoption programs (including the one Switzerland)... I hope you see the problem.
    - konschubert 3y ago
      Agreed. Laws should be indiscriminate and should be evenly enforced. They should not be driven by moral outrage about what other people do with their lives. They should focus on what is best for the child, while still considering the needs of the parents. Going to school is important, it provides personal formation, liberty and opportunities. That being said, a lot of school systems are really bad and underfunded - that is a problem, too!

hef19898 3y ago

So, while not defending taking children away from their parents, you think it has benefits? Interesting take.

flakeoil 3y ago
I don't think it has any benefits to remove children from their parents. That's why I think that was a bad policy. I think however it would be beneficial for the children if their parents adapted their lifestyle to fit the modern society and better integrate into society. 150 years ago their lifestyle might have made sense, but less so today where they could get better jobs if they had a better education and they could also get support from society if needed. It's sad to see these parents taking away so many opportunities for their children.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Well, luckily that is the parents call, and not ypurs. Nor is it mine or anyone elses call to make. Exceptions are those cleqrly defined illegal things like abuse, sexual abuse and so on. And heck, even those get abused and misused by authorities all the damn time. If anything, minorities with somewhat different life styles should even be more protected as well, or not so well, meaning social workers can use those rules arpund child protection to really ruim peoples lives. Systematically taking away children is just the most extreme, and overt, form of that.
- slushh 3y ago
  >150 years ago their lifestyle might have made sense, but less so today where they could get better jobs if they had a better education and they could also get support from society if needed. Today, there are expats and mobile internet. Doesn't the world change? With automated production processes, workers won't be needed locally. Like many pensioners today, society could change and the majority could travel depending on seasons. In other words, isn't the sedentary population missing out on receiving advice from hundreds of years of traveling? If the traveling children lack opportunities, shouldn't we find a way to offer those opportunities because sooner or later, many children will be traveling?
  - hef19898 3y ago
    But that would be digital nomads, or van life. That is hip, isn't it? And alos totally legal, those people don't steal or cause problems. Unless, of course, they do. Working without proper visas is illegal and tax fraud, for example. But those a white collar crimes, so obviously it is less bad. /s
konschubert 3y ago
Not op: I think that a child primarily belongs to itself and not to the parents. A child has rights that limit what the parents can do with their child. Society should take care that children’s rights and freedoms are respected. Going to school is such a right. There are ways to live on the move and still send your kids to school. If a child doesn’t go to school, I think society is responsible for making sure it does.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Yes, there I agree. Within legal.limits, meaning kids have to go to school for nine years starting age 6. No obligation to graduate in any form. Me supporting that form of publoc education flies in the face of the "public schools bad fpr reasons home schooling better" crowd. Funny so, that a lot that crowd seem to have a harder time allowing minority groups to home school their children. Either way, whatever parents and their children can do and decide is usually very well defined in various laws. As long as those laws are not discriminatory in nature, whatever is allowed is not anybodies business when it comes to other families. How society sees those things, well, the only way to codify that is througj laws. And those have to got through the normal, democratic, legislative process. Everything else is just an opinion. And those become dangerous sometimes if acted upon, especially if backed by well meaning, knowing better than you, convictions. Because those convivtions give moral high ground, and that allows tp cope with all kinds of attrocities in the name of the higher good. Examples: Every single church run orphanage, home for single mothers in Ireland, boarding schools (including those for minorities) in Canada, the US, Australia, the various adoption programs (including the one Switzerland)... I hope you see the problem.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    Agreed. Laws should be indiscriminate and should be evenly enforced. They should not be driven by moral outrage about what other people do with their lives. They should focus on what is best for the child, while still considering the needs of the parents. Going to school is important, it provides personal formation, liberty and opportunities. That being said, a lot of school systems are really bad and underfunded - that is a problem, too!