5 ms·

Did you watch the linked video? Your "freedom" is allowing kids to be abused since they don't have the checks of other adults being able to see them. A bare m

Did you watch the linked video? Your "freedom" is allowing kids to be abused since they don't have the checks of other adults being able to see them. A bare minimum "are the kids physically ok" doesn't remove any of your freedom unless you consider starving and beating your kids a "Freedom" you care about.

rufus_foreman 3y ago
For any type of education, you can point to instances of abuse. For home schooling, for public schools, for private schools, for religious schools, for universities. Kids are regularly shot to death in numbers in public schools, for example. People have been beaten and abused in private schools. What they are trying to do is to use scare stories about home schooling to scare people into giving up their freedom. It's the same tactic that's used all the time to get people to give up their rights, to get us into wars, and so on. I want more freedom, not less. I won't let authoritarian fear tactics change that.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    > So you want to starve and beat your kids, got it. thank you for confirming that. The OP said nothing of the sort. You're being dishonest here. I'm sorry, but there's no other way it can be characterized.
    - nerdjon 3y ago
      No I it is a reasonable assumption based on how the OP responded to my comment. I said: > A bare minimum "are the kids physically ok" doesn't remove any of your freedom unless you consider starving and beating your kids a "Freedom" you care about. Which they responded: > I want more freedom, not less. I won't let authoritarian fear tactics change that. They are trying to justify "more freedom" at the cost of children being abused. The only reasonable reason you would do this, when all I am asking for is basic checks to make sure a child is ok, is that you yourself which to starve and abuse children. There is NO other valid reason to fight against what should be a basic protection for children. That reason doesn't exist. Especially when your only defense is "fear tactics".
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        stop being a jerk.
        nerdjon 3y ago
        I am not the one pushing back against reasonable protections for children.
        throwawa14223 3y ago
        Install facial recognition cameras in your bedroom. You might be beating children in there.
        nerdjon 3y ago
        That is your defense? Really? I said basic protections like... just having another adult ever see your child. That isn't a friend or family member. And I was accused of fear mongering...
        throwawa14223 3y ago
        My response is absurd because you want to put me and my family to report to a state agent without a warrant because you might detect a crime.
      - Turing_Machine 3y ago
        > No I it is a reasonable assumption based on how the OP responded to my comment. No, it is not any kind of "reasonable assumption". You are, quite simply, lying. You do understand that lying doesn't really work very well when the person's original words are still there for all to see, right? > The only reasonable reason you would do this, when all I am asking for is basic checks to make sure a child is ok, is that you yourself which to starve and abuse children. Nonsense.
        3y ago
- adfgonio 3y ago
  [dead]
throwawa14223 3y ago
The public is not obligated to make the investigation of crimes easy. All surveillance removes freedom.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  There is a major difference between "make the investigation of crimes easy" and being able to even know they happened in the first place. Children are incredibly vulnerable and we should be able to put basic protections in place. It is not surveillance to require in some form that an adult in the system sees your child on some regular basis. This is something that your child simply being in school provides. Either a way for an adult to notice that something is very wrong or a safe place for a child to report something.
  - throwawa14223 3y ago
    > It is not surveillance to require in some form that an adult in the system sees your child on some regular basis. This is something that your child simply being in school provides. That is surveillance in the same what that checking in with a probation officer is a form of surveillance. Just like encryption I'm not obligated to live my life in a way that makes detecting crimes easy or possible.
BackBlast 3y ago
> Your "freedom" is allowing kids to be abused since they don't have the checks of other adults being able to see them. At what cost? Innocent until proven guilty means that we don't treat people like criminals until you have a reasonable suspicion at a minimum. You don't get to load spyware on everyone's computer because someone, somewhere, committed a crime on a computer. You don't get to remove all end to end cryptography so you can snoop. No, just no. Our society is flirting with these ideas, and they are BAD ideas. On balance, the abuse happening in homeschooling household is microscopic compared to the abuse happening in current public schools. Both the every day kind and the dramatic makes the news murders and suicides. Put them on even scales rather than putting the specs of dust on the other side under a microscope.

rufus_foreman 3y ago

For any type of education, you can point to instances of abuse. For home schooling, for public schools, for private schools, for religious schools, for universities. Kids are regularly shot to death in numbers in public schools, for example. People have been beaten and abused in private schools. What they are trying to do is to use scare stories about home schooling to scare people into giving up their freedom. It's the same tactic that's used all the time to get people to give up their rights, to get us into wars, and so on. I want more freedom, not less. I won't let authoritarian fear tactics change that.

nerdjon 3y ago
[flagged]
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > So you want to starve and beat your kids, got it. thank you for confirming that. The OP said nothing of the sort. You're being dishonest here. I'm sorry, but there's no other way it can be characterized.
  - nerdjon 3y ago
    No I it is a reasonable assumption based on how the OP responded to my comment. I said: > A bare minimum "are the kids physically ok" doesn't remove any of your freedom unless you consider starving and beating your kids a "Freedom" you care about. Which they responded: > I want more freedom, not less. I won't let authoritarian fear tactics change that. They are trying to justify "more freedom" at the cost of children being abused. The only reasonable reason you would do this, when all I am asking for is basic checks to make sure a child is ok, is that you yourself which to starve and abuse children. There is NO other valid reason to fight against what should be a basic protection for children. That reason doesn't exist. Especially when your only defense is "fear tactics".
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      stop being a jerk.
      - nerdjon 3y ago
        I am not the one pushing back against reasonable protections for children.
        throwawa14223 3y ago
        Install facial recognition cameras in your bedroom. You might be beating children in there.
        nerdjon 3y ago
        That is your defense? Really? I said basic protections like... just having another adult ever see your child. That isn't a friend or family member. And I was accused of fear mongering...
        throwawa14223 3y ago
        My response is absurd because you want to put me and my family to report to a state agent without a warrant because you might detect a crime.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      > No I it is a reasonable assumption based on how the OP responded to my comment. No, it is not any kind of "reasonable assumption". You are, quite simply, lying. You do understand that lying doesn't really work very well when the person's original words are still there for all to see, right? > The only reasonable reason you would do this, when all I am asking for is basic checks to make sure a child is ok, is that you yourself which to starve and abuse children. Nonsense.
      - 3y ago
adfgonio 3y ago
[dead]

throwawa14223 3y ago

The public is not obligated to make the investigation of crimes easy. All surveillance removes freedom.

nerdjon 3y ago
There is a major difference between "make the investigation of crimes easy" and being able to even know they happened in the first place. Children are incredibly vulnerable and we should be able to put basic protections in place. It is not surveillance to require in some form that an adult in the system sees your child on some regular basis. This is something that your child simply being in school provides. Either a way for an adult to notice that something is very wrong or a safe place for a child to report something.
- throwawa14223 3y ago
  > It is not surveillance to require in some form that an adult in the system sees your child on some regular basis. This is something that your child simply being in school provides. That is surveillance in the same what that checking in with a probation officer is a form of surveillance. Just like encryption I'm not obligated to live my life in a way that makes detecting crimes easy or possible.

BackBlast 3y ago

> Your "freedom" is allowing kids to be abused since they don't have the checks of other adults being able to see them. At what cost? Innocent until proven guilty means that we don't treat people like criminals until you have a reasonable suspicion at a minimum. You don't get to load spyware on everyone's computer because someone, somewhere, committed a crime on a computer. You don't get to remove all end to end cryptography so you can snoop. No, just no. Our society is flirting with these ideas, and they are BAD ideas. On balance, the abuse happening in homeschooling household is microscopic compared to the abuse happening in current public schools. Both the every day kind and the dramatic makes the news murders and suicides. Put them on even scales rather than putting the specs of dust on the other side under a microscope.