3 ms·

> 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, bu

> 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.
  - nerdjon 3y ago
    > Nonsense. Please enlighten me. I am waiting for what that reasonable reason to fight against basic protections for children would be. I can't think of one.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      The game you are playing is the same one that's been played for hundreds of years. More likely thousands. "Umm... maybe we shouldn't be burning these harmless old ladies as witches." You, five hundred years ago: "AHA! So you are ADMITTING that you are PRO-WITCH!!!!" It was dishonest and reprehensible then, and it is dishonest and reprehensible now. By the way, no one put you in charge of deciding what "basic protections for children" should be. In fact, no one put you in charge of anything.
      - nerdjon 3y ago
        I was debating on wether or not I was even going to bother responding to this because I feel like the votes are clear... This is wild. You're comparing killing someone without evidence to protecting children. Here is the thing, you seem to be assuming I am saying go check in with this officer or something and have my child checked on. No, that is ridiculous. I am talking simple things so other adults know your child is even alive. Requiring that they go somewhere for their tests. Maybe physical activity, other completely normal things. Requiring socialization. Idk, something. > By the way, no one put you in charge of deciding what "basic protections for children" should be. In fact, no one put you in charge of anything. Last I checked this is a forum and we were having a discussion. I never claimed to have an authority I just question how someone keeps arguing against protecting children without giving a single reasonable reason against it. Also I would consider basic protections making sure the kid was alive and the kid was fed and not physically hurt. That is such an incredibly low bar that I do not understand how we are having this discussion at all. Maybe instead of attacking me you offer an alternative to this real problem? I would love to hear a solution that we can actually talk about. I have been accused of fear mongering in this thread and yet it seems that while we have evidence that some parents are using the loopholes in the home schooling system to be able to do this, you don't want to do anything about it. I have been accused of fear mongering, and yet the people like you responding are using a "slippery slop" argument of surveillance or "Freedom" that is not a valid argument.

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.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  > Nonsense. Please enlighten me. I am waiting for what that reasonable reason to fight against basic protections for children would be. I can't think of one.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    The game you are playing is the same one that's been played for hundreds of years. More likely thousands. "Umm... maybe we shouldn't be burning these harmless old ladies as witches." You, five hundred years ago: "AHA! So you are ADMITTING that you are PRO-WITCH!!!!" It was dishonest and reprehensible then, and it is dishonest and reprehensible now. By the way, no one put you in charge of deciding what "basic protections for children" should be. In fact, no one put you in charge of anything.
    - nerdjon 3y ago
      I was debating on wether or not I was even going to bother responding to this because I feel like the votes are clear... This is wild. You're comparing killing someone without evidence to protecting children. Here is the thing, you seem to be assuming I am saying go check in with this officer or something and have my child checked on. No, that is ridiculous. I am talking simple things so other adults know your child is even alive. Requiring that they go somewhere for their tests. Maybe physical activity, other completely normal things. Requiring socialization. Idk, something. > By the way, no one put you in charge of deciding what "basic protections for children" should be. In fact, no one put you in charge of anything. Last I checked this is a forum and we were having a discussion. I never claimed to have an authority I just question how someone keeps arguing against protecting children without giving a single reasonable reason against it. Also I would consider basic protections making sure the kid was alive and the kid was fed and not physically hurt. That is such an incredibly low bar that I do not understand how we are having this discussion at all. Maybe instead of attacking me you offer an alternative to this real problem? I would love to hear a solution that we can actually talk about. I have been accused of fear mongering in this thread and yet it seems that while we have evidence that some parents are using the loopholes in the home schooling system to be able to do this, you don't want to do anything about it. I have been accused of fear mongering, and yet the people like you responding are using a "slippery slop" argument of surveillance or "Freedom" that is not a valid argument.