Reasons to Homeschool, #2511453214589

[TitanTiger 21,068]

titan, I am curious as to what fault or harm this role play could potentially have on a child(adolescence I assume). I get you want the option to opt out but why. I am for any and all education of this type. Im not sure role playing is the best approach but it doesn't anger me. maybe a video of professional actors being narrated.

Frankly, many kids in the tweens and early teens (middle schoolers) are very uncomfortable with the whole subject. They are just forming and beginning to understand these new feelings with boys and girls. So even if you called them up to role play asking someone of the opposite sex for a kiss or hold hands and act like they are on a date, you're making them uncomfortable. And that's for something they see 95% of the world model for them everyday. To make things even more weird and uncomfortable, you throw homosexuality into the mix. I just don't think it's appropriate to put them in that situation. I think it's exacerbated by the fact that you didn't bother to even inform the parents such a seminar was going to happen, much less ask their permission for their child to take part.

[alexava 6,974]

titan, I am curious as to what fault or harm this role play could potentially have on a child(adolescence I assume). I get you want the option to opt out but why. I am for any and all education of this type. Im not sure role playing is the best approach but it doesn't anger me. maybe a video of professional actors being narrated.

Frankly, many kids in the tweens and early teens (middle schoolers) are very uncomfortable with the whole subject. They are just forming and beginning to understand these new feelings with boys and girls. So even if you called them up to role play asking someone of the opposite sex for a kiss or hold hands and act like they are on a date, you're making them uncomfortable. And that's for something they see 95% of the world model for them everyday. To make things even more weird and uncomfortable, you throw homosexuality into the mix. I just don't think it's appropriate to put them in that situation. I think it's exacerbated by the fact that you didn't bother to even inform the parents such a seminar was going to happen, much less ask their permission for their child to take part.

I can agree with that.

[Aufan59 168]

I would say that some subjects are more sensitive in nature than others. Some are more age appropriate than others. Some are more nuanced than others.

For instance, a drug dealers pushing illegal and dangerous drugs is easier for a child to see clearly as good/bad. Such role playing isn't going to confuse them much at all. You simply tell the drug dealer "no", every time, without exception.

When it comes to sexual advances, it's not so clear. The details matter. And putting a kid into the role of having to do something they don't feel comfortable with (like asking for a same sex kiss or acting like they are on a lesbian date), that is filled with far more questions and nuanced particulars is more problematic, especially if you didn't bother to give the parents a heads up.

For someone who views themselves as progressive, you sure do think in rather simplistic terms.

You just over-complicate things. The teacher is setting up a scenario to say no to unwanted advances.... do the parents really need to be warned about this?

And I don't think I've ever viewed myself as a progressive, and I certainly haven't said that on this forum. I view myself as a conservative.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

You just over-complicate things. The teacher is setting up a scenario to say no to unwanted advances.... do the parents really need to be warned about this?

Spoken like someone who doesn't have kids.

Yes, depending on how they're going to go about teaching it. Even people who agreed with you in this thread see my point.

And I don't think I've ever viewed myself as a progressive, and I certainly haven't said that on this forum. I view myself as a conservative.

Not on social matters. You deride social conservatives at every turn.

[Aufan59 168]

Spoken like someone who doesn't have kids.

Yes, depending on how they're going to go about teaching it. Even people who agreed with you in this thread see my point.

I do see your point. If you want to be warned about things as innocent as the scenario original post, then you are better off homeschooling your child, protecting them from such social situations.

Not on social matters. You deride social conservatives at every turn.

I am conservative on social matters. I am for limited government and personal liberty... conservatism. "Social conservatives" are for big government and less personal liberty, which is not conservatism.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

I do see your point. If you want to be warned about things as innocent as the scenario original post, then you are better off homeschooling your child, protecting them from such social situations.

Or...when the school wants my middle schooler to role play various sexual and relationship situations, they can let me know ahead of time. I don't really trust people who don't get this to be the ones attempting to inculcate values to my kid.

I am conservative on social matters. I am for limited government and personal liberty... conservatism. "Social conservatives" are for big government and less personal liberty, which is not conservatism.

Libertarianism != Conservatism

[Aufan59 168]

Or...when the school wants my middle schooler to role play various sexual and relationship situations, they can let me know ahead of time. I don't really trust people who don't get this to be the ones attempting to inculcate values to my kid.

If you want to be the only one who teaches your child how to say no, then homeschooling is for you.

Libertarianism != Conservatism

Do you disagree that conservatism is based on limited government and personal liberty?

[TitanTiger 21,068]

If you want to be the only one who teaches your child how to say no, then homeschooling is for you.

Or....school systems could use some damn common sense and realize some things are more sensitive than others and how you teach them to say no matters just as much as the fact that you're teaching them. Homeschooling need not be required.

Do you disagree that conservatism is based on limited government and personal liberty?

By classical definitions, liberalism was based on limited government and personal liberty. The Founding Fathers were the political liberals of their era.

I think your use of the term is misleading.

[Aufan59 168]

Or....school systems could use some damn common sense and realize some things are more sensitive than others and how you teach them to say no matters just as much as the fact that you're teaching them. Homeschooling need not be required.

I don't see the objection to teaching kids that it is alright to say no to unwanted advances by others. But we agree, if you feel this sensitive about the subject, then homeschooling is best. Or we can have permission slips sent out for every lesson...

By classical definitions, liberalism was based on limited government and personal liberty. The Founding Fathers were the political liberals of their era.

I think your use of the term is misleading.

We are talking about 2013. Would you say conservatism is based on limited government and personal liberty? The Heritage Foundation does, and just about every conservative I've heard describes conservatism that way.

Limiting marriage based on gender, restricting gambling, restricting alcohol sales, etc. are limiting personal liberty and expanding government, yet these are social conservative platforms. In my opinion, using the word conservative in the term "social conservative" is misleading.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

I don't see the objection to teaching kids that it is alright to say no to unwanted advances by others. But we agree, if you feel this sensitive about the subject, then homeschooling is best. Or we can have permission slips sent out for every lesson...

The seminars got into sexual advances as well. At that age, permission should be required when discussing sexual matters and how best to handle them. They were also introducing and explaining terms like "pansexual" and "genderqueer" to them. This wasn't just a "just say no" talk.

We are talking about 2013. Would you say conservatism is based on limited government and personal liberty? The Heritage Foundation does, and just about every conservative I've heard describes conservatism that way.

Limiting marriage based on gender, restricting gambling, restricting alcohol sales, etc. are limiting personal liberty and expanding government, yet these are social conservative platforms. In my opinion, using the word conservative in the term "social conservative" is misleading.

Conservatism also generally means that you've determined that certain things in a culture that are worth conserving...not flitting from flower to flower trying out whatever the latest cultural fad is. Your vision of what conservatism is doesn't cover the entire notion.

[Deckhead 6]

Your Middle Schooler will never be told by the teacher, without your knowledge or permission, to ask somebody of the same sex to kiss them in an anti-bullying seminar.

Actually they claim it was to learn to say "no" to unwanted advances. Of course, to do that they needed to get a 14-year old girl to ask for a lesbian kiss.

And here I thought it was the right-wing social conservatives trying to cram morality down everyone's throats.

Sounds like a role-playing exercise to me. In fact, the whole point was to demonstrate how to reject such a request.

I think you are over reacting. No suggested they actually kiss.

Since when does "public education" consist of role-playing, and bullying seminars? I thought our kids were there to learn reading writing and arithmetic. Over-reaction my #$#$@!! Sounds like under-reaction. I would have been at the school demanding the COB be fired!

[Deckhead 6]

I would say that some subjects are more sensitive in nature than others. Some are more age appropriate than others. Some are more nuanced than others.

For instance, a drug dealers pushing illegal and dangerous drugs is easier for a child to see clearly as good/bad. Such role playing isn't going to confuse them much at all. You simply tell the drug dealer "no", every time, without exception.

When it comes to sexual advances, it's not so clear. The details matter. And putting a kid into the role of having to do something they don't feel comfortable with (like asking for a same sex kiss or acting like they are on a lesbian date), that is filled with far more questions and nuanced particulars is more problematic, especially if you didn't bother to give the parents a heads up.

For someone who views themselves as progressive, you sure do think in rather simplistic terms.

You just over-complicate things. The teacher is setting up a scenario to say no to unwanted advances.... do the parents really need to be warned about this?

And I don't think I've ever viewed myself as a progressive, and I certainly haven't said that on this forum. I view myself as a conservative.

You should view yourself as an idiot making statements like that. The STATE has no right to do this, unless we allow it to happen.

[Aufan59 168]

The seminars got into sexual advances as well. At that age, permission should be required when discussing sexual matters and how best to handle them. They were also introducing and explaining terms like "pansexual" and "genderqueer" to them. This wasn't just a "just say no" talk.

Well now you have a better point, why didn't you mention this in your original post?

Conservatism also generally means that you've determined that certain things in a culture that are worth conserving...not flitting from flower to flower trying out whatever the latest cultural fad is. Your vision of what conservatism is doesn't cover the entire notion.

The mainstay of conservatism is about limited government, free markets, personal liberty. There is a fringe that thinks it is about preserving religious cultural norms. However many cultural norms that they promote (such as banning gay marriage)are anti-liberty, thus it doesn't mesh with the rest of the agreed upon platform.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

Well now you have a better point, why didn't you mention this in your original post?

The linked stories mentioned all the objectionable things. I can't help that you didn't read them.

The mainstay of conservatism is about limited government, free markets, personal liberty.

To you. You aren't the final authority on the term.

There is a fringe that thinks it is about preserving religious cultural norms. However many cultural norms that they promote (such as banning gay marriage)are anti-liberty, thus it doesn't mesh with the rest of the agreed upon platform.

There are a great many who believe that there are certain aspects of culture that are worth conserving not because they are religious, but because they are good for a functional and healthy society and have withstood the test of time.

[Aufan59 168]

The linked stories mentioned all the objectionable things. I can't help that you didn't read them.

I was arguing against your original post, which seemed to object to teaching children to say no to unwanted advances.

To you. You aren't the final authority on the term.

Well yes, there are social "conservatives" who don't care for individual liberty and want to grow government to fit their agenda. The rest of us conservatives want this fringe out of the republican party.

There are a great many who believe that there are certain aspects of culture that are worth conserving not because they are religious, but because they are good for a functional and healthy society and have withstood the test of time.

As if banning gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. Withstanding the test of time does not mean something is beneficial to society. But we do know that government arbitrarily limiting freedom is not beneficial to a functional and healthy society.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

I was arguing against your original post, which seemed to object to teaching children to say no to unwanted advances.

I used an example or two of the problems with this seminar. I linked the stories for the complete picture of what was happening there.

Well yes, there are social "conservatives" who don't care for individual liberty and want to grow government to fit their agenda. The rest of us conservatives want this fringe out of the republican party.

Good luck on that.

As if banning gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. Withstanding the test of time does not mean something is beneficial to society. But we do know that government arbitrarily limiting freedom is not beneficial to a functional and healthy society.

As if the only people who think gay marriage isn't a great idea are religious. And in this case, "standing the test of time" to them means, "has proven itself as beneficial to society." What hasn't been shown is how dismantling it and redefining marriage to something else will benefit society or what its long term effects will be. Neither do they see the distinctions as arbitrary.

[Aufan59 168]

How has banning gay marriage proven itself as beneficial to society? Have we had society without gay marriage bans to test this?

[TitanTiger 21,068]

How has banning gay marriage proven itself as beneficial to society? Have we had society without gay marriage bans to test this?

Preserving the idea of the nuclear family unit is beneficial to society. Children being served best by having a mother and a father is beneficial to society. This is what has been proven. Societies that valued and supported this have thrived over the centuries. The rest is arbitrary experimentation. We've already seen the ill effects the other efforts to undermine marriage have had. There's good reason to feel we shouldn't continue to pile on with the innovations.

[Aufan59 168]

I thought this was about marriage.

Gay couples can still have children. If it is about the children, then we want these gay couples with children to have the ability to marry. Denying them the ability to marry doesn't promote or preserve the idea of the nuclear family unit, it just hinders gay couples' ability to raise children.

While having two mothers and no father is not ideal, it surely is better than having one mother and no father. We've got an epidemic of single-motherhood, but we are worried about children having two mothers? Give me a break.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

I thought this was about marriage.

For religious people it is, though the practical matters of what's beneficial to society are secondary concerns as well. But we were talking about the reasons even some non-religious people don't think blowing up the definition of marriage to essentially be "it's whatever we say it is" is a good idea.

Gay couples can still have children. If it is about the children, then we want these gay couples with children to have the ability to marry. Denying them the ability to marry doesn't promote or preserve the idea of the nuclear family unit, it just hinders gay couples' ability to raise children.

The nuclear family is a father, a mother and a child or children. Two moms, two dads don't fit that understanding.

While having two mothers and no father is not ideal, it surely is better than having one mother and no father.

Other than having an additional breadwinner and possibly cutting down on daycare, I don't see how it's any better. The child is still being denied a critical parent in their life. Except that with single parents its often an unintended result of another issue whereas in this case you're purposely setting out to raise a child without the benefit of both parents.

We've got an epidemic of single-motherhood, but we are worried about children having two mothers? Give me a break.

Who said we aren't concerned about single-motherhood? Of course it's a problem. It's one of the reasons so many Christians try to impress upon people why sexual activity is best confined to people who are married to each other and prepared to have children if a pregnancy happens to result from it.

[Aufan59 168]

Other than having an additional breadwinner and possibly cutting down on daycare, I don't see how it's any better.

Seriously? We won't find common ground on this issue at all.

[homersapien 12,172]

Titan, would you be upset if your child pretended to offer someone drugs in a role-playing exercise on how to say no to drugs?

Not necessarily. And not all of these situations are equal in my mind.

So a teacher having a student pretend to offer drugs is fine.

But a teacher having a student to pretend to offer a kiss is off limits?

I don't understand social conservatism....

I would say that some subjects are more sensitive in nature than others. Some are more age appropriate than others. Some are more nuanced than others.

For instance, a drug dealers pushing illegal and dangerous drugs is easier for a child to see clearly as good/bad. Such role playing isn't going to confuse them much at all. You simply tell the drug dealer "no", every time, without exception.

When it comes to sexual advances, it's not so clear. The details matter. And putting a kid into the role of having to do something they don't feel comfortable with (like asking for a same sex kiss or acting like they are on a lesbian date), that is filled with far more questions and nuanced particulars is more problematic, especially if you didn't bother to give the parents a heads up.

For someone who views themselves as progressive, you sure do think in rather simplistic terms.

It's called "critical thinking" and it focuses on the essentials of an argument. It's very effective when considering complex, nuanced and often illogical ideas. Especially after the author doubles down with more of the same.

[homersapien 12,172]

titan, I am curious as to what fault or harm this role play could potentially have on a child(adolescence I assume). I get you want the option to opt out but why. I am for any and all education of this type. Im not sure role playing is the best approach but it doesn't anger me. maybe a video of professional actors being narrated.

Frankly, many kids in the tweens and early teens (middle schoolers) are very uncomfortable with the whole subject. They are just forming and beginning to understand these new feelings with boys and girls. So even if you called them up to role play asking someone of the opposite sex for a kiss or hold hands and act like they are on a date, you're making them uncomfortable. And that's for something they see 95% of the world model for them everyday. To make things even more weird and uncomfortable, you throw homosexuality into the mix. I just don't think it's appropriate to put them in that situation. I think it's exacerbated by the fact that you didn't bother to even inform the parents such a seminar was going to happen, much less ask their permission for their child to take part.

Maybe the home schooled ones are.

But I seriously doubt that is a valid statement for young teens in general. Maybe some 13 year olds are "uncomfortable" with the subject but if so, they are likely the ones who suspect they are gay.

Regardless, I don't think treating it as a taboo subject is helpful. I don't see it as an age inappropriate subject for young teens.

[homersapien 12,172]

I do see your point. If you want to be warned about things as innocent as the scenario original post, then you are better off homeschooling your child, protecting them from such social situations.

Or...when the school wants my middle schooler to role play various sexual and relationship situations, they can let me know ahead of time. I don't really trust people who don't get this to be the ones attempting to inculcate values to my kid.

Teaching kids to say no to inappropriate sexual overtures is "inculcating values"?

[homersapien 12,172]

The seminars got into sexual advances as well. At that age, permission should be required when discussing sexual matters and how best to handle them. They were also introducing and explaining terms like "pansexual" and "genderqueer" to them. This wasn't just a "just say no" talk.

Well now you have a better point, why didn't you mention this in your original post?

Conservatism also generally means that you've determined that certain things in a culture that are worth conserving...not flitting from flower to flower trying out whatever the latest cultural fad is. Your vision of what conservatism is doesn't cover the entire notion.

The mainstay of conservatism is about limited government, free markets, personal liberty. There is a fringe that thinks it is about preserving religious cultural norms. However many cultural norms that they promote (such as banning gay marriage)are anti-liberty, thus it doesn't mesh with the rest of the agreed upon platform.

Sadly, it's no "fringe". The "Evangelical Right" now control the party and the traditional conservatism of the old GOP has been supplanted by their own version.

The coalition worked great (for a few years), but the "Devil's bill" has now come due.