billvon 2,400 #276 January 24, 2012 >I'd say the odds are greater of her being exposed to a negative situation in a school >with 1000's of teenagers than being abused by her mothers boyfriend. Uh, yes. That's one of the reasons to GO to school - to experience negative situations. To have someone not like you. To fail a test and be embarrassed about that in front of your friends. To have to work hard to be one of the best in your class. To learn to say "no" when you don't want to do something. But in any case you're trying to avoid the subject. Once two people have agreed that they have an equal say in how to bring their child up - then they have equal say. Thats the bottom line. You can't decide later "I'm afraid of schools" and have that agreement voided by a judge. In court people are often held to the agreements they signed - even if they later decided they didn't really mean it. (Of course, these are people who already said "I do" and later decided they didn't really mean it - in which case getting the kid out of the house and exposed to some more responsible society might be a good thing.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #277 January 24, 2012 You keep missing this part. QuoteFurthermore, Amanda attended her local public school to take art, Spanish, and P.E. classes. Her public school instructors also commented on the fact that Amanda was well-rounded in her social skills. But a sticking point arose concerning Voydatch's Christian faith. But at least I thank you for provng my point when I challenged this statement: QuoteSecular advocates don't want to stop you from teaching your kids learning about religion. I'd say they most certainly do want to stop this mother. Thanks for playing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #278 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSometimes you just can't fit enough crazy faces on one screen. Agreed - it's just CRAZY that you won't recognize the parallels between left/right issues as a rebuttal to his post. Secular advocates don't want to stop you from teaching your kids learning about religion. You're right, sometimes you can't fit enough crazy faces on one page. YOU can teach YOUR kids all about religion as much as you want. However, the government shouldn't be in the business of teaching MY kids about religion. That's the point. Perhaps, but that's not what he said. That is exactly what I said (with a fairly major syntax error, granted, but one that in no way obscures the meaning). See how the bits in bold match up with the bits quade put in caps? Those are the bits that are exactly the same, and mean exactly the same thing. Your claim just simply isn't true. http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/27/too-religious-to-home-school/ A) So it was what I said? B) Unless you can find an 'example' that isn't a dispute between two parents, my claim stands. Honestly, did you think I wouldn't look at your link at all, or just that I wouldn't notice it has fuck all to do with what we're talking about? It's a clear case of the courts trying to prevent a parent from teaching their kid about religion at home. That wasn't what we were talking about. Stop changing the goalposts. You can't prove a different position and claim victory. Well, you can, but we'll just laugh at you. (In fact, we'll just laugh at you anyway, because even without the sliding goalposts, you're still wrong. Nothing the court said or did is meant to or going to prevent that mother from teaching her child whatever the fuck she wants to teach her about religion.)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #279 January 24, 2012 QuoteWhy would a judge rule to change a very good situation like that except for a religious bias on his behalf? Because someone with joint decision making authority wants it changed. QuoteWhat happens if the girl goes to school and ends up using drugs, or gets pregnant? Good point, we'd better ban public education before too many kids get hurt! QuoteWhy would a judge take that chance when there wasn't a compelling reason, other than religion, to change it? Because almost every single child in the country takes the same chance. Taking that chance is the status quo. The girl will still get the same religious teachings from her mother, only now she'll hear other stuff as well. just like her other parent wants. Thanks for playing, but don't pass go and don't collect $200.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #280 January 24, 2012 Poor Jakee. Your claim has been shredded but you are too consumed by your hate of religion to see it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #281 January 24, 2012 QuotePoor Jakee. Your claim has been shredded but you are too consumed by your hate of religion to see it. shouldn't your judge recluse himself from this debate? The bias is more than apparent. You eviscerated yourself in this one. I think you could have made better traction by pointing out the strident anti smoking laws that, not content to push people outdoors, won't even let them smoke there anymore (all University of California campuses now) . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #282 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuotePoor Jakee. Your claim has been shredded but you are too consumed by your hate of religion to see it. shouldn't your judge recluse himself from this debate? The bias is more than apparent. You eviscerated yourself in this one. I think you could have made better traction by pointing out the strident anti smoking laws that, not content to push people outdoors, won't even let them smoke there anymore (all University of California campuses now) . I had that exact same thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #283 January 24, 2012 QuoteThanks for playing, but don't pass go and don't collect $200. Hey, I've just been playing monopoly... Get out of my head!Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #284 January 24, 2012 QuotePoor Jakee. Your claim has been shredded but you are too consumed by your hate of religion to see it. I know you think you're being clever here, but everyone else who reads that post will note that you haven't been able to address any of the points I raised which clearly show why you're talking bollocks - which leaves your victory proclamation hollow, unsupported and faintly pathetic. But again though, thanks for playing.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #285 January 24, 2012 You are assuming she's a Christian. She may be a Muslim and if so, she would pray to Allah 5 times per day. If she went to school, she would not be allowed to do that. Therefore the Secular Courts would be interfering with her mothers desire to raise her child with a religious upbringing. Seeing the problem yet, Jakee? It's very predictable what you will say next so before you do, consider that we don't set different standards for different religions as that would be unconstitutional. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #286 January 24, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Just say what you want to say; don't leave it in the leaves and hope that people can pick it out. Otherwise you look like the kind of chickenshit who is unclear so that he can later say "aha that's not what I really meant." Wendy P. Be more specific...... Sounds like a PA. Not a personal attack, just an observation and a suggestion. I'm not real big on personal attacks. So saying he looks like a chickenshit is not what you really meant? You gotta love it!Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #287 January 24, 2012 Quote You are assuming she's a Christian. No I'm not. Quote She may be a Muslim She isn't a Muslim, she's a Christian. Quote Seeing the problem yet, Jakee? No. There isn't one. And you're still playing to a different set of goalposts than the ones we started with. Quote It's very predictable what you will say next so before you do, How did you do?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fernjack455 0 #288 January 25, 2012 +1 Reads as a PA from this screen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #289 January 25, 2012 Quote+1 Reads as a PA from this screen. No, it was just good advice.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fernjack455 0 #290 January 25, 2012 Have to disagree. I read your comment about "cheating on taxes". The rules are clear. Both read like PA's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #291 January 25, 2012 QuoteQuote+1 Reads as a PA from this screen. No, it was just good advice. Perhaps, but miserably executed...skitt's law indeed. btw, it could also be considered good advice when someone says, "Don't be such a fuckin' asshole."Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fernjack455 0 #292 January 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote+1 Reads as a PA from this screen. No, it was just good advice. Perhaps, but miserably executed...skitt's law indeed. btw, it could also be considered good advice when someone says, "Don't be such a fuckin' asshole." I had to search "Skitts law". The other guy really got under some peoples skin. What is the difference from a PA and the above posts that the moderaters let stand? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #293 January 25, 2012 QuoteHave to disagree. I read your comment about "cheating on taxes". The rules are clear. Both read like PA's. Fortunately the greenies decide what is and isn't a PA, not anonymous "no name entered" posters.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #294 January 25, 2012 I'd rather not get into the politics of it all...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fernjack455 0 #295 January 25, 2012 QuoteI'd rather not get into the politics of it all... Sounds like an unpleasant place. Thanks, I'll go elsewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fernjack455 0 #296 January 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteHave to disagree. I read your comment about "cheating on taxes". The rules are clear. Both read like PA's. Fortunately the greenies decide what is and isn't a PA, not anonymous "no name entered" posters. No thanks to having my identity stolen. Good luck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #297 January 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteHave to disagree. I read your comment about "cheating on taxes". The rules are clear. Both read like PA's. Fortunately the greenies decide what is and isn't a PA, not anonymous "no name entered" posters. Never mind recently created sock puppets. (Still hoping for a 2 week waiting period on new accounts) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #298 January 25, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Have to disagree. I read your comment about "cheating on taxes". The rules are clear. Both read like PA's. Fortunately the greenies decide what is and isn't a PA, not anonymous "no name entered" posters. Never mind recently created sock puppets. (Still hoping for a 2 week waiting period on new accounts) ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,122 #299 January 25, 2012 OK, I'll wade back in. At the time, based on his up-to-then posting history, which included content etc, and based on a couple of reasonably friendly PM's, I really was hoping to encourage a poster to include content in his posting. I'm big on content. So I was saying what my opinion would be if he were to behave in a certain way. It wasn't intended as a personal attack. If I were to ever decide to personally attack someone, it would be really, really clear. I don't do it in PM's, and I try not to do it in posts. I'd rather attack the ideas or presentation than the person. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #300 January 25, 2012 The issue isn't about whether or not you meant it as a PA, it's about you being unclear and having to come back and say "aha that's not what I really meant," which is exactly what your "congenial" peep talk was advising against.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
