«

[Yamcha]

I must agree with you Picard a correctional slap has nothing bad.This should be a part of a child education if you don't want that you kid become a prince/princesse

[The Niles]

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Nov 28 2004, 08:26 PM
the state should have some right to interfere. After all no one is really preparing parents to be parents and no one is teaching them how to raise children. That's what the state should do.

I see you points but,

What makes the state capable of judging what is acceptable? Especially since all the state is is a collection of individuals who are all as ignorant as the common man (as they ARE the common man).

teachers should be allowed to have a bit more influence within the family (at least from my own experience - I'm saying that because I am a teacher). There are many children complaining to me about their situation at home. As a teacher I am trained and capable of understanding the children mentality, finding out what the real trouble is and would even be able to find a solution to it - but I'm not allowed to step in. I must watch mistakes parents make with their children daily (mistakes - not abuse, there I could and would do something about it) but must keep quiet...

A parent sends their child to school in the belief that he or she will be taught there and as a teacher it is your job to teach. It is not your job to interfere in the functioning of families even if you believe those families are not functioning at all. As you said you can already interfere when disfunction becomes abuse. The matters we are talking about here fall short of abuse and it is my belief that no one is truly benefiting if we allow the State to intervene in such matters.

Originally posted by The Picard@Nov 28 2004, 09:42 PM
A parent sends their child to school in the belief that he or she will be taught there and as a teacher it is your job to teach. It is not your job to interfere in the functioning of families even if you believe those families are not functioning at all. As you said you can already interfere when disfunction becomes abuse. The matters we are talking about here fall short of abuse and it is my belief that no one is truly benefiting if we allow the State to intervene in such matters.

Well, you're right there, but somehow someone should tell the parents how it is correctly to teach children. And as long it's not possible to interfere there, nothing will change...

[Sebatianos]

Well I guess I should define the term STATE. I don't mean the actuall state we have now. I mean the state as it should be - a flawless one. There's no such state yet, but im my opinion that should be the ultimate goal.

[The Niles]

A flawless state is, even theoretically, impossible. A state is not a single entity. There are many states and many ways of organizing one. All believe that one is more preferable then the other but not all agree on which that one is. To say that there is a perfect state is to deny the existence of different ideas in society.

[Sebatianos]

I have to diagree with you there. It would be very simple really - but probably unachievable!
The perfect state would be a state where no one would have any complaints!
That's the critera - but how to do this - that's the real problem!

[The Niles]

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Nov 28 2004, 09:45 PM
I have to disagree with you there. It would be very simple really - but probably unachievable!
The perfect state would be a state where no one would have any complaints!
That's the criteria - but how to do this - that's the real problem!

Let me give you a real life dilemma. Feminists are for abortion. "Pro-life" activists are against it. This is situation in which you cannot come to a conclusion in which no-one has complaints. If you ban abortion it would anger the Feminists and if you legalize it you anger the "pro-life" activists as they do not accept ANYONE having an abortion. The fact is you cannot keep everyone happy.

[Sebatianos]

Let's do a quick analisys of why that is so...
Feminists - a grou of people (mostly women) who are fighting for their rights. If the state would be flawles there would be no feminist - because there would be no need to fight for any rights... One of the main reasons for the unequal position of women is the church - so they are fighting against the order that christianity (and both other monotheistic religions) have thought the world to think (women were not treated the same as men, but they were not unequal - until Jewdism said that a woman is dirty because it has menstruation).
Pro-Life activists - are they really fighting for lives - or are they fighting because they believe that some devine plan is being broken? Besides - why would somebody wish to have an abortion? In a flawless state you'd not have to wory about supporting your child - there would be no rape, so there wuld be no unwanted children,... If the abortion is to be another way of birth control - then it really shouldn't be allowed, but otherwise...
You see - in a flawles state there would be no reason for groups such as the two you mentioned to exist, that's why there would be no tension between the two...
I know it souds like an utopia, but evers since homo sapiens sapiens became a creature living in a community there have been attemts to make rules that would provide for all. Rules that would make everybody safe and happy. No such rule was succesful yet, but improvemants have been made over this 10 milenia. I'm not saying another revolution should come and within 30 years we'll have a perfect world - it's a long proces and centuries are not nearly long enoguh, but the flawles state is a possibility (I'm talking from the philosophical point of view - not practical)!

[Iron_Scarecrow]

Rape is not the only cause of unwanted children. People go out to bars, get *dirty word* pissed, go home with some random, and 9 months later they have a baby on their hands. If there was no rape, there would still be abortions, unless in your flawless state there would be no form of drugs or alcohol. But what ever rules you come up with people will always try to find ways to break them. Just because a perfect set of rules has been made doesn't mean everyone will follow them. There are people who have no contemplation of human reason. You can not control these people, they will not follow any set rules. So in your perfect state these people will still frequent and they will do as they please and won't consider the consequences.

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by Iron_Scarecrow@Nov 29 2004, 07:09 AM
...unless in your flawless state there would be no form of drugs or alcohol. But what ever rules you come up with people will always try to find ways to break them.

Drugs are just a way to either get more kicks or to drift off from reality. The state I'm talking about would not even need rules, because the mentality of people would have to change as well, so no one would actually wish to do something that would be against these rules.
Now-a-days people are against rituals such as sacrifices, but in the past they weren't. They thought they were doing a good thing, but now we know they weren't, they were just doing something they believed was right. We now (thank goodness) don't make such barbaric (from our point of view) rituals.
It's such shifts in mentality that will eventually lead us into a better world (but not even the grandchildren of our grandchildren will be still alive to see ti).