Human rights violation in Germany (homeschooling issue)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

However, the main point is that a majority (though not a very large one) of those kids are different. It is difficult to say how, but they are socially awkward. They do not form many connections, they are very introverted, quiet, and seem to have no visible friends in my school. I was friends with two such blokes actually, and both were one of my best friends, I daresay (one was a homeschooled Baptist and the other was a Catholic, both home-schooled and private-schooled). But what I have not observed was them making any other friends. They were always rather reserved and appeared to be the polite, cheerful, yet loners.

---

This is my primary concern with kids who are homeschooled. I supposed they could be "instructed" how to interact and eventually be socially capable, but this isn't something parents would be able to teach by themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

P.S. You, CR, seem to be a person very sure of one's own viewpoints, as if truth only existed on your side. I wonder where you get your stunning confidence from. Some of it has to do with the fact you are American. I hate to generalise, but Americans somehow always stuck me as confident people, too confident for their own good. A great deal of this is a generalisation, but I have yet to see others flaunt their confidence in their own rightness so much...

---

What could one generalize about Russians?

Things to generalize about russians
1. Drunks
2. Like Vodka
3. die from alcoholism
4. Like potatoes...... because they make vodka.


Think about this...... before the new world was discovered Russia had no vodka and ireland had no potatoes.

Alcoholism isn't a generalisation among Russians. It's the leading cause of death amongst Russian men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

4. Like potatoes...... because they make vodka.

Think about this...... before the new world was discovered Russia had no vodka and ireland had no potatoes.

---

Really, potatoes are rarely used for vodka when you have wheat. Nearly all of vodka is made from grain. I wonder where you got your idea about potatoes. I mean, you can make vodka out of nearly anything, but wheat or rye is the choice. Samogon, or homemade vodka/moonshine is usually made with grain, sugar and water. Potatoes and white sugar beets are noted alternatives, sugar beets being the more popular one IIRC. BTW, EU defines vodka as 37.5%+ alcohol with no flavour, just a note.

Vodka was made long before potatoes and Columbus. Early Mediaeval Ages were the starting point. Potatoes were an upper-class luxury novelty throughout most of 1700s in Russia. The nobles called them 'earth/ground apples' and included them as delicacies in parties. Peter the Great introduced the potatoes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Really, potatoes are rarely used for vodka when you have wheat. Nearly all of vodka is made from grain. I wonder where you got your idea about potatoes. I mean, you can make vodka out of nearly anything, but wheat or rye is the choice. Samogon, or homemade vodka/moonshine is usually made with grain, sugar and water. Potatoes and white sugar beets are noted alternatives, sugar beets being the more popular one IIRC. BTW, EU defines vodka as 37.5%+ alcohol with no flavour, just a note.

Vodka was made long before potatoes and Columbus. Early Mediaeval Ages were the starting point. Potatoes were an upper-class luxury novelty throughout most of 1700s in Russia. The nobles called them 'earth/ground apples' and included them as delicacies in parties. Peter the Great introduced the potatoes.

---

Fun fact, Vodka can't really pre-date the Crusades as that was when distillation crossed from the Muslim East to the Christian West, unless it came slightly ealier via the Varangians.

http://i49.tinypic.com/dgq64z.jpg

Russian google could tell us something

^ haha classic.

hmmm i could have sworn vodka was potato based. well im sure im wrong i dont know much about how its made.

Edit: after further research it appears common vodka is often made with potatoes and that high class vodkas and american imports are usually grain based. they believe the first vodka was made from sugar beets.

Fun fact: vodka originates from the russian word for water. Which explains russians attitudes in drinking it. High class vodka alcohol content goes up to 50% which is pretty impressive.

Yes, vodka just means "Strong Water", as opposed to Voda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Things to generalize about russians
1. Drunks
2. Like Vodka
3. die from alcoholism
4. Like potatoes...... because they make vodka.


Think about this...... before the new world was discovered Russia had no vodka and ireland had no potatoes.

---

I'm disappointed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Fun fact, Vodka can't really pre-date the Crusades as that was when distillation crossed from the Muslim East to the Christian West, unless it came slightly ealier via the Varangians.

---

True, I read Tom Standage and he said the same thing (not that he is the only ones who knows this, but still, it was from his book that I learned this). You know, the bloke who wrote History of the World in Six Glasses... Very interesting book.

But of course it came from the Norse, specifically Varyags (dunno why you call them Varangians - I thought that was the Greek term for the Eastern Vikings). They sailed through the rivers of Kievan Rus and to the Moslem nations, and then back through Kievan Rus. By 10th century CE distillation was quite common in the Middle East, and it was there in the 9th and 8th centuries as well. Since I remember reading that vodka came to the Rus in the Early Mediaeval times, then I would infer that was before 11th century. That would make it that Early Russians had distilled spirits before the Western Europeans? They could not have had it after them, as then that would be too late (13-15th centuries - by 1400s the distilled spirits became popular in the West, so the Eastern Europeans should have gotten it no earlier than that if we were to adopt the spirits from the West, as opposed to having received it from the Varags).

Additionally, I remember that while the Muslims developed their distilled beverages in alchemy experiments, in the 1100s, the same alchemists, but this time the Western European ones, developed spirits independently. So did the Crusades speed up the process of acceptance of the distilled drinks? After all, the alchemists may have kept their discoveries secret, or at least not popularised...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Edit: after further research it appears common vodka is often made with potatoes and that high class vodkas and american imports are usually grain based. they believe the first vodka was made from sugar beets.

---

Still, I do not see why your sources claim potato vodka is common, even the cheap one. Even the dirt-cheapest vodka in Russia is grain-based. I have rarely seen potato vodka. Now, there is samogon, as I said before, the home-made vodka, which is usually sugar-beet based, but potatoes are also common in this sort of beverage. As for commercial vodka, grain all the way. I do not see how cheap vodka needs to be potato-based when wheat is so relatively cheap, and considering the relatively low amounts (compared to say, beer) of it which are present in the production of vodka.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Fun fact: vodka originates from the russian word for water. Which explains russians attitudes in drinking it.

---

Yes, for the first part, but no on the second part. Russians do consume inordinate amounts of vodka as a whole, although alcoholism as you would know it is not much more significant than in certain other nations. Even if it is, the name does not reflect the attitude. Vodka is a clear liquid. It looks like water. In its early days in Western Europe, it was called aqua vitae. Water of life. Its various names usually had the word 'water' in it. Then the distilled spirits became more complex, and many of them took on other colours or unusual production methods. Vodka remaiend pure, clear, and prepared with the most conventional methods. And so it retained its name. Voda is water, and vodka is well, you know what. Vodichka is the diminutive of water, and vodochka is the diminutive of vodka. The roots are indeed close, but it has nothing to do with the attitudes. It would be logical to assume that if a name is a lasting one, it came before the product became popular enough to make a large effect on the culture. A name always come first, or not soon after a novel object.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

High class vodka alcohol content goes up to 50% which is pretty impressive.

---

Huh? Why is that impressive, and why should high class vodka have 50% ethanol? You are saying that as if it takes quality to do that... The proof of vodka has little to do with its quality. If anything, the higher-ethanol vodka is the home-made one, as the moonshine we make is normally around 60%. Usually high-class or any vodka is the same, traditional 40%.




Epic thread hijack :grin:. But the conversation is still productive, so once again, no reason not to continue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Uhuh. :inquisitive::inquisitive: Short version. You're talking gibberish. Long version follows: :book:

The Swedish kindergarten system is built on two pillars: communal thinking (as in children's welfare is not only the parents interest), that's about as old as the Folkhemmet idea that Swedish Social democracy is built in. That's from the 1930-ties. The other one is feminism and the rejection of "servant" professions. Since both parents work (even more clear when it comes to single parents) and au pairs or simular professions are rejected, you'll need a place for the toddlers, unless you want them to stay home alone all days.

Social democracts don't use the word liberal, but it refers to that type of right-wingers that you call libertarians. So no perversion here, social democrats have never claimed to be liberals. The original wording social democrats refers to the socialists that rejected the idea of revolution to remove social classes and implement communism. The whole original concept was to sacrifice some induvidual freedom to get a more equal society (that in turn gives more happyness, health and prosperity to quote the reviw of "The Spirit Level").

Since the only class the US have is middle class (semi ironic), the worker class (lower class) vs the upper class might not have gained as much attention.

The (pity) mass immigration due to the concept of international social responsibilly (asylum seekers) coincides with less restrictions from the state. So they are doing it wrong appearently.

---

so you are telling me that sweden is not struggling with the hilarious irony of whether they should give tax credits to parents who keep their children at home and thus out of pre-school, for the perfectly logical reason that they live in too isolated a location to actually use a pre-school, versus the uncomfortable fact that if you introduce these tax-credits you will encourage kurdish mums to keep the kids at home and thus prevent them from being assimilated into the swedish social democrat collective?


cos that's not what i heard...........

ps. the liberal vs libertarian struggle is parhaps more of a feature in british politics given that we never fully subscribed to the social democrat model (freeborn englishman being master in his own castle n'all), but i liked the swedish story as a beautiful example of the need to limit freedom to, er................ entrench freedom! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

so you are telling me that sweden is not struggling with the hilarious irony of whether they should give tax credits to parents who keep their children at home and thus out of pre-school, for the perfectly logical reason that they live in too isolated a location to actually use a pre-school, versus the uncomfortable fact that if you introduce these tax-credits you will encourage kurdish mums to keep the kids at home and thus prevent them from being assimilated into the swedish social democrat collective?

---

My google fu isn't strong enough to come up with the issue. No form of pre-school, kindergarten etc is required, the availability is. So unless the kurdish moms move into the middle of the forest, it's not an issue. Anyway, should you still be right, the immigration has still very little to do with the whole Swedish concept of pre-schools, kindergarden etc. The idea of multi-culturalism is from 1975 by law, a really, really stupid idea if you're suppose to getting them into the collective as you put it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

ps. the liberal vs libertarian struggle is parhaps more of a feature in british politics given that we never fully subscribed to the social democrat model (freeborn englishman being master in his own castle n'all), but i liked the swedish story as a beautiful example of the need to limit freedom to, er................ entrench freedom! :D

---

You are aware of the difference of de facto and de jure? For example, that lower social mobility the US and UK have is a sign of less freedom, despite what any laws might say. Or a more obvious example, the whole purpose of the police is to decrease freedom (by enforcing laws) to increase general well being. So it's not that the concept of reducing freedom to increase general well being lacks examples.

I do really like the Englishman owning his own castle, as liberalism have more support among the middle or upper class, those who might actually own thier own castle, while social democracy have more support among the working class, those who are forced to rent thier own home...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

ps. the liberal vs libertarian struggle is parhaps more of a feature in british politics given that we never fully subscribed to the social democrat model (freeborn englishman being master in his own castle n'all), but i liked the swedish story as a beautiful example of the need to limit freedom to, er................ entrench freedom! :D

---

Libertarians have this quant notion that there should be as little government intervention as possible to maximise freedom. If they're religiously inclined, they won't hesitate to claim it as their god-given right to be free from government meddling. But instead of accepting the logical extension of that, namely a "society" without government or laws, they insist that a smallish government is a necessary evil to maintain god-given, natural rights.
This position is contradictory, because it acknowledges that an artificial construct (the state) is necessary to garantue rights and freedoms they consider "natural" (property rights and basic rights such as life, etc). They extend this fallacious argument further by maintaining that any extra government interference is not natural, and is in fact "authoritarian" or "collectivist".

One could draw an ambiguous distinction between "negative" liberty and "positive" liberty.
Negative liberty means being free to act without interference from others. Typical examples are freedom of speech and property rights.
Positive liberty is a "younger" concept, it's achieved by actively providing services. Upper-class philosophers from the 17th century and libertarians born with a silver spoon up their butt can easily argue that being free means being left to yourself. Someone who's born in a slum would argue that he's not free as long as he's starving and unable to get an education.
The distinction between positive and negative is ambiguous because freedom from interference can't exist without active government meddling. You're not free to say what you want, and you can't hang on to your possessions if there are no laws and law enforcements to protect you.

About the topic: most continental European countries feel that the state has an obligation to provide decent education for everyone. Home schooling is illegal in Germany (and the Neth's), with few exceptions possible, because it's not practical or even doable to garantue said standards of educations to children who are kept home and have their amateur parents as teachers. I can agree to disagree on this particular issue, but declaring this to be a human rights issue is outrageous. These parents have some nerve to think that they're entitled to the same status as refugees from dictatorships and warzones :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Yes, for the first part, but no on the second part. Russians do consume inordinate amounts of vodka as a whole, although alcoholism as you would know it is not much more significant than in certain other nations. Even if it is, the name does not reflect the attitude. Vodka is a clear liquid. It looks like water. In its early days in Western Europe, it was called aqua vitae. Water of life. Its various names usually had the word 'water' in it. Then the distilled spirits became more complex, and many of them took on other colours or unusual production methods. Vodka remaiend pure, clear, and prepared with the most conventional methods. And so it retained its name. Voda is water, and vodka is well, you know what. Vodichka is the diminutive of water, and vodochka is the diminutive of vodka. The roots are indeed close, but it has nothing to do with the attitudes. It would be logical to assume that if a name is a lasting one, it came before the product became popular enough to make a large effect on the culture. A name always come first, or not soon after a novel object.

---

i was kidding..... i have quite a few memberrs of family in russian and to my knowledge none are alcoholics.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Libertarians have this quant notion that there should be as little government intervention as possible to maximise freedom. If they're religiously inclined, they won't hesitate to claim it as their god-given right to be free from government meddling. But instead of accepting the logical extension of that, namely a "society" without government or laws, they insist that a smallish government is a necessary evil to maintain god-given, natural rights.
This position is contradictory, because it acknowledges that an artificial construct (the state) is necessary to garantue rights and freedoms they consider "natural" (property rights and basic rights such as life, etc). They extend this fallacious argument further by maintaining that any extra government interference is not natural, and is in fact "authoritarian" or "collectivist".

One could draw an ambiguous distinction between "negative" liberty and "positive" liberty.
Negative liberty means being free to act without interference from others. Typical examples are freedom of speech and property rights.
Positive liberty is a "younger" concept, it's achieved by actively providing services. Upper-class philosophers from the 17th century and libertarians born with a silver spoon up their butt can easily argue that being free means being left to yourself. Someone who's born in a slum would argue that he's not free as long as he's starving and unable to get an education.
The distinction between positive and negative is ambiguous because freedom from interference can't exist without active government meddling. You're not free to say what you want, and you can't hang on to your possessions if there are no laws and law enforcements to protect you.

---

that is your straw house you have constructed, not mine. There is no need to accept what you describe as the logical extension of a society with no government, because it isn't logical, just as i don't expect a authoritarian leaning social democrat such as yourself to passionately argue in favour of the USSR as a better model for civil society.
more to the point, i don't much care for the concept of 'natural' rights as i make clear in my profile: "I am a fan of the social contract, which means i support the concept that civil rights are not natural rights, nor permanently fixed, and that English Law (read: Common Law) has spent 800 years morphing itself to the expectations of that social contract and thus has the greatest claim to validity as an instrument of justice. To me this sits at odds with the idea of an inalienable right enacted by statute (more appropriate to a Civil Law system) and not ultimately subject to English legal interpretation (as currently the case with the ECHR)." so again; a straw house in which i do not reside.

I am well aware of the concept of positive and negative liberty, and my position doesn't change; i'm a libertarian kind a guy. but then i don't force myself to see concepts as absolutes, which is why i am happy britain has universal education and state benefits and so on, but when it comes down to it I am an anglosphere market capitalist rather than a continental social democrat. I while i recognise that the continent has chosen a path that emphasises positive liberty, Britain has never been quite so enthusiastic preferring instead negative liberty. or authirarian liberty as i believe it might better be termed. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

i was kidding..... i have quite a few memberrs of family in russian and to my knowledge none are alcoholics.........

---

Hehe, but Russians are technically alcoholics. Generalisations may be inaccurate, but no need to deny the problem either.

I got you on the hook!

What an ass (the animal, Mr. Moderator) I am :wacko::shame:

EDIT: Okay, this must be the sleep deprivation speaking in me...

Back to topic please - if you would like to discuss alcoholism in Russia, please feel free to start a dedicated thread.

There might still be some people who would like to discuss the original topic - having to go through a page of OT posts is not helpful.

Further posts on alcoholism in Russia will be deleted.

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Back to topic please - if you would like to discuss alcoholism in Russia, please feel free to start a dedicated thread.

There might still be some people who would like to discuss the original topic - having to go through a page of OT posts is not helpful.

Further posts on alcoholism in Russia will be deleted.

Thanks

---

Uh, yes Clegane :yes:. I thought this topic was done, but it looks like Furnuculus is has new things to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

that is your straw house you have constructed, not mine. There is no need to accept what you describe as the logical extension of a society with no government, because it isn't logical, just as i don't expect a authoritarian leaning social democrat such as yourself

---

I'm not a social democrat. My voting record is, one instance aside, completely liberal in the European sense of the word. I score centre-right to right wing on just about every political quiz. But the fact that I generally approve of permissive governance on the background doesn't mean I feel compelled to side with every other idiot/crackpot who ends up quarreling with the government, such as these evangelical parents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

I am well aware of the concept of positive and negative liberty, and my position doesn't change; i'm a libertarian kind a guy. but then i don't force myself to see concepts as absolutes, which is why i am happy britain has universal education and state benefits and so on, but when it comes down to it I am an anglosphere market capitalist rather than a continental social democrat. I while i recognise that the continent has chosen a path that emphasises positive liberty, Britain has never been quite so enthusiastic preferring instead negative liberty. or authirarian liberty as i believe it might better be termed. ;)

---

If you're happy about universal education and state benefits and so on, you are by definition not a libertarian :juggle2:

By the road, do you think the parents in the OP should qualify for asylum status?

Homeschooling should be allowed. Parents who are actually willing to teach children at home are the only ones who keep them there, and those parents tend to do a very good job. Their children, from personal experience, tend to be well integrated into the community as well as having a general academic advantage over many products of the public school system. That doesn't mean that we should send all children to be taught at home, just that parents should have the option.

I'm all for homeschooling.

Of course, the one doing the teaching would have to be just as qualified as a standard teacher. For me to teach social studies, I need one year of Pedagogy plus a bachelors degree in social studies. So, anyone who wants to homeschool their child needs a one year study of Pedagogy, plus one bachelors degree for each school subject.

Without that education, you are not qualified and as such you are denying proper education to your child, and that my friends, is simply child abuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

If you're happy about universal education and state benefits and so on, you are by definition not a libertarian :juggle2:

By the road, do you think the parents in the OP should qualify for asylum status?

---

libertarian-leaning, as in; a fan of negative liberty - free born englisman and all that guff.

not really to fussed, if america considers freedom of religious expression to be that important then take them in by all means, but i don't and i'm not american so its not my problem. if it causes greater international scrutiny and ridicule of germanys authoritarian tendancies then all the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

germanys authoritarian tendancies

---

Well, you know, we're not the ones with CCTV all over the place, but then that is not my problem as I'm not British... :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, you know, we're not the ones with CCTV all over the place, but then that is not my problem as I'm not British... :dizzy2:

---

hey i accept that criticism, and i am all in favour of you foriegn types publicly mocking us brits mercilessely on the issue. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, you know, we're not the ones with CCTV all over the place, but then that is not my problem as I'm not British... :dizzy2:

---

You also get to decide who your head of state should be, unlike the brits who are ruled by someone because of their birth, not votes.... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You also get to decide who your head of state should be, unlike the brits who are ruled by someone because of their birth, not votes.... ~;)

---

indeed, how very authoriatarian! [/sarcasm]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

indeed, how very authoriatarian! [/sarcasm]

---

An unelected leader isn't authoritarian in your opinion?:inquisitive:

I wouldn't describe either the UK or Germany as particularly 'authoritarian'.

The Brits simply don't do authoritarianism well. Never have.
Germany had a major turnover of values. 'WWII' counts as the pinnacle of knowledge on the internets, and consequently there is a tendency to reduce countries to 'WWII', but in reality, Germany has developed itself since 1945 into one of Europe's least authoritarian states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

An unelected leader isn't authoritarian in your opinion?:inquisitive:

---

not when describing the situation of the British constitutional monarchy, no.

Furnuculus is right, the Queen barely does anything. No need to confuse the head of the state with the head of the government. What exactly does the Queen 'rule' over? She cannot even take sides in politics, much less rule people... Britain is not authoritarian at all, and they have a long history of being not authoritarian. Even back when constitutional monarchy granted more rights to the royalty, the British were at the forefront of the free nations.

But neither is Germany authoritarian for that matter - I really do not see how it can be accused of such a thing. WWII is long over, as Louis noted, same goes for Cold War-era GDR. Right now they are a federalist state, so if anything, they are less authoritarian than UK or France for that matter. Federalism does not necessarily mean freedom, but it does correlate well, especially when you have true federalism (as opposed to the more unclear system Russia uses - Russia is officially a federation, you see, even the name says so...)