No, I'm saying that it's not a fundamental right. It is a DERIVATIVE right, something that CAN be taken away (unlike the right to life, for example). It is a privelage set forth by our government, and as such they can take it away. If they wanted to imprison the parents for being bad parents, now that would be something else entirely. But saying that the parents have a fundamental right to influence the public education of not only THEIR child, but also implying that they have the right to influence OTHER children is bull. And you know something? If they DON'T like what the public school's doing, then they can pull them out and do something else. I should know, I was homeschooled for three years and then put into a private school for another three.

Bullshit. I was talking about legal precedents too. There is no such thing as a necessary connection. The sun rising? Wow, that happens every day! It'll happen tomorrow! *tomorrow comes* Oh noes, the sun's light bulb burnt out. So much for the sun rising. :(

In the typical fashion of left wing activist judges, the constitution is viewed here as some sort of a big basket that holds all of our rights, and if a right isn't in there then you obviously don't have it. The right to educate our children, to inform them on moral matters, to introduce them to sexual matters when they are ready is a fundamental human right. Its a natural right. The court says that parents no longer have this right exclusively. The state can now supersede our wishes in these matters. The ruling is open enough that the state, should it chose to, can go beyond these matters and supersede parental authority wherever it deems fit.

What the fuck is a natural right? Do you mean unalienable? Or perhaps you're trying to tell me you drink Natural Light?

Isn't that what the parents that didn't want 'intelligent design' taught in their schools did? They took it to court and challenged it legally, and immediately there after kicked the whole school board out of office. What if the state were to take a very liberal interpetation of this ruling and say that "in this case, parents do not have the privilage of deciding what is getting taught in the science classroom?".

I disagree. There is a necessary connection between morality and law. Law is required to comform to society's standards of the time. Otherwise law has no legitmacy. There is no such "probability" of this ruling not being used. Chances are widely in it's favor that it will be cited at a later date. It'll be up to whoever cites it to misconstrued it in any matter they deem necessary to win their case.

Gah. Did you really need to make this political? A independent judiciary is the only thing that keeps our freedoms intact. They can only interpet what's basically written in the Constitution. That doesn't mean they had to so vague, but that doesn't make them a bunch of bleeding heart liberals either.

Yes, and no. The court was more or less vague in this ruling. Which means it could be worked in favor of parental educational rights, and it could also be used in opposition of parental educational rights. That's the law and lawyers at work.

[qoute]In the typical fashion of left wing activist judges[/qoute]

No this is the tactic of conservative constitutional absolutes. The constructional liberal’s are the ones who want too add in new rights “fundamental rights to the constitutional ”: gay marriage, abortion etc. This idea of an exclusive right to control the follow of information is what reeks of activism. Yes, Wesker you are the activist not the judge, you see judicial activism means someone who’s decisions “results in case law which does not follow precedent or which exceeds the scope of established law”. There is no case law to support your notion and plenty to go against it.
Obeying clear establishment precedent isn’t activism it’s called Stare decisis.

No it is not a fundamental right or nature. Your confusing being the ultimate authority over a child concerning private family matters with being the exclusive conduit of it information.

Ever here the phrase “it takes a village”? Humans are tribal creatures. Parents have never been the exclusive source of information in any society. When you take a child to a priest, teacher, doctor, tribal shaman, whoever you are allowing the induction and indeed encouraging the giving of information by another party. Parents are not the exclusively source of information, never have, never will be, never should be (that would require physiological damaging isolation from society till the age of 18). How can you have a natural right to some thing, which is contrary to human nature?

The only question before the judges over 60 years ago that decided this, is basically does the fact that parents aren’t the exclusive conduit of knowledge extend to the government thereby allowing the state to act as a conduit of information. Yes it does other wise we would not be able to establish public schools.

Stop dodging the question sending your kids to school means you are no longer the exclusive source of information, if introduction of information to children by a party other then there parents is unconstitutional all public must be shut down. Since your so hung up on sex let do an example based on that: Do you believe all sex ed course, as well an sex related public service announcements targeted at teens are unconstitutional. Because that exactly what would happen. After all sex ed by definition is introducing sexual information to minors. And no the age (1st grader vs. highschooler) doesn’t make a difference there is no 14 amendment for parents of elementary aged children and then a separate 14 amendments for parents of teenagers. If it is a 14 amendments right, then the school system would be denied the right to give sexual information to any student regardless of age. And again stop avoiding the question

Wesker read again you don’t get. The state is not superceding you at all with this decision the decision is still yours. You chose to let some else handle it if you are displease with how they did the job you told them doesn’t not mean they supercede it you it actually means they obeyed you. The parents gave the state permission to introduce information. I’ll repeat it again: You the parent chose to let the government give the curriculum it thought was best. You chose to do so, the government did not force you in to it. If you not happy with the result, it you fault for sending them there.

Furthermore your confusing give information with supercede, giving information does not supercede you authority as a parent. Using your logic the rights of all fundamentals are being by government scientist giving information on evolution. This decision persevere the state right to decimate information to citizens of minor statutes. It does not at any point give the state power to supercede you.

Superseding you would be talking away your right to home or private school.
Superceding you would be forcing public and home schooled children to take the survey.
This doesn’t give precedent for any of these:

“In doing so, we do not quarrel with
the parents’ right to inform and advise their children about the
subject of sex as they see fit.
……………………
We conclude [b]ONLY[b] that the par-
ents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the
public schools from providing information on that subject to
their students in any forum or manner they select.”

Guess you missed the word only in there? Before you bring it up the slippery slope, unless you can show a relationship between each step you committing a logical fallacy. A person's later misuse of this ruleing does not count as an ruleing can be misused.

You advise as you see fit and so dose the school. You don’t like what the school is doing you excise you right to not use the public school system. What exactly is wrong with this?

You entire theist statement is that the decision give statement more rights then the parents do. This is false the decision explicit says parents are first. The government has less right then the parent period. The decision holds that the government has a right to give minors information regarding sex in public schools, nothing more.

Dan, I agree with most of what you said. A parent does delegate the state the authority to educate their child when the opt to send their child to public school. However, that delegation comes with certain expectations. The parent sare probably given a copy of the ciricullum for the grade years that their child is attending. The expectation is that the child will be taught in accordance with the ciricullum. The parents had no reasonable expectation that their first graders would be exposed to sexual matters.

Another area of concern is the court decision regarding parents privacy rights. The court said that the parents have no expectation of privacy in this matter. This seems to set a dangerous precedent in that just what can the state inquire of the children about concerning the private lives of the children or their parents?

Again, I was talking about a fundamental right. Clearly you need a short lesson in philosophy.

There are two kinds of rights. There are fundamental rights, which include the right to life, the right to liberty, bodily autonomy, etc. These rights are natural (we have them because we are who we are and for no other reason), universal (they apply to everybody), and inalienable (they cannot be surrendered or taken away).

The other kind of rights are derivative rights, which are essentially extensions of fundamental rights, the difference being that they are NOT natural, universal, and inalienable. Take the 1st Amendment. If times were right, the sheep were guided well enough, and enough crying was done, we could have a constitutional amendment that annuls the 1st amendment, and poof! No freedom of religion. Or freedom of speech, or the freedoms that we take for granted.

The right to influence your child's education is a derivative right, not a fundamental right.

O RLY?

EDIT: Oh, and if that's not enough, then on the top of my head, I can recall several of these laws:

It is illegal to whistle underwater.
In Texas, you may not carry wire cutters in your pocket.
If two trains meet on a track, then both must stop and neither may continue until the other has passed.

And you claim that laws have to follow society's standards? :edgartpg:

So this court order decides that parents have no right on what they are taught and stuff?

Partially, I stand neutral, as both sides stand at a position where the right delegated or borned with can be abused. In which the parents oppose the teaching of perhaps theories of evolution (I'm out of topic).

Then again, I feel that since the parents indirectly 'delegated' the task of providing education to the centralized government, perhaps that the government is accountable for what it teaches towards their kids.

Then, comes it the fact that there are so many parents, so many differing opinions. Perhaps parents should start home-schooling and abandon the idea of state-sponsored education entirely. (sarcasm)

You're not going to change what I think nor am I going to change what you think.

Oh boy. Freedom of speech is misconstrued anyway. Do I need to redirect your attention to the Alien and Sedition Act? Perhaps the Smith Act? Take a look at the scarier provisions of the Patriot Act. Those freedoms are not a bastion of freedom that you think it is.

No I claimed that legitimate law has to follow society's standards. Prohibition and the other examples only confirm my point. They were examples of laws that are/were not taken legitimately by society at large. I mean, isn't that why the 30's were called the "Sober 30's" instead of the "Roaring 30's"? Or was it 20's? I forget.

*edit* But that's probably another point we won't agree on.

Congratulations. Now do you think you could argue my point?

Legitimacy has nothing to do with your argument. The fact remains that a) We live in a social contract society (i.e. we, by being citizens, agree to obey the laws of the land), and b) those examples became laws. Thus, there is a potential for a law to go against the moral standards of the community at large, and even the potential for something like that to happen disproves your statement. You are claiming that there is a necessary connection between laws and morality, and then turning around and explaining away counterexamples by claiming that they're not "legitimate." Bullshit! If they weren't legitimate, then they wouldn't have become laws. The very concept of an illegitimate law is contradictory. :lolsign:

You really should be more careful with all or nothing statements, they're incredibly easy to disprove.

Again this irrelevant this deals with the wisdom of the schools decision not the constitutionality of it. Nor was this even a point of argument in the case, the parents didn’t say our right were violated because “they lied to us and we didn’t know this could happen,” they said “you don’t have the right to teach our kids about sex anywhere, anytime period.” And even then not haveing a reasonable expectation that subject matter x would be presented does not mean presenting that subject matter in unconstitutional. Replace x with evolution, abortion, gun control, tolerance issues etc.

Secondly, you keep getting hung up on the fact that they were first graders I’ll repeat the question again. Do you believe all sex ed programs in public schools are un-constitutional? If this idea had passed all sex ed programs would be illegal a 17 year old would be equally effected by this as a first grader would. The parents request was not dependent of age, all minors would be unable to receive any form of sex ed in school.

It doesn’t because it does set ant precedent, it just follows existing ones:

“The Supreme Court has identified at least two constitutionally
protected privacy interests: the right to control the disclosure
of sensitive information”
The sex questions are no more sensitive information then are the questions about whether they have been beaten up. Nor was it even argued:

“The parents do not allege that
their children were forced to disclose private information.”
The fact that the state was inquiring information was never an issue, only the information decimated as part of the inquiry process. Yor inquire concern is not warranted.

The second reason:

right to “independence when
making certain kinds of important decisions.”

Weather a child receives information about x is not an important intimate decision. Replace x with evolution, abortion, gun control, tolerance issues etc.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that sexual content should be treated legally different then all over subjects in regards to education and the 14th amendment it is not. There is no reason to treat sexual content differently the all other forums of content and even if it there were reasons a case for such was made here only a matter of fact assertion that they had exclusive control over this matter. The judge can only rule on what in front of him the case they brought up was that layman’s terms “the state could in never say anything about sex to minors, because of the 14th. period”. Not "sex is unique and therefore should be treated differently the non-sex issues under the 14th” All your arguments are based on misconceptions about what the parents were asking for from a legal standpoint and the rather limited scope of the judges ruling.

Legitimacy has everything to do with my argument. Especially when talking about Prohibition. A law that was so widely disregarded and where authority of said law was flaunted on such a wide scale.

If it was legitimate they wouldn't be disregarded by pretty much everybody, even the moral crusaders that voted for it. President Harding voted for Prohibition when he was a Senator, but kept the White House stocked with bootleg alcohol. Our own president at the time disregarded such a illogical and illegitimate law.

Saying "Well they're legitimate because they're laws!" is false. Just because they're laws does not make them legitimate. Society as a whole must accept them as the standard. Thus when society doesn't accept them, the laws become illegitmate quickly. Laws are required to evolve over time to retain their relevancy and legitimacy or they die.

And the people who did that broke the law and were punished for it if they got caught. You're saying that because the majority of people disagreed with it then it wasn't legitimate. Guess what? A majority of people don't agree with taxes, nor do they agree with being fined for speeding! That makes them illegitimate!

You're putting forth a VERY dangerous argument here. You're essentially saying that laws aren't based upon an objective standard, but on the whims of the public, which is a) very hard to determine, and b) very easy to influence, either the public itself or the results of any testing.

I'm not really saying anything, just posing a theoretical question. If the President of the United States openly flaunts the law; can it be considered legitimate? If the vast majority of people don't follow said law; is it legitimate?

The majority of the people think that taxes are a necessary evil. Since speeding tickets; like the lottery is a form of taxation, then that fits under the necessary evil catagory. Now, most people don't like taxes. They're not required too. The small minority of people, (I call them anarchists) don't buy that, nor accept that argument. Incidently they typically believe that the State's very existence violates their fundamental rights. (Had to stay on topic somehow! Or tie-in)

Well at least we finally agree on something eh? Long and drawn out discussions tends to do that.

Yes, I am putting forth some dangerous ideas. The question is, dangerous to whom?

You're half-right. I am putting forth the idea that law is not based upon objective standard. However, I'm not saying it's based on the whims on the public. Take slavery for example. Was that on the whims of the public? Did it benefit the public? I would like to think that both are false. Yet, slavery as an institution existed and was protected/enforced by the law. Cui bono?

It doesn't matter who violates the law. You violated the law, and thus you are punished (assuming you get caught). How hard is this to understand?

Funny, It's estimated that around 5 percent of Americans evade taxes via offshore tax havens alone. And consider that a tax haven is one of the least used. Of the 1.5 trillion in taxes collected in 1998, it's estimated that there was at least another 232 billion that was never collected. Even accounting for corporate evasion, that's still a pretty penny of people whom, according to you, hate taxes but pay them anyway (which coincidentally makes taxes legitimate).

Are you quite done being overly dramatic? =\

Funny thing is, that prior to the Civil War era it was supported by the majority, and one of the main arguments from the South was that abolition would remove the strength of its economy. Also, it certainly isn't an institution protected by law today. And how can you say that "the vast majority of people violate this law thus it is illegitimate" is not saying "the legitimacy of law is determined by the majority opinion?"

Everyone who violates the law and get's caught get's punished? I wish.

Offshore tax havens are legal. Not that a liberal think tank would agree with me. There's plenty of gray area. Which is why the IRS doesn't go after tax shelters with much gusto. Especially since the laws have changed in favor of the offshore havens. Corporations are not citizens anyway. That doesn't mean they aren't granted privileges as such. That's beside the point.

Additionally you are only talking about federal income taxes. People that do not pay their taxes are in the minority. When you fill up your car with gas you're paying a tax. When you get a drivers license you're paying yet more taxes. Face it, we're taxed to death on everything. Most states have a sales tax. So if you buy anything you're being taxed.

That's debatable, not that I'm expecting you to come to a agreement with me. Only a small wealthy minority actually owned slaves. But it was still an institution protected by law, for roughly let's say half this nation's existence. You didn't answer my question of; Did it benefit the public even if the majority were not slaveowners?

When even a minority of people disregard the law, revolutions become a possibility. Revolutions in my mind are completely legitimate politicial actions. Self-determination and all that yeah? Yet they're still overthrowing "legitimate" laws right? Who's deciding what's legitimate?

Now I never said that "the legitimacy of law is determined by the majority opinion", I said that the legitimacy of the law is established by the society's standard morals of the time. Not everyone shares morals, nor do they stay the same. Which requires law to evolve with the times. The only real alternative to that is that the law loses it's legitimacy, and revolutions become a real threat to the established order. Which is part of the reason why Lincoln freed the slaves, and not Nat Turner.

Hmm, I don't know where to take it from here. This could probably go on forever. heh.

I meant "caught" as in with no reasonable doubt. Granted, it becomes massively complicated with plea deals, but such technicalities are outside the scope of this discussion, neh?

Slave owners pre-Civil War would argue that it did benefit the public. Granted, after slavery was abolished there was (I believe) a minimal impact on the economy, but by the time the war had started the Industrial Revolution had already begun, minimalizing the need for slaves.

One man's revolutionary is another man's terrorist. When those people became revolutionaries, then in the eyes of the law they became criminals and were punished, usually severely, when they were caught. If the revolution succeeded, then the old system didn't exist anymore and the law was changed, thus the revolutionaries were no longer criminals.

...what.

Seriously, what the hell do you think determines the "society's standard morals of the time?"

The majority opinion.

I direct your attention to Oliver North. Infamous for his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair. Convicted of lying to Congress. His penalty? A show on Fox News. That's so harsh man! (I mean you're a liberal and all right? :) )

So only winners write the history books. I can agree with that one.


Tradition and customs. People with differing opinions typically share the same tradition and customs. We're all united in that one. The minorities rights don't get trampled on in such a case. Except when the tramping of the minorities is a custom. That combined with precedents set by judges is the basis of common law.

Now I guess we're going to argue over civil law... or statutory law. Shit, this is never going to end.

And thus, they have an opinion on morality, based on customs and traditions. Therefore, you are claiming that legitimacy of law is based on the majority opinion.

Morality is relative. There can be no clear majority opinion since everybody has differing morals that they live by. Thus, law is not based upon the "majority's opinions". Which is why morality issues such as abortion are such sticky legal territory. Also why Roe v Wade make's no reference to "a woman's right to an abortion" and merely states that States do not have the power to ban abortion.

and 'round we go.

Morality is RELATIVE?

I'm lollin'.

DEATHBLOW TO A LEGENDARY THREAD, GO!

So, you believe in moral relativism, eh?

Well then, let me point you to two arguments, the Shape Relativist argument, and Moore's Argument.

First, let's officially define moral relativism: "Tribe "x" believes that, "a" is morally wrong. Tribe "y" believes that, "a" is morally right. Therefore, the morality of "a" is dependant on the beliefs on the tribe."

I think we can agree on this as the definition of moral relativism, no?

Anyway, one main point of Moral Relativism (or "MR") is that supporters of these theory point to a similar theory, Cultural Relativism (which is the theory that different tribes have different moral beliefs, which is true) as evidence. However, the Shape Relativist argument debunks the argument for "MR":

"Tribe "x" believes that, the Earth is roughly spherical. Tribe "y" believes that, the earth is not roughly spherical. Therefore, the sphericity of the Earth is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

The Shape Relativist argument effectively disconnects "MR" from its reasoning. Cultural Relativism is true, yes, but it does not imply "MR."

However, that does not deal with the truth of "MR," it just shows that there is no link between Cultural Relativism and "MR." Moore's argument deals with this like so:

"If it is true that one and the same action can be both right and wrong at the same time or at different times (the normative definition of "MR"), and assuming that each case of moral judgement is a factually correct dissertion of the person's feelings, then it follows that when two persons appear to disagree, they do not genuinely disagree. But, in point of observed fact, people do genuinely disagree. Therefore, Moral Relativism is false."

What this argument says is that if "MR" is true, then there can be NO genuine disagreements because we're dealing with irrevocably private feelings (an example being your opinion on Pepsi or Coke, where one person says "I like Coke," and the other says, "No you don't.") However, we DO have genuine disagreements over publically available procedures. Thus, "MR" cannot be true.

1st, your shape relevatism is a bullshit red herring.

2nd, moral relevatism is essentially the difference in beliefs between two or more parties. If it's a yes/no question like Pepsi vs. Coke, one has to be correct. But since there is no way to know which is correct (asside from the ever popular believing oneself to always be right), the issue is relative.

3rd, In your 'Moore's Argument', there is a wild and unsubstantiated jump to guess that since people believe different things, that they wouldn't really argue, and since people obviously argue, they believe different things. That is also, some bullshit that makes no sense. Sure sounds pretty though. They argue because they have differing opinions on what is or is not moral, and they cannot or will not accept the other person's worldview as true. How is this false?

You've never taken a logic class, have you? Let me explain:

The Moral Relativist argument and the Shape Relativist argument share the same logical form. Think of it like two blueprints of a house: One is decked out with contemporary deocration and high-tech stuff, while the other is rustic and exudes Southern hospitality. When you look at the blueprints however, you see that they are the same thing. Thus, if you take out the keystone for one house and make it collapse, removing the same keystone will take out the other house. Since the Shape Relativist argument is so obviously absurd and logically defective, thus the logical form is defective. In other words, "MR" is a logically defective argument.

Did you even understand what I said? I said that the Pepsi vs. Coke debate was one saying "I like Coke more than Pepsi!" and the other saying "No, you don't." How can the other person know? He can't because they are dealing with irrevocably private feelings. According to Moral Relativism, ALL disagreements deal with irrevocably private feelings. However, there ARE disagreements that do NOT deal with irrevocably private feelings, but publically observed fact (such as 2+2=4. If somebody says 2+2=5, then that person is wrong because he is talking about a publically observed fact, and can be shown as such). Thus, Moral Relativism is false.

I've already dealt with this in my response to your second point. According to Moral Relativism, there can be no such thing as a genuine disagreement since we are all talking about nothing but irrevocably private feelings. But again, there ARE genuine disagreements over publically available procedures. Thus, since reality contradicts "MR," "MR" is false.

The shape relevatism is only defective because it is a situation wherein we know the answer. Up until the time where the shape was known, either side of the argument could have been correct, because neither side was provable.

Except that arguments on moral issues are not debates about telling others what they do, and do not believe. It's telling others that you believe what you believe, and the other sides of the debate continuing to believe what they believe. Unlike the shape relevatism, these are generally issues that have not been 'proven' one way or the other.

This is not according to MR, this is according to Moore. And how is arguing over irrevocably private feelings not genuine anyhow?

But if we are going to go on the assumption that MR is false (Which is debateable despite what your classes may have told you). What is true, if people of different backgrounds and seemingly different morals do not seem to agree. I mean, if they don't REALLY have different morals, which then are the universal morals that all of us share, just that some of us do not yet grasp?

So you're effectively saying that the Earth ISN'T round? Rrriiiiight.

Arguments on moral issues are, at least from a philosophical point of view, attempts at using logic and reason to determine whether something is justifiable and if so, whether it is true. And believe it or not, a great many issues that are still hotly debated have for the most part been resolved. The only problem is that often a LOT of cases within one issue have a mazework of factors, and the problem then becomes weighing these factors and making a moral judgement, which may result in different outcomes even in cases that are very similar in circumstance.

"Genuine" as in an actual argument beyond going "NO U DON'T" over and over again. =\

Oh, and believe it or not, Moore is a logician. And what he did with his argument is give the definition of Moral Relativism in both the normative and meta-ethical sense (meta-ethical as in what "good" is: in the case of MR, it's feelings in general), then follow it to its conclusion, i.e. that people cannot genuinely disagree since they are disagreeing over irrevocably private feelings. Moore then notes that genuine disagreements occur since there are procedures/facts/etc. that are universally observable (such as gravity), and thus reality contradicts MR, making it false.

Congratulations on asking a question that is right up there with "Why are we here?"

And I never said that they don't have different morals, I'm saying that under Moral Relativism, all moral codes are right (and all arguments period, for that matter), even ones that contradict one another. As such, under MR, there is no point in arguing at all about ANYTHING. MR would say that things such as racism, genocide, etc. are morally correct, because ALL codes are correct. To claim otherwise is to argue something other than MR. In essence, MR isn't even a theory, it's just a diplomatic way of saying "I hate what you do, but I'm too much of a pussy to argue against what you believe in."