Parental rights denied by 9th Circuit Court
 

Although this decision was made in 11/05, I think it merits discussion. The 9the Circuit Court determined that parents have to exclusive constitutional right to determine what their children are taught regarding sexual matters. The court ruled that the parents rights end at the school door. The case revolves around a sex survey given to elementary school kids asking questions of a deeply personal and sexual manner. (How often do you touch yorself, etc.). The parents objected, saying they should determine what their kids are exposed to regarding sexuality.

Sound to me like an open door for any pro gay, pro abortion, etc. agenda that the schools feel are proper and politocally correct. It would seem to me like a violation of the parents first amendment right to practice the religion of their choice. The court held that parents still have to choice as to where to send their kids to school, but with the liberal fight against vouchers, how many parents really have this choice?

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=7

Can we please ban the word, agenda, from Political Palace? Forever, ever, and ever?

Or a quota system unusable by Wesker.

What does the parents' religion have to do with a sexually aware survey?

Who's to say the parents know best? If parents wish to affect the education of their own child in public school, they are also affecting the education of all kids in that school. If parents want their kids to learn about something in a manner they deem apporpriate, they should teach it to their children themselves. And that, of course, is allowed. What is not allowed (and upheld by this court) is parents spreading their own agenda over all kids instead of just their own.

If this is the case I'm thinking of, these were SECOND GRADERS, people - not high schoolers. The parents absolutely should have a say over *if* (I was going to say "what", but that is totally out of the realm of rational thinking) their seven-year-olds are exposed to with regard to sex, religion, peanut butter vs. peanut butter & jelly, whether or not the sky is blue, or any other subject imaginable.

Are you people crazy?

Like I said, I thought this was referring to the case (in New Hampshire or Connecticut or one of those states) where second-graders were given a questionnaire regarding masturbation, homosexuality, etc. without parental consent.

Actually, when I was in fifth grade, they DID do that. >_>

We literally had to get a permission slip signed to take a sex ed/health class. It was taught by the lesbian gym teacher. No joke.

And I don't have a problem with this letter (in the article...thing)
Personally, I would do the homework on the CSPP and be sure they're legit. (which I am sure they are.)

I would sign that. I imagine they're not idiotic and they'll hold themselves in good taste with administering an evaluation. This is coming from a person who doesn't trust doctors.

I am sure they're not going to ask first graders anything terribly graphic - its more than likely geared towards a first grader's mind. These are psychologists. Not pedophiles. They're doing your community a service.

maybe it's just me but it seems kids of younger and younger age learn of these things and swearing and such.

I don't really get the POINT of the survey to start with - what was it's purpose being there in the first place? Or someone along the school board just curious what those little children do these days during their boutifull 'free times'? If they're going to teach sexuality just teach it for goodness sake, the kids are there to learn and not to conclude a survey on how often they touch themselves.

EDIT: OK. But still, throwing a survey like this at them is just strange to begin with. If they think they need to get covered over this sexuality thing a bit earlier or more in detail or on other topics as well, I think the media reveals this very well on violent acts on younger youth as well as all that's up on the news: couldn't they get the concenus off of that or they need some hard proof that they need to change the course or something?

After carefully reading all of this document, theres really absolutely NOTHING these parents could get upset about.

These seem like valid questions to me. I don't know.

These are still 1st-5th grade kids we're talking about....I mean I can see maybe starting the questionare (with the sex-related questions) maybe 5th and up....but not 1st-4th graders. I mean I have nothing against sex-ed or anything....it's just that most 1st and 2nd (and maybe 3rd graders) don't know where babies come from let alone what 'sex' or 'masterbation/"touching myself"' mean. At least that's the way it was when I was in school (I became home schooled after 4th grade). But then again....kids are maturing sooner and sooner now adays....so who knows....the kids in those grades probaly DO know where babies come from and the meaning of 'sex' :/ .....

I'm not sure what the survey intends to accomplish when the subjects don't even have a base understanding of sex. I mean, when you get into 4th and 5th Grade you're gonna have some kids "in the know" who get boners looking at swimsuit calendars, but 1st Graders?

In either case, if parents don't like it, they can send their kids to private school. It's a free country. :cow:

I considered that, but wrote it off as just a necessity to get scientifically acceptable statistics. Gonna need those for graphs.

"What Is Sex' has garnered seventy percent of the results, professor."

"GOOD! GOOD! Feed it to the machine!"

All I know is that I certainly wouldn't want my 7 year old asking me what sex was all of a sudden. Aren't I supposed to have time to prepare for these things?

Most first and second graders do know roughly where babies come from. Well, pretty roughly. The way my folks explained it, I thought parents made soup from which the baby emerged.

After reading the questions, I don't object. It's like how the doctor tells you that you shouldn't let anyone touch you in your bathing suit area.

When the hell did you guys first find out about babies and sex? Christ, did I drop into Lives-Under-A-Rock-land?

No, I don't believe I'll ever feel like doing a laid son, thank you very much madam.

Also, how far along is the pregnancy?

Double Post:
My mom claims that she gave me "The Talk" after the neighbor's kid knocked up his girlfriend and I saw her walking on the sidewalk all pregnant. Of course, I have absolutely no recollection of this, so she could just be feeding me lies.

I remember finding said kid's stash of girly mags, and that would be the first exposure to sexuality that spiralled me into an awkward perversion of pre-adolescent thought.

Isn't childhood wonderful?

That's not surprising. Parents are required to surrender their children to the state for their... education. Under threat of imprisonment. The state has and always will decide what needs to be taught.

School is a religion. Where you're taught to obey authority without question. It does wonders preparing children to be complacent members of a modern capitalist society. Smart people are dangerous after all.

The problem here, as I see it rests with the subject matter. Science, math, English, etc are valid subjects, usually without a moral bearing one way or the other. Inquiring as to a childs sexual thoughts, teaching certain sexual matters as normal when they perhaps are not for many people, well, this crosses the line.

I find it interesting the idea put forth by the court that parents have no "exclusive Constitutional right" to the education of their kids. Taken to its logical conclusion that though would end homeschooliong and private schools and mandate government approved brainwashing..i mean "education".

And what sick pervert is studying how many times a frist grader considers matrubation...thats just sick.

Did you even read the article.

Sex was actually not even a big issue on the survey. It was sparsed in with questions about violence, interactions with others, and feelings that would raise an alarm in ANY parent's head.

Its not like a bunch of amateurs performed these surveys. It was COMPLETELY anonymous, it didn't ask anything terribly inappropriate or graphic, and it was done by tasteful professionals from what I read.

If you can't accept that an institution is surveying your kids and the subject of your kid's peepee is going to come up, send them to a private religious school. I don't see why the state schol cater to pansy-ass parents who can't talk assess their own child's feelings or feel "uncomfortable" that their kid is going to be asked about psychological evaulation questions which MAY JUST INVOLVE their body.

A first grader doesn't even know what "masturbation" is.

These are not pedophiles. They are PSYCHOLOGISTS. Wow.

Now Devo, a lot of fucked up things were done in the name of Psychology. Like electroshock therapy and Lobotomies.

I've heard electroshock was making a bit of a comeback now that people have gotten past Kesey's reactionary response to it.

I also feel sorry for the first grade teacher that has to answer the question, "What's masturbation?" (Also insert necessary child mispronunciation of the word.)

I'm just sayin'. The suggestion that Psychologists know what they're doing is a little sketchy. They haven't established themselves very well just yet.

Nobody seems to have brought it up, but what I gathered from the statement was that the questionnaire was designed to bring to light any trauma (violent or sexual) which might be inhibiting a child's learning.

It's also been my impression that touching oneself as such a young age is indicative of sexual trauma. I think asking whether a kid touches himself out of a neurotic response to rape is more valid than wondering whether 6 year olds get horny.

If you look at the wording of that letter, the parents have a point that it wasn't explicitly stated that there would be questions with sexual content. That may have been an ingenuous ommission by the district, but I can easily imagine a meeting where someone said "Oh don't say that; then they'll never go for it!"

Oh, and lurker, by the third grade I had a rough understanding of procreation. eg. Babies came out between girls' legs, and boys peed up there to make it happen.

Hello? This is America we're talking about here. You can be a scientist... just don't talk about evolution. You can be a climatologist... just don't talk about global warming. You following?

And people wonder why Americans are behind other industrialized nations in the sciences.

"Brainwashing" is such a harsh word. It's more like socialization. Or if you really have to be negative about it "conditioning". Society needs to be maintained, and public/private education is maintenance required to maintain the existing order of things.

Furthermore, home schooling materials still have to be mandated by the State. Private/public school teachers are typically certified by the State. So home schooling really won't be illegal.

That really wasn't what the article was about, but considering the quality of my "sex education" when I was in public school... well calling it a "education" is a insult to my senses.

That was probably the real reason. I don't see much point to a questionnaire though, since the signs would be physically manifested at that point.

You have a point Watts. The questionnaires would be useful if they indicated specific children who had been traumatized, allowing those children to be helped, or to find relations between specific learning problems and specific traumas, allowing the former to be solved by treating the latter.

However, if anonymity is guaranteed, then the only thing you get is a statistic analysis of children who have been traumatized. A comparison with one regarding children with learning problems might indicate a relation. However, I thought we already knew that there was a link between the two.

True, but how effective could a comparison be? All too often sexual abuse is only the first worm in a very large can of worms.

Right, which is not in the interests of protecting the children. They're being used as lab rats at that point. I can't say I'd be for that.

Not necessarily. Many states only require that ceratin subjects be taught and the cirricullum doesn't have to be state approved. Many cirricullum are religious based and thus wouldn't meet "state" approval.

My whole point in bring this issue up isn't sex education and the like...it is however the fact that a court has determined that parents have less rights in deciding their own kids education that does the state. It is frightening that the state has more rights over your kids than you do. The state says your kid need Ritalin or he's out of school...he goes on ritalin. Your a conservative Christian/Muslim/Jew and you believe homosexuality is a sin..tough shit cause the school says you're wrong...and the list can go on. I believe a ruling like this sets a dangerous precendent by establishing that the state has a greater rights than parents in regards to their children.

In a world of fucked up parents, the state has a responsibility that children have a happy childhood and don't end up as psycho/mental patients because the system didn't pick up their unfortunate situation.

And yes denying a child medisin that helps them function in scociety(Yes I know someone in my family with ADHD and he doesn't function well at school without the drugs sad but true) or put them up against other parts of scociety cause they are sinners in the parents eyes. I'd wish children where allowed to find their own truth and not have oppressive parents force their fate down the childs throat.

And yes I believe christianity ect. are wrong for putting the sinner stigma on certain groups of people like they do. But thats a discussion for another time.

In other words - parents have no right to determine what medications their children take, where they go to school, and how and when they learn about sex?

Sounds like an argument that the government knows what's better for kids than their own parents do. Because once you make the argument for one set of parents, why not apply it to them all?

In one word yes.

I've seen enough parents making their children miserable/sick by their ill actions if intentional or not. I'm in short saying fix it before the shit really hits the fan.

And people bitch when the government wants to control our video games.

Never bitched about government control over games to minors myself.

Isn't it taking the ruling completely out of context to say parents have no determination on the disposition of their children? The ruling says:

This just means they don't have the right to sue anyone who allows the kid to learn something not explicitly approved by the parent. I think that's reasonable. Well...they can't successfully sue, at any rate.

Then what is the point of parents outside of the actual conception and birthing part? If they have no right to determine anything, then you're basically saying that the government is everybody's parent.

No, it isn't taking it completely out of context. The ruling clearly states that parents have no fundamental right to inform their children on such subjects. Fundamental rights are considered "natural human" rights. Like say, you have a fundamental right to eat... or relieve your bodily functions... Oops! I forgot! In the school setting relieving your bodily functions is considered a privilege that you must ask permission for.

That's why this is a slippery slope. If the State can deny a basic fundamental right for a child, it's just as easy to do it to an adult. But that's the point of socialization isn't it?

Fundamental rights are best described as things like the right to life, the right of self defense, the right of bodily autonomy, the right of property, et al. These are universal (apply to everybody), natural (you have them because you are who you are), and inalienable (you cannot have them taken away, period). The right to control education is not a fundamental right. It might be a DERIVATIVE right such as the ones granted under our Constitution, but it does not fall under the criteria listed above (and if they did, I would die a little on the inside).

The slippery slope is a complete myth, and for your help, here's the three basic criteria for a cause and effect relationship.

1) Spacial contiguity. There MUST be a physical connection between event A and event B.
2) Temporal Priority. X (a bat hitting a ball) must happen before Y (the ball going flying).
3) Repeatability. X causing Y must happen a statistically significant number of times.

These are the ONLY three criteria. At best, they allow for something to be merely probable. There is never a necessary connection. Events can happen with a greater or lesser degree of probability, but there is never a 100% chance.

And yet, the government is still playing the role of parent to everybody in the country. The government decides what we can or can't use, where we can live, what we can do with our money, and how we can conduct ourselves in our own homes (though this is hard to actually enforce).

The government is everybody's parent, because it's assumed for close to a century now that it knows what's best for us, despite the fact that since everything is politicized, "what's best for us" is usually decided by a vocal minority (prohibition). It's an authoritative oligarchy that has no need or consideration for any individualism or "fundamental rights." Bodily autonomy is already out the fucking window.

True, it is more or less. At least for the issue of abortion, although I wouldn't be surprised if we started seeing it happening for other issues as well.

And why the fuck not? You only have people cheating the welfare system, stealing from the IRS by lying on your tax returns, having more kids so they can get more money or any other number of scenarios.

(People are shitty and think they're exempt from rules for some reason. I don't fucking get it myself.)

How, exactly, is the government playing the role of the parent on abortion? Playing the role of the parent would be saying "You have too many kids. You must have an abortion." Playing the role of the parent would also be "I think this is wrong, so I'm not going to let it happen." As it is, they leave the decision specifically TO the biological parent.

The government definately plays the role of the parent on a lot of topics. Abortion isn't one of them.

Oh. My. God. I think I just found my true political polar opposite.

Please tell me you're exaggerating your beliefs just a little to get a rise out of some of us. Please. If not, then at least set my mind at ease by assuring me that you really do live in Norway as your flag indicates, so I don't have to worry about you casting any votes any time soon.

Geeze, I love this shit.

Ok for all you kiddies who don't think that your parents know best, why don't you just divorce your parents and let the state have custody so you can have a good life and be raised right like good little fascists.

yeah, much better to have a centralized gov't as a moral dictator. did your parents oppress you with their instruction Kensaki, or did they let you find your own way 100% on your own?

Those of you who think this is no big deal and that the government knows better than parents in this case should realize that a decision like this can be a two edged sword. If the educational system were to take a hard right turn (a fantasy, I know) and your kids were bing taught how evil gays are and how wrong liberal ideas were, wouldn't you then want your parental authority back, or would you still be fine with your kids being taught morals that are in direct opposition to how you're trying to raise them??

I am from Norway yes, and I may or may not have spiced it up a little.:p

"I sense much hostility in this one."

And yes I don't think many parents know how to raise a child. I had a nice upbringing but more often than not I see parents messing up their kids over religion/political views ect. Or do you like the fact that little Aron learns the black people are the pest of the world. Or little Ali gets fed propaganda about how evil none muslims are. I am for that the government should have a right to say to parents that teaching children things like these will later be a hinder for their kids and that scociety wont accept such prejudice against certain groups.

Or to take another situation. Little Lisa has cancer but can be saved by modern medicine, she wants to live but as she is 13 her parents who believe western drugs are prohibited by their fate refuse her treatment and condemn her to die. Even though she wants to live. I believe everyone should have personal freedom to teach their children but I also believe the government has a responcibility to keep an eye on the child and make sure it is happy and well adjusted to scociety.

I could easily draw up many more senarioes, but that would be pointless.

Faith, Kensaki, the word you're looking for is Faith.

The government really shouldn't have a say in what parents teach their children. If Achmed wants to tell his eldest son that his sister is a harlot because she dresses up like all the other Western girls, that's their business. Whether or not Elder son buys all that crap is up to him.

Children are impressionable, yes, but who is to say who is right? The state, obviously, because that's what you're going for. If, however, we've assumed that only the state can dictate sound morals, then all children should be taken into custody by the state, as their parents can't be trusted.

Of course you have your racists, and your hotheads, but they're free to practice their religions and free to voice their opinions. When an addict teaches his kid how to coke meth, then you have a case for civil services, but you shouldn't be legislating thought.

Public schools don't teach morality. They leave that to the parents.

So what you're saying is that parents have no fundamental right to raise or nurture a child as they see fit. Is that not the definition of a parent?

You're essentially talking about mathematics, I'm talking about legal precedents. At any point in time this ruling could be used as justification to deny a parent the right to raise their child in any manner that they deem to be prudent.

Of course, I cited that example much earlier in the thread. All I'm saying is that a government should not be able to legislate morals/ideas/etc because that is the parent's job.

Abuse violates the right's of the child. Which is why we laws against child abuse.

"By informing them you're encouraging them to have sex! Which is wrong!"

Is that not the basic line that the conservative movement take's on such issues? It surely is the reason why sex education is so horribly outdated and uninformative.

Yeah I agree. Which is where my argument pretty much falls apart.

That still does not change reality with people who disagree.

But not all sides of history are taught. Only the winner's story get's told. I could probably say something about how kids are being brainwashed with blind nationalism to inspire "justified" murder. But I'd be stretching a little too much.

In this specific case, there was a letter sent out to the parents supposedly informing them of the nature of the survey. The consent form said that it dealt with stuff concerning "early trauma" citing "violence" as an example, and in no way suggested anything specific about sexual behavior.

Any survey that could potentially make a kid uncomfortable to the point of needing a therapist afterwards is fucking dumb.

It may come as a shock to some of you, but not all first graders know that masturbation, self-mutilation, sexual abuse and excessive violent and gory movies and TV even exist. Why expose them to those concepts at such an early age? Sure, they're going to learn about all that stuff eventually, but doesn't anyone hold childhood innocence sacred anymore? Don't the parents have the right keep them innocent until they're a little older?

"In fact, the survey asked seven year olds to “rate the following activities” among which were these:

8. Touching my private parts too much
17. Thinking about having sex
22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts
23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to
26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside

34. Not trusting people because they might want sex
40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
44. Having sex feelings in my body
47. Can’t stop thinking about sex
54. Getting upset when people talk about sex "

These are the actual questions. Seems a bit heavy handed to ask seven year olds this when the thing they think about the most is Spongebob. A survey like this, done at such an early age, doesn't just inquire, it provides. These type of questions to a 7 year old, in an authoritarian school setting will undoubtedly prompt the kid, who probably never thought about sex at all, to wonder if he should start. Should he touch himself? Should he think about touching others private parts? The survey opens doors way to early that should be opened when a parent deems fit.

As to the history argument..are we exposing 7 year olds to the full graphic horror of the holocaust or is that reserved for an older audience?

Again..the question at the heart of this is who has the ultimate authority over our children? The way the government runs most things the thought of them having exclusive control over the education of kids is frightening to say the least.

Thanks for the correction on faith.

Yes of course most of the time the system shouldn't interfere in a family situation. But doesn't hurt to keep an eye on that. Doesn't go to far from your sister is a harlot too your sister must die cause she has brought shame upon the family. I've seen alot of these cases.

I guess you could say I have little faith in the average persons ability to not impart their more dark traits what they may be racism, criminality or drugs. I am most likely being over zealous on this issue but as I have said before I've seen the results of situations that could have been avoided all togheter if the system had taken a step to correct it.

By the way I'm not directly talking about taking children away from parents, rather keep an eye on suspicious parents that could be gathered from tests like these. It may be a bit big brother but well... Small price to pay if you ask me.

It amazes me how people can link to a decisions quote a decision and still complete miss the point. Wisker, the decision does not weaken partial rights in the slightest parents have the exact same rights after the decision that they had before.

The decision only say parents do not have exclusive control over when a child is introduced to information. No where in that decision does it say that state knows more then the parents do about what good for the children, or that it has exclusive control. In fact it says the opposite:

In Prince v. Massa-
chusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Court recognized that par-
ents’ liberty interest in the custody, care, and nurture of their
children resides “first” in the parents, but does not reside there
exclusively, nor is it “beyond regulation [by the state] in the
public interest.”

Irrelevant did you even read the decisions. The question is: is it unconstitutional? not if it’s a good idea, not if right. Is it a good idea no, it is unconstitutional no it not. All this talk about weather it was a good idea to give the survey is a red herrings as it irrelevant to the decision

No it not it about if parents have exclusive rights to control “introduction and flow of sexual information “. No they don’t, never have. Let me spell it out for you: if parents rights are exclusive then all public schools would have to, taking the idea to it’s logical extreme, stop teaching biology as well as many other classes. Because they deal with sex and a non-parent introducing the information would violate this supposed right. No such right has ever existed:

"It is clear, and the parents agree,
that no court has ever held that parents have a specific funda-
mental right “to control the upbringing of their children by
introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accor-
dance with their personal and religious values and beliefs.” In
fact, no such specific right can be found in the deep roots of
the nation’s history and tradition or implied in the concept of
ordered liberty."

The parents knew this and all the case really amounted to was a bunch of pissed off soccer moms trying to find loopholes in the law. The parents are the one who wanted to create precedent here Wisker by find a previously undiscovered constitutional right.

The judge made the right decision, following legal precedent. People over the internet then preceded to misinterpret it, end of story.

Alice, the school respected that when they sent out consent forms.

Also, it's still kind of creeping me out that nobody's getting this, maybe it's just me. If parents have a fundamental right to control what their children learn, that means they can call upon the courts to take action against anyone who introduces anything to their kids which doesn't meet their approval. That sounds like a legal nightmare to me. I could sue the neighbors for letting their kids swear near mine.

I also want to make sure everyone is aware that nobody said anything about parents not having a say in raising their kids. The only thing that ruling said was that the rest of society has a right too. Since when has a child ever been raised without society's input? This doesn't seem new to me.

Further, I recall while I was in high school, everyone was bitching about parents having too much control over the school system. The school administration was tied up about so many things because the PTA/PTO had so much weight. So, it seems to me that if your kid hears/learns something you didn't want them too, you first present your viewpoint, with all the authority of parenthood behind it, and then you rally and kick the shit out of the place that allowed it.

Regarding childhood innocence, I agree, it's a wonderful ideal. I'll point out that in my experience, it was ruined by my peers, not by the administration. I'm certain this is the norm.

This is an affirmation of the status quo, why are we all up in arms about it now?

Lack of exclusive control meaning that if I as a parent decide that little Jimmy not learn all about the birds and the bees until, oh lets say he's 9 years old, but the state, in its infinite wisdom, decides that innocent little Jimmy be introduced to sex and touching himself, and touching other people, or, lets go beyond the survey, since we're talking sexual matters not just the survey, condom usage, at age 7, then I am a parent am shit out of luck.
So little Jimmy comes home from school and being only 7 and not emotionally able to handle the new sexual knowledge he has, starts touching his little sisters vagina. This ruling is ludicrous and it is bad law.

And you're right, in the case where there's a plausible reason to believe that a child is in danger, then the parents should be monitored at least somewhat. However, applying this logic to racism and extremist ideology is specifically infringing on the freedom of speech of the parents. Centuries of liberal thought have insisted that ideas aren't dangerous. If we willingly infringe on people's rights based on any criteria, then we've no claim to them.

Maybe you think the peering eyes over your shoulder is worth the avoidance of some childhood trauma, but I don't.

The thing about the survey was that it was anonymous for the participants. In the end, all we get is a bunch of numbers on charts, and parents have to answer awkward questions. No rescued children, no winners, except the surveyors.

Dear Wesker: "Bad Law" is a phrase with a specific meaning. It doesn't just mean "a law that I think is bad". Please be more careful.

Furthermore, if you think little kids aren't already naturally curious about the interior of their underpants, you're deluded. Little boys don't need a class to tell them that girls don't have a thing down there, you dumb spastic.

The Wesker Philosophy: "If anyone learns anything, they will probably use this knowledge to commit a crime!" If this is a reflection on the way YOUR brain worked at 7, Wesker, I feel kind of afraid of you.

Because, you know, traditional parenting doesn't ever result in screwed-up lunatics who practice taxidermy on their mothers.

At some point, the line has to be drawn: "You cannot raise your child like that." You cannot raise your child by smacking his teeth out with a belt buckle. You cannot raise your child by chaining her to the basement radiator. You cannot raise your child by freely providing him with vodka from the age of 2. Doing any of these things to your children will result in a very dissatisfying visit from John Law. These are all reasonable restrictions: Why would anyone object to them? They are intended to protect the child from the sheer maliciousness or stupidity of the parent. As such, the child's well-being has had priority over "I'm his daddy so I can do what I want" for quite some time. Now, let's all be touchy-feely about moral beliefs, eh? For example, let's say I have a moral belief that only Jesus Christ can cure disease and injury, and that the use of medicines is an abominable sin. Let's say that for this reason I refuse to let my child receive any medical assistance although he has been disemboweled by a bear. Now, in the event that the kid miraculously survives, do you think the state will look fondly upon me as a responsible parent? No, of course not. But I didn't DO anything, I just imparted my moral beliefs on my child! I'm allowed to do that! I'm a PARENT! Don't parents have any rights in this godforsaken communist hellhole of a country anymore?!

Additionally, there's a little thing called psychological damage. Now, I know those of you who are fondly stroking your autographed thanks-for-donating letters from our President just chuckled over that one, but it's a significant matter of law. Rape, for example, need not cause any physical harm to the victim. But it's still illegal, even though you didn't really hurt anybody! What's up with that. And hey, if I rape my DAUGHTER, I mean, she's not actually hurt, and I'm a PARENT, god dammit. I was just imparting my moral value that the age of consent should be lowered to around 14!

You forgot about incest.

And I think the examples you've provided are things pretty much everyone thinks is wrong. However, using these examples as justification for the abbrogation of parental rights is simply absurd. In fairness, it's not that you are advocating that, but to say that parents don't have the right to educate their children in the manner they choose (within all legal reason) is absurd.

You mean like the religious right who try to shut down television shows, movies and music for offensive material - but then bean the Bible which contains incest, gore, angels turning people to salt, guys fucking their wives handmaidens and gigantic wars?

No you are not, again the decisions does not say what you think it does. Non-exclusive doesn’t mean mandatory forced learning. The discussion effect the right of public schools:
You as a parents have a right to not sign the consent form.
You as a parent have the right to home school your child.
You have the right to send your child to private school.
You as a parents have a right to get the school board to change it’s curriculum

You are making a jump from non-exclusive to governmentally exclusive, this is not even close to reality. All the judge said in layman’s terms is if you chose to give your child to our school system you can’t to say we violate your 14 amendments rights because we made a bad call and said something you didn’t like. Your misinterpreting the legalese because believe it or not this is all this amounts to.

Again with the red herrings, you are not getting it. This has nothing to do with whether it was a good or bad idea. Bad idea dose not equal unconstitutional. If this event occurred then it obvious the school made a horribly bad decisions and the parents could go try going for damages in a court of civil law, (not that I think they would win mind you but it illustrates a point) but that still has no bearing on the constitutionality of it. Do you consider teacher first grades the full horror of the holocaust unconstitutional or simply a horrible idea?

You are mad because of the word sex in the decision not it legality. Again the example you keep avoiding: all public schools following your ludicrous logic must be shut down because all public schools by definition violate this supposed right.
When YOU, the parent, send a child a child to a school to a public you are choosing to send them to someone else to be educated. If you are sending them to someone else you are no longer the exclusive means of information. You cannot simultaneously say that I want someone else to educated my child and demand exclusive control of said education. Again lots of people hate that their child is taught evolution in school and if parents have exclusive control then all biology programs in public schools are unconstitutional. Or not even evolution just pure biology that deals with reproduction. No it not different, Wisker exclusive means excusive, any program is suspect if you have this supposed exclusive right.

Read the decision again Wisker this isn’t “bad law” it the same law that has been in place this country inception. This doesn’t set a dangerous precedent it upholds existing precedent. Not having this right hasn’t caused any problem for our nations in the last 200+ years, I don’t see any reason why going to suddenly start cause problems. Again it amazing how many people are shocked when they actually read the law as written. The judge did make new precedent he upheld existing precedent. Let me ask: again did your parents have any problems raising you with out this exclusive right? Mine seemed to handle it just fine. (and just to make it redundantly clear the judge was quoting existing cases when he said parents did not have exclusive rights he was not making it up)
So wekser if the law is so bad please list for some of the horrors past generations have faced by not having this right.

Did you get the message of my post? Of course parents know what's best for their OWN kids, but not what's best for all kids. Did you read this line from my post?

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."

Well now your point makes more sense. So people do have different morals (The way many define moral relevatism). But I don't believe that implies that each is 'right', only that to those groups they seem right. The entire crux of the moral relevatism argument is that: We of one moral stance do *not* know for absolute certain that our morals are correct, and theirs are wrong.

The reason people argue about issues that are defined as (By those that believe in) morally relative is either to educate themselves about the other side's POV, or to try to convince them that their POV is wrong, and to convince them of that.

I don't believe in much. I just like to debate. Keeps the mind in shape.

No, I don't agree with that at all. Especially we're talking about individual ideas and not a interconnected bond between humans. Unless mankind has developed a hive brain while I haven't been looking, saying "Tribe x" believe's "a" is false. We don't all think the same. "Tribe x" is composed of dissenters. It's too simplistic to explain otherwise. This is not a yes or no proposition.

There's a better definition anyhow. Moral Relativism is the idea that there is no absolute or universal morals. The source of our morals is from social, traditional, and historical values. Manifested in the individual. In other words, there probably isn't a god. If there is a God, he does not dictate our actions with universal standards. As the major religons dictate as such.

Let's deal with this problem in a historical context. Tribe "x" is Galileo and Tribe "y" is the Catholic Church. "x" is a moral relativist because he rejects the universal standard of Christianity's belief that the earth is the center of the universe. "y" is the Catholic Church. The absolute opposite of an moral relativist because "they" believe that the Earth is the center of the universe. After all the bible said so. The only source of morals must be from a all-powerful all-knowing being.

This is what these types of debates turn into. You are still talking about relativity in relation to morality. Just the degree which you preceive it to exist. Moore was talking about ethical relativity in relation to morality. Ethics and morals go hand and hand. Hence, Moore's idea are accepted as a whole by most relativists. Just not the Catholic Church.

But don't all societies preceive their way to be "the right way?". Moore was not trying to debunk that.

Tribe x is any group of people. It can be a nation, the Boy Scouts, you, me, the entire world, etc.

You could certainly argue that, but then you wouldn't be talking about Moral Relativism, would you?

You DO realize that the Shape Relativist argument is just one example that shows the logical defect inherent in the "MR" argument, right? Here's another off the top of my head:

"Tribe 'x' believes that, the moon is made out of cheese. Tribe 'y' believes that, the moon is made out of rock. Therefore, the composition of the moon is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

Or another:

"Tribe 'x' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of a mix comprising mainly of nitrogen, oxygen, and other trace amounts of chemicals. Tribe 'y' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of acid that will kill us all the instant we breathe one iota of it. Therefore, the composition of the atmosphere is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

Ethics are morals.

Congratulations on saying the single STUPIDEST thing in this thread so far.

Ahh, but the problem I see with relativism is that instead of trying to FIND out what's moral and what's not, they just throw their hands up and say "Fuck it, everything's moral."

Wouldn't that imply that there is a possibility that one or the other is morally wrong?

Perhaps. That's obviously not your skewed vision of what moral relativism is.

"In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

What do you think they mean by "Absolute" and "Universal"? The only "absolute" philosophical thing I think that it could possibly refer to is the existence of a God. And "His" universal rules. Which is why I used the Catholic Church and Galileo as an example.

Yes I understand the point you're trying to make. The problem is, you don't seem to understand what I said. This is not a yes/no proposition. You're trying to boil it down into a simplistic AGREE/DISAGREE choice. My problem with your Shape Relativity is that lack of complexity dealing with complex questions. Only the most mundane of questions can be boiled down to agree or disagree. Moral relativity, (while not perfect) is certainly more complex then your Shapist theories since it encompasses tradition, custom, history, and personal choice.

The flaws I see of your shape theory is who is deciding what the group believes, and why are they choosing to believe that. How did they come to that conclusion? Name off all the examples you want, but until you can answer that then your theory is incomplete.

Again I ask, doesn't every society think their way is the right way?

Wrong. In the sense of what Moore was talking about. Ethics are the standards that govern groups. Morals are your personal perception of right and wrong. Do they sometimes cross and agree with each other? Yes. All the time? No.

But these are still not examples of moral issues. At best they are examples of long understood 'scientific' issues. These are not questions of whether a thing is ethical but whether a thing is true or false.

That doesn't have to be the case at all. One can explore and test their moral stance, and re-evaluate it based on what they learn of another views on the same subject. You needn't close your mind to the other side in order to accept that you haven't the moral authority to determine what is right for everybody. All it really boils down to is admiting that although one does not believe so, it is possible that one's stance is not entirely right. To believe that as much as we may not like or agree with another way of doing things, it may not be entirely without merit.

Of course it's possible that one is right, and the other wrong. But unlike some, I don't want to assume that my way is the right way because I believe it to be. If you keep a relatively open mind you might learn something from those you might otherwise dismiss as morally bankrupt. What's so bad about *trying* to take a relatively objective stance and trying to understand another's point of view?

That one side is right, and another wrong, is pretty much a given. But who *knows* (not believes) which side is right? And thus, why moral relavitism is something that comes up. We don't *know* which side is right, and to assume otherwise reeks of arrogance.

*sigh*

It doesn't matter whether it's a moral issue or a scientific issue. A logical form has to be at least true (not necessarily reasonable) for ALL instances of this logical form, or the logical form isn't true, period. You cannot cherry-pick and divide into categories based on what the dressings are, because they are irrelevant to the argument.

Which again, implies that a) one may not be right, and b) there is an objective standard for morality.

There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that at that point you're more or less admitting that yes, there is an objective standard for morality, which moral relativism claims cannot be the case.

And this is the crux of why relativism is so attractive. With objectivism, you have to deal with individual cases, carefully weigh benefits/harm (assuming you're approaching from a utilitarian point of view), and make difficult moral judgements that not everybody will like, and indeed, it's not even guaranteed that anybody will like them, not even yourself. Relativism, on the other hand, solves the problem by refusing to acknowledge both an objective standard of morality, and even refuses to acknowledge that disagreements occur, period.

I'll respond to you later, Watts. I just got up and have to get ready for work in like... 5 minutes, and I don't have enough time.

Assuming that moral and ethical questions fall into logical forms, you are right. And I'll even agree on that. But they continue to be issues that have a known correct answer. And that is what sets them fundamentally appart from those questions which do not have a known correct answer.


I never said otherwise. And I've never heard someone who believes in moral relativity argue that either. The objective moral standard, which is not known is why people try to understand other sides of a moral issue. It's only your narrow view of what moral relativism is, which supports your argument. It's not as simple a view, or a singular a notion as you purport it to be. The wikipedia entry actually does a reasonable job of laying out some basics.

Again, this is only by a very narrow view of what moral relativism claims.

It doesn't (always) refuse to acknowledge an objective standard of morality, and nowhere, ever, have I read of a moral relativist claim that disagreements do not occur (It's a construct built to attack MR). What is generally accepted by moral relativists is that the supposed objective standard of morality cannot be proven (yet), and so it's wrong to assume that one's own morals *have* to be the right ones. Thus, what makes ojectivism so attractive is that one gets to be right all the time. And one knows that no matters people's difference of opinions, you can rest assured that you alone are the one who has it all figured out (Or at least has the capacity since you are the one who *knows* the objective standard of morality).

MR doesn't argue that all sides are right. Only that there is no objective way to determine which one is right. And this is why I asked a few posts back, what the objective moral standard was. Since you don't know it, then how can you know that the 'other side' is wrong?