Posts by velveteagle8

Eric Newman75 said:It’s not exactly irrelevant, though. You actually have a choice in all of this. Every single decision you make acts like a nudge, steering a kid toward a completely different life based on what you prioritize. It all adds up.

Look, I’m not out here arguing from some standpoint of absolute, unrestrained freedom—because let's be honest, that kind of thing doesn't actually exist in the real world. Our national education laws aren't just some random set of rules we cooked up on a whim; they follow international standards and global conventions. And it’s not even because we necessarily wanted to change things up—it's because we're obligated to. It's just how the system works.

Look, this was all brought up because of the way students with special needs have been treated. If those incidents hadn't happened, we wouldn't even be having this conversation in the first place.

Finally, here you go. The law. Simple as that. Look, you really need to dig into that fourth point—the one covering the goals and principles of education. Those "Paris" guidelines aren't just some random list; they flow directly from the actual school curriculum. The law itself only touches on them briefly. I mean, do you honestly think lawyers get to dictate exactly how pedagogues, psychologists, and specialists handle their business? It doesn't work like that.

Having a choice within a set of pre-determined options isn't actually making a choice at all. It’s just an illusion.
It’s basically being forced to pick between several options that none of them actually satisfy.
This feels like yet another classic case of moving the goalposts to avoid dealing with the actual point.
I’m not arguing from some lofty, abstract standpoint about absolute freedom as if it were just an untouchable ideal. I’m looking at this through a much more practical lens—the kind of reality where that level of liberty would actually make sense and be easy to grasp.
You’re pointing out that following global educational standards isn't some choice you're making—it's an obligation. Because of that, the OP's question is completely legitimate. There's really no reason to dismiss it before we've even had a chance to discuss it.
I think we can all agree that the intro writer raised a valid point regarding the tension between individual liberty and mandatory primary education.
I assume you're thinking about Article 4, since that specific point covers something else entirely?
Hey, let’s set Paris aside for a moment and just focus on item 2 under section 4 that you brought up.
What happens if a parent disagrees with any kind of effort to develop a sense of national identity or heritage in their child?
Is it actually reasonable for a parent to want to shield their child from that kind of influence? I find myself wondering if protecting a kid's developing mindset from those kinds of external pressures is a valid responsibility. It’s a heavy question. Sometimes I feel like I'm overthinking things, but I really do wonder about the line between guidance and total isolation. Is it worth trying to curate what they see, or are we just delaying the inevitable?
Can a parent disagree with everything that passes for "modern societal values" today? And if they do, is it okay to shield their child from those influences to protect how they perceive the world?
How exactly are we supposed to encourage a child to follow their own natural interests when we’re simultaneously forcing a mountain of tasks on them that they have zero passion for? It feels like we're just draining their time, attention, and energy on things that don't matter to them.
I don't know. I really don't.
Words, words, words... there’s that French song, though I honestly couldn't tell you if the lyrics actually make sense. Back in elementary school, they basically forced me to choose between a few other options—presumably ones they considered more "important" than French.

Eric Newman75 said:The law covers mandatory primary and secondary education, sure, but it doesn't bar a student from attending specialized schools that offer arts, sports, international curricula, alternative methods, or minority language programs. It doesn't dictate that they have to attend the specific school assigned to their district either. For instance, if a parent chooses to enroll their child in a standard public school instead of a specialized program for students with disabilities, that’s their call—the government isn't forcing that specific path on them.

I don't think you actually hit the core issue raised in the intro here.
If anything, you just reinforced the idea that basic education is mandatory. The fact that there are optional paths or other programs available doesn't change the requirement at all.
The heart of the matter isn't about having the freedom to choose one thing; it's about the lack of freedom to reject it entirely.
At the end of the day, parents are required to enroll their children in basic schooling. Whether they pick School A or School B is irrelevant to the central argument.
I'm also a little lost on your last point about how a parent isn't forced to put a healthy child into a special education program.
We could go back and forth on the long-term merits, the practical pros and cons, or the quality of different curricula, but we have to face reality without hiding behind politically correct slogans.
You can argue that compulsory basic education is necessary and defend that position if you want, but you can't conflate the right to an education with actual freedom.

Aha
You mentioned that "adults decide," rather than parents, which is how I mistakenly interpreted it at first.
I guess that shifts the context of your point quite a bit if you're referring to "adults" as the state—the entity stepping in to look out for kids before they can really think for themselves or make responsible calls. Even so, that doesn't invalidate your opening thought, nor does it stop us from looking at this through a philosophical lens regarding the nature of freedom.
After all, true freedom can't exist if you're being forced to be free, just like you can't have a right that you're legally obligated to exercise.
That would basically contradict the whole essence of what those terms mean.
Anyway, just to make sure we're on the same page and can actually reach some meaningful conclusions, it’s probably best if we use precise terms right from the jump.

Eric Newman75 said:Look, this isn't "coercion." If you can't wrap your head around the fact that passing down knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes is how we actually give kids the tools to develop their potential and gain intellectual, spiritual, and social independence, then honestly, there’s no helping you. High-quality upbringing and education aren't just perks; they are absolute prerequisites for developing an individual and exercising almost every other human right, like the right to work. That’s why most democratic nations, including here in the US, bake the right to education right into the Constitution—the highest legal authority we have. And until kids reach adulthood, the responsibility falls on the parents to make those calls. That's perfectly normal, actually desirable. A first-grader isn't exactly capable of weighing the life-altering implications of enrolling in school to learn how to read, write, do math, and navigate social dynamics within a community. It's frankly idiotic to even be debating this.

I'm not trying to push an agenda for or against the ideas mentioned in the intro; I'm just pointing out some misinterpretations in this post.
How can parents be "deciding" on a child's right to an education if it's mandatory and the parent is legally required by U.S. law to enroll them in school?
That actually gets to the core criticism raised in the introduction.
I'm just trying to keep the debate focused on what the original poster actually meant. As I understand it, the issue is the mandate—the compulsion toward basic education—rather than the "right and choice" to access it, because, frankly, there isn't really a choice.

steelridge58 said:Ah, I see, I see... I definitely didn't take it that way based on how you worded everything earlier.

🙂

I sent some messages over to casualtiger2 and Harold Doyle3 asking them to jump in here so we can finally get everything squared away.

Principally, I’m against any kind of side deal, but if things have already reached this point...🤷
I'm heading out. Hopefully, I managed to make things just a little more complicated for everyone. Poyy 😁

steelridge58 said:But shouldn't the advantage actually go to the person who hasn't won before?
(unless I'm just totally missing something here)
😁

Quincy:

It goes without saying that if you're comparing someone who has already been a winner and the poll creator against someone who hasn't, the second person would definitely have the edge.

😕

Yeah, fair enough, but I didn't quite catch that from what you said earlier.

Misa understood me, maybe I just explained it clumsily.
So, I was thinking about a scenario where both candidates have already won before (which seems more common). In that case, the edge would go to whoever won further back in the past.
For example, if Candidate 1 last won Poll #8, and Candidate 2 won Poll #10—Candidate 1 gets the advantage because their win is older. More time has passed since their last victory, so it feels fair to give them the upper hand.

To avoid overcomplicating an already tricky situation,🙂 I'll lay out my final suggestion here.
Regarding the voting process, we should vote for just one single answer.
As for how we pick a winner if there happens to be a tie:
- the author gets the deciding vote
- we use the criterion of whether the question has been asked before
- we simply reach a consensus

Terry Martinez10 said:In that case, why don't those two who haven't asked anything just hash it out and decide amongst themselves who gets the turn?
I mean, I don't have a problem with people making deals, but isn't it just objectively better when you have a diverse range of voices actually putting questions on the table?

Then the winner wouldn't even have to be the one to pose the next question; we could just rotate the questioners in a set order.
The voting would basically become an exhibition, just a way for everyone to weigh in on which of the options they find most appealing.

It’s pretty obvious that when you've got one person who already won and asked the question going up against someone new, the newcomer definitely has the edge here.

steelridge58 said:That "is" really threw me for a loop, though I'm pretty sure they meant to say "isn't"

😉

No, it should be "is."
It refers to whoever was the previous winner of an earlier poll.
So, if we had two candidates tied with the same number of votes, and the person who wrote the poll didn't vote for either, the winner would be whoever won the last poll.

Terry Martinez10 said:+1
I’d give the edge to someone who hasn't posted a question yet.

But what happens if we end up with three top candidates, where one has already asked a question but the other two have never once?
Lovely, I'll just say it: the only way to handle this properly is with some solid, official polling regulations.

steelridge58 said:😵

Based on this logic, mart28 would have the advantage right now since you put your vote behind her answer.

As for moving to a single-vote system, I think we really ought to reach a consensus and make sure the majority of everyone else is on board first.

🙂

These rules are incredibly thin.
If it were up to me, I’d write an entire legal code just to handle this survey 😁
And honestly, it wouldn't be hard.
It really just comes down to three main points:
- the opinion of the person asking the question
- whether a candidate won previously
- a mutual agreement among the winners

I’m all for a one person, one vote rule here.
Sure, it makes things a bit more restrictive since you can only pick one option, but I think that’s how you force the most convincing choice to rise to the top by filtering out everything else.
It also stops people from just playing the numbers game; if you can only pick once, you actually have to sit down, think it through, and commit to the single best answer.
If we end up with a tie, the tiebreaker goes to whoever originally posted the poll.
If the author didn't vote, or if they voted for someone who didn't win, then the edge goes to the person who has hosted a poll more recently—basically, whoever was the last winner.
And if nobody has ever hosted a poll before? Well, I guess they'll just have to work it out among themselves.

It’s all pretty standard stuff. What feels like a permanent goal today might just turn into a temporary comfort tomorrow—or maybe it won't offer any comfort at all, becoming nothing more than a missed mark and a fresh reason to feel frustrated.
That sense of being unfulfilled is usually fleeting, mostly because it gets patched over by whatever comfort you happen to find in the moment.
I think the real aim should be to stay true to yourself through all of it, while the days just keep passing by... one way or another.

Where are you ladies from the National Guard?

Where did everyone go? It looks like the bus got snowed in right as we were leaving that Small town in USA
Now you'll probably have to call on Moša Pijade, Kardelj, and Bakarić to come rescue you
I've been feeling a bit off, dealing with this nasty stomach bug for two days now..
Probably just this sudden shift in the weather

Chloe Cooper10 said:🙏🙏🙏
Will you still love me when you go visit Dimitri? 🕺

I’ve never actually been there, though I’ve passed by that area on the highway a few times, maybe 10 miles out.
If I were to go see Dimitri, I’d probably be under official orders to love the entire creation and every Man as the most sublime being and my fellow neighbor.
Hehe, wow. She thinks I'm trying to use these touching, fragile little moments just to squeeze some kind of confession out of her.
Look, if I’m crazy, I’m definitely not stupid.
Anyway, goodnight.
Maybe I should just grab a beauty sleep and catch a few more hours of rest.

Chloe Cooper10 said:And honestly, I’d rather have my phone ring mid-song; wearing a heavy robe while playing guitar just feels off. 😳

The forum is being glitchy too.

@ironcobra13, my grandpa was also in the National Guard, and my grandma used to tell me how he’d hide out in the barn. Not sure how much that actually matters here. 🤣

Anyway... skip ahead to the 50-second mark if you want to bypass the intro.

Chloe Cooper10 said:Why didn't you take a photo? That would have been total Tito-worship. 😲

I didn't really take photos of myself; I was more focused on the scenery.
I'm not some die-hard follower, but I’ve always had this soft spot for the 70s and 80s, and by extension, the old days in the South... It's more of a general nostalgia for the era rather than any political or administrative thing.

Chloe Cooper10 said:Could you explain how one can feel called if they don't actually intend to answer? Or would you just resist the call? And what exactly triggers that feeling of being called?

Just because something calls to you doesn't mean you have to go running after it.
The cause?
I'm not entirely sure... some things just hit you with this timeless, unsettling intoxication—this sudden sense of purpose. It’s an feeling that calls to you, demanding you surrender your entire being to it.
And then your phone rings and an automated voice tells you that you missed last month's credit card payment.