I was debating on wether or not I was even going to bother responding to this because I feel like the votes are clear...
This is wild. You're comparing killing someone without evidence to protecting children.
Here is the thing, you seem to be assuming I am saying go check in with this officer or something and have my child checked on.
No, that is ridiculous.
I am talking simple things so other adults know your child is even alive. Requiring that they go somewhere for their tests. Maybe physical activity, other completely normal things. Requiring socialization. Idk, something.
> By the way, no one put you in charge of deciding what "basic protections for children" should be. In fact, no one put you in charge of anything.
Last I checked this is a forum and we were having a discussion. I never claimed to have an authority I just question how someone keeps arguing against protecting children without giving a single reasonable reason against it.
Also I would consider basic protections making sure the kid was alive and the kid was fed and not physically hurt. That is such an incredibly low bar that I do not understand how we are having this discussion at all. Maybe instead of attacking me you offer an alternative to this real problem? I would love to hear a solution that we can actually talk about.
I have been accused of fear mongering in this thread and yet it seems that while we have evidence that some parents are using the loopholes in the home schooling system to be able to do this, you don't want to do anything about it.
I have been accused of fear mongering, and yet the people like you responding are using a "slippery slop" argument of surveillance or "Freedom" that is not a valid argument.
This is wild. You're comparing killing someone without evidence to protecting children.
Here is the thing, you seem to be assuming I am saying go check in with this officer or something and have my child checked on.
No, that is ridiculous.
I am talking simple things so other adults know your child is even alive. Requiring that they go somewhere for their tests. Maybe physical activity, other completely normal things. Requiring socialization. Idk, something.
> By the way, no one put you in charge of deciding what "basic protections for children" should be. In fact, no one put you in charge of anything.
Last I checked this is a forum and we were having a discussion. I never claimed to have an authority I just question how someone keeps arguing against protecting children without giving a single reasonable reason against it.
Also I would consider basic protections making sure the kid was alive and the kid was fed and not physically hurt. That is such an incredibly low bar that I do not understand how we are having this discussion at all. Maybe instead of attacking me you offer an alternative to this real problem? I would love to hear a solution that we can actually talk about.
I have been accused of fear mongering in this thread and yet it seems that while we have evidence that some parents are using the loopholes in the home schooling system to be able to do this, you don't want to do anything about it.
I have been accused of fear mongering, and yet the people like you responding are using a "slippery slop" argument of surveillance or "Freedom" that is not a valid argument.