Should Homeschooling be Illegal?

[Natapoc]

No frogs did not evolve into toads.

Frogs and toads have a common ancestor who was in some ways similar and in other ways entirely different. Yes this happened by a long series of adaptations and mutations.

But you get my point.
Big changes come from gradual small changes (why did I just write toads? Changes come from small toads. Dafuk?), and this, over time, is enough to create a new species.

And at what point is it a new species?

[Dragoria]

But you get my point.
Big changes come from gradual small changes (why did I just write toads? Changes come from small toads. Dafuk?), and this, over time, is enough to create a new species.

And at what point is it a new species?

When one of the defining characteristics that mark an individual as belonging to that species is altered.
For example:
Certain species of dragonflies are classified by their mating claspers. Dragonflies are particularly rape-y bugs, and to try to avoid this the females' claspers will mutate slightly from generation to generation, to limit the amount of males that can rape them. The males' claspers will mutate too, to try to keep up with the females. When the claspers have changed enough that they can't breed with the "parent" species anymore, they become a new species.

And with that delightful mention of bugrape feuling evolution, I'm off to dinner.

[Natapoc]

And at what point is it a new species?

When one of the defining characteristics that mark an individual as belonging to that species is altered.
For example:
Certain species of dragonflies are classified by their mating claspers. Dragonflies are particularly rape-y bugs, and to try to avoid this the females' claspers will mutate slightly from generation to generation, to limit the amount of males that can rape them. The males' claspers will mutate too, to try to keep up with the females. When the claspers have changed enough that they can't breed with the "parent" species anymore, they become a new species.

Here is the key: "When the claspers have changed enough that they can't breed with the "parent" species anymore, they become a new species"

A species becomes a new species when that species has changed enough that it can't "breed with the 'parent' species anymore (and produce viable offspring)

It's not just any "defining characteristic". It's one and only one characteristic, the one you mentioned at the end and the reason why this analogy is useless except to make people who already agree with us feel better about ourselves.

[The Parkus Empire]

And at what point is it a new species?

When one of the defining characteristics that mark an individual as belonging to that species is altered.
For example:
Certain species of dragonflies are classified by their mating claspers. Dragonflies are particularly rape-y bugs, and to try to avoid this the females' claspers will mutate slightly from generation to generation, to limit the amount of males that can rape them. The males' claspers will mutate too, to try to keep up with the females. When the claspers have changed enough that they can't breed with the "parent" species anymore, they become a new species.

And with that delightful mention of bugrape feuling evolution, I'm off to dinner.

Bugs: utter psychopaths. Clearly they belong with the online&edgy crowd.

Edit: you know, this actually doesn't make much sense. Since traits are passed down by mating, it seems to me that the most vulnerable females would be the most prolific, and that successfully resistant mutations would be bred out for the most part.

[Lordieth]

Home Schooling is as bad or as good as those doing the teaching. It has its advantages and disadvantages;

Advantages;

- one to one tuition
- flexible curriculum
- potentially more challenging
- less distractions
- more comfortable environment
- less pressure

Disadvantages;

- poor teaching
- weak curriculum
- potentially less challenging
- more distractions
- less strict environment
- isolating

I would say if you are a gifted child, and you have a parent that can see that, and knows how to nurture it, then home schooling is by far the best environment. On the other hand, a child having difficulty with learning may find people better able to help him in school. It's often the children with difficulties that receive the most attention. The gifted ones are either rarely spotted, or expected to follow the same pace as everyone else.

[Tlaceceyaya]

When you're arguing that changing the feature that a species is determined by does not change the species...
Making a cat black instead of white still makes it a cat, they're not defined by color. Making a cat an herbivore instead of a carnivore changes an essential part of the animal's classification (cats = carnivores), and DOES change the species.

Making a color a different color (changing a feature that it's "species" is determined by) DOES change the species.

Ah but I'm not arguing that.

The whole premise of the argument is that we accept the assertion that a change in color is equal to a change in species and a different color is a different species.

There is no reason we should believe that assertion. Any skeptical and rational person will be unpersuaded by this argument. It's the same form of argument used by all kinds of pseudoscience proselytizers.

If it was a creationist using this form of argument you'd all be ridiculing him/her for the claims. But since most of you (as you should) agree with the end claims made (that evolution is true) you accept it because of the irrational human tendency to use a different standard for those who agree with them than for those who disagree.

All I'm saying is let's be rational and not resort to flawed, oversimplified analogy.

No, the point of it is that small changes become big changes over time, and that if you accept that small changes can occur, you must accept that a lot of small changes can occur.
It's a fucking analogy addressing the ridiculous idea some people have that evolution can happen on a small scale, but not on a large one.

[Dragoria]

When one of the defining characteristics that mark an individual as belonging to that species is altered.
For example:
Certain species of dragonflies are classified by their mating claspers. Dragonflies are particularly rape-y bugs, and to try to avoid this the females' claspers will mutate slightly from generation to generation, to limit the amount of males that can rape them. The males' claspers will mutate too, to try to keep up with the females. When the claspers have changed enough that they can't breed with the "parent" species anymore, they become a new species.

Here is the key: "When the claspers have changed enough that they can't breed with the "parent" species anymore, they become a new species"

A species becomes a new species when that species has changed enough that it can't "breed with the 'parent' species anymore (and produce viable offspring)

It's not just any "defining characteristic". It's one and only one characteristic, the one you mentioned at the end and the reason why this analogy is useless except to make people who already agree with us feel better about ourselves.

No. That's what changes the species in the dragonflies because THAT IS A DEFINING TRAIT OF THAT PARTICULAR SPECIES AND IT HAS CHANGED. It's not that difficult.
There are cases where a defining trait of that particular species has changed before the ability to interbreed with the "parent" species is lost, and it's still considered a new species because the defining trait has changed and they can no longer be classified as belonging to the old species.

[The Parkus Empire]

Ah but I'm not arguing that.

The whole premise of the argument is that we accept the assertion that a change in color is equal to a change in species and a different color is a different species.

There is no reason we should believe that assertion. Any skeptical and rational person will be unpersuaded by this argument. It's the same form of argument used by all kinds of pseudoscience proselytizers.

If it was a creationist using this form of argument you'd all be ridiculing him/her for the claims. But since most of you (as you should) agree with the end claims made (that evolution is true) you accept it because of the irrational human tendency to use a different standard for those who agree with them than for those who disagree.

All I'm saying is let's be rational and not resort to flawed, oversimplified analogy.

No, the point of it is that small changes become big changes over time, and that if you accept that small changes can occur, you must accept that a lot of small changes can occur.
It's a fucking analogy addressing the ridiculous idea some people have that evolution can happen on a small scale, but not on a large one.

And four billions years makes for shitload of changes.

[Dragoria]

When one of the defining characteristics that mark an individual as belonging to that species is altered.
For example:
Certain species of dragonflies are classified by their mating claspers. Dragonflies are particularly rape-y bugs, and to try to avoid this the females' claspers will mutate slightly from generation to generation, to limit the amount of males that can rape them. The males' claspers will mutate too, to try to keep up with the females. When the claspers have changed enough that they can't breed with the "parent" species anymore, they become a new species.

And with that delightful mention of bugrape feuling evolution, I'm off to dinner.

Bugs: utter psychopaths. Clearly they belong with the online&edgy crowd.

Edit: you know, this actually doesn't make much sense. Since traits are passed down by mating, it seems to me that the most vulnerable females would be the most prolific, and that successfully resistant mutations would be bred out for the most part.

Evolution/Adaptation seems to dislike rape. Ducks' vaginas have developed into screwy spiral patterns and such because the males rape them so often, and they don't want more rapist ducklings.
Something about the female wants the best possible genes for her offspring because she doesn't waste all the time and energy producing offspring that are just gonna' get killed before they have a chance to pass their own genes on, and if those best genes aren't *rapistmale* and females aren't voluntarily letting *rapistmale* pass on *his* genes then *he's* going to be desperate enough to rape her just for *his* inferior genetic material to have a chance.
Also the stress of constant unwanted "attention" from males makes focusing on gathering resources for her brood (or soon-to-be brood) rather difficult.

[The Parkus Empire]

Bugs: utter psychopaths. Clearly they belong with the online&edgy crowd.

Edit: you know, this actually doesn't make much sense. Since traits are passed down by mating, it seems to me that the most vulnerable females would be the most prolific, and that successfully resistant mutations would be bred out for the most part.

Evolution/Adaptation seems to dislike rape. Ducks' vaginas have developed into screwy spiral patterns and such because the males rape them so often, and they don't want more rapist ducklings.
Something about the female wants the best possible genes for her offspring because she doesn't waste all the time and energy producing offspring that are just gonna' get killed before they have a chance to pass their own genes on, and if those best genes aren't you and females aren't voluntarily letting you pass on your genes then you're going to be desperate enough to rape her just for your inferior genetic material to have a chance.
Also the stress of constant unwanted "attention" from males makes focusing on gathering resources for your brood (or soon-to-be brood) rather difficult.

Well it sounded as if that was the only way that particular specie of dragonfly reproduced, so you can see how I was confused.

Also, I'd appreciate if you don't use the general "you" on this sort of topic, even if it's dragonflies...it, uh, "bugs" me. kthx

[Dragoria]

Evolution/Adaptation seems to dislike rape. Ducks' vaginas have developed into screwy spiral patterns and such because the males rape them so often, and they don't want more rapist ducklings.
Something about the female wants the best possible genes for her offspring because she doesn't waste all the time and energy producing offspring that are just gonna' get killed before they have a chance to pass their own genes on, and if those best genes aren't *rapistmale* and females aren't voluntarily letting *rapistmale* pass on *his* genes then *he's* going to be desperate enough to rape her just for *his* inferior genetic material to have a chance.
Also the stress of constant unwanted "attention" from males makes focusing on gathering resources for her brood (or soon-to-be brood) rather difficult.

Well it sounded as if that was the only way that particular specie of dragonfly reproduced, so you can see how I was confused.

Also, I'd appreciate if you don't use the general "you" on this sort of topic, even if it's dragonflies...it, uh, "bugs" me. kthx

Dragonflies do have normal dragonfly sex, where the male scrapes the sperm from other males out of the inside of the female's body before depositing his own.
Doesn't sound all that much better to me, but if she's up for it then no harm done I guess.

Ah, fair point. Gonna' go ahead and fix that then.

[Corvus Metallum]

How did this go from the issue of homeschooling, to Evolution vs. Creationism, to insects

[Dragoria]

How did this go from the issue of homeschooling, to Evolution vs. Creationism, to insects

People take kids out of school because they don't want them learning the "blasphemy" of evolution. Bugrape contributes to bug evolution.
Kids need to be taught about the dangers of bugrape, and parents just aren't as equipped to teach about these things as the schools are, having all their big gubmint funding and whatnot...

[Hornesia]

How did this go from the issue of homeschooling, to Evolution vs. Creationism, to insects

People take kids out of school because they don't want them learning the "blasphemy" of evolution. Bugrape contributes to bug evolution.
Kids need to be taught about the dangers of bugrape, and parents just aren't as equipped to teach about these things as the schools are, having all their big gubmint funding and whatnot...

Religion and "Blasphemy" =/= the only reason people home school.

[Breadknife]

...

Somewhere in your stuff there's a sensible point I can directly reply to, but it's hard to tell because you might just be being picky for pickiness sake.

I was going to throw this link at you, though, so here you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Misinterpret it as you will.

[Dragoria]

People take kids out of school because they don't want them learning the "blasphemy" of evolution. Bugrape contributes to bug evolution.
Kids need to be taught about the dangers of bugrape, and parents just aren't as equipped to teach about these things as the schools are, having all their big gubmint funding and whatnot...

Religion and "Blasphemy" =/= the only reason people home school.

Of course they aren't. There are plenty of good reasons to homeschool your kids. Those two in particular are not examples of good reasons.

[Vetalia]

Religion and "Blasphemy" =/= the only reason people home school.

There are plenty of public schools in the US that are either terrible or outright dangerous (or a combination of both), and for many people the cost of a private school is prohibitively expensive. Homeschooling fills a valuable niche in that regard, and can also provide greater opportunities for additional education above and beyond that provided in a conventional school. As long as they're adhering to the same educational standards as an accredited school, I see no problem with homeschooling.

[Chinese Regions]

When you're arguing that changing the feature that a species is determined by does not change the species...
Making a cat black instead of white still makes it a cat, they're not defined by color. Making a cat an herbivore instead of a carnivore changes an essential part of the animal's classification (cats = carnivores), and DOES change the species.

Making a color a different color (changing a feature that it's "species" is determined by) DOES change the species.

Ah but I'm not arguing that.

The whole premise of the argument is that we accept the assertion that a change in color is equal to a change in species and a different color is a different species.

There is no reason we should believe that assertion. Any skeptical and rational person will be unpersuaded by this argument. It's the same form of argument used by all kinds of pseudoscience proselytizers.

If it was a creationist using this form of argument you'd all be ridiculing him/her for the claims. But since most of you (as you should) agree with the end claims made (that evolution is true) you accept it because of the irrational human tendency to use a different standard for those who agree with them than for those who disagree.

All I'm saying is let's be rational and not resort to flawed, oversimplified analogy.

No one has said change in colour=evolution. You do not get the main point of the analogy, not that things change like in the theory of evolution but that macro is just a lot of micro.

[The Great America]

I don't think it should be necessarily illegal, but I definitely don't like it. Many homeschooled children have social problems and don't perform as well academically as their counterparts. Many religious people also use it to try to isolate their children from dissenting information, which is wrong.

The right of parents to teach their children how they wish must be balanced with the right of children to a good education and economic opportunity, in any case.

Public schools present liberal propaganda a lot. I have seen several examples of liberal bias in schools. This page just has some of the indoctrination:http://www.commieblaster.com/news/school_indoctrination.html

[Bottle]

The type of person who wants to home-school their children is extremely likely to be the kind of person who should not be entrusted with anybody's education ever.

My personal opinion is that the solution is to improve public education. Removing all funding for abstinence-only education and diverting to actual education would be an easy place to start.

[Cashewbutter]

In all fairness, while abstinence-only education isn't particularly effective, it's also not a huge financial drain, either. The insane amount of money schools spend on their sports programs, sometimes including lavish stadiums, is a much, much greater portion of the budget.

[The USOT]

Imo yes, but not entirely.

For me, I think it should be similar to being able to serve drinks on an establishment. If your educating your child from home, you should have an acquired liscence.

[Caninope]

Imo yes, but not entirely.

For me, I think it should be similar to being able to serve drinks on an establishment. If your educating your child from home, you should have an acquired liscence.

But that's serving drinks commercially. It's perfectly legal to mix and serve drinks in a non-commercial manner without any sort of license. Under this logic, you should only need a license to educate at home if you choose to do so commercially.

[Bottle]

Imo yes, but not entirely.

For me, I think it should be similar to being able to serve drinks on an establishment. If your educating your child from home, you should have an acquired liscence.

But that's serving drinks commercially. It's perfectly legal to mix and serve drinks in a non-commercial manner without any sort of license. Under this logic, you should only need a license to educate at home if you choose to do so commercially.

How about driver's licenses? You need one even if you're just driving for your own private purposes and not as part of some commercial venture.

[Occupied Deutschland]

But that's serving drinks commercially. It's perfectly legal to mix and serve drinks in a non-commercial manner without any sort of license. Under this logic, you should only need a license to educate at home if you choose to do so commercially.

How about driver's licenses? You need one even if you're just driving for your own private purposes and not as part of some commercial venture.

...Not really?

I mean, unless you're using 'private purposes' to mean grocery shopping and such. But driving a car on your own property for your own purposes (the point used where I live would be lawn maintenance or hay collection) certainly is just fine without a license.