Jardine,

In answer to your earlier question, yes I do. In fact I support all the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (of which this is number 26).

There's no contradiction in that. I think you just want to avoid considering what I have to say, and have fooled yourself into thinking I've contradicted myself for that reason.

I want the state to provide good quality education, not sausage factory indoctrination. As you'd know if you were going by what I'd actualy written instead of basing your opinions on the stereotype that you think I fit despite overwhelming evidence that I don't.

You're contradicting yourself.

If you admit compulsory funding, compulsory attendance and compulsory curriculum, you're admitting that it's compulsory indoctrination. Children will be forced to attend and forced to learn whatever the State decides it's politically expedient or fashionable to brainwash them with.

You favour a violence-based indoctrination sausage-factory. If someone doesn't want to learn what you want the State to cram down their throat, your only response is to threaten imprisonment.

That's correct isn't it?

If you renounce the use of aggressive violence then by all means say so. But that means you renounce State education

Aidan
So if all the States of the world got together and unanimously declared that obtaining the benefits of slavery or involuntary servitude is a "right", you would agree that's a right? You have no theory as to what constitutes a right, than that the United Nations says so in a declaration? Correct?

If not, how do you know whether something is a right or not?

Involuntary servitude is a right, if the State want to confiscate the fruits of people's labour to pay for forced indoctrination of children? You agree with that, don't you? Your only quibble is that you want to call it something else. Correct?

But you agree with it being compulsory, and you agree with children being taught whatever the State wants, and you agree with threatening people with being imprisoned to force them to submit to having the fruits of their labour confiscated to pay for it?

Correct?

No, Jardine, none of that's correct!

Firstly, it's only "indoctrination" in the archaic sense of the word: teaching or instructing. Nowadays "indoctrination" tends to mean getting people to accept things uncritically, which I oppose. Your use of the term "brainwash" suggests that you don't comprehend the difference! Critical thinking is part of what they should teach in schools. Had they done so while you were at school, you'd know that state education does not require the use of aggressive violence.

And nowhere have I said state schools should be the only option. Indeed making them the only option would also contradict provision 26 of the UDHR.

"So if all the States of the world got together and unanimously declared that obtaining the benefits of slavery or involuntary servitude is a 'right', you would agree that's a right?"
Are you trying to argue semantics here? I don't want to waste my time arguing as to whether a right that nobody should have is still a right, though I will point out that it would be a blatant contravention of the UDHR.

A right is something someone's entitled to do. Some rights merely exist because there is no law preventing them; others are specifically protected. After the horrors of WW2 there was a general agreement that it must never happen again, so some rights must be protected for all people throughout the world. Hence the UDHR.

BTW taxation is not servitude.

To the tune of "The Wheels on the Bus" as sung by The Wiggles.

JKJ goes round and round
Round and ound
round and round

JKJ goes round and round
Chasing his tail

The Forumites, they laugh and laugh
Laugh and laugh
Laugh and laugh

The Forumites, they laugh and laugh
Watching the twit

New verses welcome.

Aidan

You're contradicting yourself.

Firstly you yourself don't critically think about state education. You were just brainwashed into it as a youth, and have never explained how it could be justified, except by circular repetition. You need to demonstrate the critical thinking that obtains from compulsory state education is more or better than would otherwise obtain. Self-contradiction.

Secondly you admit that it's compulsory, but then deny any compulsion when confronted with the fact it's compulsory. But it's not voluntary, and your claim that it is, is false. Self-contradiction.

Thirdly, you admit that a central committee dictates the content. This contradicts your denial that it's sausage-factory. For how does the central committee know what are the subjective evaluations of the students and parents they are trying to provide services to? How can they know it's of appropriate quality? The short answer is: they don't, and they can't. Self-contradiction on your part.

Fourthly, your definition of rights is circular, assumes that rights are whatever states agree on, and lacks any explanation of the relation between force and rights.

Therefore your defence of state education is irrational.

Let's cut to the chase. By what *rational criterion* (hint: not circular assumption) do know whether the amount or quality of state education is too little, too much, or just right?

Craig
Don't think it's gone unnoticed that you post no rational argument and merely content yourself with turdy schoolyard snivelling.

All
Talk about critical thinking: if Craig Minns reads in the Brisbane Times that politicians said a prayer, he takes that as proof of the existence of God:http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17441&page=0

Notice how the supporters of state education can only defend it with illogic:- circularity, self-contradiction, and ad hominem?

This is not some kind of strange coincidence.

They have been brainwashed into blind faith in the State; else they would be able to recognise and to produce a rational argument. They haven't even got to square one. Their entire argument is merely assumption in their own favour.

Some "critical thinking"!