Nah not even that. The answer is, the right of the child to learn and grow and develop and indulge their curiosity in an environment managed by professionals who are interested in that child's safety, is more important the the parent's sense of entitlement to control what their child perceives.
Although I believe that there are so many stupid people out there I will continue to support parental rights.
That doesn't make sense to conceive of as a right. Children do have a right to be safe from harm. That means parents don't have a right to control access to their child, as a parent might wish to restrict mandated reporters from accessing the child, and might be okay with abusers accessing the child
if you remove parental rights than you are saying that children belong to the state and not parents, so basically they have no responsibilities. You must look at the long term issues. We know that authorities (teachers, etc.) harm children also so again perfection is not possible.
No, that really doesn't follow. Parents have obligations. They have duties, a duty to care for their child, and so they have authority to make decisions on the child's behalf that are relevant to the duty of care. They don't have the right to determine what kind of person their child becomes.
As children grow they develop their own personalities and desires so then they become responsible for their actions - nature has an effect but it is not 100% of what makes a person. Unless you raise the child in a closet they will be exposed to everything eventually. (4
Yeah, this concept is just bullshit. "Parental rights" as a concept is nonsense. It either covers things you already have a right to (what you have in your home) or shit nobody has a right to (denying a child and education or forcing them to remain in the closet). Children aren't property.
No they are the responsibility of the parents not you or the government other than for physical harm.
Are there rights you think parents should have that don't stem from the conception that children are property or an extension of the parent? Those might be worth discussing, if they don't already exist. But those aren't the ones that the "parental rights" crowd are squawking about.
I said previously children have their own personalities and will go with what they want other then you can try and restrict actual activity. (3
If I think something they read was detrimental then I can tell them what I think and I also have the right to set rules and not allow them to do certain things. But no parent can be with a child 14/7 nor should they be but it is your responsibility to pass on what your values are but as (2
Do you have any children? I do and I was very involved in their educations - would never have a book banned or stop my child from reading something but then I also read it and we discussed it and yes I have the right to express my opinion. (1
Last, it truly doesn't matter if everyone feels the same way or not. Not everyone has to agree on everything. But we do all have to behave in certain ways, and we can't expect society to cater to someone's prejudices or delusions merely because they are a parent. Being a parent means duties.
So if a parent is stupid enough to want their child not to read anything then they have that right as the child is their responsibility. (2
As I said for the most part with public schools society has decided that children should be taught/exposed to actual history, biology/sex education (at appropriate grade levels) but then parents can teach their child anything they want also. (1
you can either have children collected and raised by the state or you can deal with a better but still imperfect system. You do not get to make those decisions for their child as long as you can not prove harm. (3
you can not expect parents to be responsible for all financial care and all that involves but say they have nothing to say about what their child is exposed to. They are the responsibility of the parent and that covers everything - (2
This in particular is nonsense. If someone chose to have a child, they chose to accept a duty of care over someone for many years. A child is a person, not an investment, not a thing you pay for in exchange for control. And you actually cannot possibly control what a child is exposed to.
A child is a great investment not for returns but to achieve a great human being. I think I have expressed that unless the child is closed up from life you can not stop exposure and the is the saving grace to stupid parents.
You can control what media is playing or present in your own home, but the minute they leave your home, they are out of the piece of the world you control. Rather than trying to exert control over others (including the child), your only option is to talk through and contextualize these things.
We will need to agree to disagree - I am for full exposure for children to life with guidance but they can make up their own minds. But I will not enforce my belief system on everyone else. Nor does our constitution allow for that.
It's not clear where you're getting the idea that I am arguing for the enforcement of any set of beliefs. I don't think you understand what I have written, nor do I understand your fixation on the idea that a society where we recognize our duties to each other means kids belong to the state
which was the original discussion. Other than for physical harm taking away rights of the parent is saying that the state determines how to raise a child. it would only be the beginning. (2
I have already said that public schools should be required to teach all relevant issues regardless of parental beliefs but when it comes to offering books to read from a library or teacher than the parent should be able to say no for their particular child and no one should ban a book - (1
Public schools are exposure and it is great. I would hope that all parents are involved but they are not but want control and as long as they are not physically harming the child you have no say otherwise you are supporting a child raised by the state. (2
Not sure you are reading or comprehending what I write. I agree with most of what you say but you can not interfere with a parents rights to raise a child as they deem appropriate not as you see it. (1
Determining what their child can read does not determine what kind of person a child becomes. Whether I agree with banning books or determining what your child is exposed to and many other things not pertinent to this discussion, (1
We as a society also have a duty to care for children. We do not have a duty to humor the delusion and prejudice of every parent, nor the right to engage in censorship just to mollify some delusional parents group. Queer and trans kids have a right to exist in society and not be treated as a threat.
I already stated that I would never support banning/censorship of books but allowing parents to make those decisions. I agree that it must be fought and not accepted and you can do that in schools but that has nothing to do with not allowing their child access to a book. (3
That is why we are a society as people think differently and you are suggesting that we have automatons that all think alike. Our job is to try and teach open minds and critical thinking and fight racism and bigotry but you can not control what ignorant people tell their children. (2
We as a society have a responsibility to teach standard required information such as evolution and sex/biology education for examples. But we do not have the authority to force children to read fiction books. (1
This is the problem with the concept of parents rights (beyond the actual legal rights parents should and do have) that the right is trying to push. It treats parenthood as more of a means to achieve power over someone than the joyful and serious responsibility it is.
Let parents stupidly spend their time not allowing their own child access to information or enjoyment. There is no perfect system. (2
You are applying a very simplistic view and as long as we are human and dealing with other humans you can not fix all of it. Fight for schools to teach true history/science and facts to fight a lot of the prejudice/bigotry in the world. (1
Children have legal protection if they are harmed by their parents by law, not right. Rights are things you can provide for yourself without any assistance from others. You can not make life perfect, (1
Well that is true but parents do have authority over children and the right to control access to children (stupid or not) so it goes back to parents and like I said previously if you forbid the child odds are they will be reading it anyway. Then they can make up their own minds.