Can someone explain to me in simple terms. USA elections

Why am I saying that you accuse Catholics... because after that disquisition upon shutting up, your very next line is:

used to be popular especially among adherents of a well-known religious organisation, very effective at keeping things swept under the carpet
Which is a direct accusation that Catholics used to frequently use your caricature of the traditional values approach AND implies that such an approach is effective at perpetuating child abuse. A serious claim.

and the first person to mention Catholicism was.... Extrospektiv!

PJ mentions "concerns"
"If a pupil at a respectable boys' school started trying to divulge their ...."

....concerns which might relate to something that had happened, and might be of a sexual nature...

what? you want the teacher to tell them to shut up and piss off?

And Extro thinks it says "accusing Catholics of telling people to "piss off and shut up"

Perhaps in the world Extro lives on, all teachers are Catholics. And a question is an accusation.

I called it anti Catholicism because you were accusing Catholics of telling people to "piss off and shut up" then linking that to child abuse when it was irrelevant to the context; it is a fair criticism of the church on its own merits. When something like this is just thrown in it makes me suspicious that the real goal is to assault Catholic moral teaching or Christianity as a whole.

Love your paraphrase of sexual experience by the way. I didn't suggest interrupting until the pupil was actually discussing sex and/or using inappropriate explicit language.

I love the way that Extro considers a reference to institutionally permitted and concealed child abuse to be a "Nice anti-Catholicism"

It's hard to tell if he intends to draw attention to the shameful record of churches throughout the world, or if he is complaining about it being mentioned instead of brushed under the carpet.

Bloody hell Piglet!

That brings tears to my eyes. :( And I wonder why she felt she must die because she had a 'venereal disease?'

I was thinking about the Rev Chad Varah yesterday, founder of The Samaritans.

The story is that after qualifying, and going to a new parish as an assistant, he was told to take the funeral service for a young girl who had killed herself.

Her periods had started, she didn't know what it was, but she had heard rumours about venereal diseases, and thought she had one.

So.

A youngster.

Kept in ignorance.

Scared to talk to her parents.

No-one she could confide in.

Varah decided to try to devote his life to prevent other tragedies.

That story was a formative element of my youth.

No, you're most definitely an extremist.

Piglet you said "if it's something going on within the family (which it most often is)". The context was any discussion about sex, relationships or being pregnant (which is what I originally said parents should be informed of with an exception if the teacher believed they were at risk)

I am aware that most child abuse is perpetrated in the family. Math that's like saying that "raising taxes on millionaires to 75% isn't an anti-wealth position, just a pro-equality position." Even if it's pro-equality it still goes against someone (i.e. the wealthy.)

Telling parents that their children will be able to explore their sexual concerns with professionals at school and they have no way of finding out any information is "anti-parent" AND "pro-confidentiality". It depends whether you believe parents' right to know or the young person's right to privacy is more important. There is no law or absolute rule either way in this country, so schools have discretion without getting into trouble for which way they decide.

If it's a place in Islington or the leafy suburbs of Cambridge where 97% of parents would prefer their DCs had an outside "confidante" it makes sense to not inform them. If it's inner city with majority Muslims or Black Charismatics or anyone else who would want to know if their DC was up to something they considered to be very immoral, better to inform parents.

Still does not require rejecting the "primacy of Western values" you mentioned or ignoring beatings at madrassahs, pupils coming in full of bruises which their parents believe are "justified discipline", FGM, Kindoki, violent "exorcism", forced marriage or other such practices which violate their individual rights as children, British citizens and more than anything as human beings.

Am I not promoting an even-handed moderate position here? The anti-extremist as ever...

^"which it most often is"
So you're saying more 13-15 year olds are being incestuously abused and going to tell a teacher (most incest victims don't report, a major reason for low prosecution/conviction rate...) ^

I am saying, as I am sure you are aware, that child abuse is seldom committed by a stranger down a dark alley, it is most often perpetrated in the family home.

What on EARTH has that topic got to do with Obama versus Romney?

I thought Michelle's speech was extremely well written - much more intelligent than Anne's

Extro, you do understand that if students are going to their teacher about a sexual issue and the teacher tells the parents, that students won't stop having sex, they'll just stop confiding in a teacher?

And you can't pick and choose the areas where you think families' rights can be stomped on and those which are sacrosanct.

It's not an 'anti parent' view.
It's a view that every individual has a right to confidentiality, and that 'individual' encompasses minors as well as legal adults.

It you see it as an anti parent view then it is pretty clear that you do not support a right to confidentiality of minors.

There is a universal right answer to the sort of (highly unlikely) scenario you keep on harping on about (for unfathomable reasons of your own.) The answer is that a teacher whose first duty is to the child would listen and try to see the big picture.

"which it most often is"
So you're saying more 13-15 year olds are being incestuously abused and going to tell a teacher (most incest victims don't report, a major reason for low prosecution/conviction rate) than experimenting sexually with other teenagers or thinking about doing so?

What planet are you living on?

Nice anti-Catholicism, by the way. The main defender of the anti-parent view on this thread IS Catholic...

Tell them to shut up? I would never advocate such brusqueness in that context, but interrupt them possibly, depends whether they are being respectful and what the school rules are. A lot of youth now start using explicit words and descriptions they wouldn't dare to have used outside their peer group once. There isn't a universal right answer to that.

"I support people marrying early if they find it too difficult to abstain from sex."

"RE boys' schools. If a pupil at a respectable boys' school started trying to divulge their sexual experiences to a teacher, I expect they'd i)stop them by saying they were not interested/ inappropriate talk/ not my problem etc. and ii)at least consider telling the parents. I don't see schools as institutionally sexist in the way you do, at least on this. It's certain parents who would be more concerned about their daughters than their sons."

"One law for all": there is no law passed in the English Parliament or anywhere else I know of requiring schools to act as super-discreet confidantes for pupils who are sexually impure. Nor is it a "fundamental part of civil society" for parents to be kept out of the loop.

"If a pupil at a respectable boys' school started trying to divulge their ...."

....concerns which might relate to something that had happened, and might be of a sexual nature...

what? you want the teacher to tell them to shut up and piss off?

used to be popular especially among adherents of a well-known religious organisation, very effective at keeping things swept under the carpet.

We know better now.

No use telling them to speak to the parents if it's something happening within the family (which it most often is).

Math- I believe in the primacy of Western culture and national law over extremist religious traditions that would conflict with these as well. I once wrote that I found it wrong the way Ray Honeyford was harassed out of his job as a headteacher in Bradford in the mid-80s, when he was promoting making sure that Muslim girls of Pakistani heritage go to school until they are 16 and are not kept off from (pre-)puberty by their fundamentalist fathers. The same would apply to Travellers, everyone deserves an equal chance at completing their basic education irrespective of what background they are from if they live in a country that supposedly guarantees to provide children with this.

I support people marrying early if they find it too difficult to abstain from sex. I don't support women being denied the opportunity to work outside the home (earlier on this thread I called myself "pro-life feminist" so could hardly be against women in this way.)

RE boys' schools. If a pupil at a respectable boys' school started trying to divulge their sexual experiences to a teacher, I expect they'd i)stop them by saying they were not interested/ inappropriate talk/ not my problem etc. and ii)at least consider telling the parents. I don't see schools as institutionally sexist in the way you do, at least on this. It's certain parents who would be more concerned about their daughters than their sons.

"One law for all": there is no law passed in the English Parliament or anywhere else I know of requiring schools to act as super-discreet confidantes for pupils who are sexually impure. Nor is it a "fundamental part of civil society" for parents to be kept out of the loop.

'From my last post math WRT forced marriage, FGM and Travellers denying their children an education. All harmful, abusive, unlawful acts unlike teaching your child to abstain from sex.'

How is the Traveller custom harmful? Traveller girls do not work outside the home in the main because they never have to. They are supported by their husbands and extended families play a large part in childcare. They marry young after a short courtship and in some respects that tradition seems to be akin to what you described earlier - no sex before marriage, no career and cohabitation until the late 20s or early 30s ... what's not to love there?

In spite of the fact that there is one law for all (that has come into existence as a result of democratically expressed general consensus) and the fact that having one law for all this is a fundamental part of a civil society you are asking principals to use their discretion (and you object strongly to individual discretion uinless the individual concerned agrees 100% with you). What there is right now is a system that acknowledges the primacy of western culture and the western idea about the rights of individuals as opposed to 'the family'. Because this is the West after all.

holy shit I'm glad the state I vote in is moderate

Oh Extro, you are funny.

Apart from Piglet's puzzling direct contradiction to what I said upon asking me a question,...

I ask you if they have a right to privacy and confidentiality, and your rambing evasive reply begins "confidentiality" is something I believe in to an extent but not when..."

You say that "to an extent" you don't object to confidentiality except that it should not apply when it's about something you don't think should be confidential. So you clearly say that you do not believe it is a right, it is a privilege to be granted on certain occasions subject to your approval.

That is not the same as it being a right.

So you do not believe people have a right to privacy and confidentiality.

"There is nothing wrong with child protection of course and by its nature it must sometimes usurp parental control over the child at risk,"

-From my last post math WRT forced marriage, FGM and Travellers denying their children an education. All harmful, abusive, unlawful acts unlike teaching your child to abstain from sex.

"The government maintains a wide range of social services without which many British families would be starving and homeless. Should that all stop?
The government also claims an interest in protecting children from dangers within the family and has powers to remove children from the home and terminate parental rights. Do you think that should be ended?"

Okay, let's defund SureStart, cut off Child Benefit and tax credits, knock down all social housing, keep minors off the NHS in case parents don't agree with them getting state funded healthcare, shut down children's centres, no state money to the NSPCC (who needs protection?), forbid computers in school and youth facility as some Amish-like cult thinks technology corrupts mankind, close down residential units for troubled teenagers and let them sleep on the streets, abandon school attendance services because parents have a right to make them work around the house all day especially if they're girls, stop the Common Assessment Framework as sharing information about children at risk breaches their privacy, ban anti-bullying programmes in case some families think bullying is a good way of toughening people up, repeal the Children Acts, abolish section 47 inquiries (far too intrusive!), get rid of all laws around adoption, and make sure child abusers get to keep their children.

Really ? How could you even ask me what I think? What next, should terrorism and bank robbery be legalised? Should we bring back slavery and set up a public execution zone for the slaves who won't work and follow the rules?

Meanwhile the Democratic convention is later this week.

There was a very sad case here in Canada where a father, brother and mother killed three of their daughters and the father's first wife simply because they had decided that the girls were not living the right sort of life (ie they had picked up some Western values, were showing some signs of independence and shock horror the elder two had boyfriends).

All three girls had tried to tell authorities that they were very scared but unfortunately they weren't taken seriously enough/didn't quite have the courage to run. I would have wished that their school had the sort of courageous deputy principle that Extrospektiv wishes to denigrate. They absolutely needed support from outside of their home.

They certainly did face 'opprobrium from their extended family' I am sure that Extrospektiv would agree that their end was tragic, however I do wonder if she would think that the tragedy was fundamentally that they veered away from the cultural and religious expectations of their family.

What if FGM is part of family life? Can the government intrude on that? How about arranged marriages of teenagers who have not met their spouse? How about requiring Traveller children to attend school and do at least GCSEs?

The government maintains a wide range of social services without which many British families would be starving and homeless. Should that all stop?

The government also claims an interest in protecting children from dangers within the family and has powers to remove children from the home and terminate parental rights. Do you think that should be ended?