I'm not sure because just the title of this thread has me all :ohmy: and :lol:

I could have written that. Quitting is tough. Sorry for your grief. :grouphug:

Because that would involve killing people. This is pretty clear to me.

I wouldn't. I would praise her sense of caring and charity but explain that you need to teach your son to be more responsible. Let her do something else nice for him to soothe the sting. This lesson is about your son.

You know what amazes me? That people are so terrified about what these people have in store for society. Hello? These two morons can't even hold down one job between the two of them. They aren't even *that* motivated. While we've been debating this, they've probably moved onto such subversive activities as couch and Jerry Springer. Yeah. I'm quaking.

*snort* I'm guessing that we both know that that is not my goal and that we do have very different ideas about education.

Depends on who you talk to. There are certain vaccines I don't intend my children to have. I suppose an argument can be made that it will put them in true danger and is a form of neglect. Many people here probably own guns. Some will argue that that puts kids in true danger. I've heard it argued that isolating your children from their peers by home schooling them puts them in real danger of growing up unsocialized and unequipped for real life. If we're going to start getting *that* subjective about abuse then who is going to be put charge of making the determinations?

Whatever amount would be considered grossly excessive and unfathomably wasteful. Put me down for that. Then add $10.

You mean like home schoolers are said to be doing?

Yes. On our main computer in a main living area using bookmarks that I have set for them.

I give a box of my favorite candy!

Here's me, not caring a whit about the personal opinion of a clinical psychologist. I could probably scare up a dozen clinical psychologists with a dozen different takes on the same situation.

I do not agree with your categorizations of rights v. privileges. The curse word name is an interesting dilemma. I don't think its at all on par with what we're talking about. I wonder if everyone would be all bent out of shape if the kid's name was Joseph Stalin or Benito Mussolini or Pol Pot or Idi Amin Dada? I doubt it. I actually remember a hilarious bit on a "Friends" episode built around the name Joseph Stalin and one on "Cheers" built around the name Mussolini. No one stormed the sets. No one freaked out about the kid named after Himmler and he was no sweetheart. It feels like we've been programmed, somehow, to go into hysterics whenever we hear the name Hitler. I imagine that sort of reaction has been good for business in the Aryan world. The baker did not have to write it. The Adolph is question is a barely three-year old child. He has the same rights as everyone else and has violated no laws. It has not been shown that the child has been harmed by belonging to a family that is part of a fringe culture any more than any other child who belongs to a fringe culture (like home schooling) has.

And then people would have the right to refuse to shop there. ETA: Realizing that this is overly simplistic. There is a difference between discriminating against something that is an immutable characteristic and something that is a chosen value. One is objective and the law can be clear. The other is not.

Ack. I guess some people might say Bich like that but I mostly hear it as "Bit". No less problematic in an English speaking country.

Well, I take it as a warning to protect the rights of people that are perceived as part of a fringe group even when we find their viewpoints unpalatable. Home schoolers are hardly mainstream.

I'm not sure that I even understand the caller. Teaching your children about the philosophies of white supremacy or a young earth isn't teaching a stereotype. If I teach my kids that all Asians are bad drivers, that's teaching a stereotype. When he says, "home schoolers are teaching their own stereotypes", he means, "home schoolers are teaching their own beliefs". Da#n straight we are. What's the problem with that?

Ha! But look what you started. I couldn't wear a shirt that caused that much commotion.

Correct incorrect usage! :lol: I like your version.

Count me not surprised.

You're awesome.

Greatest. Show. Ever. But really filthy. In an elegant, got-it-past-the-censors way.

Well, there are several European states in which this would never be allowed to happen because the government can declare your name choice illegal. I suppose we could just adopt that system too. :glare:

:lol: Now I want a shirt that says, I "Care". Maybe on the back it could say, "No. Really."

Is there an all of the above!