Does this seem off to you - hs FB group

[Scarlett]

On 11/11/2018 at 10:36 AM, OKBud said:

 

Oh, Lord, no! 

My kids have busted out with theee most insane things. That they could not have possibly heard at home.  One child, in particular, had really whack opinions about the elderly, for example.

No kidding.  

[HomeAgain]

6 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

People always think that the reason for their way of life is because it is better for people, less hurtful in the ways that matter.  

In any case, correcting someone for an inappropriate social comment isn't really the same as telling them the problem is that their view is bigoted/hateful.

I can agree with you on the second statement.  I just didn't get that vibe from someone saying they will gently correct a kid.

On the first, I think many people have lost the personal aspect of beliefs and try to apply a one-size-fits-all.  And that's where we start fighting with each other, because no one likes to be forced into a belief system that doesn't work for them personally - especially when it's based on fear and oppression of who they are.  For example, it's fine for my Jewish friends to abstain from pork, and me to respect that and not serve pork products when I invite them to my home and do my best to not infringe on their personal beliefs.  It's not okay for them to force me to throw out my bacon and pork chops, picket the grocery store to make them remove bacon so no one else can buy it, and lobby to pass laws so that it's illegal to kill a pig.  Nor is it okay for me to trick them into eating my prosciutto stuffed chicken and say, "see, it didn't hurt you!" or to require every family to invest in 1/4 a pig, that they'll then receive at the end of the year.

So, yeah, when a personal belief system starts to hurt others, I think it's okay to step up and mention that to the person who is hurting those around them.

[SKL]

My sister's elementary aged kid recently got in trouble in her new school for something she said.

She met a dwarf and observed, "you're awfully short to be in the 4th grade."

Of course all the adults about dropped dead.  Her mom got an earful.  But this is the kind of thing an innocent child may say when faced with something the parents didn't think to warn her about.  And there are too many things out there for parents to think of all of them before their kid encounters them.

A little grace goes a long way.

Edited November 13, 2018 by SKL

[Bluegoat]

12 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

I can agree with you on the second statement.  I just didn't get that vibe from someone saying they will gently correct a kid.

On the first, I think many people have lost the personal aspect of beliefs and try to apply a one-size-fits-all.  And that's where we start fighting with each other, because no one likes to be forced into a belief system that doesn't work for them personally - especially when it's based on fear and oppression of who they are.  For example, it's fine for my Jewish friends to abstain from pork, and me to respect that and not serve pork products when I invite them to my home and do my best to not infringe on their personal beliefs.  It's not okay for them to force me to throw out my bacon and pork chops, picket the grocery store to make them remove bacon so no one else can buy it, and lobby to pass laws so that it's illegal to kill a pig.  Nor is it okay for me to trick them into eating my prosciutto stuffed chicken and say, "see, it didn't hurt you!" or to require every family to invest in 1/4 a pig, that they'll then receive at the end of the year.

So, yeah, when a personal belief system starts to hurt others, I think it's okay to step up and mention that to the person who is hurting those around them.

 

Jewish dietary laws aren't very comparable to most of the controversial social questions, which are about our universal beliefs about right conduct and how to live a good life.  

In any case, a young kid who says something out of place in either instance is hardly comparable to an adult making the same error.  

Edited November 12, 2018 by Bluegoat

[BlsdMama]

On 11/10/2018 at 12:41 PM, Bluegoat said:

So, this lady on the homeschool org FB group made a post last night, and it really rubs me the wrong way, even though I also would not have been crazy about the comment that prompted it.  People here at WTM have a variety of views but are pretty rational (maybe unlike FB!), I am curious if this is a widespread difference of opinion thing or what.  I'll maybe lay out what happened before saying what in particular rubbed me the wrong way.  (Though I already said in the discussion, which I may regret...)

So, apparently this happened at some sort of homeschooling event.  HS events here are quite mixed generally, you have eclectic people, evangelicals, lots of secular types, lots of unschoolers.  So a wide variety of views on various topics.  People seem to make this work for many activities.

Apparently some kid, elementary school aged, said some sort of comment in passing to her kid about gays being bad.  It seems to be unclear what this kid really meant by that, though my guess is it's some version or interpretation of something heard at home - who knows how accurately understood.  The implication from the woman was that this was an evangelical kid though I am not sure if that is known fact or a guess.  

So, she laid out that this had happened, and wrote a bit about how they teach their kids to be allies and her kids were shocked but are ok, and that she doesn't want anyone to be made by a comment like this to be made to feel excluded or uncomfortable.  She then said something like "fair warning, everyone, if I hear any comments like this in the future I will be gently address it with the kid, we won't stand up for hate."

Subsequently all but one response post was completely right-on agreement, at least 20.  So that seems pretty complete agreement, except that I know there are likely a lot of people that didn't say anything, and I am am not sure the mom knows that.  It also became quite clear that she considers hate in a fairly broad way - she'd not differentiate, for example, a simple evangelical view from a Catholic view - I don't think she knows there is a difference.  (Obviously, this kids comment wasn't really at that level either way, and who knows what the parent's view is.)

 

Thoughts?

Well, I'm not entirely certain what you're asking?  Like, what if it was your kid who was approached by a mom confronting a viewpoint?
I'm not certain it's acceptable that a mom "confront" a kid.  If the kid was a teen, it would be okay, IMO, to say, "This is what we teach in our home...."  ETA - the "in our home" comment is not confrontational - it's sharing a viewpoint.  If the mom was hotheaded and confronting a minor and was "confrontational" about impressing her viewpoint (in any direction) yes, that would be inappropriate, IMO.

That said, surely the mother realizes there is a portion of the homeschool community, not a small percentage either, who adhere to a very specific belief in that homosexuality is unacceptable in the evangelical realm?  Just as the evangelical family must surely realize there is a not small percentage of the world that believes that homosexuality is completely and totally acceptable.  It would be very odd for anyone on either side to not realize the other exists and will, especially as homeschool families who teach their kids, instill those same beliefs into those children.  Now, that would be odd.

Edited November 13, 2018 by BlsdMama

[HomeAgain]

56 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Jewish dietary laws aren't very comparable to most of the controversial social questions, which are about our universal beliefs about right conduct and how to live a good life.  

In any case, a young kid who says something out of place in either instance is hardly comparable to an adult making the same error.  

I honestly don't see the difference.

I'm concerned, though, by the thought that one has a moral right to infringe upon how others live, especially when people are living peacefully and equally.  I don't think there is any mandate that I know of that requires one to force others to adhere to a personal code of conduct UNLESS it hurts those around them not to - and truly hurt in this world, not some thought of something in an afterlife.  I'm pretty sure that all codes of conduct I know of talk about living that code personally and not treating people as less than, making that a more important part of peaceful living than trying to make others follow your specific moral code, especially if you try to make a moral issue trump fact and evidence.

[Bluegoat]

54 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

I honestly don't see the difference.

I'm concerned, though, by the thought that one has a moral right to infringe upon how others live, especially when people are living peacefully and equally.  I don't think there is any mandate that I know of that requires one to force others to adhere to a personal code of conduct UNLESS it hurts those around them not to - and truly hurt in this world, not some thought of something in an afterlife.  I'm pretty sure that all codes of conduct I know of talk about living that code personally and not treating people as less than, making that a more important part of peaceful living than trying to make others follow your specific moral code, especially if you try to make a moral issue trump fact and evidence.

 

Jewish diet laws aren't meant for non-Jews.  Even for Jews, the reason for having them often aren't the same kind of thing as the reason for having, say, law about not killing or listening to your parents.  

Think about something more obscure maybe - usury is a good example, many religions, and some secular worldviews, tend to be anti-usury.  It's not just that is is some kind of annoying thing they think they are asked to follow to make them follow a rule.  The rule is meant to make for good lives for individuals living in the world, and healthy societies. The idea is that built-in systemic economic exploitation will degrade both the social fabric and negatively affect individuals within that society.  Christian views on sexuality fall into that kind of pattern, not the dietary-law kind of pattern.

In any case, this is kind of immaterial, except to say that if you accept the idea that parents can correct others' kids on these issues, it becomes the case that in any time and place where parents take it for granted that their view of sexuality is important for a healthy society, where that is normative, you will have parents saying these kinds of things to other peoples' kids.  

The kicker is that you may be the minority in your own opinion and what you are teaching your kids.  It doesn't matter that you think it's obvious that your views are right and also the most neutral - others feel the same way about their views.

None of what you've said addresses the problem either that you are confronting quite a young child about something that he may have been taught at home, and what the heck do you expect him to do with that?  

Why would you not just say a word to the parents, or say that it's not polite to call groups of people bad?   

 

[SanDiegoMom]

I agree with one of the previous posters about it being virtue signaling or just obtuse phrasing.  "we are shocked but ok"?  Fair warning? Just live life quietly and spread your message gently without feeling the need to tell the whole facebook that a kid made an unkind statement to another kid.  I still remember with shame the time I told a friend how sorry I was that our mutual friend was going to hell because she was Jewish. (that was what I had been taught, after all) . I hurt her when it got around to her, and I was rightfully ashamed.  But  I didn't have her parents coming after me  -- I learned through having hurt someone and having to make amends.  Kids are still learning, as are adults. 

Honestly? She sounds like a mom of young kids. I was much more judgmental when my kids were young. 

[Condessa]

20 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

I don't know what it means in law in the US, or in Canada. 

Would be an interesting s/o to explore.

 

“Hate speech” does not have a legal definition in the U.S.  It is a social term, not a legal one.

I don’t know about Canada.  I would be interested if anyone else knows.

[Bluegoat]

3 minutes ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

“Hate speech” does not have a legal definition in the U.S.  It is a social term, not a legal one.

I don’t know about Canada.  I would be interested if anyone else knows.

 

Apparently Canada has a definition of hate propaganda, which seems to be the same idea.  But Wiki says that there isn't really a clear definition of hatred within the legislation itself.  It does look like definitions and such by judges have been for fairly strong statements involving things like genocide or destruction - but it does seem a bit odd to me that it isn't clearly defined.  It's not like it's obvious in itself.

[Jaybee]

On 11/10/2018 at 3:59 PM, StellaM said:

Elementary ? The kid is parroting what he hears at home.

 

S/O comment here: It always bothers me a little when people assume this is the case. I'm not jumping on you here, Stella, but my oldest taught me very early on (as a preschooler) that he was perfectly capable of forming his own opinions and stating them publicly, completely unrelated to anything he heard at home. I was always a little nervous that people would assume his opinions came from us. Still am, lol, and he's quite launched into adulthood.

[Jaybee]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

 

Yeah, it's alright, OKBud already pulled me up on this assumption and she/you are right.

I responded as I read through the thread, and felt a little silly after I saw several had already made that point.

[Bluegoat]

18 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Oh, it's fine, it will stick in my head now not to do it again ?

 

In any case, it is a possibility and that is part of the reason for treading a little lightly, I think.