[Computerpro3]

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070...4730-5162r.htm

I realize this is unlikely to happen in America, but what the UN is trying to do is still extremely scary to me. "Customary law"? Give me a break. Complusory education is the greatest coup ever pulled off in the history of the world.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

"The obligation to attend school is a civil obligation, that cannot be tampered with."

Absolutely shocking and horrifying.

 

[fraseyboy]

Isn't school compulsory in America? It is here. You have to be either enrolled in a school or known to be home-schooled.

 

[raymondlin]

Same here in England.

School should be complusory until the age of 16, imagine if you give the kids a choice, half of them would rather stay in bed and then go play football or something.

 

[Computerpro3]

If school is going to be compulsory, then it should be run like Sudbury schools. Fascinating concept that is proven time and time again. But anyway, throwing people in jail for homeschooling? Ridiculous.

 

[Aman]

In the United States, you have to be in school of some sort, be it public, private, or home schooled, until the age of 16.

What happened in Germany seems absolutely absurd.

 

[GlorytheWiz825]

This is a crazy story. Can you honestly justify holding someone for "school-phobia?" Besides, home schooled kids are pretty well off too. The top student in my Electrical Engineering class was home schooled from Grade 1 to Grade 12. University was his first experience in a public school and he is absolutely excelling.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Schooling with others does aid development of social skills. Social skills meaning the ability to deal with others in awkward situations, making friends, teamwork, etc. Of course the idea of making it law is still iffy, as home schooling usually starts when the child is too young to weigh the pros and cons for his or herself, and yet state imposed control on such matters still steps into what should (to many) still be the parents right to make decisions. The main question is where do we draw the line here, after all no one baulks at the idea of prosecuting parents who kill or torture their kids, why not extend beyond that?

 

[TheMarchingMule]

Woah, this is a law Hitler made and it's still in effect today?

Interesting...

 

[smeggy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule /img/forum/go_quote.gif Woah, this is a law Hitler made and it's still in effect today? Interesting...

Hitler recognised that education is important. Even tyrants have good ideas now and again.

 

[dukpoki]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeggy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hitler recognised that education is important. Even tyrants have good ideas now and again.

I don't know what's scarier. The story about the poor girl or the fact that hitler has a good idea. LOL.

 

[smeggy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dukpoki /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't know what's scarier. The story about the poor girl or the fact that hitler has a good idea. LOL.

I think Hitler would approve of their methods

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dukpoki /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't know what's scarier. The story about the poor girl or the fact that hitler has a good idea. LOL.

Many tyrants throughout history were some of the most progressive and efficient rulers ever. With absolute power comes the ability to make big changes, and some tyrants made good with that power, if not in a very ruthless manner. Hitler chose to attack Jews because he was intelligent enough to recognise that a common enemy would unite Germany, and unite them under him. It's the same reason why kids in school single out people to bully in order to feel united. Hitler was evil in that he had no qualms with waging war against a whole race (hell, he had Jewish friends before and even while, IIRC, he was in power), but in his mind it was just a method of moving Germany forward.

 

[smeggy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmmtn4aj /img/forum/go_quote.gif Many tyrants throughout history were some of the most progressive and efficient rulers ever. With absolute power comes the ability to make big changes, and some tyrants made good with that power, if not in a very ruthless manner. Hitler chose to attack Jews because he was intelligent enough to recognise that a common enemy would unite Germany, and unite them under him. It's the same reason why kids in school single out people to bully in order to feel united. Hitler was evil in that he had no qualms with waging war against a whole race (hell, he had Jewish friends before and even while, IIRC, he was in power), but in his mind it was just a method of moving Germany forward.

That's true. Even though I have cats I still kick them whenever dogs are around so the dogs think I'm cool.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeggy /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's true. Even though I have cats I still kick them whenever dogs are around so the dogs think I'm cool.

My sarcasm-dar just exploded

Hey, I didn't say I was a fan of Hitler, just providing a hopefully objective (relatively) analysis of a famous figure

It's a little irksome how Mao and Stalin probably killed more people directly than Hitler, but Hitler is the figurehead of evil simply because his killings were aimed at a race rather than the result of a total blunder of pointless theories and programs. Ultimately Germans, apart from the Jews, enjoyed a much higher standard of living under Hitler, certainly much more so than the Chinese or the Russians ever did under Mao or Stalin.

EDIT: Okay I'm guessing opinions fall under political discussion too, not history

? In that case, I apologize