what is the child is my to go to church or mosque and hate it.
and the same could be said for an atheist stopping thier child going to a place of worship.
if the children stop being religious or become religious it's up to them.
parent should care about the happiness of the child not their own happiness.
???
If your saying what I think your saying then my response to you in additon to my previous post above this one is that a lot of children hate school and hate going to school too, would you allow them to stop going to school all because they don't like it?
Like I said before, people need to get real on this instead of thinking that children should have complete "autonomy" as children from parents.
Still hunting, you'd never guess I've completed 2 research degrees...
The basic point is "stunning has a spectacularly high failure rate, meaning that "total suffering" is usually greater across an abattoir for those animals who are stunned and processed prior to killing (such as is common in chicken plucking) rather than throat-slit-first methods (which has a very low failure rate at inducing swift unconsciousness/death)".
I will bloody find it!
Can you remember anything about the researchers, like names etc?
And when the child decides they don't want to follow the rules set by the parents in school or in any other setting away from the home?
What then?
The school abides by the wishes of the parent, that is the way it has always been
The child had sandwiches yet asked for a hot meal, according to the parent.
Perhaps the dinner lady thought that the packed lunch look unsuitable for the child and offered her the gammon (it has already been established that the dinner offered the gammon, rather than the child asking for it).
What does a dinner worker do in that situation?
Other than the head keeping a check on which children were dinners or packed lunch, is it really in her remit to enforce the rules set by the parents on the child when the child has expressed a different request?
Yes. It is not in the remit of the headteacher to go against the parents' wishes.
I'll ask again, at what point do the child's wishes overide the parents away from the home?
This isn't a health issue, it was not for the child's own good what they wanted to eat was denied.
At school and at the age of seven, they don't. But, this is not a case of the child's wishes overriding those of the parents'.
The schools my children have attended/attend have overided my wishes. My reaction is a shrug and a "meh". It's what's schools do IMO.
Are you a politian by any chance.
The question was when would you be happy with it, not what would be your reaction if the school did it.
In my opinion that attitude is a bad one for a parent to take. To meh and shrug when some other adult is overriding your parental responsibilites is pretty weak parenting. Whilst i would trust a school and its teachers to look after my child, i would certainly take objection if they went against my specific instructions. Makes me wonder this is why so many of todays kids are behaving the way they do. Parents not too bothered what happens with them.
Amazing that a thread like this can generate 40 pages, nearly a week after it was news, but the mosque bombings, arson attacks and the stabbing of that pensioner gained hardly any attention.
Schools do that all the time surely? The schools my children attend/ed certainly didn't follow all my wishes.
It's a school FGS, not an individually tailored education plan which has to encompass everything the parents want or they want rejected.
Want that and you have to pay.
Parents don't have a say in how the curriculem is taught, what politics/beliefs/concerns are presented or how they are presented, what sports are played ect.
Such as what? What did you say to the school when they decided to override your wishes for your children?
Should a child get out of dissections and the knowledge they'll learn from that because the mother has a morbid fear of frogs, and is trying to entrench that in their child? No, probably not.
Should a child get out of frog dissection because they were recently trapped in a well for hours, covered in slithering frogs? Probably.
Or that their parents, or student, object to killing frogs on ethical and moral grounds? Definitely.
I'm hunting New Scientist, because it might have been in there.
Ah, I expect you'll come across the Johnson study from a couple of years back, showing how cruel religious slaughter is, when compared to the conventional method. But that can't be the one you mean.
Makes me wonder this is why so many of todays kids are behaving the way they do. Parents not too bothered what happens with them.
Conversely, there is now a situation as per how this particular school sounds, in which the parents' fickle wishes, religious preferences and apparent interfering in how the school is run and staffed has led to a bit of a free-for-all where every whim must be catered to individually.
Conversely, there is now a situation as per how this particular school sounds, in which the parents' fickle wishes, religious preferences and apparent interfering in how the school is run and staffed has led to a bit of a free-for-all where every whim must be catered to individually.
Well apart from the fact you just made all that up, there is nothing wrong with progression.
The Jesuits say "show the boy of seven and I'll show you the man".
I'm surprised there is so much support here for parents being so in control of their children away from issues of health/bad behaviour.
I understand parents teaching their children what they believe is right and wrong, but extending that to the point where the child has no input?
No influence apart from the parents?
I find your use of this quite to be quite hypocritical, seeing as it is a mantra of religious indoctrination.
The actual quote reads:
"Give me the child for his first seven years, and I’ll give you the man"
This means that, they will raise him in their ways and teach him the way of their religion and when he is seven years old, there will be no chance of swaying him away from their dogma.
Bearing in mind your distaste of everything religious, especially teaching children about what they should believe, it is quite incongruous with your philosophy.
The Jesuits say "show the boy of seven and I'll show you the man".
I'm surprised there is so much support here for parents being so in control of their children away from issues of health/bad behaviour.
I understand parents teaching their children what they believe is right and wrong, but extending that to the point where the child has no input?
No influence apart from the parents?
sadly some parents do not know when to let go.
I know somebody they got 12 year old son.
he's only allowed to play out the front were she can see him he's not allowed to park for shops by himself.
in bed by 8 pm school night 9pm other nights. still has to be in the bathroom when is having a bath.
and she will let him go into a mates house but she has to know when he will be back.
and she hates in mean out too long. and she said that he's out shes in all on her own.
it's not the child's job to keep the parent entertained it's the parent job to keep the child entertained.
Amazing that a thread like this can generate 40 pages, nearly a week after it was news, but the mosque bombings, arson attacks and the stabbing of that pensioner gained hardly any attention.
I think you'll find there were several threads for those topics.
Well apart from the fact you just made all that up, there is nothing wrong with progression.
Which bit did I make up then?
Fickle wishes? Check - these parents do seem to be fickle about the requirements of their religion
Religious preferences? Check. Yes, that's part of the story too.
Interference? Check, it would appear that there was a request by the parents to dismiss the dinner lady
Amazing that a thread like this can generate 40 pages, nearly a week after it was news, but the mosque bombings, arson attacks and the stabbing of that pensioner gained hardly any attention.
Ah, I expect you'll come across the Johnson study from a couple of years back, showing how cruel religious slaughter is, when compared to the conventional method. But that can't be the one you mean.
I think it was more about the practical reality of non-religious stunning vs. the theoretical idea of it usually presented.
I'm sure stunning, when it works, is by far the "least cruel" method.... it's just that the failure rate is way up single digits to early double digits... which on a processing line means one hell of a lot of chickens getting essentially skinned alive.
The question was when would you be happy with it, not what would be your reaction if the school did it.
In my opinion that attitude is a bad one for a parent to take. To meh and shrug when some other adult is overriding your parental responsibilites is pretty weak parenting. Whilst i would trust a school and its teachers to look after my child, i would certainly take objection if they went against my specific instructions. Makes me wonder this is why so many of todays kids are behaving the way they do. Parents not too bothered what happens with them.
Well so far I have one graduate, one working abroad, one still at University and the youngest heading for University as that is his goal.
Pretty much all of them know to take anything the world throws at them with a large pinch of salt. Plenty of stuff we don't need to know, plenty of stuff teachers don't need to know.
They were/are at school for 6 hours a day. TBH if they can't cope with different rules from home and ways of doing stuff for such a short period of time, then what the hell were we doing the rest of the time as parents?
Plus I always expected them to have a pretty shrewd idea of what to bring home and what to leave at the school gate.
I think it was more about the practical reality of non-religious stunning vs. the theoretical idea of it usually presented.
I'm sure stunning, when it works, is by far the "least cruel" method.... it's just that the failure rate is way up single digits to early double digits... which on a processing line means one hell of a lot of chickens getting essentially skinned alive.
Your right, religious slaughter is less cruel for the animal. But it looks cruel to onlookers. So people who complain about it are actually thinking of themselves and not the animal.
Well so far I have one graduate, one working abroad, one still at University and the youngest heading for University as that is his goal.
Pretty much all of them know to take anything the world throws at them with a large pinch of salt. Plenty of stuff we don't need to know, plenty of stuff teachers don't need to know.
They were/are at school for 6 hours a day. TBH if they can't cope with different rules from home and ways of doing stuff for such a short period of time, then what the hell were we doing the rest of the time as parents?
Plus I always expected them to have a pretty shrewd idea of what to bring home and what to leave at the school gate.
All very nice, but at what age would you have allowed the school to undermine your wishes and what wishes did the school undermine?
I think it was more about the practical reality of non-religious stunning vs. the theoretical idea of it usually presented.
I'm sure stunning, when it works, is by far the "least cruel" method.... it's just that the failure rate is way up single digits to early double digits... which on a processing line means one hell of a lot of chickens getting essentially skinned alive.
I think there were some figures around a few years ago that suggested around a 10% failure rate for stunning. I've no idea now as far as the detail. But then I don't recall any independent research into the failure rates of *best practice* religious slaughter, and there must be a % that's not performed correctly too. So as far as I know all we have is the evidence that shows when they're both performed correctly, religious slaughter results in more suffering than the conventional method.
Comments
???
If your saying what I think your saying then my response to you in additon to my previous post above this one is that a lot of children hate school and hate going to school too, would you allow them to stop going to school all because they don't like it?
Like I said before, people need to get real on this instead of thinking that children should have complete "autonomy" as children from parents.
Can you remember anything about the researchers, like names etc?
Edit - ignore. Stupid question!
The school abides by the wishes of the parent, that is the way it has always been
Perhaps the dinner lady thought that the packed lunch look unsuitable for the child and offered her the gammon (it has already been established that the dinner offered the gammon, rather than the child asking for it).
Yes. It is not in the remit of the headteacher to go against the parents' wishes.
At school and at the age of seven, they don't. But, this is not a case of the child's wishes overriding those of the parents'.
Are you a politian by any chance.
The question was when would you be happy with it, not what would be your reaction if the school did it.
In my opinion that attitude is a bad one for a parent to take. To meh and shrug when some other adult is overriding your parental responsibilites is pretty weak parenting. Whilst i would trust a school and its teachers to look after my child, i would certainly take objection if they went against my specific instructions. Makes me wonder this is why so many of todays kids are behaving the way they do. Parents not too bothered what happens with them.
I was hungover on a 8 hour train journey, so no
I'm hunting New Scientist, because it might have been in there.
Such as what? What did you say to the school when they decided to override your wishes for your children?
Or that their parents, or student, object to killing frogs on ethical and moral grounds? Definitely.
Ah, I expect you'll come across the Johnson study from a couple of years back, showing how cruel religious slaughter is, when compared to the conventional method. But that can't be the one you mean.
Conversely, there is now a situation as per how this particular school sounds, in which the parents' fickle wishes, religious preferences and apparent interfering in how the school is run and staffed has led to a bit of a free-for-all where every whim must be catered to individually.
Well apart from the fact you just made all that up, there is nothing wrong with progression.
I find your use of this quite to be quite hypocritical, seeing as it is a mantra of religious indoctrination.
The actual quote reads:
"Give me the child for his first seven years, and I’ll give you the man"
This means that, they will raise him in their ways and teach him the way of their religion and when he is seven years old, there will be no chance of swaying him away from their dogma.
Bearing in mind your distaste of everything religious, especially teaching children about what they should believe, it is quite incongruous with your philosophy.
sadly some parents do not know when to let go.
I know somebody they got 12 year old son.
he's only allowed to play out the front were she can see him he's not allowed to park for shops by himself.
in bed by 8 pm school night 9pm other nights. still has to be in the bathroom when is having a bath.
and she will let him go into a mates house but she has to know when he will be back.
and she hates in mean out too long. and she said that he's out shes in all on her own.
it's not the child's job to keep the parent entertained it's the parent job to keep the child entertained.
I think you'll find there were several threads for those topics.
You take issue with a responsible parent?
Which bit did I make up then?
Fickle wishes? Check - these parents do seem to be fickle about the requirements of their religion
Religious preferences? Check. Yes, that's part of the story too.
Interference? Check, it would appear that there was a request by the parents to dismiss the dinner lady
That's told you Snozzcumber:D:D Great username by the way. Was on of your favourite books by Roald Dahl BFG.:)
I think it was more about the practical reality of non-religious stunning vs. the theoretical idea of it usually presented.
I'm sure stunning, when it works, is by far the "least cruel" method.... it's just that the failure rate is way up single digits to early double digits... which on a processing line means one hell of a lot of chickens getting essentially skinned alive.
Well so far I have one graduate, one working abroad, one still at University and the youngest heading for University as that is his goal.
Pretty much all of them know to take anything the world throws at them with a large pinch of salt. Plenty of stuff we don't need to know, plenty of stuff teachers don't need to know.
They were/are at school for 6 hours a day. TBH if they can't cope with different rules from home and ways of doing stuff for such a short period of time, then what the hell were we doing the rest of the time as parents?
Plus I always expected them to have a pretty shrewd idea of what to bring home and what to leave at the school gate.
Your right, religious slaughter is less cruel for the animal. But it looks cruel to onlookers. So people who complain about it are actually thinking of themselves and not the animal.
hes 12 he should be going to the park without his mummy following him around he's not a little boy anymore.
and as for going in the bathroom withi a 12 year old that is very worng.
and 8 pm too early for 12 year old most are in bed by 9 to 10 on school nights.
when i was his age my mum didn't follow me everywhere. I had barths on my own. and was in bed by 9.30 pm.
All very nice, but at what age would you have allowed the school to undermine your wishes and what wishes did the school undermine?
Dont hold your breath. I think we will learn everything about SS and her family, other than the answer to the question posed.
Any of those incidents garner threads of 40 pages and remain on the front page of the forum for nearly a week?
I loved Dahl books as a kid. If I ever get banned, I'll reappear as Frobscottle.That or Mrs. Twit.
I think there were some figures around a few years ago that suggested around a 10% failure rate for stunning. I've no idea now as far as the detail. But then I don't recall any independent research into the failure rates of *best practice* religious slaughter, and there must be a % that's not performed correctly too. So as far as I know all we have is the evidence that shows when they're both performed correctly, religious slaughter results in more suffering than the conventional method.