It's illegal in Germany, so it is a big deal. I think you and everyone suggesting this kid was homeschooled are the ones jumping to conclusions. They lived in a tent for 5 years. Do you really think he took the time to teach him Maths and stuff?

Why? I myself said in an earlier post that it's very likely to be fake. One of the first thoughts that came to my mind when I read it was the balloon boy case. For the argument's sake, we should pretend it's true 'till it's confirmed to be fake though.

I'm fairly certain with this single statement you've negated every last piece of logical argument I was willing to assume you could make. You clearly misunderstand entirely what it means to "jump to conclusions". I said I'm willing to have an open mind and NOT make any assumption (though in not so many words). That means I'm NOT jumping to conclusions - I'm NOT automatically saying he was an evil man without knowing all the facts, and I'm NOT condemning him while only having a couple sentences-worth of vague description of the situation.

You know absolutely NOTHING about what's gone on here. There are INCREDIBLE amounts of information that we haven't been given, yet you're willing to close the book and be done with it, already having made your decision. That is arrogant, that is ignorant, and that is stupid.

In addition, how the hell do you even know they KNEW they were in Germany? As far as you know, they may have wandered in from Poland or the Czech Republic on accident while they were moving around in the forest. You don't know the situation behind what they went through. Stop being so closed-minded and arrogantly assuming you do.

I was just presenting a possible explanation (which is also the most likely if this story isn't fake).

Homeschooling is legal in the Czech Republic and Poland under restrictive conditions (i.e. the kids are supervised by a school, and need to take annual exams). I'm also not sure that there's any forest which stretches from the outskirts of Berlin to Poland or the Czech Republic. If there is one, please mention it. And thr schooling part isn't the only thing wrong with this situation.

No, you were presenting a highly biased opinion based on one possible explanation. And you're still getting stuck on the false assumption that "legal" equals "right". Just because you cross borders into another nation doesn't automatically make the way you once believed and lived suddenly morally wrong. It's now illegal, yes, but it's not necessarily wrong. Some laws exist because the situation in that certain locality is different. Did you know it's illegal to wear high-heeled shoes without a permit in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California? Does that mean that a person that enters the city wearing high-heels is suddenly a bad person? Absolutely not, and you'd be a complete fool to say so! In Carmel's case, high-heels are illegal because the town is extremely compact, extremely busy, and has uneven walkways, so people wearing high-heels would frequently turn their ankles. Making it illegal to wear them makes it easy to protect the city from being sued when someone twists their ankle.

In Germany's case, they don't feel that homeschooling is a sufficient enough method of acquiring education - not because they think it's "wrong" to homeschool your children, but because they want to be able to control the quality of education that everybody in their country receives.

There's also the chance that the family was merely visiting the country and didn't even know the education laws. Legally, ignorance is not an excuse, but morally? You can't morally fault someone for doing something they had no clue was illegal.

Finally, there are no proper forests south of Berlin that are sufficiently big enough for a man and his son to live in, either, and definitely nothing large enough that the boy wouldn't stumble across dozens of other roads, farms, and towns along the way into Berlin along a two-week long trip. So if he did make this trek, it's perfectly logical to believe they'd have come from other countries originally.

Anyways, the ACTUAL most logical and likely explanation is that the family was visiting, whether for only a short vacation or for a year-long job assignment, it doesn't matter. But they probably weren't permanent residents of Germany, Poland, or the Czech Republic. The father was probably there when the mother died, or else under an extreme amount of stress when she died and he received the news. If he was there, he possibly took on a head injury himself and suffered brain damage. Otherwise, the shock of the situation caused him to mentally crack, and he freaked out. Either way, he was probably extremely mentally unstable and took their child and fled into the woods.

Except you know... counter culture groups often begin with one person... and aside from that he's far from being the first isolationist.

Also... no... culture isn't more in the realm of anthropology.

Cultural Sociology Is the largest section of the American Sociological Assosiation... and most of the sections that aren't Cultural Sociology are in fact dealing with Culture... outside of like Demography maybe.

I know this because I was like 3 classes away from a Sociology degree, my Girlfriend has a sociology degree, a sociology masters degree and is about to take a comprehensive exam on Cultural Sociology.

Anthropology is like the equilvent of Demography... where your mostly just getting statistics about.

Well.... unless your taking part in Social Anthropology.  Which is basically less scientifically sound sociology.

Aside from which, an Anthropologist would likely disagree with you even more then a Sociologist.

I feel pretty bad for this kid, though he does have an interesting story to tell for the rest of his life. His dad was a strange one, that's for sure.

It's quite irrelevant that counter-cultural movements start with one person. They only become movements when they are adopted by a group of people, and they're always based on collective experience . And what's more important, they concern groups of people, not individuals. Can you imagine a guy, let's call him Ben, start a counter-culture movement concerning only him, of which only he is part of? He is different than any other person in the world, because he is Ben, and no one else is Ben. Such a thing would fall in the real of absurdity.

Counter-cultrue and subcultures concern groups of people (emphasis on the groups part).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-culture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subculture

And have you not heard of Cultural Anthropology?

Oh, and neither a Sociologist nor an Anthropologist would disagree with me (I actually know people who are both, not to mention that any Sociology or Anthropology book will say that culture is a group phenomenon). You're just wrong about this. Admit it and move on.

You are aware that your last paragraph makes the possibility of homeschooling seem quite unlikely, no? It also makes the possibility of child abuse very probable. And we go back to what I originally said.

I 100% disagree.

First, if the father is an international businessman of some sort, then it's 100% likely that he was highly educated and would want to pass that education on to his son, regardless of his mental condition. Granted, he probably didn't educate his son properly, or equally in all areas, but it's absolutely probable that he taught his son all sorts of important things.

Second, again, you're speaking from an extremely biased and opinionated view on this, and you need to stop it. You are being incredibly arrogant and simple-minded here. Just because in YOUR experience and in YOUR opinion abuse would be more probable in this case doesn't make it so. In this kind of situation, if he was taking the boy into the woods with him out of fear, then it's by far most likely that he would have taken excellent care of the child because he's protecting him. Does that guarantee that's what happened? Absolutely not! You could be entirely right, but how can you know? YOU DON'T. So stop arguing it, because it's quite retarded to do so.

END OF DISCUSSION. You're beating a dead horse by now. It's blatantly clear that you're wrong and you don't know what happened, yet you insist on continuing to argue. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.