Your opinion doesn't matter, the school says you can't, so you can't. End of discussion. I don't go to school to hear some fucktard spew blatant lies and political propaganda, I go there for an education.
Wow, um, that was harsh. Are you saying your opinion matters more, or just restating that the law is on your side?
If it's the first you're correct because I can't vote.
Your opinion doesn't matter, the school says you can't, so you can't. End of discussion. I don't go to school to hear some fucktard spew blatant lies and political propaganda, I go there for an education.
Wow, um, that was harsh. Are you saying your opinion matters more, or just restating that the law is on your side?
If it's the first you're correct because I can't vote.
I don't think he was trying to say either of those. I think he was just trying to say that the school is a learning environment for children who have very little knowledge of politics, and anything they are exposed to, I.E. their parents beliefs or, in a much less likely case, the slant the media may put on it. If a kid has opinions on a politician, then it's rehashed from what their parents or older siblings have taught them, and especially when your parent is a known activist, freedom of speech doesn't have anything to do with it, since the kid is only spewing crap that he's ignorant about anyways. The shirt he was wearing was clearly intended to be disruptive and to pass along a radical viewpoint, and spreading that kind of message to impressionable children can lead to total ignorance towards bipartisan politics and would lead them towards leaning to one party while completely bashing the other. It has nothing to do with whether or not Obama has terrorist associates, it's just for the safety of the children.
In retrospect, what I said was a bit asshole-ish, and I can see how that could be interpreted differently from how I meant it. I'm not saying that my opinion matters more than anyone else's, I'm saying that from my experience, schools don't care about your opinion that much. You might rate freeedom of speech higher than education, but the school probably won't care, and In some cases, will just show you the door rather than argue with you.
I wasn't trying to say "I don't care what people think, they're wrong", I was trying to say that schools are not the places for pushing your beliefs, whether they be political, religous, or anything else. Especially so when the messages are meant to be inflammatory, like "Obama supports terrorism", or "Liberalism is a mental disorder" (an actual shirt someone at my school wears).
But he should not be able to in a public school. Doing so infringes on the right of other students to enjoy a calm and productive learning environment.
I disagree with your use of the word "right" here. A calm and productive learning environment is more of a privilege.
A right is something derived from ownership of property. That is, when you are born, you own your body. This ownership leads to your inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You are the SUPREME AUTHORITY when it comes to your body, and so you derive your rights from this authority. Note, please, that happiness is not a right; only the pursuit thereof is.
As you go through life and acquire more property, you have the right to do whatever you want to that property, as long is it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. I have the right to tattoo my body. I have the right to defend myself from death. I have the right to build a house on my land. I have the right to set that house on fire. Now, if this fire spreads to my neighbors' property (or if the smoke from the fire spreads to my neighbors' property), then I am infringing upon their rights; I will be held responsible.
A privilege is something granted by permission. You get permission to travel on another man's land. You get permission to fuck your lover. You get permission to be educated. All of these things are privileges, and you have no right to any of them. Why is this? It's because you don't own any of the items in question here.
Whether we like it or not, the information present in another man's head belongs to him and him alone, and he has no obligation to give anybody else that information. Of course, if that information in his head belongs to somebody else, then that other party DOES have the right to do what they want to that information as long as they leave the information-courier's body alone. This is the main plot of Johnny Mnemonic. *AHEM* Anyway, we don't have a right to any sort of learning environment, it is granted as a privilege.
In an education system, who has the rights to the INFORMATION? The TEACHERS, of course, along with the TEXT-BOOK PUBLISHERS - they are the ones who hold the INFORMATION. Both of these entities enter into a contract with the SCHOOL and grant to the school the privilege of this INFORMATION (along with the service of teaching, in the case of the TEACHERS). The SCHOOL, of course, is just acting as proxy for the STATE, which is in turn acting as proxy to the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE enter into a contract with the STATE where money and land is exchanged for goods and/or services (AKA taxes), and one of these services expected nowadays is education. The STATE then subcontracts the SCHOOL to provide this education to the STUDENTS. The SCHOOL in turn extends its previously-acquired privilege of knowledge unto the STUDENTS.
Keep in mind, this is a public SCHOOL, so all SCHOOL PROPERTY actually is owned by the STATE (which of course acts on proxy for the PEOPLE). This SCHOOL PROPERTY includes the land, so the SCHOOL acting as proxy of the STATE acting as proxy of the PEOPLE has the right to do whatever they want with this land, including forbidding entry to whoever they want. All actions taken with this PROPERTY, however, must be in accordance with the PEOPLE'S desires (not best interests) in mind.
Now on to the kid with the shirt. He has the inalienable right to say what he wants - this includes wearing clothes with stupid and unbased slogans, and this includes being a tool of his father. The school can not - CAN NOT - remove this right. It is inalienable. He has this right even if he doesn't live in America, keep in mind, because this right is not granted by the Constitution of the United States; it is granted by God, if you atheists will accept the term. Now, we all know the school has to suspend him. They HAVE to. The school is in subcontract with the state which is in turn contracted by the people to provide education services to children. When the school's ability to carry out their contractual obligation is impaired, what can they do?
You see, the school is in charge of the communal land owned by the people - by the state - and so exercises authority based on its rights-by-proxy: it tells the kid he can't come on school property for the duration of his suspension.
There we go. The contracts of all parties are upheld. The educational process continues. Nobody's freedom of speech is infringed upon.
5:26:19 PM Dr Faustus Lives: hmm
5:26:47 PM Dr Faustus Lives: ok
5:26:58 PM Dr Faustus Lives: the kid has the inalienable right to wear whatever shirt he wants
5:27:12 PM Dr Faustus Lives: but the people have the inalienable right to restrict access to their property
5:27:15 PM Dr Faustus Lives: in this case their public school
5:27:26 PM Dr Faustus Lives: so the kid can still wear the shirt all he wants
5:27:26 PM Fille Au Fish: Precisely
5:27:37 PM Dr Faustus Lives: but the school can in turn tell him to GTFO
5:28:03 PM Fille Au Fish: That's the world I live in
5:28:51 PM Dr Faustus Lives: the chart however is a bit obtuse
5:31:12 PM Fille Au Fish: WELL I SPENT A LOT OF TIME DRAWING IT ;_;
5:31:29 PM Dr Faustus Lives: actually, after a second look, it makes a lot of sense
5:32:01 PM Dr Faustus Lives: but expect a lot of "lol wuts"
:objection:
You say we don't have the right to an education, yet you also say we have the right to pursue happiness. His disruption of the other students' educations IS a violation of their right to pursue happiness. Becoming educated may be a privilege, but pursuing education is a right.
Now, if i wanted to pursue my education in the middle of a mosh pit, it's obviously my own fault if I fail. It would be unreasonable to say that everybody else present was infringing upon my right. That's why we have schools. They are designated places for education. You don't have a right of education everywhere, just as you can't expect to have a right to privacy everywhere. He wore that shirt with full knowledge of its disruptive abilities into a known educational institution. He took away the only place guaranteed to allow for the right to pursue happiness in the form of pursuing education.
Since you people like metafore-ish examples so much I'll make my point like so: You can't say education is a right just 'cause it can be a good path to happiness, I could comit credit fraud and get a kick out of it. But it's still not my right.
Although your logic is mostly valid, there's a few holes... please don't hurt me.
Since you people like metafore-ish examples so much I'll make my point like so: You can't say education is a right just 'cause it can be a good path to happiness, I could comit credit fraud and get a kick out of it. But it's still not my right.
Although your logic is mostly valid, there's a few holes... please don't hurt me.
Credit card fraud is not a right because it infringes on the rights of others. Pursuing an education is an independent (obviously one can seek aid via public education systems, tutors, libraries, etc. all requiring many individuals working together) activity. If you were hurting anybody in your pursuit, then you no longer have the right to make that pursuit.
I brought up this in my Business Computer App. Class to see what my peers thought, but it descended into mindless political yelling matches.
*sigh*
EDIT:
On Fridays if we have time at the end of class, we talk about current events. For example: A flesh eating virus that shut down a school up in northern Idaho, District Policies: Fair or Unfair, first amendment rights, among others.
Credit card fraud is not a right because it infringes on the rights of others. Pursuing an education is an independent (obviously one can seek aid via public education systems, tutors, libraries, etc. all requiring many individuals working together) activity. If you were hurting anybody in your pursuit, then you no longer have the right to make that pursuit.
I disagree with your use of the word "right" here. A calm and productive learning environment is more of a privilege.
A right is something derived from ownership of property. That is, when you are born, you own your body. This ownership leads to your inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You are the SUPREME AUTHORITY when it comes to your body, and so you derive your rights from this authority. Note, please, that happiness is not a right; only the pursuit thereof is.
As you go through life and acquire more property, you have the right to do whatever you want to that property, as long is it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. I have the right to tattoo my body. I have the right to defend myself from death. I have the right to build a house on my land. I have the right to set that house on fire. Now, if this fire spreads to my neighbors' property (or if the smoke from the fire spreads to my neighbors' property), then I am infringing upon their rights; I will be held responsible.
A privilege is something granted by permission. You get permission to travel on another man's land. You get permission to fuck your lover. You get permission to be educated. All of these things are privileges, and you have no right to any of them. Why is this? It's because you don't own any of the items in question here.
This is more or less correct. However, education is a right, not only a privilege. The thought of it being called a mere privilege actually made me shudder a little. You can consider it one of the inalienable rights derived from being a citizen, or simply a human. I don't know if US internal legislation establishes education as a right (I would guess it does), but international treaties signed and ratified by the United States do recognize it as a right, and these are just as valid, if not more so, than internal laws.
Article 28 1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:
(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;
(b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;
(c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;
(d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;
(e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.
Article XII Every person has the right to an education, which should be based on the principles of liberty, morality and human solidarity.
Likewise every person has the right to an education that will prepare him to attain a decent life, to raise his standard of living, and to be a useful member of society. The right to an education includes the right to equality of opportunity in every case, in accordance with natural talents, merit and the desire to utilize the resources that the state or the community is in a position to provide. Every person has the right to receive, free, at least a primary education.
Sadly there's no way to actually enforce those treaties within the United States, as the enforcement agencies such as the Supreme Court traditionally only look to the US Constitution. Some Supreme Court Justices are trying to change this and look at international law the US signed on to in addition to Constitutional Law when creating rulings, but the conservative majority in the court refuses to do so.
Yeah, that can very well be, but the fact remains that education is a right. If it's enforced or not doesn't make it any more or any less of a right. Just because people don't follow law x it doesn't mean that it is not a valid law.
I believe it is Maryland that says it's illegal for the woman to be on top.
Also: In Boise Idaho it's illegal to tie you giraffe to a street post. In Pocatello it's illegal to have a snowball fight, or be seen frowning in public.
Okay, education as right because it's a derivative of the pursuit of happiness. I'm fine with the pursuit of an education as a right, but not education itself. One doesn't own the information present in another man's head, and so has no right to the copying of knowledge from the educated man's head to their own. That's what education is to me: a duplication of knowledge.
One has the right to pursue education all they want, that's what I'm for, I love that, but nobody else is obligated to assist you. The second you say that education is a RIGHT is the second that you say you own the knowledge and effort of the teacher, and that he owes you something.
It looks like there's a panic whenever something you need isn't declared a right. Education is a privilege, yes, but it's a privilege I will ALWAYS extend to somebody who needs it because I think our world is better when it's full of educated people. That's why I choose to grace you all with my infinite knowledge and understanding.
MAIN POINT: Calling education a right is laying claim to the knowledge and efforts of another man. That's what a right is - ownership. I'm against slavery.
And I just went back to read Behemoth's post again because I wanted to rebut what he says, but once again we are in total agreement. I swear, he's one of the few people I know who can argue with somebody they agree with.
YES - education is a privilege.
YES - the pursuit of education is a right.
YES - the t-shirt was interfering with their pursuit of education.
And what did the school do about it? They didn't take away his freedom of speech. They removed him from their property. He can still say what he wants.
So yeah, man, we are in agreement.
Among our inalienable rights are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We've also got the right to be secure in our property and papers, the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of press, etc. Please note that it is not the U.S. Constitution that grants us these rights. If the Constitution granted us these things then they would be privileges: the privilege to life, the privilege to liberty, etc. We derive authority to live, to be free, to pursue happiness from nobody but ourselves and our willingness to die for these things. The second you lose your willingness to die (for life?) is the second you forfeit these rights.
Originally Posted by Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 28
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:
(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;
(b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;
(c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;
(d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;
(e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.
Triple post of: Oh god..."State Parties shall make education...free to all."
And tell me, please, what happens when the teachers refuse to teach. What happens when they just don't feel like it? Will they be forced? How do you even force somebody to teach? Making education free to all is like making clothes free to all or housing free to all or food free to all. What happens when the owners refuse to give it freely?
I thought education already was free to all in the US. It seems to be working so far. It's only saying free through high-school. It only says to make higher education available. I think this is why I argue with you so much when we "agree". I have no idea what your point is in that last statement. If a teacher refuses to teach, they get fired and you hire somebody else. They are under contract and being paid to teach. It really seems pretty cut and dry to me. What exactly is your reason for being so critical?
My reason for being critical is that the State Parties claim everybody has a right to free education. That is, every person owns the education already. But, education is a product of educators. To say that every single person owns the fruits of another man is socialism. It's theft. However, that's not how things work in America, and thank god.
I'm being critical because I'm thinking of what would happen when every teacher refuses to teach. Who thinks the teachers should be forced to teach?
Comments
If it's the first you're correct because I can't vote.
How tolerant of you.
I don't think he was trying to say either of those. I think he was just trying to say that the school is a learning environment for children who have very little knowledge of politics, and anything they are exposed to, I.E. their parents beliefs or, in a much less likely case, the slant the media may put on it. If a kid has opinions on a politician, then it's rehashed from what their parents or older siblings have taught them, and especially when your parent is a known activist, freedom of speech doesn't have anything to do with it, since the kid is only spewing crap that he's ignorant about anyways. The shirt he was wearing was clearly intended to be disruptive and to pass along a radical viewpoint, and spreading that kind of message to impressionable children can lead to total ignorance towards bipartisan politics and would lead them towards leaning to one party while completely bashing the other. It has nothing to do with whether or not Obama has terrorist associates, it's just for the safety of the children.
A right is something derived from ownership of property. That is, when you are born, you own your body. This ownership leads to your inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You are the SUPREME AUTHORITY when it comes to your body, and so you derive your rights from this authority. Note, please, that happiness is not a right; only the pursuit thereof is.
As you go through life and acquire more property, you have the right to do whatever you want to that property, as long is it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. I have the right to tattoo my body. I have the right to defend myself from death. I have the right to build a house on my land. I have the right to set that house on fire. Now, if this fire spreads to my neighbors' property (or if the smoke from the fire spreads to my neighbors' property), then I am infringing upon their rights; I will be held responsible.
A privilege is something granted by permission. You get permission to travel on another man's land. You get permission to fuck your lover. You get permission to be educated. All of these things are privileges, and you have no right to any of them. Why is this? It's because you don't own any of the items in question here.
Whether we like it or not, the information present in another man's head belongs to him and him alone, and he has no obligation to give anybody else that information. Of course, if that information in his head belongs to somebody else, then that other party DOES have the right to do what they want to that information as long as they leave the information-courier's body alone. This is the main plot of Johnny Mnemonic. *AHEM* Anyway, we don't have a right to any sort of learning environment, it is granted as a privilege.
In an education system, who has the rights to the INFORMATION? The TEACHERS, of course, along with the TEXT-BOOK PUBLISHERS - they are the ones who hold the INFORMATION. Both of these entities enter into a contract with the SCHOOL and grant to the school the privilege of this INFORMATION (along with the service of teaching, in the case of the TEACHERS). The SCHOOL, of course, is just acting as proxy for the STATE, which is in turn acting as proxy to the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE enter into a contract with the STATE where money and land is exchanged for goods and/or services (AKA taxes), and one of these services expected nowadays is education. The STATE then subcontracts the SCHOOL to provide this education to the STUDENTS. The SCHOOL in turn extends its previously-acquired privilege of knowledge unto the STUDENTS.
Keep in mind, this is a public SCHOOL, so all SCHOOL PROPERTY actually is owned by the STATE (which of course acts on proxy for the PEOPLE). This SCHOOL PROPERTY includes the land, so the SCHOOL acting as proxy of the STATE acting as proxy of the PEOPLE has the right to do whatever they want with this land, including forbidding entry to whoever they want. All actions taken with this PROPERTY, however, must be in accordance with the PEOPLE'S desires (not best interests) in mind.
Now on to the kid with the shirt. He has the inalienable right to say what he wants - this includes wearing clothes with stupid and unbased slogans, and this includes being a tool of his father. The school can not - CAN NOT - remove this right. It is inalienable. He has this right even if he doesn't live in America, keep in mind, because this right is not granted by the Constitution of the United States; it is granted by God, if you atheists will accept the term. Now, we all know the school has to suspend him. They HAVE to. The school is in subcontract with the state which is in turn contracted by the people to provide education services to children. When the school's ability to carry out their contractual obligation is impaired, what can they do?
You see, the school is in charge of the communal land owned by the people - by the state - and so exercises authority based on its rights-by-proxy: it tells the kid he can't come on school property for the duration of his suspension.
There we go. The contracts of all parties are upheld. The educational process continues. Nobody's freedom of speech is infringed upon.
THE END. HERE IS A CHART.
Nicely played John.
5:26:47 PM Dr Faustus Lives: ok
5:26:58 PM Dr Faustus Lives: the kid has the inalienable right to wear whatever shirt he wants
5:27:12 PM Dr Faustus Lives: but the people have the inalienable right to restrict access to their property
5:27:15 PM Dr Faustus Lives: in this case their public school
5:27:26 PM Dr Faustus Lives: so the kid can still wear the shirt all he wants
5:27:26 PM Fille Au Fish: Precisely
5:27:37 PM Dr Faustus Lives: but the school can in turn tell him to GTFO
5:28:03 PM Fille Au Fish: That's the world I live in
5:28:51 PM Dr Faustus Lives: the chart however is a bit obtuse
5:31:12 PM Fille Au Fish: WELL I SPENT A LOT OF TIME DRAWING IT ;_;
5:31:29 PM Dr Faustus Lives: actually, after a second look, it makes a lot of sense
5:32:01 PM Dr Faustus Lives: but expect a lot of "lol wuts"
You say we don't have the right to an education, yet you also say we have the right to pursue happiness. His disruption of the other students' educations IS a violation of their right to pursue happiness. Becoming educated may be a privilege, but pursuing education is a right.
Now, if i wanted to pursue my education in the middle of a mosh pit, it's obviously my own fault if I fail. It would be unreasonable to say that everybody else present was infringing upon my right. That's why we have schools. They are designated places for education. You don't have a right of education everywhere, just as you can't expect to have a right to privacy everywhere. He wore that shirt with full knowledge of its disruptive abilities into a known educational institution. He took away the only place guaranteed to allow for the right to pursue happiness in the form of pursuing education.
Although your logic is mostly valid, there's a few holes... please don't hurt me.
In this case the media is a shirt with glitter paints, and the content is militant propaganda.
So my point is, um, ...go you?
I love that chart, at first it didn't make sense but it all worked out in the end
Credit card fraud is not a right because it infringes on the rights of others. Pursuing an education is an independent (obviously one can seek aid via public education systems, tutors, libraries, etc. all requiring many individuals working together) activity. If you were hurting anybody in your pursuit, then you no longer have the right to make that pursuit.
*sigh*
EDIT:
On Fridays if we have time at the end of class, we talk about current events. For example: A flesh eating virus that shut down a school up in northern Idaho, District Policies: Fair or Unfair, first amendment rights, among others.
*Sigh* Told again.
This is more or less correct. However, education is a right, not only a privilege. The thought of it being called a mere privilege actually made me shudder a little. You can consider it one of the inalienable rights derived from being a citizen, or simply a human. I don't know if US internal legislation establishes education as a right (I would guess it does), but international treaties signed and ratified by the United States do recognize it as a right, and these are just as valid, if not more so, than internal laws.
Also: In Boise Idaho it's illegal to tie you giraffe to a street post. In Pocatello it's illegal to have a snowball fight, or be seen frowning in public.
One has the right to pursue education all they want, that's what I'm for, I love that, but nobody else is obligated to assist you. The second you say that education is a RIGHT is the second that you say you own the knowledge and effort of the teacher, and that he owes you something.
It looks like there's a panic whenever something you need isn't declared a right. Education is a privilege, yes, but it's a privilege I will ALWAYS extend to somebody who needs it because I think our world is better when it's full of educated people. That's why I choose to grace you all with my infinite knowledge and understanding.
MAIN POINT: Calling education a right is laying claim to the knowledge and efforts of another man. That's what a right is - ownership. I'm against slavery.
And I just went back to read Behemoth's post again because I wanted to rebut what he says, but once again we are in total agreement. I swear, he's one of the few people I know who can argue with somebody they agree with.
YES - education is a privilege.
YES - the pursuit of education is a right.
YES - the t-shirt was interfering with their pursuit of education.
And what did the school do about it? They didn't take away his freedom of speech. They removed him from their property. He can still say what he wants.
So yeah, man, we are in agreement.
Among our inalienable rights are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We've also got the right to be secure in our property and papers, the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of press, etc. Please note that it is not the U.S. Constitution that grants us these rights. If the Constitution granted us these things then they would be privileges: the privilege to life, the privilege to liberty, etc. We derive authority to live, to be free, to pursue happiness from nobody but ourselves and our willingness to die for these things. The second you lose your willingness to die (for life?) is the second you forfeit these rights.
Triple post of: Oh god..."State Parties shall make education...free to all."
And tell me, please, what happens when the teachers refuse to teach. What happens when they just don't feel like it? Will they be forced? How do you even force somebody to teach? Making education free to all is like making clothes free to all or housing free to all or food free to all. What happens when the owners refuse to give it freely?
I'm being critical because I'm thinking of what would happen when every teacher refuses to teach. Who thinks the teachers should be forced to teach?