Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Teen Punished by School for Driving Drunk

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 5:33:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
...friend home. She drove her drunk friend home, and now she is getting punished.

Discuss.

http://www.smosh.com...
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 7:23:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hahaha, this reminds me of that time I killed my dog......

's toy
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 7:40:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 5:33:09 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
...friend home. She drove her drunk friend home, and now she is getting punished.

Discuss.

http://www.smosh.com...

To be fair, as i understand it, the rules say you cannot be at a party serving minors alcohol, and due to unfortunate timing of a police raid it is a fact entered into evidence that she was at the party.

Granted, there's a madness to zero-tolerance policies in general, but as I understand it she was technically violating the policy, and if the school hadn't enforced it and another team decided to be douches and complain, the incontrovertible evidence of technical infraction would have been sufficient to wind up getting the school punished and the team to forfeit several games. The school, therefore, is less at fault than the school SYSTEM.

Of course, that also presumes she's telling the truth. No, she wasn't drinking (that part is confirmed by police). But...was she really only there because of the phone call, and only there exactly as long as it took to pick up her friend? I don't know...and zero tolerance precludes an investigation (which might have been inconclusive anyway).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 4:50:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 7:40:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 5:33:09 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
...friend home. She drove her drunk friend home, and now she is getting punished.

Discuss.

http://www.smosh.com...

To be fair, as i understand it, the rules say you cannot be at a party serving minors alcohol, and due to unfortunate timing of a police raid it is a fact entered into evidence that she was at the party.

This is the problem with absolute rules... they ignore extenuating circumstances which might vindicate an otherwise questionable act.

Granted, there's a madness to zero-tolerance policies in general, but as I understand it she was technically violating the policy, and if the school hadn't enforced it and another team decided to be douches and complain, the incontrovertible evidence of technical infraction would have been sufficient to wind up getting the school punished and the team to forfeit several games. The school, therefore, is less at fault than the school SYSTEM.

I would posit that any school, acting as an agent which enforces the rules, that enforces a rule which is at odds with the principles of not only the educational system (like fairness, responsibility, duty, etc.) then in the moment that the rule is enforced, the school enforcing the rules and the rules themselves render the principles the rules were -at least in theory- designed to codify into policy, meaningless. That said, technicalities are only the inconvenience of circumstance. In this instance, there are FAR more significant principles in question -principles which are disgraced by bureaucrats and administrators who hide behind policy to shirk their moral duty to do what is right.

Of course, that also presumes she's telling the truth.

Is there any evidence the girl is lying? I think not.

No, she wasn't drinking (that part is confirmed by police). But...was she really only there because of the phone call, and only there exactly as long as it took to pick up her friend?

How quick you are to insinuate guilt, Blade. Tisk. Tisk.

I don't know...and zero tolerance precludes an investigation (which might have been inconclusive anyway).

We accept that we don't want kids to drink underage. Having a zero tolerance policy does not stop kids from drinking underage. Why? Kids who will drink underage, by the fact that they drink underage, demonstrate the inability or unwillingness (or both) to consider the prospective implications of their actions at best -or at worst, meaning, even if kids do weigh the consequences- they rationalize that the probable risk of getting caught is overwhelmed by the fun of partying the night away. Policies don't change that calculus, zero tolerance or otherwise. The way to ACTUALLY stop underage drinking is to get kids to want NOT to drink, not to not drink for fear of the consequences of doing so.

This is a reality that legislators, parents, and above all school officials seem entirely too stupid or myopic to understand... and yet they wonder why their policies fail (by "fail" I mean "neglect to achieve the thing the policy was meant to achieve").
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 4:54:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 4:50:06 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/15/2013 7:40:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 5:33:09 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
...friend home. She drove her drunk friend home, and now she is getting punished.

Discuss.

http://www.smosh.com...

To be fair, as i understand it, the rules say you cannot be at a party serving minors alcohol, and due to unfortunate timing of a police raid it is a fact entered into evidence that she was at the party.

This is the problem with absolute rules... they ignore extenuating circumstances which might vindicate an otherwise questionable act.

Granted, there's a madness to zero-tolerance policies in general, but as I understand it she was technically violating the policy, and if the school hadn't enforced it and another team decided to be douches and complain, the incontrovertible evidence of technical infraction would have been sufficient to wind up getting the school punished and the team to forfeit several games. The school, therefore, is less at fault than the school SYSTEM.

I would posit that any school, acting as an agent which enforces the rules, that enforces a rule which is at odds with the principles of not only the educational system (like fairness, responsibility, duty, etc.) then in the moment that the rule is enforced, the school enforcing the rules and the rules themselves render the principles the rules were -at least in theory- designed to codify into policy, meaningless. That said, technicalities are only the inconvenience of circumstance. In this instance, there are FAR more significant principles in question -principles which are disgraced by bureaucrats and administrators who hide behind policy to shirk their moral duty to do what is right.

Of course, that also presumes she's telling the truth.

Is there any evidence the girl is lying? I think not.

Well, I certainly don't want to impugn.

"Trust, but verify", as it were--I think there's an overall lack of evidence.

No, she wasn't drinking (that part is confirmed by police). But...was she really only there because of the phone call, and only there exactly as long as it took to pick up her friend?

How quick you are to insinuate guilt, Blade. Tisk. Tisk.

I think those are reasonable questions. After all, she has every incentive to lie about the situation. And the facts in evidence are scanty at best, so all we have is her story--which, again, she has every incentive to at least embellish. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the details of her story should be verified as much as possible before accepting it at face value.

I don't know...and zero tolerance precludes an investigation (which might have been inconclusive anyway).

We accept that we don't want kids to drink underage. Having a zero tolerance policy does not stop kids from drinking underage. Why? Kids who will drink underage, by the fact that they drink underage, demonstrate the inability or unwillingness (or both) to consider the prospective implications of their actions at best -or at worst, meaning, even if kids do weigh the consequences- they rationalize that the probable risk of getting caught is overwhelmed by the fun of partying the night away. Policies don't change that calculus, zero tolerance or otherwise. The way to ACTUALLY stop underage drinking is to get kids to want NOT to drink, not to not drink for fear of the consequences of doing so.

This is a reality that legislators, parents, and above all school officials seem entirely too stupid or myopic to understand... and yet they wonder why their policies fail (by "fail" I mean "neglect to achieve the thing the policy was meant to achieve").

Indeed.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 5:29:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This was a dangerous policy to adopt.

By endorsing this position the school is saying they'd rather have people drive drunk home than ask for rides from their peers.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 6:14:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 4:54:17 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/23/2013 4:50:06 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/15/2013 7:40:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 5:33:09 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
...friend home. She drove her drunk friend home, and now she is getting punished.

Discuss.

http://www.smosh.com...

To be fair, as i understand it, the rules say you cannot be at a party serving minors alcohol, and due to unfortunate timing of a police raid it is a fact entered into evidence that she was at the party.

This is the problem with absolute rules... they ignore extenuating circumstances which might vindicate an otherwise questionable act.

Granted, there's a madness to zero-tolerance policies in general, but as I understand it she was technically violating the policy, and if the school hadn't enforced it and another team decided to be douches and complain, the incontrovertible evidence of technical infraction would have been sufficient to wind up getting the school punished and the team to forfeit several games. The school, therefore, is less at fault than the school SYSTEM.

I would posit that any school, acting as an agent which enforces the rules, that enforces a rule which is at odds with the principles of not only the educational system (like fairness, responsibility, duty, etc.) then in the moment that the rule is enforced, the school enforcing the rules and the rules themselves render the principles the rules were -at least in theory- designed to codify into policy, meaningless. That said, technicalities are only the inconvenience of circumstance. In this instance, there are FAR more significant principles in question -principles which are disgraced by bureaucrats and administrators who hide behind policy to shirk their moral duty to do what is right.

Of course, that also presumes she's telling the truth.

Is there any evidence the girl is lying? I think not.

Well, I certainly don't want to impugn.

"Trust, but verify", as it were--I think there's an overall lack of evidence.

The old Russian aphorism works great when we're talking about international relations, or parents who want to ensure their kids aren't lying about where they intend to spend the night... but isn't so desirable when we're talking about the state or its agents and the fate of subjects -especially given that it's diametrically at odds with the notion of "innocent until proven guilty."

No, she wasn't drinking (that part is confirmed by police). But...was she really only there because of the phone call, and only there exactly as long as it took to pick up her friend?

How quick you are to insinuate guilt, Blade. Tisk. Tisk.

I think those are reasonable questions.

Sure... but even if she didn't answer them, that is not enough to indicate that the girl is lying.

After all, she has every incentive to lie about the situation.

And that doesn't mean that she is... or that if she were to remain silent, that she has something to hide. That said, even if she does have something to hide -meaning that she had less than noble intentions in placing herself at the party- and was planning to be at the party for a while and was enjoying herself does not mean that she intended to drink at the party, but even if she did intend to drink at the party, the fact remains that SHE DID NOT DRINK at the party, and therefore did nothing wrong without regard to the policy she is accused of being in volition of -which, once more, is illustrative of the principle I was talking about. The policy in place is NOT intended to curtail adolescent fraternization, but is rather meant to hamper underage drinking.

I know you're only playing devil's advocate here, Blade... but there is nothing defensible about the school's position.

And the facts in evidence are scanty at best, so all we have is her story--which, again, she has every incentive to at least embellish.

It equally remains to be the case that there is no relevant reason (like actual evidence) to believe that she is lying...

Schools cannot justifiably punish students on the basis that the student "might" be lying, no matter how compelling the incentive the student has to lie.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the details of her story should be verified as much as possible before accepting it at face value.

I'm not saying I believe her... but what I believe is irrelevant to what should happen with that girl. What is relevant is whether or not the school has any proof that the girl broke the law. There is none, so there is no cause for punishment of any kind.

Again, I know you're only playing devil's advocate... but again, there is nothing defensible about the school's position.

I don't know...and zero tolerance precludes an investigation (which might have been inconclusive anyway).

We accept that we don't want kids to drink underage. Having a zero tolerance policy does not stop kids from drinking underage. Why? Kids who will drink underage, by the fact that they drink underage, demonstrate the inability or unwillingness (or both) to consider the prospective implications of their actions at best -or at worst, meaning, even if kids do weigh the consequences- they rationalize that the probable risk of getting caught is overwhelmed by the fun of partying the night away. Policies don't change that calculus, zero tolerance or otherwise. The way to ACTUALLY stop underage drinking is to get kids to want NOT to drink, not to not drink for fear of the consequences of doing so.

This is a reality that legislators, parents, and above all school officials seem entirely too stupid or myopic to understand... and yet they wonder why their policies fail (by "fail" I mean "neglect to achieve the thing the policy was meant to achieve").

Indeed.
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 6:23:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 6:14:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/23/2013 4:54:17 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/23/2013 4:50:06 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/15/2013 7:40:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 5:33:09 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
...friend home. She drove her drunk friend home, and now she is getting punished.

Discuss.

http://www.smosh.com...

To be fair, as i understand it, the rules say you cannot be at a party serving minors alcohol, and due to unfortunate timing of a police raid it is a fact entered into evidence that she was at the party.

This is the problem with absolute rules... they ignore extenuating circumstances which might vindicate an otherwise questionable act.

Granted, there's a madness to zero-tolerance policies in general, but as I understand it she was technically violating the policy, and if the school hadn't enforced it and another team decided to be douches and complain, the incontrovertible evidence of technical infraction would have been sufficient to wind up getting the school punished and the team to forfeit several games. The school, therefore, is less at fault than the school SYSTEM.

I would posit that any school, acting as an agent which enforces the rules, that enforces a rule which is at odds with the principles of not only the educational system (like fairness, responsibility, duty, etc.) then in the moment that the rule is enforced, the school enforcing the rules and the rules themselves render the principles the rules were -at least in theory- designed to codify into policy, meaningless. That said, technicalities are only the inconvenience of circumstance. In this instance, there are FAR more significant principles in question -principles which are disgraced by bureaucrats and administrators who hide behind policy to shirk their moral duty to do what is right.

Of course, that also presumes she's telling the truth.

Is there any evidence the girl is lying? I think not.

Well, I certainly don't want to impugn.

"Trust, but verify", as it were--I think there's an overall lack of evidence.

The old Russian aphorism works great when we're talking about international relations, or parents who want to ensure their kids aren't lying about where they intend to spend the night... but isn't so desirable when we're talking about the state or its agents and the fate of subjects -especially given that it's diametrically at odds with the notion of "innocent until proven guilty."

No, she wasn't drinking (that part is confirmed by police). But...was she really only there because of the phone call, and only there exactly as long as it took to pick up her friend?

How quick you are to insinuate guilt, Blade. Tisk. Tisk.

I think those are reasonable questions.

Sure... but even if she didn't answer them, that is not enough to indicate that the girl is lying.

After all, she has every incentive to lie about the situation.

And that doesn't mean that she is... or that if she were to remain silent, that she has something to hide. That said, even if she does have something to hide -meaning that she had less than noble intentions in placing herself at the party- and was planning to be at the party for a while and was enjoying herself does not mean that she intended to drink at the party, but even if she did intend to drink at the party, the fact remains that SHE DID NOT DRINK at the party, and therefore did nothing wrong without regard to the policy she is accused of being in volition of -which, once more, is illustrative of the principle I was talking about. The policy in place is NOT intended to curtail adolescent fraternization, but is rather meant to hamper underage drinking.

I know you're only playing devil's advocate here, Blade... but there is nothing defensible about the school's position.

And the facts in evidence are scanty at best, so all we have is her story--which, again, she has every incentive to at least embellish.

It equally remains to be the case that there is no relevant reason (like actual evidence) to believe that she is lying...

Schools cannot justifiably punish students on the basis that the student "might" be lying, no matter how compelling the incentive the student has to lie.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the details of her story should be verified as much as possible before accepting it at face value.

I'm not saying I believe her... but what I believe is irrelevant to what should happen with that girl. What is relevant is whether or not the school has any proof that the girl broke the law. There is none, so there is no cause for punishment of any kind.

Again, I know you're only playing devil's advocate... but again, there is nothing defensible about the school's position.

I don't know...and zero tolerance precludes an investigation (which might have been inconclusive anyway).

We accept that we don't want kids to drink underage. Having a zero tolerance policy does not stop kids from drinking underage. Why? Kids who will drink underage, by the fact that they drink underage, demonstrate the inability or unwillingness (or both) to consider the prospective implications of their actions at best -or at worst, meaning, even if kids do weigh the consequences- they rationalize that the probable risk of getting caught is overwhelmed by the fun of partying the night away. Policies don't change that calculus, zero tolerance or otherwise. The way to ACTUALLY stop underage drinking is to get kids to want NOT to drink, not to not drink for fear of the consequences of doing so.

This is a reality that legislators, parents, and above all school officials seem entirely too stupid or myopic to understand... and yet they wonder why their policies fail (by "fail" I mean "neglect to achieve the thing the policy was meant to achieve").

Indeed.

Oh!

I wasn't defending their actions. I was saying that looking into her story was warranted (and precluded by the knee-jerk reaction of these types of policies)--I didn't mean to defend them even in principle, or "zero-tolerance" policies.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 7:36:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Screw zero-tolerance. I would rather be taught by the most mysandrious science-hating women on the face of the Earth, than deal with a zero-tolerance policy.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
umpire
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 9:51:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Like she didn't know her friends were at this party when she went to work? I am sure she would of party with them... if she didn't have to work. What she did was correct to a point but also she knew criminal act was going on. your duty to report it.