Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Tinker v. Des Moines

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 7:36:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 6:55:07 AM, Kahvan wrote:
Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District

who do YOU think should have won 0.o
http://www.bc.edu...

Hey that was my school (BC) and my professor (who wrote the book) for Debate, Dale Herbeck. Wow. He was a great guy.

The school should not be a platform for political speech for students or teachers.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 8:17:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 7:36:02 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/7/2010 6:55:07 AM, Kahvan wrote:
Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District

who do YOU think should have won 0.o
http://www.bc.edu...

Hey that was my school (BC) and my professor (who wrote the book) for Debate, Dale Herbeck. Wow. He was a great guy.

The school should not be a platform for political speech for students or teachers.

So, you're saying that they haven't the right to protest government action while inside of a government-sponsored institution? Oh, you're awesome.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 8:19:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 8:17:34 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/7/2010 7:36:02 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/7/2010 6:55:07 AM, Kahvan wrote:
Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District

who do YOU think should have won 0.o
http://www.bc.edu...

Hey that was my school (BC) and my professor (who wrote the book) for Debate, Dale Herbeck. Wow. He was a great guy.

The school should not be a platform for political speech for students or teachers.

So, you're saying that they haven't the right to protest government action while inside of a government-sponsored institution? Oh, you're awesome.

Thanks, but i don't know about awesome. Yes, pretty much that is what i am saying.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 8:40:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 8:19:32 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/7/2010 8:17:34 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/7/2010 7:36:02 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/7/2010 6:55:07 AM, Kahvan wrote:
Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District

who do YOU think should have won 0.o
http://www.bc.edu...

Hey that was my school (BC) and my professor (who wrote the book) for Debate, Dale Herbeck. Wow. He was a great guy.

The school should not be a platform for political speech for students or teachers.

So, you're saying that they haven't the right to protest government action while inside of a government-sponsored institution? Oh, you're awesome.

Thanks, but i don't know about awesome. Yes, pretty much that is what i am saying.

Why don't they have that right?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 8:46:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The primary purpose of school is education. Any distraction, subversion or redirection of that primary purpose will alter the goal of education. Our schools are suffering enough in their performance, and any contribution to their lack of success should be taken seriously. Furthermore, children simply do not enjoy the same rights as adults (that's why they have to go to school).
alto2osu
Posts: 277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 9:05:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Exercising one's right to freedom of speech/expression does not have to interfere with curriculum, first of all. To say anything to the contrary just sounds silly. Students are citizens, are thereby have most of the same rights that adult citizens do. Furthermore, the students in Tinker v. Des Moines were not being disruptive to the learning environment, hence the Court's ruling. Finally, as Cody points out, there is no better place to not only bring attention to the government than in a government institution. Even better, this particular institution is charged with creating active citizens. How the hell can a school do that if it suppresses knowledge that is core to this end goal? Not all culturally accepted knowledge is located in a textbook. In fact, most of it is not. The armbands were an incredibly rich curricular moment; however, if the curricular goal is blind nationalism (which would essentially violate Barnette v. West Virginia), then I suppose it was a smart decision on the part of Des Moines to punish constitutionally protected acts.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 9:16:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 8:46:35 AM, innomen wrote:
The primary purpose of school is education.

And you're telling me that political awareness/activiy isn't part of education? I hope you're joking.

Any distraction, subversion or redirection of that primary purpose will alter the goal of education.

Your argument is essentially that the government has the right to limit rights because not doing so is detrimental to the government's goals. That is, the government has the right to violate rights because the government says so. Your arguments are getting better and better, dawg.

Our schools are suffering enough in their performance, and any contribution to their lack of success should be taken seriously.

Why do you suppose that they're suffering in performance? Could it have anything to do with the fact that government services are, by nature, inefficient to the point of being major f*ck-ups? Think post office, the IRS, the time taken to repair damaged roads, the DMV, and welfare.

Furthermore, children simply do not enjoy the same rights as adults

Not enjoying the right to smoke, drink, and have sex =/= the right to free speech and expression of ideas.

(that's why they have to go to school).

Actually, they have to go to school because the government says so, or the parents can get fined/jailed.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 9:30:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 8:46:35 AM, innomen wrote:
The primary purpose of school is education. Any distraction, subversion or redirection of that primary purpose will alter the goal of education.

Wearing black armbands does not in any way detract from the purpose of education. The distraction that you infer is non-existent.

Our schools are suffering enough in their performance, and any contribution to their lack of success should be taken seriously. Furthermore, children simply do not enjoy the same rights as adults (that's why they have to go to school).

That would be fine and dandy if a student's performance was at all related to the article(s) of clothing that he/she chooses to wear.

You are in effect saying that differing views and opinions have no place in education, which is quite frankly absurd.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 9:41:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Publick Skool is an institution built on coercion and funded by violence. It has no right to exist and should be abolished. Any protest against the tyrannical government is to be promoted as long as they do not initiate violence.

The belief that those under the age of 18 deserve lesser rights stinks of ageism. No man has the right to compel others to attend his lectures. But the bullies did not stop there, they then decried what you could and could not wear when you attend their indoctrination camp that they forced you to attend in the first place.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 10:01:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 9:41:44 AM, Reasoning wrote:
The Publick Skool is an institution built on coercion and funded by violence. It has no right to exist and should be abolished. Any protest against the tyrannical government is to be promoted as long as they do not initiate violence.

The belief that those under the age of 18 deserve lesser rights stinks of ageism. No man has the right to compel others to attend his lectures. But the bullies did not stop there, they then decried what you could and could not wear when you attend their indoctrination camp that they forced you to attend in the first place.

You may not like it, but it is perfectly reasonable. Do you want an 8 year old driving a car? Do you want a 12 year old buying Jack Daniels? How about a 4 year old voting for president? Children do not and should not have the same rights as adults - agism? Okay.

Black arm bands that have any impact on the focus on education should not be allowed. Schools are not a democracy, children don't run them. In the allowed forum for expression they may exercise their positions.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 10:15:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 10:01:46 AM, innomen wrote:

Black arm bands that have any impact on the focus on education should not be allowed.

Putting on an armband to protest doesn't constitute the use of physical force; therefore, it's universally permissible.

Schools are not a democracy, children don't run them.

That doesn't mean that administrators are omnipotent, and that children are slaves to the unaccountable "will of the school".

In the allowed forum for expression they may exercise their positions.

The "allowed forum"? First of all, the government doesn't get to "allow" anything. The government's job is to prevent people from using force against each other; that is, to protect rights, not decide who gets them.

Second of all, if there's any place where expression of opinions should be allowed, it would be the school - you know, the institution of education? (Especially when that expression is criticism of the government.) Unless, of course, you believe that children should be automatons who consist of nothing but the doctrines and norms imposed on them by the government.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 10:26:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 10:15:56 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/7/2010 10:01:46 AM, innomen wrote:

Black arm bands that have any impact on the focus on education should not be allowed.

No it shouldn't, but they have in the past, especially when there is an inflammatory meaning behind it. Arm bands have a rich history of being symbols of horrible repression.
Putting on an armband to protest doesn't constitute the use of physical force; therefore, it's universally permissible.
No, it's not universally permissible, you are just wrong. Try putting a little swastika on that arm band and go into a yeshiva.

Schools are not a democracy, children don't run them.

That doesn't mean that administrators are omnipotent, and that children are slaves to the unaccountable "will of the school".
I never said they were slaves to the unaccountable. Believe me I have issues with teachers too, not to mention administrators. It does mean that children must conduct themselves in such a manner that the environment is conducive to learning from a teacher.

In the allowed forum for expression they may exercise their positions.

The "allowed forum"? First of all, the government doesn't get to "allow" anything. The government's job is to prevent people from using force against each other; that is, to protect rights, not decide who gets them.

Not for children. The government tells you that you must go to school, that you cannot drive until you have reached a certain age and can prove adequate ability behind the wheel, the government tells you that you cannot buy alcohol until they allow you.

Second of all, if there's any place where expression of opinions should be allowed, it would be the school - you know, the institution of education? (Especially when that expression is criticism of the government.) Unless, of course, you believe that children should be automatons who consist of nothing but the doctrines and norms imposed on them by the government.
I believe that the primary purpose of schools is education for children. If the environment for this process is put into jeopardy, then that which is interfering in that needs to be stopped. Freedom of expression is fine within the parameters provided by the school and the primary purpose of education.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 10:34:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 10:26:49 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/7/2010 10:15:56 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/7/2010 10:01:46 AM, innomen wrote:

Black arm bands that have any impact on the focus on education should not be allowed.

No it shouldn't, but they have in the past, especially when there is an inflammatory meaning behind it. Arm bands have a rich history of being symbols of horrible repression.

Symbolizing horrible oppression =/= horrible oppression or violence

Putting on an armband to protest doesn't constitute the use of physical force; therefore, it's universally permissible.
No, it's not universally permissible, you are just wrong. Try putting a little swastika on that arm band and go into a yeshiva.

That's acceptable.

Schools are not a democracy, children don't run them.

That doesn't mean that administrators are omnipotent, and that children are slaves to the unaccountable "will of the school".
I never said they were slaves to the unaccountable. Believe me I have issues with teachers too, not to mention administrators. It does mean that children must conduct themselves in such a manner that the environment is conducive to learning from a teacher.

So, that means that they're slaves to the unaccountable will of the teacher, given that the teacher defines such conditions within the confines of a classroom. I fail to see how wearing an armband distracts anyone.

In the allowed forum for expression they may exercise their positions.

The "allowed forum"? First of all, the government doesn't get to "allow" anything. The government's job is to prevent people from using force against each other; that is, to protect rights, not decide who gets them.

Not for children. The government tells you that you must go to school, that you cannot drive until you have reached a certain age and can prove adequate ability behind the wheel, the government tells you that you cannot buy alcohol until they allow you.

Is/ought fallacy.

What the government does right now is terrible. What it ought to do is not.

The government right now has a sh*tload more power than it ought to.

Second of all, if there's any place where expression of opinions should be allowed, it would be the school - you know, the institution of education? (Especially when that expression is criticism of the government.) Unless, of course, you believe that children should be automatons who consist of nothing but the doctrines and norms imposed on them by the government.

I believe that the primary purpose of schools is education for children.

You're ignoring that criticism of government - which these armbands represent - is a huge part of education.

If the environment for this process is put into jeopardy, then that which is interfering in that needs to be stopped.

Armbands don't interfere.

Freedom of expression is fine within the parameters provided by the school and the primary purpose of education.

Private school, yes. Public school says "you have to go to school because the government says so, and you have to act in a particular manner because the government says so. If you don't, you and your parents will be punished for defying the will of the government."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 10:41:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 10:01:46 AM, innomen wrote:
You may not like it, but it is perfectly reasonable.

This is false.

Do you want an 8 year old driving a car?

Some 8 y/o could probably drive a car. Besides its supposed a privilege and not a right and finally, under current law minus the age restriction, they would still need to pass the driving test.

Do you want a 12 year old buying Jack Daniels?

Yes.

How about a 4 year old voting for president?

I don't want anyone voting for president.

Schools are not a democracy, children don't run them. In the allowed forum for expression they may exercise their positions.

I don't care what the dictators that run the indoctrination camps want to indoctrinate.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 10:48:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 10:34:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/7/2010 10:26:49 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/7/2010 10:15:56 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/7/2010 10:01:46 AM, innomen wrote:

Black arm bands that have any impact on the focus on education should not be allowed.

No it shouldn't, but they have in the past, especially when there is an inflammatory meaning behind it. Arm bands have a rich history of being symbols of horrible repression.

Symbolizing horrible oppression =/= horrible oppression or violence
Point?

Putting on an armband to protest doesn't constitute the use of physical force; therefore, it's universally permissible.
No, it's not universally permissible, you are just wrong. Try putting a little swastika on that arm band and go into a yeshiva.

That's acceptable.

Schools are not a democracy, children don't run them.

That doesn't mean that administrators are omnipotent, and that children are slaves to the unaccountable "will of the school".
I never said they were slaves to the unaccountable. Believe me I have issues with teachers too, not to mention administrators. It does mean that children must conduct themselves in such a manner that the environment is conducive to learning from a teacher.

So, that means that they're slaves to the unaccountable will of the teacher, given that the teacher defines such conditions within the confines of a classroom. I fail to see how wearing an armband distracts anyone.

"Slaves" is an inaccurate bit of hyperbole. Teachers should be far more accountable than they are, but that is what they are hired to do. Conduct a classroom so they are in control, provide instruction, structure even a minimal amount of discipline.

In the allowed forum for expression they may exercise their positions.

The "allowed forum"? First of all, the government doesn't get to "allow" anything. The government's job is to prevent people from using force against each other; that is, to protect rights, not decide who gets them.

Not for children. The government tells you that you must go to school, that you cannot drive until you have reached a certain age and can prove adequate ability behind the wheel, the government tells you that you cannot buy alcohol until they allow you.

Is/ought fallacy.

What the government does right now is terrible. What it ought to do is not.

The government right now has a sh*tload more power than it ought to.
no argument.

Second of all, if there's any place where expression of opinions should be allowed, it would be the school - you know, the institution of education? (Especially when that expression is criticism of the government.) Unless, of course, you believe that children should be automatons who consist of nothing but the doctrines and norms imposed on them by the government.

I believe that the primary purpose of schools is education for children.

You're ignoring that criticism of government - which these armbands represent - is a huge part of education.

Learn about it as instruction.
If the environment for this process is put into jeopardy, then that which is interfering in that needs to be stopped.

Armbands don't interfere.

Freedom of expression is fine within the parameters provided by the school and the primary purpose of education.

Private school, yes. Public school says "you have to go to school because the government says so, and you have to act in a particular manner because the government says so. If you don't, you and your parents will be punished for defying the will of the government."
Yeah, that's the way it is.
I probably agree with you on basic principles of a government's role in our life and society. However, out of frustration in the state of our current educational product, many of my previous positions have radically changed.

I will tell you something. Most of the people on this site bare MUCH younger than I, and most are still in school. Furthermore, most are brighter, a lot brighter than the bulk of our public school students and graduates. Given time you will look at what comprises of the kids that are at your age now, and shake your head in disappointment. You will see a future of "autonotoms" that are incapable of original thought, or much thought at all. Those here are above the norm, unfortunately, but are still young and need to go through some life to better understand things.
alto2osu
Posts: 277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 10:48:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I fail to see how wearing an armband is a distraction to the learning environment. Can you warrant this in any way other than falsely? As a classroom teacher, I object wholeheartedly to things that legitimately stop me from being able to do my job. Then again, my job is SPECIFICALLY to create active, productive citizens. In what way does robbing a demographic of their civil liberties going to accomplish that?

@Reasoning: that's crap, dude. An education is the key to societal access, esp. in a globalized economy. While public education needs some work, writing it off as can-able does a huge disservice to societal welfare.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 10:49:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 10:41:42 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/7/2010 10:01:46 AM, innomen wrote:
You may not like it, but it is perfectly reasonable.

This is false.

Do you want an 8 year old driving a car?

Some 8 y/o could probably drive a car. Besides its supposed a privilege and not a right and finally, under current law minus the age restriction, they would still need to pass the driving test.

Do you want a 12 year old buying Jack Daniels?

Yes.

How about a 4 year old voting for president?

I don't want anyone voting for president.

Schools are not a democracy, children don't run them. In the allowed forum for expression they may exercise their positions.

I don't care what the dictators that run the indoctrination camps want to indoctrinate.

Wasn't intended as a survey.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 10:50:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 10:48:49 AM, alto2osu wrote:
@Reasoning: that's crap, dude. An education is the key to societal access, esp. in a globalized economy. While public education needs some work, writing it off as can-able does a huge disservice to societal welfare.

All publick skools must be abolished.

Unschooling is the way of the future.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 10:51:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 6:55:07 AM, Kahvan wrote:
Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District

who do YOU think should have won 0.o
http://www.bc.edu...

The pupils.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 10:52:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 10:50:27 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/7/2010 10:48:49 AM, alto2osu wrote:
@Reasoning: that's crap, dude. An education is the key to societal access, esp. in a globalized economy. While public education needs some work, writing it off as can-able does a huge disservice to societal welfare.


Unschooling is the way of the future.

The future is now.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 10:56:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 8:46:35 AM, innomen wrote:
The primary purpose of school is education. Any distraction, subversion or redirection of that primary purpose will alter the goal of education. Our schools are suffering enough in their performance, and any contribution to their lack of success should be taken seriously. Furthermore, children simply do not enjoy the same rights as adults (that's why they have to go to school).

How does a black armband prevent the absorption of knowledge? In addition for what purpose are we educating them for? Surely we are trying to turn children into thinking adults, why then are we to restrict their thoughts?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 10:57:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 10:52:19 AM, innomen wrote:
Unschooling is the way of the future.

The future is now.

This is correct.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 11:02:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
In addition it is obscene to suggest that a child can not protest against a war in which he may be forced to go forth and fight in. As an child he must stay silent as an adult he must participate, where is the voluntary principle? How is that nothing more than fascism?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 11:07:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 10:56:53 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/7/2010 8:46:35 AM, innomen wrote:
The primary purpose of school is education. Any distraction, subversion or redirection of that primary purpose will alter the goal of education. Our schools are suffering enough in their performance, and any contribution to their lack of success should be taken seriously. Furthermore, children simply do not enjoy the same rights as adults (that's why they have to go to school).

How does a black armband prevent the absorption of knowledge? In addition for what purpose are we educating them for? Surely we are trying to turn children into thinking adults, why then are we to restrict their thoughts?

Purpose of education? (Oy). Part of the purpose of going to school is to learn that we restrict our behavior as adults, but not so much with our thoughts. We don't need to act on every thought.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 11:09:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 11:07:10 AM, innomen wrote:
Purpose of education? (Oy). Part of the purpose of going to school is to learn that we restrict our behavior as adults, but not so much with our thoughts. We don't need to act on every thought.

He who hesitates is lost.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 11:10:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 11:07:10 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/7/2010 10:56:53 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/7/2010 8:46:35 AM, innomen wrote:
The primary purpose of school is education. Any distraction, subversion or redirection of that primary purpose will alter the goal of education. Our schools are suffering enough in their performance, and any contribution to their lack of success should be taken seriously. Furthermore, children simply do not enjoy the same rights as adults (that's why they have to go to school).

How does a black armband prevent the absorption of knowledge? In addition for what purpose are we educating them for? Surely we are trying to turn children into thinking adults, why then are we to restrict their thoughts?

Purpose of education? (Oy). Part of the purpose of going to school is to learn that we restrict our behavior as adults, but not so much with our thoughts. We don't need to act on every thought.

Is the primary purpose of schooling to instill discipline, or actually educate them and turn them into thinking, informed people?

In either case, how does wearing a black armband conflict with either goal?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 11:14:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 11:10:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/7/2010 11:07:10 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/7/2010 10:56:53 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/7/2010 8:46:35 AM, innomen wrote:
The primary purpose of school is education. Any distraction, subversion or redirection of that primary purpose will alter the goal of education. Our schools are suffering enough in their performance, and any contribution to their lack of success should be taken seriously. Furthermore, children simply do not enjoy the same rights as adults (that's why they have to go to school).

How does a black armband prevent the absorption of knowledge? In addition for what purpose are we educating them for? Surely we are trying to turn children into thinking adults, why then are we to restrict their thoughts?

Purpose of education? (Oy). Part of the purpose of going to school is to learn that we restrict our behavior as adults, but not so much with our thoughts. We don't need to act on every thought.

Is the primary purpose of schooling to instill discipline, or actually educate them and turn them into thinking, informed people?

In either case, how does wearing a black armband conflict with either goal?

Minimal amounts of discipline are required in a classroom, you disagree with that? Ever have a substitute teacher that could not control her class? How much did you learn that day?
alto2osu
Posts: 277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 11:14:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 11:07:10 AM, innomen wrote:
Purpose of education? (Oy). Part of the purpose of going to school is to learn that we restrict our behavior as adults, but not so much with our thoughts. We don't need to act on every thought.

In what possible way could what the students in Tinker v. Des Moines did be interpreted as anything but a peaceful, considerate, well-planned protest of a war? Had the kids walked into the school and tried to burn it down, then you might have a case...but, really? Seriously?

You are 100% right. Accountability for one's actions is absolutely the purview of education. Part of that accountability is taking responsibility for the government that you as citizens are a part of. What those students did was far more accountable than you give them credit for. They could have used the Vietnam War as an excuse to get out of class for example. I hear about that, and even see it, more and more. A group of notorious skippers in my school were just outside, wandering around, "protesting" the firing of a teacher the other day. The students involved in Tinker were responsibly and appropriately expressing distaste in a suitable venue. Furthermore, they were doing something that had no reasonable risk for inciting disruption.
alto2osu
Posts: 277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 11:18:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 11:14:01 AM, innomen wrote:

Minimal amounts of discipline are required in a classroom, you disagree with that? Ever have a substitute teacher that could not control her class? How much did you learn that day?

And this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what Cerebral said or the point he was making. "Discipline" isn't particularly necessary at all. Mutual respect for educational goals is, however, a must. That mutual respect is not fostered by balking at student's provided civil liberties. If we expect students to come out of their educational experience with even a modicum of responsibility, micromanaging their every move, contrary to the goals and values of the Constitution, may just fail miserably.