I’m of the opinion a lot of those other rules are a nonsensical waste of time. And the case in point is a particularly fine example of this. It’s nonsense that helps no-one.
Covered earlier in the discussion. I am well aware of civil disobedience. The point I raised was in response to the claim that laws needn’t be followed if an individual believes they are unjust. I argued that such a concept is ridiculous. the response was that it is acceptable on set of laws ‘a’ and not on laws ‘b’, thus my point that he’she is selecting these based on his opinion. Whose authority holds the right to determine which laws get opposed or not?
In the UK civil disobedience is a bad thing, often if a law is repealed those who broke it are still punished as they broke a law. This, to me, is correct. If the law was wrong they should have fought the law within the permitted means, if they do not then they have no right to argue that their punishment is unjust.
This child was not punished for shaving his head. He was punished because he broke a rule that he knew was in place. If the rule was wrong there were means to rectify it.
Lets see: you have corrected the ban to a blanket ban on a broad group, which this is not. a religious freedom, which this is not. An act of defence of traditional values, which this is not.
How is your analogy better? I mean aside from inducing appeals to emotions and false connotations of oppression of religion, mass oppression and traditionalism to manipulate it to seem more favourable to the mass knee jerk reaction of people judging a cultural norm in the UK by US standards?
I mean seriously, can you defend any of your corrections as appropriate to this or were you really just appealing to emotion?
Again opinion as fact, but at least you stated it as opinion in the very first line.
Because a shaved head is not analogous to a Klansman’s robe. A Klansman’s robe is pretty specific in its meaning. But a white robe, like a shaved head, may or may not imply affiliation with a racist group. Depending on the context it could just as easily imply a Whirling Dervish, a High-Ranking Wizard, or just a person relaxing at a day Spa.
Blindly enforcing a “no white robes” rule without exceptions or regard for context would be just as stupid as enforcing a “no shaved heads” rule without exceptions or regard for context.
3 Likes
This is absurd logic.
1 Like
In the UK skin head is rare. For children it is incredibly rare. As to klan robes, they are penitent robes, they existed long before the klan and will long after.
This is an absurd comprehension.
Yup, because he hadn’t been meeting with Putin for weeks in an effort to find a non-military solution to this problem, I mean, that would ruin your whole world-view perhaps? Obama’s solution to Libya and Syria have both been as muted as possible, I reckon he was threatening to bomb Syra to appease the Hawks in Congress, before doing a deal with Russia and their big arms-client Syria to get rid of their chemical weapons.
There may be some cultural bias, since I live in Scotland. Perhaps we are a little more suspicious of authoritarian over-reach these days.
You may want to believe you live in a culture that makes no allowances for conscience-led civil disobedience, and blindly equates whatever happens to be the current law with moral right. Sounds a bit dystopian, and it’s probably not true, but you can believe it if you want to.
You can also pretend school rules are morally equivalent to criminal law. That would seem to me to be dangerous and absurd, since at least even our imperfect criminal laws are shaped by elected representatives rather than school administrators. Again, I’m pretty sure it’s not true, even if you want it to be, for some reason.
I am also pretty sure that skinheads do not have one single defining characteristic, i.e. baldness.
Rules have no justification in themselves: they are justified by the principles on which they are based, and the goals they are intended to achieve. A rule about haircuts doesn’t even in principle counter racist culture. Excluding a child because he shaves his head for charity elevates the rule above its original purpose. It becomes purely a rule about baldness divorced from the aim of discouraging skinhead-like behaviour. You then cannot drag that supposed justification out and try to apply it after the fact. Well, you can, but it’s not convincing anyone.
Here’s a thought: you say that if he had asked permission, he should have been allowed to shave his head, and you would oppose the school then if he was not. Oppose how, when you seem to think all rules must be obeyed? What could the lad possibly do to oppose an unjust decision if the rules don’t include any way for him to do so?
When you have to check before you do anything unexpected, in case there’s a rule against it, and ask permission first, you surrender a piece of your liberty. If a child forgets to check and does something bold and generous but it’s against a completely unrelated rule, should they be punished? You seem to say yes, but I don’t think you’ve thought it through.
4 Likes
-
This isn’t a national law, it’s an individual school’s dress code regulation.
-
The child isn’t whining about it. The mother isn’t whining about it. They discussed the situation and agreed that it was better to keep his word and deal with the consequences.
It’s the general public (and 250 classmates) who are protesting the school’s insistence on following the letter of the law regarding this petty rule in the dress code.
4 Likes
Call me when you guys quit having Guy Fawkes celebrations, other countries stop celebrating having kicked your superior reasoning out of their countries, and whenever you manage to time travel backward and erase all the thousands of ‘lawful’ burnings and tortures associated with your own complete series of civil wars, k?
I never claimed all rules were right. I do live in a culture where the law allows for and prosecutes civil disobedience even when the disobedience changes the law. I do not think school rules are equivalent.
Now aside from changing all of my arguments so that you can discredit them you have provided no evidence all you have done is used reductio absurdium and opinion. As for “want to believe” I shall leave you to your patronising but it lends no strength to your empty argument.
Now do you actually have a defence for your claims?
Also by definition skinheads defining characteristic is their skin head, but I take your point. Fortunately I never made any such argument. I pointed out they were banned because of the racist implications. In the same way most schools ban clothing with swastikas. I never argued it solved anything, I argued that it was the rule, that there was justification and that it is a common rule. But carry on making up claims for me to try and make a case for your opinion as fact.
Schools enforce rules and maintain them to teach children how to live as a part of society, while they are not equivalent they are comparable and a child must be taught not to disregard rules because they don’t agree with them. If they do they must be taught that they will still face the consequences.
Opose them how? Well clearly you are right, the only possible way to make change happen is by breaking the law. Protest, petition, application to authority, public debate and all the other many forms of societal improvement should be ignored and a child should be taught that when he thinks a rule is wrong he should ignore it.
Based on what? In your opinion rules only justification is in the principal they defend, in practice rules are justified by the world we live in. Rules allow for democracy, police protection, safe streets and defence against crime. As soon as we decide that rules only apply if we think they are fair we take away all justification of rules, regardless of why the rule exists.
Have to check? And where do you get the impression that he didn’t know this rule? The quote from authority seems to suggest you are wrong. Of course I am only going by the story reported here, but as the evidence disagrees with you perhaps you should just ignore it as you did with my arguments.
Actually the law in this country clearly lists that ignorance is never a defence, the child should be raised to be aware of this.
The argument of law came as a subsequent evolution of the thread. I made the point that the reason the school should punish him is not that the shaving of the head was wrong but that the knowingly shaving his head when it was a banned act should be punished. i argued that the reason this should be upheld is because a school is training a child to be a part of society and in British society breaking a law is not made permissible if you feel the law is wrong or unjust.
The argument that you cannot do this and expect to be held unaccountable is just an elaboration on this and not a comment directed at the parent or child, but rather at the people here (and the 250) who feel he should be allowed to break any rules he wants so long as they think those rules are unfair.
Lastly it is a common dress code in the UK held by the vast majority of schools (or at least it was not so many years back)
When you have a just and lawful government I shall bring this message up and put it on my todo list, I shall remember to find it from my file labelled hypocrisy.
Oh and as an Old Peterite I am forbidden from any burning of the Guy, it is in poor taste. Also I have made no comment to the severity of the charge merely punishment of a crime. Guido’s crime was trying to perform mass murder and treason, find me a country where that is not regarded as criminal.
Ohhh, too easy. The act loses its criminality whenever he and his compatriots win. That’s always been the rule, regardless of time or place.
I would be among the last to claim this government is just, and so of course did not do so. I merely disclaimed your apparent belief that you are somehow basking under the bombastic gold standard of law and order, not to mention reason. But, I do understand you may having a little trouble keeping up right about now, so I will leave you to it, dear.
And your opinion’s fact, how? Not all schools have uniform rules, both here in the UK and elsewhere. There’s plenty of healthy debate about it, but I fall into the camp that says it’s pointless. As for your argument that we have a deep-seated fears of skinheads, so the haircut must be Shunned In Our Schools, what on earth do you think that makes kids do? I’ll tell you what, it’s not grow their bloody hair out. I’m not bandying internet links about all night trying to convince you, because it’s pointless. If you’re not flabbergasted by how stupid this affair is, we could argue about it forever.
Nah, you’re just trolling.
[quote=“theograce, post:127, topic:11315”]
I notice you still make no account for your claim that a person can break a law if they feel it is unjust, you just argue that sometimes it is culturally acceptable to kill people.[/quote]
Anyone can break a law they feel is unjust. Whether it’s right or wrong to do so, and what the consequences should be for doing so depends entirely upon the law broken. If there are no actual victims, no involuntary players involved, then what’s wrong with breaking the law in those cases?
It puts me, and most people here, in the company of the Founding Fathers, MLK, Ghandi, Susan B. Anthony, and anyone else who violated unjust laws.
Your position, that all laws must be followed no matter what, puts you in the company of a long list of totalitarian dictators.
You wrote:
And:
So every homosexual who has been jailed or executed for being gay, every captured runaway slave “cannot be excused the consequences.” Runaway slaves, according to you, “had no right” to “decide” that slavery shouldn’t have been legal when it was.
These are your words.
1 Like
Not my argument, but you don’t seem to get the hang of this reading hat other people actually say thing. Also I am not giving opinion as fact I am giving opinions and arguments. As to you, even now you still insist on claiming that the ban makes kids act in a way that is contrary to the evidence of the number of skinhead kids being minority.
I never asked you to, but stop making things up and writing them like they are true. If they are that obviously true there wouldn’t be debate. Give them as opinion or give evidence. But it is pointless as you make clear when you show that you don’t care if you are right or wrong but just to correct others (the definition of bigotry) as is pointed out in your last line. I shall answer no further, feel free to take the last word but as you don’t care what is right and only your opinion I don’t expect any of this matters.
