Poll: Ohio mom jailed for sending kids to a better school district. Your thoughts?

[Fappy]

So we can all agree that she is Chaotic Good right?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Falsifying court documents is SERIOUS business. Just like a hungry thief still goes to jail for mugging someone to get food, so does a good intention-filled defrauding mother.


Why couldn't she just move? Why couldn't they actually let the kids stay with their grand-parents full-time? It's certainly easier to lie about it but it's also wrong.

So we can all agree that she is Chaotic Good right?

Nope, she's lawful evil. To her defrauding the state for your kids is less of a crime than breaking into a house. The fact is that while not with the same severity, both things are equally illegal. Lawful evil folks never put themselves into the same group as who they deem as inferior or "bad" people, making themselves into something worse; hypocrites.

She wasn't making her own area better with her conduct, she was contributing to the cases of lawlessness from her origin, to the same thing she was supposedly trying to escape. It's the same thing as the bank robber who says "one more bank and then i'll stop and go live quietly in Mexico". (with 5mil in the bank)

 

[Sutter Cane]

My outrage at your post stems from the fact that you chose to present only the most incendiary comment that I made. I backed up my position later in the same post, and yet you chose (yes, CHOSE) to try to present my position in the most absolute of terms, rather than to include everything in my post that was germane to the conversation. Perhaps I overreacted, but in my experience, that sort of behavior is what demagogues pursue, rather than an actual discussion, or debate.

Let me present it to you in this light: Laws do in fact trump morals or ethics, because morals and ethics are individual decisions, whereas laws affect all individuals in the jurisdiction where you live. In other words: morals and ethics = the rules you choose for your self, while laws are the rules that everyone has to abide by. Simple logic: you have to abide by the rules that apply to everyone first, because (even if you don't like it) those are the ones that will result in you being cast out from society (in the form of incarceration).

Am I talking down to you? Well, yes: a little bit. From your profile, I know that you are young. You may be in college, or just graduated high-school. Regardless, my personal experiences (which I will admit color my opinions) are such that I think the majority of your learning is ahead of you. Yes, you seem to be intelligent, but at the same time, I could tell that you haven't been trained/ (whatever is least offensive to you) how to defend your position.

For example, you suggest that one of the points Thoreau was trying to make supports your point of view. In fact, it does not. Thoreau was arguing against extreme injustices perpetrated under the excuse of 'well, it's *legal*', and dealt largely with the 'Tyranny of the Majority', which you can also read in the Federalist Papers (James Madison wrote the bulk of this theory)... but ultimately, if you read Thoreau, you'll find that he never advocates breaking the law directly, but rather engage in protest (not paying taxes, sit-ins, etc.) to address grave injustices such as slavery. This is the type of behavior that Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the greatest human beings ever, engaged in, directly crediting Thoreau as his inspiration. Not simply ignoring a law that you don't like.

As for the 'talking down to you/Dags90' thing, I talk down to anyone who tries to pull off some bullshit like "I feel blahblahblah" and provides no foundation to it-- as I said in my previous post: Dags, yet again, said something akin to "Other people say different, but I can't be bothered to actually provide examples." And, like I said in my previous post, that's all well and good, but I'm not going to give you (or him) the time of day unless you provide examples and references. Why? Because any schmuck can say " Oh I read that somebody somewhere said something different than what the well-respected philosophers you're quoting said. " Doesn't that strike you as being a little lame? Seriously?

Bottom line: I am not attacking you, or Dags. I am attacking the point of view you both seem to espouse, which I feel is very youthful and naive.

Do I think you're unintelligent? No. Do I think that you shouldn't contribute to a conversation? HELL NO. But I do think that you (and everyone here on the Escapist) should use logic and reasoning when entering into a debate...

As opposed to quoting someone, editing out everything but the very first line of the post, and trying to make that person look like they are unreasonable. (Do you deny that was your intent in your original quote of me? Because I fail to see why you would take the time to delete the rest of the post from your quote of me if it wasn't.)

I'm sure you can agree, however, that before one has faced the more harsh reality of life (usually post-education) in their jobs, and have integrated themselves into the society as an "adult" - that they will hold idealistic views.

There is an old saying in Denmark, where I'm from, that goes: "When you're young, you vote with your heart. When you get older, you vote with your brain"

I am not pleading conservative opinions here, I am just asking you if you will not agree that one is more driven by emotion as one is young?

I am not going to dispute any of your points, as I find myself entirely in agreement, but will ask you, instead: "Can you not overlook the idealistic views of those who are young?"

Surely you were more driven by heart/less driven by brain, when you were young? I think such is the case with everyone. That being said, I agree entirely that quoting your out of question is besides that point, and shouldn't be swept under the rug because of it. Likewise, I think engaging in a debate with no other intention than "I disagree, but cannot be bothered to enter an actual argument" is equally nonsensical.

Mind you, I am not defending either of the people in question here, much less do I know them - I just think there is very little reason for you to be (or appear to be) so agitated.

Younger people will likely hold their idealistic views close to heart. You will be able to view a bigger picture. They will say "Well, it shouldn't be like that!", you will say "Well, it has to be like that, because of[...]". You cannot expect everyone you argue with to be as intelligent (not to mention knowing, given your own life-experiences and age) as you. I respect that you refuse to argue on such rubbish terms, but would then advice you to rather avoid the argument entirely.

I know this seems like some sort of raised finger, telling you what to do and what not to do, but that's not really the intention. I'm trying, in a diplomatic way, to have you accept that some young people on these forums are simply childish in the way they perceive the world - as is expected from them. There is no sense in becoming upset that these people will occasionally become rabble-rousers. It is in their nature.

Se i know you're not trying to come off lie this, but to me, it seems like you're essentially saying "Cut him some slack, he doesn't know any better." or at least it seems like you're trying to say that at the end. I probably shouldn't have quoted just that one line, but i wasn't doing so out of malice, as i was really posting my reaction to that one part of the post. I hat e to be the equivalent of tha 14 year old kid who yells about how no one takes his opinion seriously, but I honestly feel that my opinion is being treated with a lack of respect. I found the notion that one should put aside one's morals and ethics for the law a bit ridiculous regardless of the context, i posted my response and tired to clarify my views when responded to. It's just a bit frustrating when the responses i'm getting from both you and solidstatemind essentially throughout the posts talk down to me and act as if my opinion has no validity.

 

[Fappy]

So we can all agree that she is Chaotic Good right?

Chaotic, I see nothing to indicate that she is good.

Well she did have good intentions and she's definitely not "neutral" or "evil" as far as I can tell.

 

[s0denone]

Se i know you're not trying to come off lie this, but to me, it seems like you're essentially saying "Cut him some slack, he doesn't know any better." or at least it seems like you're trying to say that at the end. I probably shouldn't have quoted just that one line, but i wasn't doing so out of malice, as i was really posting my reaction to that one part of the post. I hat e to be the equivalent of tha 14 year old kid who yells about how no one takes his opinion seriously, but I honestly feel that my opinion is being treated with a lack of respect. I found the notion that one should put aside one's morals and ethics for the law a bit ridiculous regardless of the context, i posted my response and tired to clarify my views when responded to. It's just a bit frustrating when the responses i'm getting from both you and solidstatemind essentially throughout the posts talk down to me and act as if my opinion has no validity.

Well, what do you expect?

Personal morals and ethics absolutely do not supersede the law.

YES, because as we all know, there have NEVER been unjust or stupid laws before. If someone thinks a law is wrong they should just shut up and deal.

You are ignoring the rest of solidstateminds post, in order to create a strawman.
It is poor rhetoric, and regardless of where you went after that particular post, your debate was doomed. It's all about first impressions, you know. Your first post in any given debate, is the one deciding whether or not people feel you're worth the time debating.

Most take offense to being quoted out of context, and will immediately judge you to not be worth the time of day.

Isn't it obvious? Again, what on earth did you expect?

Had you started off by trying to argue rationally against the entirety of solidstateminds post, I'm more than certain he would happily debate you. As it stands though, you did not.

 

[gl1koz3]

Justified? Yea, probably. Should she be punished? Absolutely. Whether or not a law is right or wrong does not dictate whether it should be followed or not. There are many laws I do not agree with but if I break one of them and get caught, I expect to be punished. It may lead to me trying to change the law in the future but that does not excuse past crimes.

For the will to abide to the laws to be so strong that even when they fail you follow them, there should be a better reason aside from "the book says so". Seriously, how much they paid you?

Read the rest of the thread and then come back. You will see your opinion is in the minority. When a law is made everyone is expected to follow it. If it is immoral and someone breaks it they will still be punished, as they should be. This may end up causing the law to be changed but this does not give one permission to break the law.

If the criteria for whether a law should be followed or not becomes morality then we will have anarchy. There are a great many people that think it is morally justified to kill abortion doctors. Would it be okay with you if nobody got punished for doing that?

As I (and many others in this thread) have said she was justified. However, she still broke the law whether you agree with it or not. That means she should be punished and anyone else who does the same thing should be punished until the law is changed or removed.

You didn't read my post. I said, the law clearly fails the mom. This is purely a question of facts that the education is rotten in some of the districts and yet the law says you should go rot some more. I don't see any morals here, just logic (nor do I care who's in whose minority).

 

[Jodah]

Justified? Yea, probably. Should she be punished? Absolutely. Whether or not a law is right or wrong does not dictate whether it should be followed or not. There are many laws I do not agree with but if I break one of them and get caught, I expect to be punished. It may lead to me trying to change the law in the future but that does not excuse past crimes.

For the will to abide to the laws to be so strong that even when they fail you follow them, there should be a better reason aside from "the book says so". Seriously, how much they paid you?

Read the rest of the thread and then come back. You will see your opinion is in the minority. When a law is made everyone is expected to follow it. If it is immoral and someone breaks it they will still be punished, as they should be. This may end up causing the law to be changed but this does not give one permission to break the law.

If the criteria for whether a law should be followed or not becomes morality then we will have anarchy. There are a great many people that think it is morally justified to kill abortion doctors. Would it be okay with you if nobody got punished for doing that?

As I (and many others in this thread) have said she was justified. However, she still broke the law whether you agree with it or not. That means she should be punished and anyone else who does the same thing should be punished until the law is changed or removed.

You didn't read my post. I said, the law clearly fails the mom. This is purely a question of facts that the education is rotten in some of the districts and yet the law says you should go rot some more. I don't see any morals here, just logic (nor do I care who's in whose minority).

And by breaking the law she attempted to get a "free ride" for her child. Her child took resources from the children who legally attend that school. If the law was not enforced it would fail the community the school is located in. If she had paid a tuition or taxes for THAT school it would be different. However, she did not. Like I said, she was justified but she still broke the law and should be punished for it.

We elected the people that made the laws, we have to abide by them even if we don't like them.

 

[Marowit]

I am pretty torn about this. Is what she did right? No, but I can understand why she did it.

There are so many ways to help better you child's education lying about where you live is pretty far down on the list.

If people actually supported they public school systems, you know by paying a fair tax rate, this wouldn't be an issue. I'm having to stave off a rant here...

 

[solidstatemind]

SNIP

I'm sure you can agree, however, that before one has faced the more harsh reality of life (usually post-education) in their jobs, and have integrated themselves into the society as an "adult" - that they will hold idealistic views.

There is an old saying in Denmark, where I'm from, that goes: "When you're young, you vote with your heart. When you get older, you vote with your brain"

I am not pleading conservative opinions here, I am just asking you if you will not agree that one is more driven by emotion as one is young?

I am not going to dispute any of your points, as I find myself entirely in agreement, but will ask you, instead: "Can you not overlook the idealistic views of those who are young?"

Surely you were more driven by heart/less driven by brain, when you were young? I think such is the case with everyone. That being said, I agree entirely that quoting your out of question is besides that point, and shouldn't be swept under the rug because of it. Likewise, I think engaging in a debate with no other intention than "I disagree, but cannot be bothered to enter an actual argument" is equally nonsensical.

Mind you, I am not defending either of the people in question here, much less do I know them - I just think there is very little reason for you to be (or appear to be) so agitated.

Younger people will likely hold their idealistic views close to heart. You will be able to view a bigger picture. They will say "Well, it shouldn't be like that!", you will say "Well, it has to be like that, because of[...]". You cannot expect everyone you argue with to be as intelligent (not to mention knowing, given your own life-experiences and age) as you. I respect that you refuse to argue on such rubbish terms, but would then advice you to rather avoid the argument entirely.

I know this seems like some sort of raised finger, telling you what to do and what not to do, but that's not really the intention. I'm trying, in a diplomatic way, to have you accept that some young people on these forums are simply childish in the way they perceive the world - as is expected from them. There is no sense in becoming upset that these people will occasionally become rabble-rousers. It is in their nature.

You know what? You're entirely right about that. I do need to be a little more tolerant because yes, I certainly did react with my heart when I was but a sprout.

I guess I just have such a high opinion of posters on the Escapist that I overreact when I see somebody not even bothering to try and support their emotional opinions. I'll try and be more constructive in the future.

 

[s0denone]

You know what? You're entirely right about that. I do need to be a little more tolerant because yes, I certainly did react with my heart when I was but a sprout.

I guess I just have such a high opinion of posters on the Escapist that I overreact when I see somebody not even bothering to try and support their emotional opinions. I'll try and be more constructive in the future.

It is entirely understandable. I'm afraid the Escapist isn't the last bastion of Internet intelligence. On the contrary, I think the number of teenagers (high-middle to lower-range aged teens (13-17)) are on an exceptional rise. I'm not saying that diminishes the quality of discussions... But that diminishes the quality of discussions. It does, anyway, if we can equate "rational discussion" with "good discussion".

When you then, as I, realise that you shouldn't be looking for academic-grade discussion here, but instead some rather mindless blabbering(hell, maybe even take part yourself) you will find yourself a lot less agitated; enjoying the forum for what it is. A "gaming"-forum, with no higher or lower standards than the rest of the forums on the Internet.

 

[Fleischer]

Right. I understood the relevance of this law. Do you know if there can be exceptions? Could this mom have talked to (or still talk to) someone in order to make a deal so her children could study in another school? If the big deal is because the money that is distributed to the schools count only the people that live in the area, couldn't there be an annotation that said that a certain number of people from certain areas are studying in schools of other areas? Are there precedents for discussions like this?

Massachusetts has a program that enables students from under performing districts to attend districts which are doing better. http://www.doe.mass.edu/metco/

 

[Fleischer]

Which is stupid because it still leaves students behind. Instead they should work at improving problem districts.

Massachusetts, like the rest of the states in the union, are working to improve their schools; however, it takes time. In addition, sometimes a little "cross pollination" can help alleviate racial/social tensions. I attended grad school with a classmate whose son attends Marblehead public schools. My peer LOVED the fact that his son was able to meet and interact with students he wouldn't of normally met outside of his primarily white upper-middle class neighbors.

 

[Fleischer]

Or maybe, its just that your sister had a taxpaying legal guardian living in the district of the school. This isn't proof of "oh white people get treated so good and black people get pissed on by the state", this is just you trying to blame anyone except the person you feel you can relate to even the slightest, regardless of how wrong they are.

Okay. Trying again:

My sister lived in town A with her mother. My father lived in town B. My sister went to town B's schools.

Kelley Williams-Bolar's and her daughter live in town C. The father of Kelley Williams-Bolar's daughter lives in town D. Kelley Williams-Bolar's daughter went to town D's schools.

They're complete parallels. In fact, my sister has never lived with my father, even part time, which is something that Mrs. Kelley Williams-Bolar claims her daughter had done.

 

[gl1koz3]

And by breaking the law she attempted to get a "free ride" for her child. Her child took resources from the children who legally attend that school. If the law was not enforced it would fail the community the school is located in. If she had paid a tuition or taxes for THAT school it would be different. However, she did not. Like I said, she was justified but she still broke the law and should be punished for it.

We elected the people that made the laws, we have to abide by them even if we don't like them.

Ah, the taxes... I see.

But slightly off-topic, it is wrong to follow a book no matter what. If the laws imposed show factual problems (such as when education level varies so greatly and true competition amongst schools is somewhat hampered) and they are so slow to fix it, this is just enough of a reason not to follow it. After all, we wouldn't be here in this forum if some people didn't break a law or two, and I don't mean just the fancy poetry (c) government inc. What I mean is that the instruments to criticize or adjust laws are too slow. Too damn slow. How many years have passed since the problem has been identified... Something must change radically, as the governments are currently quite the lag fests.

 

[Fleischer]

NO you don't just 'shut up and deal', but you seek to circumvent or remove that law through the legal remedies that are available to you.

Do this now: Go read this [http://www.amazon.com/Critique-Pure-Reason-Immanuel-Kant/dp/0521657296/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1296100856&sr=8-1] and this [http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Disobedience-Henry-David-Thoreau/dp/1449518583/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296101127&sr=1-1] before you claim that breaking the law is ever the 'right' thing to do.

'kay?

I greatly appreciate that you brought some great sources for the understanding of how to deal with unethical laws; however I disagree that Thoreau, and later Martin Luther King Jr., sought legal remedies as the direct means of addressing wrongs. A key principal of civil disobedience is to publicly and blatantly ignore unjust laws, accepting the consequences dealt down by those who are enforcing the unjust laws.

This whole situation makes me want to go back and read Les Miserables.

 

[Reaper195]

Just proves that the school system DOESN'T care about a chills' education, otherwise they A would have worked something out, and B Not made any kind of big deal about it, let alone hiring a PI.

 

[itsnotyouitsme]

Oh no, she isn't paying 1% taxes for the school. You know, which everything wrong in this world, is trying so hard to see your kids do better really so important you got to jail the poor women? It's like the option of sending your kids to a school where someone is stabbed every day verses the option to send them to Harvard. I kinda agree with the women, she is an example.