Poll: Ohio mom jailed for sending kids to a better school district. Your thoughts?
- Thread starter Samus Aaron
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This confused me for a second. Here in Australia, you can go to any school you want...
So yeah, I think it's a stupid law. But, she didn't just lie or anything, she created false documents, plus, she wasn't paying as much to send them there... This taxes by district thing is kinda weird to me, but here in Australia different schools will have different fees. So she wasn't paying for her children to go to that school?
Anyway, I think it's a crappy law, I understand why she did it, but she still shouldn't have done it.
So yeah, I think it's a stupid law. But, she didn't just lie or anything, she created false documents, plus, she wasn't paying as much to send them there... This taxes by district thing is kinda weird to me, but here in Australia different schools will have different fees. So she wasn't paying for her children to go to that school?
Anyway, I think it's a crappy law, I understand why she did it, but she still shouldn't have done it.
Morally, she gave every person who pays the full taxes of the area to send their kids to that school the finger. She wasn't in the right there.Bernzz said:
I don't know the specifics in Australia, but that is likely because no matter where you live, your taxes are going to every school out there. In this case, schools only receive tax money from people in the district. None of her tax money was going to the school she enrolled in, which is why this is different.brunothepig said:
Sutter Cane said:
Sigh.
How about you read the rest of my post? Or you can make yourself look bad by quoting me out of context, and anyone who reads the original post will actually know that I addressed that very issue.
But, to recap for you:
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?
When I was a school I went though the Columbus, Ohio school system I understand where she is coming from. My mother sent to me alternative school and those were some of the worst schools around. Some of the teachers sucked and it had some kids that didn't even belong there. So was it illegal yes but I understand what she was trying to do.
It's not like Kantian ethics are the only system out there. Many ethics would say that it's not only justified to break laws, but it's our duty. The U.S. was founded on the principle that unjust laws (specifically taxes) have no legitimacy.solidstatemind said:
It's utter crap that the quality of education a child receives is completely outside their own bounds on so many levels in the United States. The entire line of thinking that if you pay higher taxes you get access to better educational facilities. State provided education is supposed to be something that's equal and balanced. It's the whole reason the Federal Government had to deploy troops to a US campus during the civil rights movement.
Except now instead of it being racially motivated its purely based around money.
Except now instead of it being racially motivated its purely based around money.
Not justified.
I enjoy burning things that aren't mine. Don't worry though! I feel morally obligated to break the law.
Seriously though, if everyone in her district transferred to the nice schools that they didn't pay for would go broke. Lose-lose situation.
I enjoy burning things that aren't mine. Don't worry though! I feel morally obligated to break the law.
Seriously though, if everyone in her district transferred to the nice schools that they didn't pay for would go broke. Lose-lose situation.
Ah, y'see, I live in Australia too, which is why I said what I said. I suppose it changes with what you've said, but I can't help but feel for her a little. She didn't choose to live in poverty, and wanting the best education for your children certainly isn't a bad cause.bob1052 said:
As I said though, I can see your side of the argument now, with the differences in countries.
I'd prefer it if you didn't talk to me like I'm a 4 year old. As Dags 90 said above me.solidstatemind said:
and that's something I tend to agree with.Dags90 said:
you make a good point friend. I meant morally right as in her intentions were fine. she wanted to give her kids a better education. but yeah, she DID break the law...D_987 said:
Don't act like one, and I won't treat you like one. You try to deal in absolutes, and you try to quote me out of context (particularly when the rest of my post SPECIFICALLY dealt with the issue you raised), and I am generally NOT going to give you any sort of consideration... and, guess what? Neither would any person well-schooled in debate.Sutter Cane said:
Perhaps if you actually chose to rebut my statements with references and logic rather than trying to appeal to emotion, I might not treat you in a dismissive manner, but hey, you're 2 for 2 in that department already. The world has enough irrational, emotional people who feel like it's 'appropriate' to take a position because of their emotional reaction to it. Here's a pro-tip: you want to be successful? DON'T BE ONE OF THEM. Establish your opinions upon a strong intellectual foundation (and reference it) rather than your emotions. I'm sorry, but I respect Immanuel Kant and Henry David Thoreau far more than an unknown someone who makes a post on the Internet.
As for Dags90??? I would apply some of the same criticism of him: don't expect me to just 'take your word' that there are well-respected people who support your point of view-- NAME THEM. QUOTE THEM. Otherwise, you're just making baseless claims. He says that there are other viewpoints from Kant and Thoreau, but can't be bothered to name them. Obviously, that's true, but unless you can make specific references, you're just throwing darts in the dark, aren't you? And that means that it's irrational to give those statements any credibility.
Also, you should probably know: Dags90 and I have gotten into it before. It does not shock me at all to see him take an antagonistic stand against something I wrote. What is relevant, however, is that he is again making nebulous references rather than citing specific sources. That is not a compelling argument.
And guess what? It doesn't impress me any more than it did in the last 'debate' we had.
Cowboy up: name your references or they don't matter. (Oh, and sadly, you'll find that's pretty much a requirement in college.) Also, don't try to give me any Thomas Jefferson crap about how "a little revolution now and then is a good thing." I'm sure he was speaking about far more wide-ranging issues (like what Martin Luther King, Jr. protested against... wait, did I mention his protests were entirely LEGAL?) than some woman trying to fuck over the system and exploit it for her own kids' gain.
If you haven't guessed, I'm something that I doubt you are: an American taxpayer. I give the government a large amount of my income every year. So yes, this touches me on a level that I sincerely doubt touches you, unless you are terribly precocious. If the vociferousness that it raises makes you uncomfortable, I apologize, but I am just as free to peruse this Internet as people who are 22 years my junior.
Except that the simple fact she was convicted will follow her the rest of her life and she will find it substantially harder to do things like gain employment and get loans and whatnot.Bobic said:
Honestly for the purposes of my disagreement with you i don't really care about the woman here. My disagreement with you is that laws trump morals and ethics. In fact in one of your posts you linked be to civil disobedience by Thoreau. Wasn't that one of the points that he was trying to make in this essay.solidstatemind said:
Also I find it interesting that you seem to assume that I am not in college, or that I do not know how to write a college level paper.
I see you are not only talking down to me at this point, but also seemingly to Dags90 as well. I know nothing about the history between you two, but from where i'm sitting, nothing in his post seemed to be particularly antagonistic about his post, he just expressed a different opinion than you did. In fact if anyone in here is coming off as antagonistic, it's you. I don't know if you realize this, but you're coming off as very arrogant.
I see nothing wrong with circumventing a system that doesn't work. She shouldn't be arrested, this should be taken as a sign that the system needs to be improved.
I think she's justified in the sense that the law is kind of shit in the first place, but i think she's also justified because her dad DOES live in that district and DOES pay appropriate taxes.
Uhh, that doesn't happen. There's no application process for public school. If there are too many kids they hire more staff, they don't deny children educations, so no she wasn't stopping other children from getting into the school.D_987 said:
I couldn't have said it better myself. Though she was only arrested for 10 days, and this news story will probably be enough negative publicity on the policy that it most likely will be drawn into question.KrazyShrink said:
The school district she "should" have sent her kids to couldn't have been that bad. It was obviously meeting its AYP, otherwise it would have been legal to send her kids to a different school. NCLB is one of the dumbest education policies I've ever seen, but that's one of the provisions in it.