The State has to show a very strong public policy reason for violating the Constitution like that. "Shouting 'Fire!' in a theatre" kind of "strong".
Here I thought they had to amend the constitution and follow the proper procedures rather than just disobey the constitution because a bunch of people think they should.
Yes, but the problem is that not everyone agrees on how much evidence they need before they can take action that may harm one or more individuals. For instance, not everyone thinks that merely having an ip address is enough to confiscate someone's equipment.
Your problem might not be regarded as such by others. They might not care about it or not see it as harmful.
"A matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome"
Most of that wording appears to be subjective.
You need proof to realize that most parents don't stay home during the day?
Perhaps. But that isn't what I was asking. If you read it again, you'll see that I was asking for proof that a majority of parents would be significantly affected by this.
Really? You must have a different definition of "need" than me, then. If someone "needs" to know something to work at their currently preferred job, then that is what I mean. Can you honestly say that everyone needs every single subject in existence in order to get the job that they like? Really?
That may be true if your only goal in life is to be one-dimensional and generally ignorant
Subjective. The other option that wasn't listed is that someone knows what they are going to do, likes to do it, and doesn't want to waste hour after hour learning how to do something else (because not only would that increase their rate of failure, it would also waste the time they could be using to study or perform well in the other subject). Not everyone needs gym (whose material can be looked up and understood in minutes), advanced math classes, chemistry classes, music classes, art classes, etc. I'm not saying that there are vast quantities of such classes that need to be eliminated. I'm saying that there are quite a few.
You can't get the time you put into learning (and later likely forgetting if you didn't use) them back, but you do have options if you want to go back and learn them.
If you can't find a way to make classes relevant to your life, that's your failing
Well, yes, if you try to make it relevant to your life and fail, then I suppose that would be a failing. But it's difficult to fail at something if you didn't know or try to do it in the first place.
Learning is always good.
That's interesting. I didn't know that "good" was an objective fact of the universe that one person defined. Honestly, if you're not one of the people I described, and you want to spend lots of time learning things that you'll probably quickly forget (if you don't make the classes relevant to your life), then go ahead. No one would stop you under my proposed system (as the classes would still be there).
but most of the time people who put forth this idea seem to think that they're "special" and should be on some fast track to a more important function.
I'd never give them up though
Alright, then. Have fun with that. I'm not advocating for the complete elimination of these classes. I hope you recognize, though, that everyone isn't exactly like you.
Kids are really stupid when it comes to evaluating things that they'll need in 10, 20, or 50 years.
So just treat them like complete idiots to an even further extent and give them almost zero responsibility. Honestly, I don't think it's working.
Yes, part of their brains might not be fully developed, but that doesn't mean that they don't know what they currently like to do. They like to do what they like to do. They probably know that they have to get a job. As I said, if they change their minds later and need to learn something, they have options. But what happens if we force every subject in existence down someone's throat? I'd say they temporarily memorize the material and then quickly forget it when they can't apply it to their life. Thus, even if they wanted to use it, they'd have to learn it again, anyway. And it takes time away from things that are more important to them. It just seems like a waste to me.
But it is likely subjective. When someone says that something is a problem, that usually implies that something "bad" is happening. "Bad" is probably subjective.
The vast, vast, vast majority of parents would be affected by this.
Do you have proof that a vast majority of parents would be significantly affected by this?
As far as I know only the Amish have an exemption, and then only after 8th grade. Even homeschoolers are required to meet certain requirements and pass state tests. Private or religious schools also have to meet those requirements
Actually, I'm pretty sure this is wrong. In quite a few states there seems to be little to no regulations on homeschooling. I personally know a few people who homeschooled their children and never had so much as a visit from the government or anything similar to that (because that kind of thing isn't required by my state).
However, there are some states that have stricter regulations on homeschooling. But, as I said, the laws vary from state to state.
I'm asking for an honest guess, not a sound statistic.
I don't know, then. Not many, probably.
The parent pays the fine
That isn't always possible. To some people, $500 is a lot of money.
If the parent doesn't pay, their wages are garnished
What? I wasn't aware that sending your child to a school was mandatory. Given the existence of homeschoolers and unschoolers, this does not seem to be the case.
It's a 99% solution.
Where did that number come from? Unless I see some scientifically valid study that proves that this proposed system would work, I wouldn't state any such things as facts. That sounds like quite an oppressive system to me, and I'm not sure many people would like that (especially not the part where Ds are now considered failing grades).
To me, the solution isn't to try to get everybody to pass and fit into society's expectations
That's not my solution either. But if they were to go through with this, I definitely think that they should cut out the non-essential classes (advanced math and such for starters) as not everybody needs those. Those aren't basic skills, and there's options to learn them later if someone changes their mind.
With this new system in addition to mandatory "useless" classes, I think it would only hurt people who do well in some areas but poor in others due to a lack of interest.
Be honest.. what proportion of kids who miss lots of schools fall into the narrow situation of:
Actually, I said that I wasn't sure right in my comment. Of course, I doubt you are, either.
And that wasn't the only "problem" I listed.
So pretty much people who would fail anyways.
I was absent quite often (according to you, it would be illegitimate absences), but I never failed. Those things might make it a bit harder, depending on the child, but it isn't guaranteed that they'll fail.
But I don't think making everything extremely strict and reforming the rules in a way that will likely increase the number of failures and the amount of disappointment in the current educational system will help the situation, to be honest.
What? I specifically mentioned people who can't get their absences excused because they can't afford constantly going to the doctor because they're in poor health. When I was in school, the only way to get excused in my school was to bring a doctor's note (or something similar). A note from a parent simply wasn't enough. I don't know how many schools do that, though.
And I don't know how many of such people exist, but there are still other perceived problems that I and other comments mentioned.
I don't know what you mean. My post merely meant to imply that I think that just because some people might suffer because of a decision doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.
That's not what he's saying at all.
I don't know what he's saying. He said, "all the parents," but I do not know how many that is. I wonder how many parents truly will need to find a baby sitter or stay home. I suppose being given accurate numbers would help.
This is a very serious problem
Whether it's a serious problem or not is likely subjective.
You didn't even offer a counterargument this time. All you seemingly did was attack my beliefs, and then used the subjective term "twisted" as if that was a universal fact. And, for reasons I've already mentioned multiple times, I don't believe that it is a double standard.
Not that I'm implying that double standards are "bad." I believe that everyone has preferences.
Just fail everyone who has poor health and doesn't have money to go to the doctor for colds just so the school will excuse their absence, people that didn't even fail in the first place (probably for classes they won't even need), and make people who don't have money unable to get through school if they happen to fail. I don't think this would motivate many people. Rather, I think it would further increase the rate of failures and steer more people towards alternative solutions such as unschooling or homeschooling.
I don't know what the actual results of this decision will be, but I will say that I don't think that "good" things (speaking in general) should be held back merely because a few people have to make sacrifices.
The "obvious" solution would be to force people who are doing poorly in math and/or science to work in a field that requires a lot of either, or both. That way, they will see where it applies to their life, and I believe they'll be more likely to remember the material. Or not. Because they still probably won't be interested in it (and, at least for me, and quite a few other people that I know, that highly decreases the chances that I'll even vaguely remember something).
Some people simply don't need certain knowledge, and asking "what if" questions simply isn't all that convincing to me (even when speaking of high school students). Increasing the rate of failures by forcibly teaching people advanced mathematics and such (rather than just basic everyday things) is rather foolish, in my opinion. They might change their minds later, but that is their problem. They have options if they need to learn it, so don't hold everyone else back and waste their time.
I believe that too much time, money, and resources are wasted on trying to teach things to people who simply won't need them, and not enough responsibility is placed on youth.
Are you seriously trying to claim that there is no physical violence in getting the people into prision?
No. Try again. Certainly you understand what I meant, right? Someone broke the law, so the police have to punish them. But it needn't be through physical violence (merely touching someone isn't physical violence) unless they try to resist (which usually should just result in a capture unless they pose a significant risk to the policeman) and/or attack the police. If police are attacking everyone they try to arrest, then I think that something is very, very wrong.
Really, I don't understand your analogy at all. Not to mention that they are two different things.
No, I'm not. Those are completely different things. I see that people seemingly often try to come up with analogies to try to point out how "hypocritical" the other person is. What they don't seem to realize, however, is that it's hardly hypocritical if the analogy describes a different situation (unless it completely contradicts what the other person said). I never said that I was against prisons or police departments, however.
And a prison sentence doesn't necessarily mean physical punishment. Nor does having a police force (but it can be necessary at times when they are in danger).
If there is an instance where prisoners are being abused because of something else other than self defense, then I probably disagree with it and don't think it should happen.
Slashdot Mirror
The State has to show a very strong public policy reason for violating the Constitution like that. "Shouting 'Fire!' in a theatre" kind of "strong".
Here I thought they had to amend the constitution and follow the proper procedures rather than just disobey the constitution because a bunch of people think they should.
Yes, but the problem is that not everyone agrees on how much evidence they need before they can take action that may harm one or more individuals. For instance, not everyone thinks that merely having an ip address is enough to confiscate someone's equipment.
Between letting a criminal get away and harming an innocent, I'd rather let the criminal get away, to be honest.
and there is no excuse that you were running some service or other and didn't know what other people were doing
So just make sure you're watching what every single one of your users/customers are doing at all times. I know I'd want to use such a service.
Should there be standards regarding when linking to illegal content is prosecuted? Certainly.
Well, that's your opinion. Not everyone agrees.
Well, sure. I'll blame the laws (in whatever country). But I'll also blame the people who use those laws against others.
It means there's a problem.
Your problem might not be regarded as such by others. They might not care about it or not see it as harmful.
"A matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome"
Most of that wording appears to be subjective.
You need proof to realize that most parents don't stay home during the day?
Perhaps. But that isn't what I was asking. If you read it again, you'll see that I was asking for proof that a majority of parents would be significantly affected by this.
Those classes don't exist.
Really? You must have a different definition of "need" than me, then. If someone "needs" to know something to work at their currently preferred job, then that is what I mean. Can you honestly say that everyone needs every single subject in existence in order to get the job that they like? Really?
That may be true if your only goal in life is to be one-dimensional and generally ignorant
Subjective. The other option that wasn't listed is that someone knows what they are going to do, likes to do it, and doesn't want to waste hour after hour learning how to do something else (because not only would that increase their rate of failure, it would also waste the time they could be using to study or perform well in the other subject). Not everyone needs gym (whose material can be looked up and understood in minutes), advanced math classes, chemistry classes, music classes, art classes, etc. I'm not saying that there are vast quantities of such classes that need to be eliminated. I'm saying that there are quite a few.
You can't get the time you put into learning (and later likely forgetting if you didn't use) them back, but you do have options if you want to go back and learn them.
If you can't find a way to make classes relevant to your life, that's your failing
Well, yes, if you try to make it relevant to your life and fail, then I suppose that would be a failing. But it's difficult to fail at something if you didn't know or try to do it in the first place.
Learning is always good.
That's interesting. I didn't know that "good" was an objective fact of the universe that one person defined. Honestly, if you're not one of the people I described, and you want to spend lots of time learning things that you'll probably quickly forget (if you don't make the classes relevant to your life), then go ahead. No one would stop you under my proposed system (as the classes would still be there).
but most of the time people who put forth this idea seem to think that they're "special" and should be on some fast track to a more important function.
I'd never give them up though
Alright, then. Have fun with that. I'm not advocating for the complete elimination of these classes. I hope you recognize, though, that everyone isn't exactly like you.
Kids are really stupid when it comes to evaluating things that they'll need in 10, 20, or 50 years.
So just treat them like complete idiots to an even further extent and give them almost zero responsibility. Honestly, I don't think it's working.
Yes, part of their brains might not be fully developed, but that doesn't mean that they don't know what they currently like to do. They like to do what they like to do. They probably know that they have to get a job. As I said, if they change their minds later and need to learn something, they have options. But what happens if we force every subject in existence down someone's throat? I'd say they temporarily memorize the material and then quickly forget it when they can't apply it to their life. Thus, even if they wanted to use it, they'd have to learn it again, anyway. And it takes time away from things that are more important to them. It just seems like a waste to me.
But it is likely subjective. When someone says that something is a problem, that usually implies that something "bad" is happening. "Bad" is probably subjective.
The vast, vast, vast majority of parents would be affected by this.
Do you have proof that a vast majority of parents would be significantly affected by this?
As far as I know only the Amish have an exemption, and then only after 8th grade. Even homeschoolers are required to meet certain requirements and pass state tests. Private or religious schools also have to meet those requirements
Actually, I'm pretty sure this is wrong. In quite a few states there seems to be little to no regulations on homeschooling. I personally know a few people who homeschooled their children and never had so much as a visit from the government or anything similar to that (because that kind of thing isn't required by my state).
However, there are some states that have stricter regulations on homeschooling. But, as I said, the laws vary from state to state.
I'm asking for an honest guess, not a sound statistic.
I don't know, then. Not many, probably.
The parent pays the fine
That isn't always possible. To some people, $500 is a lot of money.
If the parent doesn't pay, their wages are garnished
What? I wasn't aware that sending your child to a school was mandatory. Given the existence of homeschoolers and unschoolers, this does not seem to be the case.
It's a 99% solution.
Where did that number come from? Unless I see some scientifically valid study that proves that this proposed system would work, I wouldn't state any such things as facts. That sounds like quite an oppressive system to me, and I'm not sure many people would like that (especially not the part where Ds are now considered failing grades).
To me, the solution isn't to try to get everybody to pass and fit into society's expectations
That's not my solution either. But if they were to go through with this, I definitely think that they should cut out the non-essential classes (advanced math and such for starters) as not everybody needs those. Those aren't basic skills, and there's options to learn them later if someone changes their mind.
With this new system in addition to mandatory "useless" classes, I think it would only hurt people who do well in some areas but poor in others due to a lack of interest.
Be honest.. what proportion of kids who miss lots of schools fall into the narrow situation of:
Actually, I said that I wasn't sure right in my comment. Of course, I doubt you are, either.
And that wasn't the only "problem" I listed.
So pretty much people who would fail anyways.
I was absent quite often (according to you, it would be illegitimate absences), but I never failed. Those things might make it a bit harder, depending on the child, but it isn't guaranteed that they'll fail.
But I don't think making everything extremely strict and reforming the rules in a way that will likely increase the number of failures and the amount of disappointment in the current educational system will help the situation, to be honest.
What? I specifically mentioned people who can't get their absences excused because they can't afford constantly going to the doctor because they're in poor health. When I was in school, the only way to get excused in my school was to bring a doctor's note (or something similar). A note from a parent simply wasn't enough. I don't know how many schools do that, though.
And I don't know how many of such people exist, but there are still other perceived problems that I and other comments mentioned.
His argument was absolutely obliterated.
Get over yourself.
I don't know what you mean. My post merely meant to imply that I think that just because some people might suffer because of a decision doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.
That's not what he's saying at all.
I don't know what he's saying. He said, "all the parents," but I do not know how many that is. I wonder how many parents truly will need to find a baby sitter or stay home. I suppose being given accurate numbers would help.
This is a very serious problem
Whether it's a serious problem or not is likely subjective.
You didn't even offer a counterargument this time. All you seemingly did was attack my beliefs, and then used the subjective term "twisted" as if that was a universal fact. And, for reasons I've already mentioned multiple times, I don't believe that it is a double standard.
Not that I'm implying that double standards are "bad." I believe that everyone has preferences.
Just fail everyone who has poor health and doesn't have money to go to the doctor for colds just so the school will excuse their absence, people that didn't even fail in the first place (probably for classes they won't even need), and make people who don't have money unable to get through school if they happen to fail. I don't think this would motivate many people. Rather, I think it would further increase the rate of failures and steer more people towards alternative solutions such as unschooling or homeschooling.
Well, I guess nothing should ever change because a few people might "suffer."
I don't know what the actual results of this decision will be, but I will say that I don't think that "good" things (speaking in general) should be held back merely because a few people have to make sacrifices.
The "obvious" solution would be to force people who are doing poorly in math and/or science to work in a field that requires a lot of either, or both. That way, they will see where it applies to their life, and I believe they'll be more likely to remember the material. Or not. Because they still probably won't be interested in it (and, at least for me, and quite a few other people that I know, that highly decreases the chances that I'll even vaguely remember something).
Some people simply don't need certain knowledge, and asking "what if" questions simply isn't all that convincing to me (even when speaking of high school students). Increasing the rate of failures by forcibly teaching people advanced mathematics and such (rather than just basic everyday things) is rather foolish, in my opinion. They might change their minds later, but that is their problem. They have options if they need to learn it, so don't hold everyone else back and waste their time.
I believe that too much time, money, and resources are wasted on trying to teach things to people who simply won't need them, and not enough responsibility is placed on youth.
Are you seriously trying to claim that there is no physical violence in getting the people into prision?
No. Try again. Certainly you understand what I meant, right? Someone broke the law, so the police have to punish them. But it needn't be through physical violence (merely touching someone isn't physical violence) unless they try to resist (which usually should just result in a capture unless they pose a significant risk to the policeman) and/or attack the police. If police are attacking everyone they try to arrest, then I think that something is very, very wrong.
Really, I don't understand your analogy at all. Not to mention that they are two different things.
That is just a bizarre position to take.
Subjective.
Yeah. As long as it could be worse, the current situation is good!
That is, the judge did not arrive at the incorrect answer, the person doing the complaining did.
Those judges are always correct.
clearly showing how they arrived at the decision (precedents, etc).
I don't see how that means that they are correct.
But most of the time they get it correct
I don't see any hard evidence of this. Nor do I think that it is relevant.
even when it goes against what some people wish.
Then those people will probably say that the judge is incorrect. That would be their opinion. And they're not necessarily wrong.
It doesn't matter who I ask; children aren't adults.
I was implying that saying, "applying adult rules to them is just ridiculous" is subjective. More specifically, "ridiculous."
That doesn't make them right.
Well, "right" is probably subjective anyway.
No, I'm not. Those are completely different things. I see that people seemingly often try to come up with analogies to try to point out how "hypocritical" the other person is. What they don't seem to realize, however, is that it's hardly hypocritical if the analogy describes a different situation (unless it completely contradicts what the other person said). I never said that I was against prisons or police departments, however.
And a prison sentence doesn't necessarily mean physical punishment. Nor does having a police force (but it can be necessary at times when they are in danger).
If there is an instance where prisoners are being abused because of something else other than self defense, then I probably disagree with it and don't think it should happen.