I'm an agnostic. I don't know if or how much global warming is occurring; and given the hyper-partisan rhetoric, name-calling, and various logical fallacies coming from both sides I don't think I'll know for a very long time.
So skip the partisans and see what qualified people have to say: scientists.
The problem is, I'm not a climate scientist or even a weather scientist. Nor do I work in a field closely related to them. Frankly I'm unqualified to survey the literature myself. Normally for something like this I would listen to what knowledgeable people say who have read the literature, but in this case knowledgeable people are divided. So my next approach would be to consider who is making the various arguments, what their tone is, whether they seem to be trying to honestly convince me, etc. However in this case both sides are pretty full of people who I don't trust for various reasons. Some because they have backing from corporations that stand to lose money if GW is addressed. Some because they have their own money sources if GW is addressed. Many because they've resorted to name-calling and insults instead of reasoned arguments. Case in point...
The term you use, "denier", is a perfect example and is in fact a Godwin. The term was well known for Holocaust denier and once it became appropriately stained people started using it to label skeptics of their pet ideas when they didn't want to have to actually convince anyone.
Bullshit. If someone denies a well established fact, they're a denier. The only common bond they have with people who deny other well established facts is that they reject facts established by mountains of evidence.
So basically you're saying that what you believe to be true is a "well established fact" which frees you up to call anyone who disagrees with you a "denier" which, as I noted before, first gained notoriety as a term describing holocaust deniers. So is it true then that anyone who disagrees with you is the moral equivalent of a holocaust denier.
If he were merely a skeptic, that's ok; a skeptic is a person who's willing to look at the data and see what they say.
However, far too many of the people who call themselves "skeptics" are in fact not skeptics at all, but global-warming deniers: they don't care what the data is, and aren't really interested in learning.
I'm an agnostic. I don't know if or how much global warming is occurring; and given the hyper-partisan rhetoric, name-calling, and various logical fallacies coming from both sides I don't think I'll know for a very long time.
The term you use, "denier", is a perfect example and is in fact a Godwin. The term was well known for Holocaust denier and once it became appropriately stained people started using it to label skeptics of their pet ideas when they didn't want to have to actually convince anyone.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How much burden is the refusal to wear clothes placing on everyone else? Given that our society requires people to wear clothes in pretty much every public place, it seems that the burden is pretty high. If you're going to expect the school to allow you to do something that disruptive, I think you need to meet a very high burden of proof to show that it really is your religious belief. And even then, there is the question of whether allowing you to attend the school is the best way to accommodate your belief given how disruptive it would be.
On the other hand, this young woman is not asking for something that places a heavy burden on the school or on the other students. She is not asking for something that is very disruptive. What she is asking for is much closer to a Sikh asking to cover his hair in a school that forbids hats. The first amendment has to be interpreted with some common sense and reasonableness.
You cannot decide by your self what is a religious act.
If you can't decide by yourself what is a religious act, then you have no freedom of religion.
You're right the freedom of religion in the first amendment is vague, but it is there. It does at times require some accommodation such as during wars when members of some religious groups aren't required to kill people during wars.
The burden of proof you speak of should be proportional to the accommodation required and the potential for abuse. In the case I mention of allowing people to avoid killing during a war, the burden was pretty high because so many people would likely try to avoid the draft by claiming religious exemption if the burden weren't set high. People were required to show that their religion had long-standing prohibitions on all killing, and that they had been a well-established member of the religion (i.e. that they didn't 'convert' when war broke out). However if all you want to do is avoid a school dress code that forbids wearing a hat so that you can were a yarmulke, the burden shouldn't be nearly so high.
In this case there is no reason to suspect that the young woman is attempting to abuse the first amendment by claiming a religious belief she doesn't really hold. The accommodation of the teacher simply noting whether she is in class, or having her sign an attendance book, is not overly burdensome.
Yes, our "society" has "functioned" for ages without basic commodities too.
So possibility of living without a certain comfort or rule doesn't make that rule wrong or that comfort a whim.
One of the prices we pay for living in a society that values freedom of religion, and freedom in general, is accepting a certain amount of non-conformity and sometimes making exemptions for people. For example, during WWII many people who belonged to certain religious organizations were not required to carry a weapon and kill others because they had well-known long-standing religious beliefs. In some cases they were asked to do other things such as treating wounded, but they were not required to do the killing their religion forbade.
If a school dress code requires people to remove their hats inside the building, Jews and Sikhs should be allowed to keep their hats on. In the case of Sikhs it might be reasonable to ask them to minimize the size of the hair covering ( so as not to block the view of students behind them in class), but the religious freedom to covering the hair should be respected if at all possible.
In this case the student has a religious objection to the RFID. There is no indication that she is rejecting it for some nefarious reason or out of some ulterior motive (as might be suspected if someone suddenly announced that their religion requires them to smoke crack three time a day). Her objection is based on writings that have existed for 1500 years or more, so she didn't just make it up. One might question her interpretation, but it is certainly an interpretation a reasonable person might make and she doesn't appear to be making that interpretation honestly.
Personally I think the RFID for students is a bad idea for privacy reasons, and for that reason should not be required of any student. But looking at it purely on religious grounds the school should be making an exception for her (and without making her pretend she supports the policy).
I personally don't see any problem with students having to wear RFID badges while they are at school.
Put a reader on the entrance to the bathrooms so you can track how often and for how long every student is using the bathrooms. As a bonus you can use a computer to determine which students are frequently entering the restroom together.
Add more readers in the hallway so you can track Ms. Hernandez to find out who she hangs out with, who her boyfriend most likely is, when she goes to the restroom, how long she stays there, how often she's alone...
Put together a database for all the students and I'm sure you can sell it to both advertisers and potential employers so they can know which students were popular in school, which students hung out with the jocks, which students hung out with the dopers, which students were loners, which students hung out with emos, which students were geeks.
Simply taking class attendence doesn't get you all that. Even simple IDs on lanyards doesn't give you all that information. But an RFID chip opens a world of possibilities.
Also, they should have serial numbers tattooed on there arms.
You know, to go with the theme.
Good idea. And as reward for being so cooperative, everyone who remembers to get their tattoo should get a gold star, something they can sew on their clothes to let everyone know how patriotic they are.
Taking attendance pinpoints your location once an hour. RFID allows the school to pinpoint your location every second of the day. School uniforms don't allow you to track things like how many times a student goes to the restroom and how long she stays there each time. School uniforms don't allow you to analyze which other students she hangs around with or who her boyfriend is likely to be.
Had she taken the option to remove the RFID chip from her badge, her parents would have agreed to endorse the badging system. So they were willing to let her keep her privacy so long as her family gave up their right to free speech.
Regardless of whether all or just some of the money is used for schooling, the fact remains that the money for school is taken by force. It's not a choice.
Wearing a badge was actually required for high-school students in my country 20 years ago when we had a communist party ruling the country. It's funny how American democracy looks more and more like the "democracy" the communist party was preaching back then.
by your own argument she isn't forced to use the govt's education system system either. she can either be home schooled or go to a private school. Some states will even give you vouchers to help offset some of the costs for the private schools tuition.
Will the government give her her property taxes back (or whatever taxes support the school system in her area) so she can afford the other kinds of education? The difference between the relationship between you and a state and the relationship between you and a corporation is the presence of force. If the corporation obtains your labor or your money then it is because you voluntarily give it to them (usually in exchange for something you want). In the case of schools the state is forcing you to pay for a service, and then forcing you to pay them for the education and forcing you to obtain an education.
Their daughter qualified for the superior school based on her gradesl, now she's being told to go to to a school less suited for her unless she gives up her rights. I would hardly call that being "offered another school".
The key point here is that the government has the monopoly on force in this situation. Miss Hernandez's family doesn't have the option to take her money and go elsewhere. If she could then she would have reason to object. She take her money and look for a school that is able to provide the same education for the same price. Or she could start her own school and attempt to attract other students who share her concerns.
If you've notified them and they can go somewhere else, then you're not infringing on their rights. You may go to prison but that's not becuase you violated their rights, its because the government is violating yours.
No right to privacy? There are cameras in the toilets then? Just because you own the property doesn't mean you can do anything you want to people in it. Or even do anything you want to the property.
If you make it clear to anyone who wishes to use your restroom that there are cameras in there - and you do so early enough that they aren't forced into using the restroom anyway due to an emergency, then yes you should have a right to put cameras there. People who volunteer to use your property should follow your rules - but they should do so knowingly and if you are doing things that violate people's reasonable expectations of privacy then you need to tell them up front before any violation occurs.
Nowadays in some places even squatters have some rights when staying in property that's not theirs!
No, squatters don't have rights when staying on property that isn't theres. They have privileges granted them by an insane government that doesn't care if it violates the rights of property owners.
Go look at the modern laws governing landlords and tenants. The old laws may have been different - back then if you were a tenant aka serf/peasant the Lord of the Land could fuck your girlfriend or wife (or you) whenever he wanted to, even on your wedding night.
Some rights are more important than others. The right of a husband outranks the right of property.
Dress code is less intrusive. In fact it's not intrusive at all. Also, home schooling is an option but it is a very difficult option. The government shouldn't be placing parents in the difficult position of having to quit their jobs and take up full-time education or else have their child's privacy massively intruded upon.
How is it different than using such a lanyard to enter your office at work?
First, you are not required to get at an office that requires you to wear a lanyard. You can work independently or choose a different company or you can choose to do nothing (you'll starve, but no one will bother you while you do it).
Second, lanyards don't always contain RFID. A badge only tells those you meet who you are and where you are. RFID can allows the government to track your every move. It's the difference between having a license plate on your car and having a tracking device installed on your car.
If you voluntarily enter someone's property, then they should have the right to set the terms of entry. If they want to put a sign up that says "no clothes allowed" then you had better get naked when entering their property.
However, students do not voluntarily enter school. They are required by law to be there. Requiring students to give up rights because they entered your property, when you forced them to enter the property, isn't fair.
But students are minors and are not granted the same rights as adults because they aren't as capable of accepting responsibility as adults. If some rights need to be restricted to maintain order - like drug sniffing dogs being allowed to check lockers without a warrent - then so be it but we should try not to over do it. This RFID thing is over doing it.
You can have that diversity within a single ethnic group.
I agree. But if all you have is a line up of 'white guys' then there is a strong signal you MIGHT not. So you should stand back and evaluate whether you actually have the best lineup you could have. You might, but odds are you don't.
Just go find people with different approaches to life.
Good idea. Of course, if you deliberately set out to "find a group of people with different approaches to life" and you end up with nothing but white guys...
In a country that is majority white.... I guess that would be similar to selecting 10 guys and somehow finding that 8 or 9 of the are black as seems to happen on a regular basis in the NBA. Are you suggesting that the NBA needs to re-evaluate its scouting practices to make sure they're not discriminating?
There is a lot of truth to what you say. I would note however that country of origin does make a lot of difference and can certainly add to diversity. I live and work around a lot of immigrants, and a lot of children of immigrants. Guess which ones I can most easily connect with! Whatever their race, I have a level of comfort with the native Americans (those born and raised in my country - this of course includes the children of the immigrants). I don't have that same comfort level with people who grew up outside the country. This includes discussions of code, politics, whatever. For politics it may seem surprising, but when I discuss it with one of my native countrymen who is the polar opposite of me ideologically, we understand each other better than the middle of the road foreigner who joins us. Why? Because we of the same country understand where each other is coming from. Though we disagree on tactics and preferred outcomes, we understand the ground rules and ways of thinking.
BTW, I notice you had to add "upper middle class", "silicon valley startup" to try to make your point. Isn't that racial stereotyping? You know, not all white males are upper middle class nor do all white males start silicon valley companies. There are rich white males, poor white males, lower middle class white males, white males who live and work in places far from Silicon Valley like Wisconsin, Florida, Washington D.C. Maine, Australia, Poland, Russia and, believe it or not, places like South Africa, Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore, and some of them suffer from racial discrimination and ethnic profiling.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an agnostic. I don't know if or how much global warming is occurring; and given the hyper-partisan rhetoric, name-calling, and various logical fallacies coming from both sides I don't think I'll know for a very long time.
So skip the partisans and see what qualified people have to say: scientists.
The problem is, I'm not a climate scientist or even a weather scientist. Nor do I work in a field closely related to them. Frankly I'm unqualified to survey the literature myself. Normally for something like this I would listen to what knowledgeable people say who have read the literature, but in this case knowledgeable people are divided. So my next approach would be to consider who is making the various arguments, what their tone is, whether they seem to be trying to honestly convince me, etc. However in this case both sides are pretty full of people who I don't trust for various reasons. Some because they have backing from corporations that stand to lose money if GW is addressed. Some because they have their own money sources if GW is addressed. Many because they've resorted to name-calling and insults instead of reasoned arguments. Case in point...
The term you use, "denier", is a perfect example and is in fact a Godwin. The term was well known for Holocaust denier and once it became appropriately stained people started using it to label skeptics of their pet ideas when they didn't want to have to actually convince anyone.
Bullshit. If someone denies a well established fact, they're a denier. The only common bond they have with people who deny other well established facts is that they reject facts established by mountains of evidence.
So basically you're saying that what you believe to be true is a "well established fact" which frees you up to call anyone who disagrees with you a "denier" which, as I noted before, first gained notoriety as a term describing holocaust deniers. So is it true then that anyone who disagrees with you is the moral equivalent of a holocaust denier.
If he were merely a skeptic, that's ok; a skeptic is a person who's willing to look at the data and see what they say.
However, far too many of the people who call themselves "skeptics" are in fact not skeptics at all, but global-warming deniers: they don't care what the data is, and aren't really interested in learning.
I'm an agnostic. I don't know if or how much global warming is occurring; and given the hyper-partisan rhetoric, name-calling, and various logical fallacies coming from both sides I don't think I'll know for a very long time.
The term you use, "denier", is a perfect example and is in fact a Godwin. The term was well known for Holocaust denier and once it became appropriately stained people started using it to label skeptics of their pet ideas when they didn't want to have to actually convince anyone.
The first amendment says that the government shall pass no law forbidding freedom of speech.
Explain how it is that a school requiring that its students wear special name tags contravenes that.
But freedom of speech is only part of the First Amendment. The first amendment also includes, with no less importance, free exercise of religion.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
I see no reason to cater to the stubborn young woman's philosphies.
One reason, and a reason that is sufficient all by itself, is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
How much burden is the refusal to wear clothes placing on everyone else? Given that our society requires people to wear clothes in pretty much every public place, it seems that the burden is pretty high. If you're going to expect the school to allow you to do something that disruptive, I think you need to meet a very high burden of proof to show that it really is your religious belief. And even then, there is the question of whether allowing you to attend the school is the best way to accommodate your belief given how disruptive it would be.
On the other hand, this young woman is not asking for something that places a heavy burden on the school or on the other students. She is not asking for something that is very disruptive. What she is asking for is much closer to a Sikh asking to cover his hair in a school that forbids hats. The first amendment has to be interpreted with some common sense and reasonableness.
You cannot decide by your self what is a religious act.
If you can't decide by yourself what is a religious act, then you have no freedom of religion.
You're right the freedom of religion in the first amendment is vague, but it is there. It does at times require some accommodation such as during wars when members of some religious groups aren't required to kill people during wars.
The burden of proof you speak of should be proportional to the accommodation required and the potential for abuse. In the case I mention of allowing people to avoid killing during a war, the burden was pretty high because so many people would likely try to avoid the draft by claiming religious exemption if the burden weren't set high. People were required to show that their religion had long-standing prohibitions on all killing, and that they had been a well-established member of the religion (i.e. that they didn't 'convert' when war broke out). However if all you want to do is avoid a school dress code that forbids wearing a hat so that you can were a yarmulke, the burden shouldn't be nearly so high.
In this case there is no reason to suspect that the young woman is attempting to abuse the first amendment by claiming a religious belief she doesn't really hold. The accommodation of the teacher simply noting whether she is in class, or having her sign an attendance book, is not overly burdensome.
Yes, our "society" has "functioned" for ages without basic commodities too. So possibility of living without a certain comfort or rule doesn't make that rule wrong or that comfort a whim.
One of the prices we pay for living in a society that values freedom of religion, and freedom in general, is accepting a certain amount of non-conformity and sometimes making exemptions for people. For example, during WWII many people who belonged to certain religious organizations were not required to carry a weapon and kill others because they had well-known long-standing religious beliefs. In some cases they were asked to do other things such as treating wounded, but they were not required to do the killing their religion forbade.
If a school dress code requires people to remove their hats inside the building, Jews and Sikhs should be allowed to keep their hats on. In the case of Sikhs it might be reasonable to ask them to minimize the size of the hair covering ( so as not to block the view of students behind them in class), but the religious freedom to covering the hair should be respected if at all possible.
In this case the student has a religious objection to the RFID. There is no indication that she is rejecting it for some nefarious reason or out of some ulterior motive (as might be suspected if someone suddenly announced that their religion requires them to smoke crack three time a day). Her objection is based on writings that have existed for 1500 years or more, so she didn't just make it up. One might question her interpretation, but it is certainly an interpretation a reasonable person might make and she doesn't appear to be making that interpretation honestly.
Personally I think the RFID for students is a bad idea for privacy reasons, and for that reason should not be required of any student. But looking at it purely on religious grounds the school should be making an exception for her (and without making her pretend she supports the policy).
I personally don't see any problem with students having to wear RFID badges while they are at school.
Put a reader on the entrance to the bathrooms so you can track how often and for how long every student is using the bathrooms. As a bonus you can use a computer to determine which students are frequently entering the restroom together.
Add more readers in the hallway so you can track Ms. Hernandez to find out who she hangs out with, who her boyfriend most likely is, when she goes to the restroom, how long she stays there, how often she's alone...
Put together a database for all the students and I'm sure you can sell it to both advertisers and potential employers so they can know which students were popular in school, which students hung out with the jocks, which students hung out with the dopers, which students were loners, which students hung out with emos, which students were geeks.
Simply taking class attendence doesn't get you all that. Even simple IDs on lanyards doesn't give you all that information. But an RFID chip opens a world of possibilities.
Also, they should have serial numbers tattooed on there arms.
You know, to go with the theme.
Good idea. And as reward for being so cooperative, everyone who remembers to get their tattoo should get a gold star, something they can sew on their clothes to let everyone know how patriotic they are.
Taking attendance pinpoints your location once an hour. RFID allows the school to pinpoint your location every second of the day. School uniforms don't allow you to track things like how many times a student goes to the restroom and how long she stays there each time. School uniforms don't allow you to analyze which other students she hangs around with or who her boyfriend is likely to be.
Had she taken the option to remove the RFID chip from her badge, her parents would have agreed to endorse the badging system. So they were willing to let her keep her privacy so long as her family gave up their right to free speech.
Regardless of whether all or just some of the money is used for schooling, the fact remains that the money for school is taken by force. It's not a choice.
Wearing a badge was actually required for high-school students in my country 20 years ago when we had a communist party ruling the country. It's funny how American democracy looks more and more like the "democracy" the communist party was preaching back then.
No. It's not funny.
by your own argument she isn't forced to use the govt's education system system either. she can either be home schooled or go to a private school. Some states will even give you vouchers to help offset some of the costs for the private schools tuition.
Will the government give her her property taxes back (or whatever taxes support the school system in her area) so she can afford the other kinds of education? The difference between the relationship between you and a state and the relationship between you and a corporation is the presence of force. If the corporation obtains your labor or your money then it is because you voluntarily give it to them (usually in exchange for something you want). In the case of schools the state is forcing you to pay for a service, and then forcing you to pay them for the education and forcing you to obtain an education.
So what if it benefits the students? When government takes away rights it usually tries to give you something in exchange to lessen the opposition.
Their daughter qualified for the superior school based on her gradesl, now she's being told to go to to a school less suited for her unless she gives up her rights. I would hardly call that being "offered another school".
The key point here is that the government has the monopoly on force in this situation. Miss Hernandez's family doesn't have the option to take her money and go elsewhere. If she could then she would have reason to object. She take her money and look for a school that is able to provide the same education for the same price. Or she could start her own school and attempt to attract other students who share her concerns.
If you've notified them and they can go somewhere else, then you're not infringing on their rights. You may go to prison but that's not becuase you violated their rights, its because the government is violating yours.
No right to privacy? There are cameras in the toilets then? Just because you own the property doesn't mean you can do anything you want to people in it. Or even do anything you want to the property.
If you make it clear to anyone who wishes to use your restroom that there are cameras in there - and you do so early enough that they aren't forced into using the restroom anyway due to an emergency, then yes you should have a right to put cameras there. People who volunteer to use your property should follow your rules - but they should do so knowingly and if you are doing things that violate people's reasonable expectations of privacy then you need to tell them up front before any violation occurs.
Nowadays in some places even squatters have some rights when staying in property that's not theirs!
No, squatters don't have rights when staying on property that isn't theres. They have privileges granted them by an insane government that doesn't care if it violates the rights of property owners.
Go look at the modern laws governing landlords and tenants. The old laws may have been different - back then if you were a tenant aka serf/peasant the Lord of the Land could fuck your girlfriend or wife (or you) whenever he wanted to, even on your wedding night.
Some rights are more important than others. The right of a husband outranks the right of property.
They are required by law to be at A school, not THIS school. There are many other options for schooling.
None that are practical for most people.
Dress code is less intrusive. In fact it's not intrusive at all. Also, home schooling is an option but it is a very difficult option. The government shouldn't be placing parents in the difficult position of having to quit their jobs and take up full-time education or else have their child's privacy massively intruded upon.
How is it different than using such a lanyard to enter your office at work?
First, you are not required to get at an office that requires you to wear a lanyard. You can work independently or choose a different company or you can choose to do nothing (you'll starve, but no one will bother you while you do it).
Second, lanyards don't always contain RFID. A badge only tells those you meet who you are and where you are. RFID can allows the government to track your every move. It's the difference between having a license plate on your car and having a tracking device installed on your car.
If you voluntarily enter someone's property, then they should have the right to set the terms of entry. If they want to put a sign up that says "no clothes allowed" then you had better get naked when entering their property.
However, students do not voluntarily enter school. They are required by law to be there. Requiring students to give up rights because they entered your property, when you forced them to enter the property, isn't fair.
But students are minors and are not granted the same rights as adults because they aren't as capable of accepting responsibility as adults. If some rights need to be restricted to maintain order - like drug sniffing dogs being allowed to check lockers without a warrent - then so be it but we should try not to over do it. This RFID thing is over doing it.
You can have that diversity within a single ethnic group.
I agree. But if all you have is a line up of 'white guys' then there is a strong signal you MIGHT not. So you should stand back and evaluate whether you actually have the best lineup you could have. You might, but odds are you don't.
Just go find people with different approaches to life.
Good idea. Of course, if you deliberately set out to "find a group of people with different approaches to life" and you end up with nothing but white guys...
In a country that is majority white.... I guess that would be similar to selecting 10 guys and somehow finding that 8 or 9 of the are black as seems to happen on a regular basis in the NBA. Are you suggesting that the NBA needs to re-evaluate its scouting practices to make sure they're not discriminating?
There is a lot of truth to what you say. I would note however that country of origin does make a lot of difference and can certainly add to diversity. I live and work around a lot of immigrants, and a lot of children of immigrants. Guess which ones I can most easily connect with! Whatever their race, I have a level of comfort with the native Americans (those born and raised in my country - this of course includes the children of the immigrants). I don't have that same comfort level with people who grew up outside the country. This includes discussions of code, politics, whatever. For politics it may seem surprising, but when I discuss it with one of my native countrymen who is the polar opposite of me ideologically, we understand each other better than the middle of the road foreigner who joins us. Why? Because we of the same country understand where each other is coming from. Though we disagree on tactics and preferred outcomes, we understand the ground rules and ways of thinking.
Culture matters. Race - not so much.
BTW, I notice you had to add "upper middle class", "silicon valley startup" to try to make your point. Isn't that racial stereotyping? You know, not all white males are upper middle class nor do all white males start silicon valley companies. There are rich white males, poor white males, lower middle class white males, white males who live and work in places far from Silicon Valley like Wisconsin, Florida, Washington D.C. Maine, Australia, Poland, Russia and, believe it or not, places like South Africa, Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore, and some of them suffer from racial discrimination and ethnic profiling.