Certaindeaf
member
Some places they'll kill you for drawing a cross. Can you have a bible up there?
That argument as posted is the fallacious form of the slippery slope. The examples include existing abilities of the school to report possible criminal activity or to set rules on student behavior on site. There is no argument provided showing the transitive dependencies between those acknowledged abilities and "telling parents how to raise their children".Yes, it does, which makes me wonder you say it is in any way self contradictory. Perhaps I should have should said, "or worse." By "better, " I meant a better question.
My point was quite simple: give the school an inch, it takes a mile. Say one overreach is ok, and they all are. Result: the schools get to tell parents how to rear their children.
That argument as posted is the fallacious form of the slippery slope. The examples include existing abilities of the school to report possible criminal activity or to set rules on student behavior on site. There is no argument provided showing the transitive dependencies between those acknowledged abilities and "telling parents how to raise their children".
Any perceived subservience only exists as an inconsistent perspective, as far as those cases are concerned. With the lunch example, it has already been explained that the school is exerting its authority to control what students do while on the premises. This is no more "telling parents how to raise their children" than having a dress code or banning the chewing of gum in class, and yet there isn't outrage about those expressions. As to a child's innocuous declaration of a parent's violation of the law, it seems odd to make an exception for that specific case when it would be a severe lapse of judgement for schools to ignore an indication of crime(eg. child abuse).When a child's parent-prepared lunch is declared unsuitable or a child's innocuous behavior "on site" results in a parent's arrest, there is a direct connection to parental control being made subservient to state/school control.
The child's drawing raised alarm bells for what reason? Fear that her parent might be breaking a law? Or fear that the child might be in danger based on a parent's "inappropriate" behavior? Both answers are arguably correct, so it's matter of which answer was the one that drove the events.
Given the amount of the outrage being based on the police actions, that component would be absent in a place where ownership and carry is legal. That leaves the school principal and child welfare being involved. Which would largely be conversations and maybe a visit to the house to check on safe storage methods.Project the case onto, say, Virginia. Would the Virginia teacher still go to battle stations over the drawing, even though Virginia allows unregistered handgun ownership and even open carry? Sadly, I think she would. This case, being pretty well publicized, will serve to fuel that tendency.
Absolutely, they also allow the Necronomicon and The Fellowship of the Ring.Some places they'll kill you for drawing a cross. Can you have a bible up there?
Ah, you must be referring to the King James version and Nebakanezer, or you're just feeling cross.Absolutely, they also allow the Necronomicon and The Fellowship of the Ring.
I was just adding onto the levity of the faux culture war interjection into an otherwise boring explanation of the fallacies of the most recent moral panic.Ah, you must be referring to the King James version and Nebakanezer, or you're just feeling cross.
Alrighty then.I was just adding onto the levity of the faux culture war interjection into an otherwise boring explanation of the fallacies of the most recent moral panic.
...a child's innocuous declaration of a parent's violation of the law
That leaves the school principal and child welfare being involved. Which would largely be conversations and maybe a visit to the house to check on safe storage methods.
Ah liberalism. They think everyone else is stupid and therefor needs to be controlled. Freedom is great as long as they are the only ones that have it.
" When a teacher asked Neaveh who the man in the picture was, she purportedly said,... "She made no such declaration, nor was there any such violation.
Overreaction, pure and simple. Western society has become focused on making up rules to deal with what-if's. This is a bad plan.
Checking for other weapons, if their build is such that a patdown is likely to miss something, maybe?Without wading through 5 pages of thread, and oodles of google hits, can someone summarize for me the police's thinking in "strip searching" (I'm hoping cavity searches were NOT involved) a person for a firearm?