Originally posted by King Kandy
...
Yes, it really is. Taking in a lot of kids to get discounts on colleges you wouldn't have had to pay for if not for those same kids, is a terrible idea.
You wouldn't have had to pay for? No, that's against the entire premise.
The premise is a husband and wife makes too much money to send their only child to college, so they have kids, or become foster parents, so their child and now their foster children, can qualify for a grant...and attend college.
Actually, the foster parent thing is a good idea as it benefits far more than the original family of 3.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It is far easier for a lower class family, financially, to send their children to college than a middle class family.
I don't know if that is true, but I agree with the senitment. A lot of times the perception of how much post-secondary education costs is a greater deterent than the actual costs.
The problem is, the effects of poverty often impact education long before graduation. Hell, stuff like parental education and their personal motivation for education impact kids as soon as they get into school.
I don't think it is really relevant to the topic anyhow. OFM brough up private school and homeschool as options that parents have as opposed to following arbitrary rules being enforced by their tax dollars. The unfortunate fact being, neither are really viable options for the majority of the public. That and other issues I would take with the attitude of "do what you are told"
Originally posted by dadudemon
You wouldn't have had to pay for? No, that's against the entire premise.The premise is a husband and wife makes too much money to send their only child to college, so they have kids, or become foster parents, so their child and now their foster children, can qualify for a grant...and attend college.
Actually, the foster parent thing is a good idea as it benefits far more than the original family of 3.
Originally posted by Red Nemesisthose are the choices presented. Homeschool, private school, or follow the rules.
Knightfall does not have a good point.Knightfa11, you do not have a good point.
1. Private schools are expensive.
2. Homeschool puts an undue financial burden on the family. At least one parent would have to not go to work in order to provide instruction. This is not a fair situation to impose on someone that wants the services offered. It is a completely different situation from your krazy kreashionist kookyhead brethren because they want the school not to teach their student something. This family is only asking for the public service mandated by law to be free.
If you want your son to be an anti-conformity free-man who has a different standard of dress, don't send him to conformity center. (see music video pink floyd's "another brick in the wall" for my opinion of public school.)
As I have said, the current system is broken in every single way and needs to be torn down forcibly and rebuilt diligently by its citizens. Choice is but an illusion of control.
Also, pre-kindergarten is not a required public service.
I don't believe the school should worry about long hair, but I find that the parents decided to screw with the school by leaving their kids hair the way they wanted it after the school had expressed displeasure preposterous. Also when the school allowed them to compromise, they rejected it.
If the parents cared about their kid rather than making a fashion statement, they would have accepted the compromise or cut his hair. It's the parents who have made the mistake. The school was just enforcing their rules.
Originally posted by Robtard
"officials say the district’s dress code serves to limit distractions in the classroom". So why isn't this "no long hair" dress code enforced with girls? (I'm betting it's not)More proof than it's nothing more than "boys need to look this way and girls need to look this way" type of bullshit and nothing to do with distractions and ruining of education. Be nice if they were at least upfront about it.
If they kid's parents were smart, they'd just have said it's for religious reasons.
This.
Originally posted by One Free Man
those are the choices presented. Homeschool, private school, or follow the rules.If you want your son to be an anti-conformity free-man who has a different standard of dress, don't send him to conformity center. (see music video pink floyd's "another brick in the wall" for my opinion of public school.)
As I have said, the current system is broken in every single way and needs to be torn down forcibly and rebuilt diligently by its citizens. Choice is but an illusion of control.
Also, pre-kindergarten is [b]not
a required public service.I don't believe the school should worry about long hair, but I find that the parents decided to screw with the school by leaving their kids hair the way they wanted it after the school had expressed displeasure preposterous. Also when the school allowed them to compromise, they rejected it.
If the parents cared about their kid rather than making a fashion statement, they would have accepted the compromise or cut his hair. It's the parents who have made the mistake. The school was just enforcing their rules. [/B]
People have no moral obligation to obey stupid, pointless, destructive rules.
Originally posted by King KandyI think we should throw every person who doesn't pay 1/3 of their money away every paycheck into jail. Don't like it? sucks.
I personally think we should just kill every guy with long hair. Don't like the rule? Well to bad, if you cared about your kid you would just cut his hair and accept it.People have no moral obligation to obey stupid, pointless, destructive rules.
I think we should force people to buy insurance for their car, regardless if they can cover the cost of an accident out of pocket. Don't like it? Don't drive.
I think we should make freon illegal based on the fact that dupont's patent ran out and they claim that it is bad for the environment so their next formula will be patented. Don't like it? don't put air conditioning solvent in your car.
I think we should make it illegal for you daughter to continually show her midriff in school. Don't like it? she gets suspended.
I think we should make it illegal to have streetglo lights in california. Don't like it? pay outrageous fines.
There's plenty of laws that have no reason for existing.
Originally posted by One Free Man
I think we should throw every person who doesn't pay 1/3 of their money away every paycheck into jail. Don't like it? sucks.I think we should force people to buy insurance for their car, regardless if they can cover the cost of an accident out of pocket. Don't like it? Don't drive.
I think we should make freon illegal based on the fact that dupont's patent ran out and they claim that it is bad for the environment so their next formula will be patented. Don't like it? don't put air conditioning solvent in your car.
I think we should make it illegal for you daughter to continually show her midriff in school. Don't like it? she gets suspended.
I think we should make it illegal to have streetglo lights in california. Don't like it? pay outrageous fines.
There's plenty of laws that have no reason for existing.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I agree. That's why we should never attempt to change any law, ever. If you're under the foot of tyranny, I suppose you think the best way to fix that is just to lay back and think about something else? I guess that works for you, but it solves nothing.
Originally posted by One Free Man
As I have said, the current system is broken in every single way and needs to be torn down forcibly and rebuilt diligently by its citizens. Choice is but an illusion of control.
Originally posted by Robtard
A girl's longer hair doesn't disrupt the class, but somehow a boy's does?
Sorry, Robtard, but the answer to that is- yes it does (or at least, yes it can). Long hair on a girl does not cause the distraction that long hair on a boy does, because it is less usual on a boy. The thinking behind the rule is to prevent the distracton caused by people continually mocking or discussing unusual appearance. Agree or disagree, there is a logic there- kids DEFINITELY do such things- and there are many times that classes have been disrupted in this way. Hence, a school has a right to make rules to try to prevent such disruption. If any of you think this rule makes no sense because it does not apply to girls as well as boys, you are simply wrong. Long experience speaks to the contrary.
I am with the "they knew the rules; stick to them" crowd here. You can petition to have rules changed but it is not appropriate to simply break them, and if you think a rule about hair length is worth getting into such a tizz about then you are simply a fool. I actually have a general contempt for those convinced that this is some sort of moral 'fight the nazi power' issue.
That's how it is. As I say, long experience speaks to it. Very easy for people to just say "oh, that is clearly illogical because it does not apply to girls" but that just demonstrates ignorance. As I also clearly stated the reasoning behind the rule there, your complaint makes no sense either so please think before posting next time.
The problem is here that a forum like this place represents a demographic where so many of you have no appreciation of the problems behind trying to organise general education and the rules this requires; it is easy for you to stereotype the school as having facist, illogical rules that you can feel a moral superiority by mocking. This might make you feel like a better person but it has no connection to practical issues.
There IS a debate that can be had about the validity of hair length rules. If I had a say in policy, I'd argue for such rules to be relaxed. But I can see the reasoning behind their existence. I can appreciate the position, and I can see the foolishness of the lie that just goes "This is an idiotic and wrong law."
And it is a long, LONG way from being such an absurd law that you have a moral get out in not following it. It's the rule; stick to it.
In response to Ushgarak, the following applies:
Think before posting? Lawl.
I know of many people whom are older than you that can disagree with what you said and also claim it's because of 'long experience'; it's just an easy argument to make without making further reasoning as to why you feel.
I think you are wrong, so it's as simple as that. Your reasoning stems most likely from the way you were brought up and what you perceive as 'normal', ie. girls should have long hair and boys should have short hair. What if you were raised into thinking the reverse? Then you'd be arguing a completely different rhetoric to me. 'It just is' simply isn't good enough -- not for me, and I'm sure it's not good enough for many people.
I'm too lazy among other things to post a genuine response in retaliation, so I take it you'll forgive me. I'll post a long-*** response tomorrow if I feel up to it, if not I'm hoping someone will post in my stead. **** it.
Well, thanks for the mature post full of good points. Really put me in my place, that has. Especially your "I know of many people who are older than you" bit. That was really classy. Also your attempt to argue that relative experience on my part has anything to do with it, when this is obviously a cultural norm. Like I say, if you don't think that boys having long hair in school are more likely to draw attention than girls, then you are such so wrong it's not even worth arguing with you, and I couldn't give a damn whether you think that is good enough for you or not- you may as well be arguing that the moon is made of cheese.
(And to re-iterate- that's not to say I even think the law is a good idea. But there is a reasoning behind it, and in a debate like this there must be a certain level of maturity in recognising all the issues involved.)
Sorry, but you clearly have absolutely no idea at all about the logic behind a dress code, and your attack on this is a knee-jerk reaction of ignorance based upon a false sense of moral superiority. Many people on a forum such as this will think in such a way, but that does not ennoble the practice.
As for thinking before posting, I am serious. Your last post was basically a lie, implying I had not given any support to my argument when in fact I had. If you keep posting like that it eventually becomes trolling or flaming... so don't post like that.