LogFAQs > #888854341

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Texas High School PHOTOSHOPPED this Teen Girl's Hair cause it was TOO BRIGHT!!!!
Drakeryn 10/21/17 12:40:07 PM #37:	all kinds of terrible analogies being thrown around in this topic Dancedreamer posted... How terrible it'd be if kids think they can express themselves, and do whatever they want! Why they might dye their hair orange and pink! Or kneel for the national anthem! starting with this. these are not comparable in any way. if kids can't dye their hair orange and pink, then I still think it's a pointless rule, but whatever. nobody really needs orange and pink hair. on the other hand, if kids can't express dissatisfaction with the nation in a peaceful protest, in a way that has zero impact on classroom learning, that's an actual serious problem. political discourse -- and the wider question of "should students be allowed to peacefully criticize their nation?" -- is not at all comparable to hair color. MZero11 posted... In the real world kids do stuff like text and drive, drive drunk, take dangerous drugs, and getting girls pregnant and abandoning them. So yes it would be terrible if kids think they can do whatever they want. and no, I'm not saying someone who dyes their hair is going to do all those things, but rules do help teach young people that there are restrictions and they can't just do anything they want yeah, we don't want kids to drive drunk or take dangerous drugs. but the takeway should not be "we need to teach kids that there are RESTRICTIONS." the takeway should be, "we need to teach kids to think about the consequences of their actions, both short-term and long-term, so that they make the best decisions for their future." like, a kid shouldn't be avoiding driving drunk because "well it's the rule." it should be because "I don't want to injure/kill myself or someone else." it's not about mindless rule-following; it's about understanding the purpose behind the rule, and agreeing with it, and taking action accordingly. by contrast, a rule against hair dye is solely an exercise in mindless rule-following. it's not teaching anything useful about consequences, or protecting their future. so it's also not comparable. --- another place and time, without a great divide, and we could be flying deadly high <cite>Drakeryn posted [p:888854341] in Texas High... [t:75898847]...</cite> <quote>all kinds of terrible analogies being thrown around in this topic <cite>Dancedreamer posted...</cite> <quote>How terrible it'd be if kids think they can express themselves, and do whatever they want! Why they might dye their hair orange and pink! Or kneel for the national anthem!</quote> starting with this. these are not comparable in any way. if kids can't dye their hair orange and pink, then I still think it's a pointless rule, but whatever. nobody really needs orange and pink hair. on the other hand, if kids can't express dissatisfaction with the nation in a peaceful protest, in a way that has zero impact on classroom learning, that's an actual serious problem. political discourse -- and the wider question of "should students be allowed to peacefully criticize their nation?" -- is not at all comparable to hair color. <cite>MZero11 posted...</cite> <quote>In the real world kids do stuff like text and drive, drive drunk, take dangerous drugs, and getting girls pregnant and abandoning them. So yes it would be terrible if kids think they can do whatever they want. and no, I'm not saying someone who dyes their hair is going to do all those things, but rules do help teach young people that there are restrictions and they can't just do anything they want</quote> yeah, we don't want kids to drive drunk or take dangerous drugs. but the takeway should not be "we need to teach kids that there are RESTRICTIONS." the takeway should be, "we need to teach kids to think about the consequences of their actions, both short-term and long-term, so that they make the best decisions for their future." like, a kid shouldn't be avoiding driving drunk because "well it's the rule." it should be because "I don't want to injure/kill myself or someone else." it's not about mindless rule-following; it's about understanding the purpose behind the rule, and agreeing with it, and taking action accordingly. by contrast, a rule against hair dye is solely an exercise in mindless rule-following. it's not teaching anything useful about consequences, or protecting their future. so it's also not comparable. --- another place and time, without a great divide, and we could be flying deadly high</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1