LogFAQs > #951002790

adjl posted...

Pretty much any discussion around a subject like this doesn't care about the question of "did they break the rules?", instead focusing on the question of "should this rule exist?". Obviously the rules were broken. Treating that like the end of the discussion is just intellectually lazy, and anyone who doesn't plan to contribute more than that really shouldn't bother trying to participate.

What's intellectually lazy is trying to swerve the discussion in that direction. Society is built upon agreements between individuals. If you agree to something -- and you're mentally competent to do so, not impaired, or deceived -- you're obligated to uphold your side of the agreement. If you think that you can't make good on your end, don't fucking agree to it. Simple as that. Instead of wanting a million special exceptions because you think things "should" be a certain way, just don't enter into the agreement. And anybody who points out that people should stand by their obligations is contributing more to the discussion than anybody engaged in special pleading.

Now there is one other caveat, and that would be if the agreement was either illegal (and therefore invalid) or poorly spelled out.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Well, still, let momma have some fun, Catholic schools are expensive.

Then pick a school that better aligns with your values. Clearly they're not living a very Catholic lifestyle anyway.

---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.