🚀 go-pugleaf

J.M. Ivler wrote:

> No. I took your reasoning (as flawed as it was) and took it to the next
> logical step. A dress code and uniforms are not equal. I have never
> indicated in any of my posts tghat I opposed a dress code. I have
> indicated that I oppose uniforms unless you can point to the problem that
> they are to solve, and demonstrate that they have solved that problem in
> the past.
>
> It is the difference between having a law that says the speed limit is
> 25MPH and having a regulator installed on your car. One is acceptable, the
> other is an invasion.
>

The next logical step? I missed that one...
Dress codes and uniforms are equal if the community decides that they are.
I don't recall claiming that they solved any specific problem. I merely stated that
for some communities uniforms take away the trivial task of enforcing a dress code.
For some this is a positive thing.

Are pollution control devices, air bags, etc... all invasions? How about car
registrations, drivers licenses or the fact that I can't drive in the car pool lane.
Are those all violations of my "rights" as well.  This is a questionable analogy.

> Joseph, Joseph, Joseph. When I went to school (back in the dark ages) I
> had the pleasure of growing up on the east coast. The kids I went to
> school with included mafiaso kids. These kids were the kids of people who
> were in the biggest, baddest gang of their time (and may still be).

Ok... You lost me, what exactly does you having attended school with mafia kids have
to do with this discussion?

> [..... sundry drivel deleted for brevity.]
>
> There have always been guns, and gangs. The fact is that today we don't
> have parents that say "Tommy, don't bring the gun to school" and then
> enforce that rule by the will of parental control. Today we have kids
> dicatating what they can and will do to their parents.

Well, if they had any parental control in the first place I doubt that Tommy would own
a gun . Do you?

This point you keep harping on; we all know there are gobs of parents that do not have
control of there children. Simply pointing it out does not offer a resolution.

Question: If he did own one would they refer to it as a  "Tommy gun"?

>
> My draconian solution is to kill the asswipes and sterlize the
> incompetant parents so they can't repeat their mistakes.

Wow, paranoid and hostile. There's a scary combination.

> Since society
> won't permit that, I propose that we remove any "child" that carries a
> weapon on campus from the campus permanantly (in addition, we have them
> charged and let the criminal justice system deal with them). Note that
> none of these solutions deals with how they dress. I really don't care
> what a kid wears, I do care what they do.

Yes, and everyone else cares what they do also. I have already agreed that the
criminal justice system should deal with them. Again, this is after the fact, after
the damage has been done. Many schools already have metal detectors and armed guards
roaming the halls. Uniforms should be one more tool in their arsenal to keep
undesirables out.

> KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. Overly complex solutions have problems of
> thier own. Do a root cause analysis of the problem. Determine what it is
> that needs to be fixed. The real problem, not some symptom. Then FIX THE
> FRIGGIN PROBLEM! IF the state can't fix the problem (and the state can not
> fix all problems because doing so would violate our individual rights to
> be assholes) then we have to develop ways to deal with the "problem" after
> it manifests. In this case the solution lies in the criminal justice
> system.
>

I never said anything about a complex solution. I said it was a complex question that
you insist on evading and oversimplifying with a cute acronym. I do not know of a
single place that kids are not tried as adults if they kill or maim. It still has not
resolved the problem.

> : Those personal problems tend to slop over onto others. They tend to involve
> : people who don't have a problem. Just ask the families of the children who were
> : shot to death a few weeks ago in the school down south if they thought there was
> : a problem in the school.
>
> No, there was a serious problem at HOME. That home based problem slipped
> into the school. Did they not realize that there was a troubled kid in the
> system? I don't know, but go back and see what the comments were from his
> first, second, third grade teachers.

You missed the point so I will repeat it for you. Read carefully. "Those personal
problems tend to slop over onto others." You see? There are problems at home and they
are bringing them to school with them.
In your earlier post you implied the kids that have problems at home do not bring them
to school. That is not a very realistic point of view, is it?

> Nice strawman. Here is a situation, the proposed solution we have been
> discussing has nothing to do with it. People think like you now have to
> deal with it. Joseph, I expected better. We both know that this had
> nothing to do with "uniforms" and that "uniforms" wouldn't have prevented
> squat in the killings that took place. As for parents who felt that way
> before, there are many who still feel that way. And they don't have to
> deal with it, the whole community has to deal with it. They have to wonder
> how some "good boys" went so bad. They have to question the ethics and
> morality that permitted this to flourish under their eyes, without them
> noticing. They have to ask themselves if they were the parents of those
> kids, would they be sitting there today wondering what went so wrong...
>

Accusing me of the straw man fallacy is invalid since I was not evading a stronger
argument. One never existed.
You made the claim about not being part of a larger community. I was simply pointing
out that in most places the school is the focal point of the community (at least for
those of us with children).
To bury ones head in the sand and proclaim it is someone else's problem is not very
realistic and irresponsible especially if you have children in that school.

I did not say the use of uniforms would have prevented anything.  I made that
sufficiently clear.

> I am truly an uneducated lout. But, in this case you guessed wrong. If you
> like I can also quote Freud (both father and daughter), Ericson, Skinner,
> et al. Proving that I have spent time in our hallowed halls of higher
> education by being overeducated in psychology, sociology and other
> persuits of liberal arts education doesn't mean squat in this discussion.
>

Ok... But then I would not have expected someone with a classical education  to have
made such a felonious assertion. When you make spurious references you should expect
them to be pointed out.

If you do not want to be treated like an "uneducated lout" try not to sound like one.

> Same was true in my day. We had bullies and assholes. So what.

Except now the bullies shoot you instead of just beating you up and taking your lunch
money.

So what....

> No, it means suspension, expulsion and active disipline. It means calling
> parents into school, and when they say "I can't control my kid" having a
> person from the "state" there to offer to put the kid into a "foster"
> situation. To take the kid away. If a parent can't control their kid, then
> maybe they ought not be a friggin parent!
>

Yeah, so... I don't disagree with that. What does that have to do with my original
premise?

Again,  public education is a collective and a community endeavor. Order has to be
maintained and in some (not all) instances that means uniforms.

> No, I'm not "depending" on them. I pay for it. For instance the same
> houses across the street from one another cost $40,000 differnce because
> one is in the Los Alamitos School District and one is in the Cypress
> School District. Same houses, built by the same builder, the same year.
> Why? Because the LosAl School District is rated #6 in CA and Cypress
> doesn't show up in the top 100. How do I know that? I *chose* to buy in
> LosAl. I PAID for a better school district. I don't depend on the state...
> I paid the state and I do every year in higher property taxes.
>

That's nice... But like I said before, Your child is still in a "public" school that
is run by "the state". Where you bought your house or how much you paid is of no
consequence or concern to anyone but you. It does not change the fact that you are one
voice within the community. The school still decides many things about education and
discipline policies in your behalf within that institution. I pay high property taxes
here too. So what's your point.

Like I said before. If we did not think the public school was acting in our children's
best interests we would have them  in a private school.

> The greater good has to be proven. We don't put speed limiters on peoples
> cars so they can't drive more than 25MPH. We create a rule and post it.
> Then we enforce the rule through random application of the rule. Since you
> don't know when a cop will be waiting to pull you over, you make the
> assumption that the cop is always there to enforce the rule. There is no
> reason why you can't do 50MPH, and you might even get away with it, but
> there is a price to pay if you get caught.
>

Very true the greater good has to be proven. You have made my point  with the cop and
50 mph thing. Albeit, not very eloquently but none the less.

What if the rule was that children wear uniforms to school?

If that were indeed true there would be no question about what was acceptable attire.
Hence; enforcing the rule would be considerably simplified. If you don't wear the
uniform to school you run the risk of getting sent home.

> We don't builod a park becuase we think that building it will get rid of a
> symptom. We build parks because the community expresses a desire to have
> one. Because it is wanted. And, in some cases we don't build parks for
> those same reasons.
>

Exactly, I did not say it did. The community can also express a desire that  uniforms
be used in their schools.

> PROVE THIS. Prove that this is an outcome. Show me where this is so. YOU
> CAN'T. That's the bottom line. There is no proff of any of this
> supposition. Uniforms don't do this. A bad kid in a uniform is still a bad
> kid. Clothes don't make character.

You pointed out in an earlier post that statistics have shown (in some communities)
uniforms have made for a positive change. I don't know if there is any "proff" or
proof of this. I merely stated that in some schools children are asked to wear
uniforms if the community feels it will elicit good behavior and citizenship.

Note, I never said that I thought it would. But, as long as you brought it up can you
prove that it does not?

> Why do you insist on putting these two very different concepts together?

If the written policy at school is that students wear uniforms then I guess that would
be their dress code. Wouldn't it? Ya see, they are the same if the community deems it
so.

> No. I paid to live in a school district that believes in disipline. I paid
> to live in a school district that never left the three R's for all those
> fancy "empowering the student" crap programs. I paid to live in a school
> district where they recognize and reward success. I paid to live in a
> school district where the teachers get paid what they are worth, so they
> stay and educate the kids instead of babysitting them.

The three "R's" ? More clich�s....
Sounds to me like you are the one endorsing "empowering the student" "crap" (is that a
technical term?). By, making grandiose claims about "the state" infringing on your
children's "rights" to attire however they want.

In some cases we let the people that are hired by the school with our tax dollars
decide what is the best way to bring order and structure to the institution.
They should do whatever is required to ensure order is maintained. That way they can
get on with the business of teaching. Whether uniforms have anything to do with it or
not; that  is what we pay them to do.

If you have a problem with that then again I must insist, home schooling is something
you should look into.

> Like I said Joseph, I'm an "uneducated lout" and you are right. Your
> mixing of apples and oranges and calling them fruits is so much better an
> argument than my "life experience". Your strawman is just a work of art,
> and a true testiment to your fine honed Usenet skills. I obviously live to
> type random incoherant cliches into the computer. In fact, you have
> figured me out... I'm not real at all, I'm a bot.


I would never have used "uneducated lout" ; I would  say pontificating troglodyte
would be a more fitting description. Thank you but, I won't be taking that route.
Please; if you insist on accusing me of fallacious reasoning have some grasp of what
you are applying. Your desultory attempts to derive a suitable argument is risible and
offers little challenge.

It appears that your "life experiences" are pretty provincial, one-dimensional and
execrable.

       - " I obviously live to  type random incoherant cliches into the computer." -
That would have been my guess but I was not going to bring it up.

If you are indeed a "bot" I would ask the programmer that created it to shut it down
and start checking his/her logic.
--
Regards;
Joseph E. Taranta