In article <4a84b31f@news.povray.org>,
Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:29:09 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>
>> I myself wouldn't really, in this context, distinguish private from
>> public, though. 
>
> The private/public distinction is an important one.  In a private 
> Catholic school, such behaviour might be encouraged, and people bringing 
> in fliers promoting Judaism would probably be a bad idea - not from an 
> educational standpoint, but from a religious standpoint.  As a religious 
> institution, a Catholic school should have the right to dictate (within 
> certain limits, perhaps) what is and isn't appropriate.

You're talking about policy. I shifted to education.

Surely, Catholic schools people are humans too. The distinction here
is important in this context. I see no problem with them having a
class about Jesus' values in between mathematics and physics. It's
their lives.

Now, surely they can veto a Jew flier or whatever. It would be silly
of me to oppose such a formal rule, because in fact they don't need a
formal rule to veto that.

>> It's about education. Let me argue from an even tougher
>> perspect[ive]: family. If your parents are oppressing you, I think it kinda
>> is my business too. It's true that there may be virtually nothing I can
>> do about it, because I will not intervene in your family life in order
>> to do what I think is best.
>
> Other people's family relationships are generally not a good idea to get 
> into the middle of.  If parents are "oppressing" (do you really know what 
> oppression is?  Because while many teenagers *think* they're oppressed, 
> they're not) a kid, and I mean *really* oppressing them, then it's time 
> for the family court to get involved, not for nosy neighbors to get 
> involved.

That's a good question. What's oppression? I don't think I can give
you a formula in the world, even because the world has no easy
grammar, if any. I look at oppresion as a pattern of actions that deny
one's humanity[*], in any age.

Some people seem to be raised to be a soldier, or a religious leader,
or follower. I think that's clear oppression. These are pretty easy, I
think. There are difficult ones. Some people are raised to be
thinkers, others to be stupid, others to be drunk, et cetera. I
consider all of these cases of oppression as well. Of course, now it
is times for me to present the facts on that. This wouldn't be easy on
a newsgroup. The material I have seen are condensed in
hundreds-of-pages books, and even then they fail the rigor of physics,
chemistry, and even medicine --- not to mention mathematics.

But anyway, there are these weaker forms of oppression which tend to
be so overlooked; specially in schools. What's that song by Rush?
Subdivisions. 

In the high school halls
In the shopping malls
Conform or be cast out

In the basement bars
In the backs of cars
Be cool or be cast out

[*] I don't think anybody knows what are the fundamental properties of
``human nature.''

>> And if I ever do intervene, then it is my responsibility to show
>> beforehand that an intervention is indeed required, and I should get
>> approval from others. There is, in fact, a formal way of doing that:
>> calling the police, for example. That is, we hand to the state the task
>> of intervening.
>> 
>> Sometimes this can be justified. For example, if your parents beat you
>> up violently, regularly, I think that most people will agree that an
>> intervention is justifiable. So, if a private school is oppressing
>> people, I think it is people's business too. But there are Good and Bad
>> ways of doing something about that.
>
> Sure, but that's not "oppression" - that's abuse.  And there are specific 
> laws in the US that cover what must be done when abuse is suspected, 
> especially by teachers and people in a position of authority.

I think my definition up there would cover abuse.

>>>> Now I want to question the framework of the discussion. Why is a (six
>>>> year old?) kid interested in Jesus? Suppose you find an answer here by
>>>> talking to his family. Then you go ``aha.'' And that is why I don't
>>>> allow adults doing propaganda in my school. Home is just another
>>>> school; only more important.
>>>
>>> Where he got his interest is irrelevant.  We all learn from our
>>> families and our friends.  So what?  The reason the kid is exercising
>>> his free speech is not important.  He should be allowed to do so, as
>>> long as he's not disruptive or inciting people to harm others.
>> 
>> The paragraph I wrote has nothing to do with free speech, actually. I
>> changed the subject. ``Now I want to question the framework...'' This
>> sometimes falls outside the scope.
>
> Perhaps, but as I said, the reason for his interest isn't really 
> relevant.  It's an interest of his, for whatever reason.  You tied it 
> back to free speech by at least implying that the right to exercise free 
> speech shouldn't be allowed if it's done by proxy.  I don't think that 
> matters.

I don't think I implied that. But if my words did, I would fix them.
I can't think of any speech, regardless of context, that should be
prohibited.

By not allowing adults doing propaganda in my school, it's not that I
forbid the adult's speech. I think he can do that on the streets, in
the public buses where the kids go to go school, et cetera. In fact,
if there are people doing that, I'd say great: here's a real world
case to be discussed. But I'm not sure kids would be interested. They
might just wish to play.

Post a reply to this message