On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:37:09 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

> 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.

If you're going to shift, you should use an indicator (ie, turn 
signal). ;-)

> 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.

Sure, but again, as a private institution, they can make their own rules, 
as long as they don't violate the law or basic human rights.

> 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.

You might be surprised (as might I, I don't have any data on this 
hypothetical).

>> 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.

Dictionary definition time:

"the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust 
manner."

That's a matter of judgment, of course, because "unjust" is in the eye of 
the beholder, but I'd wager that the truly oppressed in the world are 
those like the Tamil Tigers, not my stepsons buddy who lives on the other 
side of town whose parents won't let him stay out after 10 PM.

> 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.

You're not using any traditional definition of "oppression", then.

> 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 disagree that weaker forms of oppression tend to be overlooked, 
but it's important as well to not overstate something.  ZT (ie, Zero 
Tolerance) policies are oppressive because they require those in 
authority to stop thinking and apply rules blindly, regardless of whether 
it makes sense to do so or not.  "Sense" isn't part of that equation.

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

All of them?  Probably not.  Some of them, you betcha there are some who 
do.  There are people who study this for a lifetime.

>> 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.

Then don't sugarcoat it as "oppression", which is a pretty flimsy word in 
this instance.  Call it what it is.  If a kid is being physically beaten 
by their parents, it's not "oppression", it's *abuse*.

Call the cops and report it as oppression and they may not take it as 
seriously as they should.  Call it "abuse", though, and that triggers a 
very specific set of rules they need to follow.  Law is like that - very 
precise.

I had a conversation with our local community liason from the Salt Lake 
City Police Department a couple months ago about a problem with a house 
in the neighborhood having loud parties at random times during the week/
month, and he advised me that when I call in, I should specify (assuming 
that I've seen it) that there are more than 3 people, that there is 
alcohol, and that there is loud noise.  Why?  Because that triggers a 
specific police response:  They send out their summer "party car" which 
in SLC can cause (a) the owner to be arrested if circumstances are right 
(ie the cops get called out more than 'x' times in 'y' period of time - I 
forget the exact specifics), and (b) the property owner can be billed for 
the police officer's time as "event crowd control" or somesuch.  If those 
three elements aren't specified, then the cops might drive by and tell 
the partygoers to keep the noise down, but that's about it, and the 
result is the party might break up for a little bit (people tend to 
disperse when the cops show up), and then 30 minutes after the cops 
leave, the party comes back, the music gets turned up, and things haven't 
changed.

But slap a bill on it for the police department's time and potentially a 
night's stay in a holding cell, people will change their behaviour if 
they're smart.

>>>>> 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.

I inferred it from "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." - I don't see how that isn't saying something 
about the kid being a proxy for the adult....

> 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.

Very likely, but a school is public property, and as such, first 
amendment rights should (IMHO) be protected there, regardless of whether 
we agree with the ideas of people engaging in free speech or not.  As 
long as they don't incite or disrupt, there should be no problem.

Jim

Post a reply to this message