• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Girl, 9, barred from school for shaving head to support friend with cancer

You have a hard time blaming an administration who suspends a 10-year-old three days for making a pointy-finger gun? Really?

Sadly, yes. Doesn't mean I agree with it or I think it's the right decision, but yes...I have a hard time blaming school officials for having to deal with and adhere to zero tolerance policies that are basically a knee jerk reaction to idiocy on the opposite end of the extreme.

Or more to the point, I have a hard time blaming the school official singularly, rather than our society as a whole for causing the situation that has led us to this point.
 
want to effect change with a bureaucracy ... hit them in the pocketbook. hard!

Well hell, why not just rob them then? Or do you have some kind of magical list of which types of illegal actions you find acceptable to get money and which aren't?
 
Well hell, why not just rob them then? Or do you have some kind of magical list of which types of illegal actions you find acceptable to get money and which aren't?

how many rich robbers do you know about?

now, how many rich people do you know of, the ones who exploit the established system?
 
I'm not sure many would do that - as a charter school, it's likely that admissions are somewhat limited and hard to get and probably, otherwise, they provide a good education. Not many people will risk making waves on principle if it will potentially harm their own child. But certainly it would be nice if the parent association and other parents got behind this child/family and got the suspension waived even if the rule remains intact.
It might be an elite school that is difficult to get into, or not. Charter schools are not all the same. One thing they do have in common: They have to attract students. If no one goes there, the school closes.
 
Kinda-sorta but not really. Here, the issue is common sense...which isn't that common. This seems like a dumb, petty administrative decision to me.

Kids shaving their heads in solidarity with a classmate (or fellow Scout) is not anything new; I remember its being done in my community in the late '90's. All you can do is shake your head here.

I shake my head anytime a person's freedom of expression is violated.
 
Actually, my heart goes out to her if she is forced to wear a wig in school. She will be teased unmercifully.

If so the administration put their heads together and made a pile of rocks.
 
how many rich robbers do you know about?

now, how many rich people do you know of, the ones who exploit the established system?

Playing to emotions isn't debate, it's the sign of a desperate person with no argument

Rich people perpetrating fraud are ALSO doing wrong in my mind

Perpetrating fraud against "the rich" (of which I'm not even sure you could classify the school as such) doesn't magically make it legal or right.
 
You've seriously got to be kidding me.

Figures you'd focus on the hyperbole and ignore the serious points made in the post. I'll look forward to your next quippy gem as you peruse my posts in this and other threads.
 
It might be an elite school that is difficult to get into, or not. Charter schools are not all the same. One thing they do have in common: They have to attract students. If no one goes there, the school closes.

That's fair - charter schools, in general, tend to have good reputations and are desirable so they'd have to otherwise be pretty bad to lose students over this.
 
Playing to emotions isn't debate, it's the sign of a desperate person with no argument

Rich people perpetrating fraud are ALSO doing wrong in my mind

Perpetrating fraud against "the rich" (of which I'm not even sure you could classify the school as such) doesn't magically make it legal or right.

This whole issue is about emotions. It's about the empathy (capacity to recognize emotions) that a little girl showed towards the suffering that her friend was going through. Not recognizing that is a sign of a person who can't raise their nose out of a rule book and see the world going on around them.
 
Wouldn't that be an indictment on this whole thread?

Showing empathy is an indictment now? An indictment of a little girl who showed empathy and an indictment of those here and elsewhere who empathize with her because of it.
 
Perhaps people should not engage in hyperbole if they don't want people to comment on it.

Perhaps, or they could just recognize it for what it is. Is there a rule against using hyperbole to point out the ludicrous?
 
Perhaps, or they could just recognize it for what it is. Is there a rule against using hyperbole to point out the ludicrous?

No rule against it, but I didn't suggest it was an issue of the rule. It's an issue about credability and worth of ones argument.

Sure, a clown can come on stage, throw a pie in someones face, and then start talking about socio-economic issues between China and Russia. There's no law against doing that (in relation to your random strawman regarding "rules"). But it's also a completely reasonable notion that there will be a significant dearth of trust in terms of the clowns credability and worth in terms of his argument based on the surrounding context.

When one inserts blatant hyperbole into an argument without a clear and meaningful reason and thats not obviously connected directly and integrally to the point one is making then it clouds the entire argument in a context of bafoonery and cheap appeals to emotion and extremes for the sake of getting a reaction rather than making an argument. It's no one's fault but the individual presenting the hyperbole if people decide to focus on that portion, because they CHOSE to provide that oppertunity to their debate opponent by including it.

Nothing inherently wrong with Hyperbole, but if you choose to use it you gotta accept the baggage that comes with such a tactic imho. And that's not even talking about some who either don't have any other argument and just jump straight to hyperbole (They expelled a girl for a few days, GIVE THEM CANCER!) or who seemingly use hyperbole but end up being serious (They expelled a girl for a few days, THEY SHOULD'VE COMMITTED FRAUD!).

If it was integral to the point they were making, then it shouldn't be an issue that they focused on the hyperbole because it should still connect to the other points. If it WASN'T integral and doesn't connect, well then it's that persons fault for adding it in there if they didn't want it address. Complaining about it isn't useful, it just further highlights the lack of an argument that they had to begin with.
 
Last edited:
No rule against it, but I didn't suggest it was an issue of the rule. It's an issue about credability and worth of ones argument.

Sure, a clown can come on stage, throw a pie in someones face, and then start talking about socio-economic issues between China and Russia. There's no law against doing that (in relation to your random strawman regarding "rules"). But it's also a completely reasonable notion that there will be a significant dearth of trust in terms of the clowns credability and worth in terms of his argument based on the surrounding context.

When one inserts blatant hyperbole into an argument without a clear and meaningful reason and thats not obviously connected directly and integrally to the point one is making then it clouds the entire argument in a context of bafoonery and cheap appeals to emotion and extremes for the sake of getting a reaction rather than making an argument. It's no one's fault but the individual presenting the hyperbole if people decide to focus on that portion, because they CHOSE to provide that oppertunity to their debate opponent by including it.

If it was integral to the point they were making, then it shouldn't be an issue that they focused on the hyperbole because it should still connect to the other points. If it WASN'T integral and doesn't connect, well then it's that persons fault for adding it in there if they didn't want it address. Complaining about it isn't useful, it just further highlights the lack of an argument that they had to begin with.

Gee, when you decide to get on your pompous high-horse, it might be wise to do a little bit of spell checking before you try to get all superior on someone.

I wasn't complaining about anything. Since you seem to need to defend Kobie, perhaps you'd like to go back and review the discussion that I had with him - not you. He made a snide comment about one of the points I made and I made a snide comment about the point he made. Where's the complaining, except in your fantasy need to adjudicate a non-issue.
 
Gee, when you decide to get on your pompous high-horse, it might be wise to do a little bit of spell checking before you try to get all superior on someone.

Do you not note the irony that you do what you were claiming about...taking a subset issue about my post (in this case my spelling) and complaining about that rather than focusing on the various points I made?

Notice, I'm not complaining that you're focusing on my spelling as opposed to dealing with all the different points I made. I simply typed rather than worried about running a spell check, and that opens myself up to have my posts criticized on that level.

I wasn't complaining about anything.

It appeared otherwise to me.

Since you seem to need to defend Kobie,

Strawman. I have no need ot defend kobie. I disagreed with a statement you made. The target of it, or a desire to "defend" them, had nothing to do with my post.

perhaps you'd like to go back and review the discussion that I had with him - not you.

You're posting on an open discussion board, not a private message. Whether you were having a discussion with him or not is irrelevant. You made a comment, I disagreed with a portion of that comment, so I commented. If you didn't want other people to respond to your comment other than Kobie perhaps you should've engaged him in a less public venue on the issue.
 
Do you not note the irony that you do what you were claiming about...taking a subset issue about my post (in this case my spelling) and complaining about that rather than focusing on the various points I made?

Notice, I'm not complaining that you're focusing on my spelling as opposed to dealing with all the different points I made. I simply typed rather than worried about running a spell check, and that opens myself up to have my posts criticized on that level.



It appeared otherwise to me.



Strawman. I have no need ot defend kobie. I disagreed with a statement you made. The target of it, or a desire to "defend" them, had nothing to do with my post.



You're posting on an open discussion board, not a private message. Whether you were having a discussion with him or not is irrelevant. You made a comment, I disagreed with a portion of that comment, so I commented. If you didn't want other people to respond to your comment other than Kobie perhaps you should've engaged him in a less public venue on the issue.

I have no interest in prolonging this discussion and being accused by a moderator of hijacking a thread. If you want irony, it would be a moderator hijacking a thread about a 9 yr old girl barred from school and trying to make it about the posting style of another member.
 
Back
Top Bottom