• 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!

Student Suspended for Refusing to Wear a School-Issued RFID Tracker

I'm sure there are many examples. Some benign, some extreme.

It's my opinion that strapping these chips on people can and likely will lead to more things involving chips. If I am wrong, do you know the concept of strapping chips to people will go no further, ever?

you are free to have that opinion i was just curious if you could provide any logic for you assumptions, you dont have any so my concerns are still at a minimum that all. You original concern seemed to jump form something that was a right of the school/business to something that was a violation of rights and i wanted you to clear that up. Thats all :shrug:
 
you are free to have that opinion i was just curious if you could provide any logic for you assumptions, you dont have any so my concerns are still at a minimum that all. You original concern seemed to jump form something that was a right of the school/business to something that was a violation of rights and i wanted you to clear that up. Thats all :shrug:

Not sure I understood all of that.

In short, I question the notion of placing chips on people, and I think it is prudent to consider the possibilities. If this school and some other places do this, where else in the future? Will the chip always remain outside of the body, or, with sophistication, will they soon become implanted? Who knows. However, it's never illogical to be skeptical, and to ask questions.
 
1.) only by choice of the school not by rights
2.) again not even close, its school property and you can get home schooled
3.) good thing i didnt say its a good argument its just a fact nothing changes rights and freedom wise, on school property they have that right, again your example does not apply

4.) wrong again, she most certainly is stopped from going places all the time

like i said no rights or freedoms are being infringed and your examples are not relevant at all to this situation.

They are, but you don't want to see them is all. You say it's different from public because in public there are places you can go. But in school there are places students can go as well. Just like in public proper. But you don't want to address that, so you deflect away with "she can't go everywhere". You can't go "everywhere" in public either. Your argument is clearly of the "If you're not doing anything wrong" variety, and if that is to be valid argument, why would you not accept this on larger scale. You're not losing anything, yes? You are using that as a basis of argument. So if you're not losing anything, government may do anything, yes?
 
Not sure I understood all of that.

In short, I question the notion of placing chips on people, and I think it is prudent to consider the possibilities. If this school and some other places do this, where else in the future? Will the chip always remain outside of the body, or, with sophistication, will they soon become implanted? Who knows. However, it's never illogical to be skeptical, and to ask questions.

It is but the preliminary. People would object to forcing them to carry RFID in public, even though it would be no different than on the limited scale here. However, if you indoctrinate those people early on to accept this form of monitoring, when it's finally aggregated up there will be little to no complaints. Some people just don't understand the necessities and responsibilities required to maintain and keep a free state and happily applaud as we move further towards fascism and slavery.
 
It is but the preliminary. People would object to forcing them to carry RFID in public, even though it would be no different than on the limited scale here. However, if you indoctrinate those people early on to accept this form of monitoring, when it's finally aggregated up there will be little to no complaints. Some people just don't understand the necessities and responsibilities required to maintain and keep a free state and happily applaud as we move further towards fascism and slavery.

Like slowly "nudging" society to change.

This nudging can explain why today is so much different from the 50's.
 
They are, but you don't want to see them is all. You say it's different from public because in public there are places you can go. But in school there are places students can go as well. Just like in public proper. But you don't want to address that, so you deflect away with "she can't go everywhere". You can't go "everywhere" in public either. Your argument is clearly of the "If you're not doing anything wrong" variety, and if that is to be valid argument, why would you not accept this on larger scale. You're not losing anything, yes? You are using that as a basis of argument. So if you're not losing anything, government may do anything, yes?

nope they factually are not a violation of rights or freedoms.
It is in fact different from public property, shcools have the right to know who is on their property and when thats not true in public.
There was no deflection on ly facts that you cant argue against.
Sorry ill stick with facts and you can stick to what ever you choose, your examples fail because they are illogical and have no factual support.

I couldnt careless if they are doing something wrong or not, let me know when you have something factual to go on, ill gladly wait.
 
Not sure I understood all of that.

In short, I question the notion of placing chips on people, and I think it is prudent to consider the possibilities. If this school and some other places do this, where else in the future? Will the chip always remain outside of the body, or, with sophistication, will they soon become implanted? Who knows. However, it's never illogical to be skeptical, and to ask questions.

again i see no logic to go from this to implants as one is the schools/businesses rights and the other is not, these types of slippery slopes i just dont buy into with no logic.
 
It is but the preliminary. People would object to forcing them to carry RFID in public, even though it would be no different than on the limited scale here. However, if you indoctrinate those people early on to accept this form of monitoring, when it's finally aggregated up there will be little to no complaints. Some people just don't understand the necessities and responsibilities required to maintain and keep a free state and happily applaud as we move further towards fascism and slavery.

its totally different :shrug: this is a fact
 
I think the school is foolish to implement RFID tagging. Since they have the ability to track the whereabouts of each student, don't they also have an obligation to actually monitor this?

If they were that worried about the kids leaving the school building then they can place a guard at each of the entrances and exits and last I checked teachers still took attendance at the start of each class and called the parents when the child missed school. If they were worried about unauthorized personnel at the schools then they can mandate a simple uniform with just a simple photo school ID.

What I'm getting at is this - say a student sneaks off campus, heads to the wrong part of town to buy weed, and gets shot. Now, thanks to the RFID tags informing the school of the student's whereabouts, the school is partially liable for what happened to the student.


By implementing this program, the school is assuming additional responsibilities and liabilities that I doubt the school is prepared to handle from a staffing and financial perspective.
This is nothing more than attempt to use the kids to pave a way for mandatory tracking.Get the kids used to big brother at the school watching and tracking the kids and the kids grow up to be adults who kind this sort of **** acceptable and therefore will not resist when uncle Sam and employers want to make people wear tracking chips and chip implants. If a kid wants to skip school then they will leave the ID at home, give his ID to a friend who attends all the same classes or just leave the ID tracking chip in a locker.
 
again i see no logic to go from this to implants as one is the schools/businesses rights and the other is not, these types of slippery slopes i just dont buy into with no logic.

I'm sorry if you think it's illogical to question this chip stuff with skepticism.
 
I'm sorry if you think it's illogical to question this chip stuff with skepticism.

Governments and companies like their 'useful idiots' who well try to tell people that there is nothing to worry about.
 
I'm sorry if you think it's illogical to question this chip stuff with skepticism.

thats not what i said at all so you dont have to be sorry, its not even close to what i said

what i think is illogical is your huge leap from badges to implant from something that is the schools/business right to do to something that would require your rights to be violated or laws/rights rewritten.

Wondering about effectiveness, actual need etc is all fine and dandy, leaping for this to implants is nothing i could ever do with out some reasoning, seems like straight panic and conspiracy theory stuff to me. If there was any logic behind it that be fine but there none that anybody presented.
 
Governments and companies like their 'useful idiots' who well try to tell people that there is nothing to worry about.

yep because kids wearing badges are equal to forced implants to every citizen LMAO
damn if only we had these implants for years we'd know 9/11 was an inside job and that obama isnt a citizen.
 
thats not what i said at all so you dont have to be sorry, its not even close to what i said

what i think is illogical is your huge leap from badges to implant from something that is the schools/business right to do to something that would require your rights to be violated or laws/rights rewritten.

Wondering about effectiveness, actual need etc is all fine and dandy, leaping for this to implants is nothing i could ever do with out some reasoning, seems like straight panic and conspiracy theory stuff to me. If there was any logic behind it that be fine but there none that anybody presented.

It's not illogical to wonder and question what might happen next. As said before, there can and likely will be "progression" regarding this chip stuff, with time. We're not psychic, but we can question how far this could be taken.
 
It's the same :shrug: this is a fact.

no matter how many times you tell that lie its not

whos property are the kids on when they are being monitored? the schools
whos property are people in public on? nobody's

school has a right to monitor YOU on their property or you can simply choose not to be on their property

LMAO sorry, totally different and the facts support that. Let me know when you have anything to support your false claim. again ill wait :D
 
Last edited:
It's not illogical to wonder and question what might happen next.
As said before, there can and likely will be "progression" regarding this chip stuff, with time. We're not psychic, but we can question how far this could be taken.

again you keep repeating this but thats not what i called illogical, not even one time, so you can repeat it again it will have no meaning just like the first time when you said it.

nobody said its illogical to wonder what will happen next but when you next guess is head to tails different that is illogical
 
whos property are the kids on when they are being monitored? the schools

The government's in the case of public. It's private in the case of private.

whos property are people in public on? nobody

The government's. Duh! By extension, the People's...thus our own.

LMAO sorry, totally different and the facts support that. Let me know when you have anything to support your false claim. again ill wait :D

So now we see that the same people who own public land outside are the same who own public land for public school's and we can see that we are in fact on same ground.

Try to use that thing that occupies the space between your ears, nature worked hard and long to evolve that.
 
1.)The government's in the case of public. It's private in the case of private.



The government's. Duh! By extension, the People's...thus our own.



So now we see that the same people who own public land outside are the same who own public land for public school's and we can see that we are in fact on same ground.

Try to use that thing that occupies the space between your ears, nature worked hard and long to evolve that.

nice try but you are factually wrong LMAO
its school property and they have every right to monitor who is on it, until you can change this fact its a lost cause, you are simply desperate trying to make stuff up. This is why you tried the failed insult because you have no factual or logical path to take.

its fun watching you become uncivil when you are wrong.

again as always let me know when you have something FACTUAL to go on.
Public property and school property are not the same, FAIL.
 
Last edited:
To participate in school, students must give up some of their personal rights during the school day. Otherwise, how would a school be able to require a certain dress code, or place students in detention.

Well then, that is rather opposite of what government is for.
 
sorry they are not true, its not the students property and they have no right to go where they want where they please, this is just a fact

You keep saying that I have noticed. What makes you believe government actually owns property?
 
what i think is illogical is your huge leap from badges to implant from something that is the schools/business right to do to something that would require your rights to be violated or laws/rights rewritten.

There really is no difference other than one is on your person and the other is in your person.
 
nice try but you are factually wrong LMAO
its school property and they have every right to monitor who is on it, until you can change this fact its a lost cause, you are simply desperate trying to make stuff up. This is why you tried the failed insult because you have no factual or logical path to take.

its fun watching you become uncivil when you are wrong.

again as always let me know when you have something FACTUAL to go on.
Public property and school property are not the same, FAIL.

Public school property and public property are owned by the same thing...government. The fact that you are trying to make it seem like they are owned by different entities is nothing more than dishonesty. Instead of wasting your time writing "FAIL", why don't you instead write something that is factually correct.
 
You keep saying that I have noticed. What makes you believe government actually owns property?

school property is not your property its pretty simple
 
There really is no difference other than one is on your person and the other is in your person.

the HUGE difference is one violates your rights and one doesnt
one is within somebody's rights to do so and one is not
 
Back
Top Bottom