Christian school pressures 'tomboy' to transfer

[WaeV 5,049]

If they're kicking her out just for being a tomboy, she's clearly better off elsewhere anyhow.

 

its a private institution. so theyre well within their rights to ask her to leave

Legal right, sure. Moral rights are what we're debating.

[Pandora 455]

only assumption made

 

sure looks like it

 

I didn't think my opinion would cause so much grief but that is what I deduced from the sections of the article quoted, debate those points. If a good student who is well mannered is kicked out of a school, what does it say about the quality of the school and the values it is trying to promote? 

You may make personal assumptions about me but I'll only just filter them out because it's futile in a debate. Anyways, time to go to work.

[varg 142]

Legal right, sure. Moral rights are what we're debating.

i agree its a retarded decision, but 'moral right' is irrelevant when they agreed to the terms

 

You may make personal assumptions about me but I'll only just filter them out because it's futile in a debate. Anyways, time to go to work.

lol what

[v3nture 1,209]

oh

it's fucking grav

[Pandora 455]

i agree its a retarded decision, but 'moral right' is irrelevant when they agreed to the terms

 

 

lol what

 

That is a poor argument to rationalise justice, you'd think there would be a reasonable overlap of the two.

Apartheid was a "legal right" once too in many countries but that doesn't make it right nor "a right." 

 

(As I said, I will filter it out).

[TCK 2,164]

>They agreed to the terms.

>That is a poor argument to rationalize justice.

 

The family agreeing to the terms legally justifies whatever decision is made by the school. That's the point of the school requiring them to agree to the terms before admitting them. Disagreement by the family or by outside parties is irrelevant, even if unanimous. Any "reasonable overlap" of moral right and legal right would be completely arbitrary and cannot overrule the fact that the school owns the property and can decide who is and who is not allowed on the grounds. I do not agree with the school's decision but I will certainly defend their right to make it.

[Skeezix the Cat 3,089]

>They agreed to the terms.

>That is a poor argument to rationalize justice.

 

The family agreeing to the terms legally justifies whatever decision is made by the school. That's the point of the school requiring them to agree to the terms before admitting them. Disagreement by the family or by outside parties is irrelevant, even if unanimous. Any "reasonable overlap" of moral right and legal right would be completely arbitrary and cannot overrule the fact that the school owns the property and can decide who is and who is not allowed on the grounds. I do not agree with the school's decision but I will certainly defend their right to make it.

I agree with this post, but the school still isn't christian (at least not the staff) and they're still a bunch of rancid cunts.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Skeezix the Cat

[Pandora 455]

>They agreed to the terms.

>That is a poor argument to rationalize justice.

 

The family agreeing to the terms legally justifies whatever decision is made by the school. That's the point of the school requiring them to agree to the terms before admitting them. Disagreement by the family or by outside parties is irrelevant, even if unanimous. Any "reasonable overlap" of moral right and legal right would be completely arbitrary and cannot overrule the fact that the school owns the property and can decide who is and who is not allowed on the grounds. I do not agree with the school's decision but I will certainly defend their right to make it.

 

No one is disagreeing with the school's current legal rights but this does not equate to justice in such a context. Ideally it shouldn't be anyone's legal right to discriminate (violation of another's basic human rights). People put so much emphasis on owning property, guns and things as their rights but then deny the basic rights of others to be who they are and try to equate this as justice.

 

My opinion still stands regarding the school's agenda and values, a school should be an institution of learning and in this context, it's definitely questionable.

If you wish to debate on legal right alone, this is an 8 year old female who likes "boys stuff" but identifies herself as female yet the school has made a judgement on her gender identity for her and furthermore has made a decision for her to stereotype her into their value system and hold her education to ransom because of it. I don't think anyone signs up for that otherwise this entire debate would not exist. I think I'll leave it there.

[TCK 2,164]

No one is disagreeing with the school's current legal rights but this does not equate to justice in such a context.

I'm not arguing whether they have the right, I was responding to what was said about it being unjust that they do. You cannot say that your morals and manners are what justice means, that is arbitration. What is NOT arbitrary is the fact that the school owns the property and can make any decision on who may reside there, regardless of motive. From an objective standpoint, justice has not been breached.

 

Ideally it shouldn't be anyone's legal right to discriminate (violation of another's basic human rights). People put so much emphasis on owning property, guns and things as their rights but then deny the basic rights of others to be who they are and try to equate this as justice.

The child does not have a basic human right to have her decisions accepted by everyone. It's not a violation of basic human rights for someone to discriminate against you; it is just impolite. The school did not like the way she was acting so it asked her to leave. No one can tell them that they should not have that right.

 

If you wish to debate on legal right alone, this is an 8 year old female who likes "boys stuff" but identifies herself as female yet the school has made a judgement on her gender identity for her and furthermore has made a decision for her to stereotype her into their value system and hold her education to ransom because of it. I don't think anyone signs up for that otherwise this entire debate would not exist. I think I'll leave it there.

They are not holding her education ransom, they are saying that she cannot continue it at their establishment. This is what's important: it is an opinion held by them that how she is behaving is inappropriate, and it is an opinion held by us that she is doing nothing wrong; however, their legal right gives them the ability to enforce their opinion. And that is exactly the way it should be, whether we like this specific instance or not. That is justice. Justice is, above all, cold.

[WaeV 5,049]

I'm not arguing whether they have the right, I was responding to what was said about it being unjust that they do. You cannot say that your morals and manners are what justice means, that is arbitration. What is NOT arbitrary is the fact that the school owns the property and can make any decision on who may reside there, regardless of motive. From an objective standpoint, justice has not been breached.

Lol, you can't just brush away all contemplation of morality like that. Sure, we may not have reached a complete consensus about what is right and wrong. Yes, the legal system is what we have to work with in the meantime. Heck, maybe our indignation won't achieve anything anyways! But we can still talk about what we think is right, rather than just perpetuating the current system and mindset.