What Would You Do?

[MathGeek]

The rhetorical approach of mocking to create a straw man fallacy is unwarranted.

The matter at hand is whether a young man should be allowed to respectfully refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance in spanish because doing so troubles his conscience.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The rhetorical approach of mocking to create a straw man fallacy is unwarranted.

The matter at hand is whether a young man should be allowed to respectfully refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance in spanish because doing so troubles his conscience.

I think duckman is trolling right? Let me rephrase that, I HOPE duckman is trolling


They are pledging allegiance to the USA, whats the problem? Y'all are overthinking this, no need to write letters or call congressmen or lose your job over it

[Goooh]

It appears we were screwed a long time ago. I'm boycotting all English.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1393345223.670714.jpg

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I think duckman is trolling right? Let me rephrase that, I HOPE duckman is trolling


They are pledging allegiance to the USA, whats the problem? Y'all are overthinking this, no need to write letters or call congressmen or lose your job over it

A person's right to exercise his conscience in refraining from an objectionable act does not and should not depend on whether that objection of conscience is reasonable to the majority or the instituting authority.

Attempts to de-legitimize the objection of conscience only serve to justify the state forcing the objectionable act upon the individual.

The idea behind the words, "This is not the big deal they are making it out to be" has been used to attempt to force all kinds of people to violate their consciences.

My point is that if a person's conscience is violated, it is a big deal to them, and the state should not be forcing people to violate their consciences.

Suppose an angler had a problem of conscience killing fish he caught that he did not intend to eat. Should the state make and enforce a law requiring that every specimen of some invasive species (say Northern Pike in some western streams and reservoirs) be killed immediately after it is caught? Should anglers be forced to kill fish they do not intend to eat, even if doing so violates their conscience?

To be sure, killing invasive species is good fisheries management, and I do not understand why someone would object to good fisheries management. But the exercise of free conscience should not depend on the reasonableness of the objection to the majority or to the governmental authority.

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

A person's right to exercise his conscience in refraining from an objectionable act does not and should not depend on whether that objection of conscience is reasonable to the majority or the instituting authority.

Attempts to de-legitimize the objection of conscience only serve to justify the state forcing the objectionable act upon the individual.

But the exercise of free conscience should not depend on the reasonableness of the objection to the majority or to the governmental authority.

this statement can be applied to everything you are against...gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, the representation of cultural diversity in America...

[Clampy]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

this statement can be applied to everything you are against...gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, the representation of cultural diversity in America...

Well said. Here we go another 100 comments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

A person's right to exercise his conscience in refraining from an objectionable act does not and should not depend on whether that objection of conscience is reasonable to the majority or the instituting authority.

Attempts to de-legitimize the objection of conscience only serve to justify the state forcing the objectionable act upon the individual.

The idea behind the words, "This is not the big deal they are making it out to be" has been used to attempt to force all kinds of people to violate their consciences.

My point is that if a person's conscience is violated, it is a big deal to them, and the state should not be forcing people to violate their consciences.

Suppose an angler had a problem of conscience killing fish he caught that he did not intend to eat. Should the state make and enforce a law requiring that every specimen of some invasive species (say Northern Pike in some western streams and reservoirs) be killed immediately after it is caught? Should anglers be forced to kill fish they do not intend to eat, even if doing so violates their conscience?

To be sure, killing invasive species is good fisheries management, and I do not understand why someone would object to good fisheries management. But the exercise of free conscience should not depend on the reasonableness of the objection to the majority or to the governmental authority.

I applaud you and your daughter for standing up for what you think is right. We are all entitled to do that, but we also have to face the consequences - i.e. getting an F, or getting fired. To me those decisions can affect you the rest of your life in a much more negative way than reading some book (I don't think the book your daughter was reading was Mein Kampf).

What book was it that your daughter was supposed to read that was worth you and your wife no longer having a job?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

this statement can be applied to everything you are against...gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, the representation of cultural diversity in America...

Not really in the way you think. The objection is with the use of force to override the individual conscience.

So if a bakery or church has an objection of conscience to providing services for a gay marriage, then the government should not force them to.

Cultural diversity should be represented in America, and I am in no way against that. I would be against forcing private parties to accommodate representation against their own wishes.

There are key differences in forcing private citizens to perform acts which violate their conscience and restricting them from certain acts through due process of Constitutional law. The boundaries of due process of Constitutional law to place behavioral restrictions are well established and explicitly enumerated.

And yes, there is a long history of feigning objections of conscience to avoid submitting to reasonable exercise of governmental authority. Lots of purported "conscientious objectors" to various wars were merely cowards trying to avoid military service. The movie, Sgt. York, had a good portrayal of a reasonable approach to accommodating a true conscientious objector and helping one work through the issues within the boundaries of his faith and conscience.

The question of malingering regarding school assignments is easily addressed by allowing alternate assignments in cases where the original assignment offends the conscience. I'm sure there are many good pieces of similar length and difficulty that can be learned and recited in spanish if reciting the Pledge of Allegiance offends an individual's conscience.

The proof of an authority's lust for power is when they refuse to allow an alternate assignment and insist on forcing a student to violate their conscience.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

What book was it that your daughter was supposed to read that was worth you and your wife no longer having a job?

You miss the point entirely. The point is that there is no job worth parents forcing a child to violate the child's conscience.

Likewise, in the above case, the issue is not whether a student's exercise of conscience is reasonable with regard to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in spanish, but whether the parents (and the school) should be forcing the child (in this case a young man) to violate his conscience.

The answer is no, neither schools nor parents should force children to violate their consciences in these matters. The conscience is what allows children and young adults to stand against peer pressure and all sorts of other evil.

The conscience is a precious treasure and should be defended and protected rather than violated.

And my wife and I were not unemployed for long. Within a few months, I had a far better teaching position and a salary increase of 60%. My wife only managed a 20% increase in her income, but cut her workload in half in the process.

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I think duckman is trolling right? Let me rephrase that, I HOPE duckman is trolling


They are pledging allegiance to the USA, whats the problem? Y'all are overthinking this, no need to write letters or call congressmen or lose your job over it

No im not trolling. Im not going to be writing letters to anyone over the matter. Never was my plan. I simply told him he didnt have to do it if he didnt want to. I dont think him getting a F on one assignment in his sophmore spanish class will have any long term adverse effects.

[Clampy]

[QUOTE=MathGeek;667808]Not really in the way you think. The objection is with the use of force to override the individual conscience.







There are key differences in forcing private citizens to perform acts which violate their conscience and restricting them from certain acts through due process of Constitutional law. The boundaries of due process of Constitutional law to place behavioral restrictions are well established and explicitly enumerated.









Id love to know how this doesn't apply to legalization of weed but I won't ask that since that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

You miss the point entirely. The point is that there is no job worth parents forcing a child to violate the child's conscience.

Likewise, in the above case, the issue is not whether a student's exercise of conscience is reasonable with regard to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in spanish, but whether the parents (and the school) should be forcing the child (in this case a young man) to violate his conscience.

The answer is no, neither schools nor parents should force children to violate their consciences in these matters. The conscience is what allows children and young adults to stand against peer pressure and all sorts of other evil.

The conscience is a precious treasure and should be defended and protected rather than violated.

And my wife and I were not unemployed for long. Within a few months, I had a far better teaching position and a salary increase of 60%. My wife only managed a 20% increase in her income, but cut her workload in half in the process.

There should be a law that if a subject violoates your conscience in school you don't have to do it, the students could just say no I will not do this as it violates my conscience, high school and college would be a breeze, no class ever

Sometimes common sense ain't so common

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

No im not trolling. Im not going to be writing letters to anyone over the matter. Never was my plan. I simply told him he didnt have to do it if he didnt want to. I dont think him getting a F on one assignment in his sophmore spanish class will have any long term adverse effects.

There are a ton of things he is going to have to do that he doesn't want to do in his life (mow the yard, get a job, take a math test, etc). My kid didn't want to go to school today, he wanted to watch the rest of Cat in the Hat this morning

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

There are a ton of things he is going to have to do that he doesn't want to do in his life (mow the yard, get a job, take a math test, etc). My kid didn't want to go to school today, he wanted to watch the rest of Cat in the Hat this morning

There is a big difference between doing things you dont like to do and doing things you feel are morally wrong.

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

There is a big difference between doing things you dont like to do and doing things you feel are morally wrong.

I feel it is morally wrong to pay a government with money that I earn, but I have to. I feel it is morally wrong to obey laws that protect me from myself, but I obey them due to the penalties that could be brought forth. I feel it is morally wrong that people on this forum view different languages and races other than English/white as sub-par and they aren't welcome here in America.

The constitution protects freedom of speech regardless of language. If they wanna sing in their native tongue or pledge their allegiance to the US then let them at it. Regardless of language, the translation to English is the same. It all means the same regardless of language, accent, cultural background, skin color, etc. If you can't see past those, then you are contributing to the decline of America as the greatest nation in the world.

[Clampy]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

I feel it is morally wrong to pay a government with money that I earn, but I have to. I feel it is morally wrong to obey laws that protect me from myself, but I obey them due to the penalties that could be brought forth. I feel it is morally wrong that people on this forum view different languages and races other than English/white as sub-par and they aren't welcome here in America.

The constitution protects freedom of speech regardless of language. If they wanna sing in their native tongue or pledge their allegiance to the US then let them at it. Regardless of language, the translation to English is the same. It all means the same regardless of language, accent, cultural background, skin color, etc. If you can't see past those, then you are contributing to the decline of America as the greatest nation in the world.

Thank you !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mriguy]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

I feel it is morally wrong to pay a government with money that I earn, but I have to. I feel it is morally wrong to obey laws that protect me from myself, but I obey them due to the penalties that could be brought forth. I feel it is morally wrong that people on this forum view different languages and races other than English/white as sub-par and they aren't welcome here in America.

The constitution protects freedom of speech regardless of language. If they wanna sing in their native tongue or pledge their allegiance to the US then let them at it. Regardless of language, the translation to English is the same. It all means the same regardless of language, accent, cultural background, skin color, etc. If you can't see past those, then you are contributing to the decline of America as the greatest nation in the world.

Wise beyond your years Sammich

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

I feel it is morally wrong to pay a government with money that I earn, but I have to. I feel it is morally wrong to obey laws that protect me from myself, but I obey them due to the penalties that could be brought forth. I feel it is morally wrong that people on this forum view different languages and races other than English/white as sub-par and they aren't welcome here in America.

The constitution protects freedom of speech regardless of language. If they wanna sing in their native tongue or pledge their allegiance to the US then let them at it. Regardless of language, the translation to English is the same. It all means the same regardless of language, accent, cultural background, skin color, etc. If you can't see past those, then you are contributing to the decline of America as the greatest nation in the world.

You came up with all of that from me saying my son shouldnt have to say the pledge in spanish? I never once said I had any issue with foreigners saying the pledge in another language. I just dont think my son should be forced to learn it in another. Will he have to pay the consiquences for his decision? Yes he will. He knows what the consiquences are and is willing to pay them. If you do things that you feel are moraly wrong but you do them because you fear the penalties that is a personal choice of yours. I dont see how that applies here.

[Goooh]

Dad - "Son, don't ever do anything that your conscience says not to do, speak your mind"

Son - "Good, because my conscience hates calling you sir because you're an idiot"

Dad - "Atta boy! You'll be a productive man in no time"

I doubt any of you would allow this scenario to play out right? Would you beat him and his conscience for a second or not?

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

You came up with all of that from me saying my son shouldnt have to say the pledge in spanish? I never once said I had any issue with foreigners saying the pledge in another language. I just dont think my son should be forced to learn it in another. Will he have to pay the consiquences for his decision? Yes he will. He knows what the consiquences are and is willing to pay them. If you do things that you feel are moraly wrong but you do them because you fear the penalties that is a personal choice of yours. I dont see how that applies here.

I think his post was molded by a bunch of other input throughout this thread, along with the sentiment found in the coke thread - I wouldn't take it as a direct attack on you.