B.B.M
Hank Scorpio
Scavenger Hunt All-Star
Where did the Lime go?
Posts: 7,404
|
Post by B.B.M on Jan 27, 2011 8:59:32 GMT -5
Just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. You do know what you've just said was silly, right? If it's illegal, it's prohibited or not authorized. Or in other words. You ain't allowed to do it. If it's illegal, it's against the law....which equals...it's wrong
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jan 27, 2011 9:03:55 GMT -5
Just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. You do know what you've just said was silly, right? If it's illegal, it's prohibited or not authorized. Or in other words. You ain't allowed to do it. If it's illegal, it's against the law....which equals...it's wrong Not entirely... While I don't agree with the poster's argument, I wouldn't always equate something being illegal with being wrong. It was once illegal to harbor Jewish and other refugees in Germany during the Holocaust. It was also illegal at one time in America to help escaped slaves flee from their former masters. Would we consider the people who did those things in the wrong? I'm nitpicking, yes, but just wanted to point that out.
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Jan 27, 2011 10:30:44 GMT -5
You do know what you've just said was silly, right? If it's illegal, it's prohibited or not authorized. Or in other words. You ain't allowed to do it. If it's illegal, it's against the law....which equals...it's wrong Not entirely... While I don't agree with the poster's argument, I wouldn't always equate something being illegal with being wrong. It was once illegal to harbor Jewish and other refugees in Germany during the Holocaust. It was also illegal at one time in America to help escaped slaves flee from their former masters. Would we consider the people who did those things in the wrong? I'm nitpicking, yes, but just wanted to point that out. Yeah...illegal = wrong is certainly not a truism. Here, what she did was wrong, but very understandable. It is hard to present her as a villain if she was really doing this with her children's best interest at heart (I can't think of any other motivation). She probably could have gamed the system in a smarter way, though. I don't have all the answers, but SOMETHING needs to be done with our education system, and badly.
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Jan 27, 2011 11:17:20 GMT -5
Yeah, but she could have some sexy 'women in prison' adventures.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 27, 2011 11:18:42 GMT -5
You do know what you've just said was silly, right? If it's illegal, it's prohibited or not authorized. Or in other words. You ain't allowed to do it. If it's illegal, it's against the law....which equals...it's wrong Not entirely... While I don't agree with the poster's argument, I wouldn't always equate something being illegal with being wrong. It was once illegal to harbor Jewish and other refugees in Germany during the Holocaust. It was also illegal at one time in America to help escaped slaves flee from their former masters. Would we consider the people who did those things in the wrong? I'm nitpicking, yes, but just wanted to point that out. Yeah, not all laws in history have been right. However, the fraud law isn't one of the wrong ones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 11:41:38 GMT -5
Yeah, but she could have some sexy 'women in prison' adventures. And then everybody wins!
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jan 27, 2011 12:09:13 GMT -5
Not entirely... While I don't agree with the poster's argument, I wouldn't always equate something being illegal with being wrong. It was once illegal to harbor Jewish and other refugees in Germany during the Holocaust. It was also illegal at one time in America to help escaped slaves flee from their former masters. Would we consider the people who did those things in the wrong? I'm nitpicking, yes, but just wanted to point that out. Yeah, not all laws in history have been right. However, the fraud law isn't one of the wrong ones. Absolutely. Not to villify the woman, but she was completely in the wrong here. If the school system bothered her that badly, if she wanted her children in the other district so much, and if she didn't want to or simply couldn't pony up the cash for out-of-district tuition, she should've moved or taken whatever legal steps were necessary to have her children officially relocated to the appropriate district to live with their father. This isn't a case where the state is in the wrong. The steps to do this the right way were there. Sure, they were probably tedious, but they weren't impossible. And I won't get into a debate over it, as it falls under the precedent of politics, but I absolutely and completely disagree with the notion of privatizing education. I'm convinced as bad as things are now, that would only compound the problem.
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Jan 29, 2011 3:27:09 GMT -5
Yeah, not all laws in history have been right. However, the fraud law isn't one of the wrong ones. Absolutely. Not to villify the woman, but she was completely in the wrong here. If the school system bothered her that badly, if she wanted her children in the other district so much, and if she didn't want to or simply couldn't pony up the cash for out-of-district tuition, she should've moved or taken whatever legal steps were necessary to have her children officially relocated to the appropriate district to live with their father. This isn't a case where the state is in the wrong. The steps to do this the right way were there. Sure, they were probably tedious, but they weren't impossible. And I won't get into a debate over it, as it falls under the precedent of politics, but I absolutely and completely disagree with the notion of privatizing education. I'm convinced as bad as things are now, that would only compound the problem. The state is in the wrong here though. They have no right to cage her or extort money from her. They could have simply said her kids couldn't go to the school anymore. As for public schools it is ethically wrong for anyone to extort money from me to send other people's kids to school.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin's Thorn on Jan 29, 2011 9:03:13 GMT -5
Probably the worst part of this is that the girls will end up going back to the former, less-safe school and be ostracized by the other kids for thinking they're too 'good' to hang out with the other black kids. Coming from a predominantly-black neighborhood as a kid myself, I've seen it happen all too often.
The mother breaking the law for her kids totally and completely backfired-- her kids are a huge target now.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 29, 2011 9:16:42 GMT -5
Absolutely. Not to villify the woman, but she was completely in the wrong here. If the school system bothered her that badly, if she wanted her children in the other district so much, and if she didn't want to or simply couldn't pony up the cash for out-of-district tuition, she should've moved or taken whatever legal steps were necessary to have her children officially relocated to the appropriate district to live with their father. This isn't a case where the state is in the wrong. The steps to do this the right way were there. Sure, they were probably tedious, but they weren't impossible. And I won't get into a debate over it, as it falls under the precedent of politics, but I absolutely and completely disagree with the notion of privatizing education. I'm convinced as bad as things are now, that would only compound the problem. The state is in the wrong here though. They have no right to cage her or extort money from her. They could have simply said her kids couldn't go to the school anymore. As for public schools it is ethically wrong for anyone to extort money from me to send other people's kids to school. They don't have a right to prosecute someone for committing a felony act? She could have worked out a legal arrangement with her father to have the kids stay with him and go to the school legally instead of committing multiple acts of fraud, including lying to the courts, to do it. Yeah, they do have a right to prosecute her for her crimes. She didn't have any legal rights to lie to send her kids to another school. "I did it for my kids" doesn't really justify a felony act.
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Jan 29, 2011 9:36:30 GMT -5
The state is in the wrong here though. They have no right to cage her or extort money from her. They could have simply said her kids couldn't go to the school anymore. As for public schools it is ethically wrong for anyone to extort money from me to send other people's kids to school. They don't have a right to prosecute someone for committing a felony act? She could have worked out a legal arrangement with her father to have the kids stay with him and go to the school legally instead of committing multiple acts of fraud, including lying to the courts, to do it. Yeah, they do have a right to prosecute her for her crimes. She didn't have any legal rights to lie to send her kids to another school. "I did it for my kids" doesn't really justify a felony act. The school system is broken. It is apart of a bigger system that is broken. Sure she committed fraud but she was trying to use a crappy system she is forced to pay for. If she wasn't forced to pay for these crappy schools maybe she could have sent her kids to a private school or have them home schooled. Public schools are used to justify stealing money from people. Extortion is wrong no matter who does it. That is a much worse crime. Her crime had no victim. Therefore it should not be a crime.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 29, 2011 9:40:12 GMT -5
They don't have a right to prosecute someone for committing a felony act? She could have worked out a legal arrangement with her father to have the kids stay with him and go to the school legally instead of committing multiple acts of fraud, including lying to the courts, to do it. Yeah, they do have a right to prosecute her for her crimes. She didn't have any legal rights to lie to send her kids to another school. "I did it for my kids" doesn't really justify a felony act. The school system is broken. It is apart of a bigger system that is broken. Sure she committed fraud but she was trying to use a crappy system she is forced to pay for. If she wasn't forced to pay for these crappy schools maybe she could have sent her kids to a private school or have them home schooled. Public schools are used to justify stealing money from people. Extortion is wrong no matter who does it. Maybe, maybe not, the real world doesn't operate on maybes though. And no, she was trying to use a system other people were paying for, which is the entire point of it. Different cities all tax differently for their school systems, it's not one big pot of money that gets doled out based on socioeconomic status. She wasn't trying to use something she paid for, because she wasn't paying taxes on those schools. And fraud is still fraud, even if you don't like the public school system. When a person breaks a law, the state has a right to prosecute them for it. If they didn't, then the entire basis of our legal system would be pointless.
|
|
sryans
Don Corleone
BROOKLYN, BROOKLYN
Posts: 2,001
|
Post by sryans on Jan 29, 2011 9:57:02 GMT -5
They don't have a right to prosecute someone for committing a felony act? She could have worked out a legal arrangement with her father to have the kids stay with him and go to the school legally instead of committing multiple acts of fraud, including lying to the courts, to do it. Yeah, they do have a right to prosecute her for her crimes. She didn't have any legal rights to lie to send her kids to another school. "I did it for my kids" doesn't really justify a felony act. The school system is broken. It is apart of a bigger system that is broken. Sure she committed fraud but she was trying to use a crappy system she is forced to pay for. If she wasn't forced to pay for these crappy schools maybe she could have sent her kids to a private school or have them home schooled. Public schools are used to justify stealing money from people. Extortion is wrong no matter who does it. That is a much worse crime. Her crime had no victim. Therefore it should not be a crime. You should probably accept that your views on this are pretty extreme and not many people will agree with them.
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Jan 29, 2011 10:31:47 GMT -5
The school system is broken. It is apart of a bigger system that is broken. Sure she committed fraud but she was trying to use a crappy system she is forced to pay for. If she wasn't forced to pay for these crappy schools maybe she could have sent her kids to a private school or have them home schooled. Public schools are used to justify stealing money from people. Extortion is wrong no matter who does it. That is a much worse crime. Her crime had no victim. Therefore it should not be a crime. You should probably accept that your views on this are pretty extreme and not many people will agree with them. Tell me then. What crime that has no victim is just? Extreme is believing extortion and coercion is okay. Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 29, 2011 11:27:27 GMT -5
Coercion? What coercion is there in this case? As for as your argument that "paying for public schools is extortion," I disagree. People regularly choose where they want to live based on the school system and how much they wish to contribute. People get what they pay for, and if people don't like the tax rates, they have the right to vote against school bond measures or move to a place that spends less on schools. That's not extortion, it's public desire. Sure, it's not that easy for everyone to move to places where the local governments fund schools to their particular tastes, but most everyone is going to move at some point in their lives, and they're going to be able to make some choice. And everyone legal is going to have the right to vote on bond measures at some point (and given the low turnouts on them, those votes mean a lot more than major election votes). Schools are better in some districts because the people living there chose to fund those schools more. As for victims, schools spend time and money on supplies for students. That money comes from parents who pay taxes in the district. When a parent isn't paying taxes is lying to get them into that school, that cost is then passed on to all the other parents who do live in the district and are willing to pay those higher tax rates for better schools. You might argue that the school is already paying those costs, but there is still the fact that the schools still maintain a cost per student per school year, and when a parent who does not live in a district benefits from it, they don't share in any of those costs (according to the NY Times, it's about $9,800 a year on average in Ohio) to that particular school. If it's an above average school, those parents agreed to spend more than, and that cost isn't passed on to a parent who doesn't pay the taxes in that district. So yeah, I think it's inaccurate to claim there's absolutely no harm to anything in what she did. Basic economics dictates that there's always a cost.
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Jan 29, 2011 12:38:28 GMT -5
What coercion? What the hell do you think taxes for schools and other crap is.
I'm forced to pay for other peoples kids to go to school while I don't even have kids. If I don't I get kidnapped and locked in a cage.
This is getting too political do I'm out.
|
|
sryans
Don Corleone
BROOKLYN, BROOKLYN
Posts: 2,001
|
Post by sryans on Jan 29, 2011 13:09:09 GMT -5
Yea so like I said, most people do not believe taxes are extortion. It is hard to argue something when most people don't even agree with the most basic assumptions you are making.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 29, 2011 13:28:47 GMT -5
What coercion? What the hell do you think taxes for schools and other crap is. It's government operating as government based on the wills of the majority of the people who live in a particular area. In other words, it's democracy. People in a community collectively vote on what benefits they want for the community, and the government is taxed with raising the capital for running it. That's about as far away from coercion as you can get, and sure as hell isn't extreme. That's the basic rules of society. Like I said, if people don't like the tax rates in their neighborhood, they have the option of voting against it or leaving that area, which people regularly do. There are plenty of places people can move where they wouldn't have to worry about paying for school, or even anything at all. If you choose to live in an area, you also choose to pay the costs of it. It's not coercion just because one person doesn't like paying for the community benefits.
|
|
|
Post by noleafclover1980 on Jan 29, 2011 15:21:52 GMT -5
It sucks since she had her heart in the right place. but the law doesn't have a "good intentions" clause. At the end of the day fraud is fraud. Now, the judge at that point has the option to be lenient in his sentencing, but she did break the law in the end.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin's Thorn on Jan 29, 2011 17:45:43 GMT -5
What coercion? What the hell do you think taxes for schools and other crap is. I'm forced to pay for other peoples kids to go to school while I don't even have kids. If I don't I get kidnapped and locked in a cage. This is getting too political do I'm out. You're living in the wrong country, buddy. I've been paying Social Security taxes my entire working life, and by the time I retire I will never see any of that money again (the SS Fund will be long bankrupt by today's resource-hogging elderly), it's understood that the young and old are given extra at the expense of average taxpaying adults in this country in the interests of progress. If given the choice, I'd rather just pay for schools and education rather than social security taxes, since people should just learn to save their own money themselves for retirement.
|
|