Ohio students awarded scholarships for carrying flags onto football field

“You cannot have it both ways.”

We separated from England because they wouldn’t compromise at all. There were years of diplomatic efforts to try for that compromise by men like Ben Franklyn, John Dickinson, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. Every effort was made to keep from what ultimately happened.

On the English side, Prime Minister Frederick North took the uncharacteristic role of conciliator for the drafting of a resolution which was passed on February 20, 1775. It was an attempt to reach a peaceful settlement with the Thirteen Colonies immediately prior to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War; it declared that any colony that contributed to the common defense and provided support for the civil government, and the administration of justice (i.e. against any anti-Crown rebellion) would be relieved of paying taxes or duties except those necessary for the regulation of commerce; it was addressed and sent to the individual colonies. But the treatment of the colonies with unjust taxes, and questionable control of business, ports, and unbalanced trade led to a last straw.

So, you are comparing the losing of lives of an entire country and the treatment of the colonies to two kids doing something like breaking simple rules at a school function? Little imbalance there.

It does not mention within the article who the kids talked to, if they went up channel, or any parents were involved with the request...just that the kids supposedly were turned down and did it knowingly. Like I said, we have enough trouble with older kids doing the same thing in cities all over the US right now. They are considered criminals. It may not be on the same level, but the shoe fits the same way.

And even though I feel they were punished incorrectly, should have been school suspension rather than team suspension as it was not a team act but a student one, a punishment was warranted and not a reward. This is how you teach kids right from wrong and support their decisions to follow simple rules rather than cave to breaking them. And there’s a lot of people in prison right now that were treated the same way. It’s how our system works. And it has levels of severity, also.

rwood

No. Your position seems to be “We must obey all rules and all regulations at all times.” Which, yes, would lead to people blindly obeying their ‘betters.’ And, of course, is one of the definitions of tyranny and oppression.

Thing is, stupid and arbitrary rules should be ignored and disobeyed. Discriminatory and capricious laws should also be treated thus, such as “if your skin color is darker than a certain measure, you must ride in the back of the bus.”

In your prior post, you cited several laws, such as reckless driving, alcohol consumption, etc., etc. These laws can be rationally explained and come from reasoned experience - i.e., “If you drive 100mph in a school zone, you are likely to kill children, so we have made that illegal.” I’m fine with those - but stupid, arbitrary rules that cannot be and are not explained by anything more than “Because I said so” need to be destroyed.

Quick check, do you think that white people should just accept rules like these? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/27/anti-racism-event-hosted-edinburgh-university-bans-white-people/

“...stupid and arbitrary rules should be ignored and disobeyed.”

Depends on what they are. If a law or rule makes no sense, then it should be questioned, but not just broken without reasonable discussion. Reason is the only difference between humans and the other animals on the rock. But it is not reasonable to knowingly get into trouble for a political statement like they did without taking the argument against the decision to a finish. That is the act of an unreasonable person.

“Which, yes, would lead to people blindly obeying their ‘betters.’”

Never said that. You assumed it. I never said the people that made the decision not to allow the flags on the field were better or even right. But they are in charge at that level and are assigned the task of making those decisions. A lot of people don’t agree with the people “in charge.” But they put them there and allowed them to stay.

Unless you are there for the whole thing, the interaction with the administrator, what happened on the sidelines, and how the flags even got there, you, and I, don’t know what happened. So how do you make a call on the legitimacy of a rule with only partial knowledge? And the way around having knowledge is discussion. The kids didn’t do that. They just acted because they wanted to.

This is why we have rules for kids. This is why kids are not in charge of themselves. They are not always mature enough or informed enough to make decisions in the best interest of all. Sometimes neither are we. That’s why we have rules and laws and those in position to interpret them to guide us.

If you don’t like a rule, or law, you and others that agree with you try to change it. You just don’t violate it or other people’s rights and privileges either at that time or causing it to happen down the road because two 17 year olds wanted to do something that had been denied for reason none of us might know.

rwood

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.