Teacher Tells Class: Vote Obama

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Bricker

I think it’s objectively important to look at the law, because the law compels in one case and not the other.

That’s a circular argument in which the law defines its own viability.

@Bricker

Screaming fights and loss of TV or driving privileges are noteworthy punishments, but they are simply not in the same class as the punitive fines or even jail time that can result from parents’ refusal to comply with compulsory education laws.

No, they aren’t, but I think they’re of equivalent or greater importance to the child compared to the fines and jail time for adults. Otherwise, those punhisments would not have a comparable deterrent effect on children compared to fines on adults, but they apparently do.

@Bricker

Finally, the law represents the mechanism in our society by which we may reconcile competing viewpoints.

Not always. Sometimes the law disagrees with the law (state vs. federal, that is), and it is often our own internal moral code which determines how the conflict is resolved. Take, for example, medical marijuana, or same-sex marriage. Even if you were so inclined, my understanding of your lifestyle is that you would refuse to partake in either because they are both illegal on a federal level; ISTR you saying that you put in a sincere effort to follow the federal law in every applicable circumstance, file your gambling earnings accurately, etc., and made a compelling argument for it. However, those of us who feel that those things are acceptable in our moral code find it satisfactory to follow the state law, even though the Feds would technically have beef with us.

[Bricker]

@Hostile_Dialect

Not always. Sometimes the law disagrees with the law (state vs. federal, that is), and it is often our own internal moral code which determines how the conflict is resolved.

Yes, but in cases of such conflict, I wouldn’t argue that the law presents an unambiguous, objective message. Here, it does.

However, those of us who feel that those things are acceptable in our moral code find it satisfactory to follow the state law, even though the Feds would technically have beef with us.

Yes… I suppose. Although I suspect that most people willing to smoke a bowl or two of marijuana didn’t wait for the state law to make it legal, either. You posit someone scrupulously observing the law until the state law changed; I agree with the abstract possibility but suggest that they are not too many exemplars of that approach.

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Bricker

You posit someone scrupulously observing the law until the state law changed; I agree with the abstract possibility but suggest that they are not too many exemplars of that approach.

Proportionally speaking, I suspect you’re right–but there are also not too many exemplars of your approach to federal law, either. You’re the only one I’ve ever met, or at least the only one I know of. I do know of other people (personally) who never tried marijuana until it was recommended to them for medical purposes.

@Bricker

Yes, but in cases of such conflict, I wouldn’t argue that the law presents an unambiguous, objective message. Here, it does.

And what of the circular argument where law justifies its own existence at the top of the priority list? To some people, a higher power holds more cards in this sense than a law book. Mos Def said, “Fear not of men, because men must die.” I don’t agree with the implication, but we can’t deny that there are people out there who think that way, many of whom probably see no meaningful distinction between the requirement for them to go to church and for their children to go to school.