I am finding my time unexpectedly shorter than I had anticipated, as the time of this post indicates.
Perhaps the crux of our disagreement lies in your line:”your model keeps on making excuses for disobedience as the justifiable response rather than as an exception to the rule of law in a civilized society”.
What I discussed at some length was that the situation was clearly one of “forgetting” rather than “disobedience”.
As Carry_okie said, that socialism inclined pet was teaching submission, not judgment or honesty.
May I suggest that had the soi dissant educator used the boy’s forgetfulness AND also the fact that said student had immediately reported to the schools adults (’adults’ used here in a deplorably casual sense) his unloaded pellet gun, when the trough feeder would have created a “Teaching Moment”, rather than the authoritarian circus which actually occurred.
“In contrast, by the age of eight this boy demonstrates the development of a moral compass together with the cementing of the cost of abandoning it.”
I suggest the boy did not abandon his moral compass at all. He did forget. The two are not the same.
Gun safety is taught with a near ‘messianic zeal’ though I am unconvinced such behavior does much to reduce accidental discharges or accidental shootings.
As a noted Russian gun instructor said “IS GUN! IS NEVER SAFE!!!”
‘But is always better than any other alternative’ - me.
That boy did not receive a lesson in anything other than raw, arbitrary abuse of power. That educator wanted to give the boy an unforgetible negative lesson regarding guns in the hope of furthering the educator’s Liberal agenda.
Perhaps I should have used another paraphrasing from another socialist collective - “Agenda Uber Alles”, in the instant case, the anti-gun agenda of the Libtard and educators.
"Forgetting" proceeds from knowing, and not doing anything about it. Delayed obedience is still disobedience, and the boy postponed "putting the gun away" until it was too late. That is not the same as never having been aware. You are trying to make "forgetting" an excuse for the offense to be inoffensive. That's not an excuse, and a long explanation does not change the fact that disobedience to the school's known rule was at the root of the problem. And that is why I said that "forgetting" is the graver error.
I suggest the boy did not abandon his moral compass at all. He did forget. The two are not the same.
Oh? How do you figure that? I figure that "forgetting" to make sure before leaving for school that he was not bringing in a prohibited article is ignoring the "moral compass" direction. The two are the same, n'est ce pas?
As Carry_okie said, that socialism inclined pet was teaching submission, not judgment or honesty.
That pejorative applied to the appointed administrator shows disrespect for the person, her function expected, and the purpose of the rule. Her job is to apply the rule(s) as a condition of her employment. You and Carry_okie seem to be asking the school officer to overlook the rule. You want to make up your own rules, That's lawlessness when brought out into the light.
And, yes, good judgment and honesty is (1) submitting to just rules, (2) admitting when you haven't, and (3) taking the discipline as an expected consequence to help your rememberer work better. That is exactly what the administration of the rule was for and intended to be. That was not wrong, but your attitude seems to be contrary toward it.
Gun safety is taught with a near ‘messianic zeal’ though I am unconvinced such behavior does much to reduce accidental discharges or accidental shootings.
My instinct is that teaching the rules of gun safety work extremely well for those who memorize the basic rules and make them an automatic practice in handling deadly weapons. People who either do not know them, or reject being told what to do in this matter, make themselves and others suffer when they are allowed near an instrument that they do not take seriously. This is also lawlessness.
I suspect that you might not like the 25 or so rules posted on the door to the range of my gun club, but they are to be observed and obeyed, or if habitually inadvertently or deliberately (who cares which??) "forgotten," the member will be prohibited from activities there. We don't want incidents (there are no "accidents" with a gun). That boy did not receive a lesson in anything other than raw, arbitrary abuse of power.
First, the application of the rule was not arbitrary. The rule was formed, accepted, published, and applied without variance. The application of the rule would have been arbitrary, if you expected that (as it seems you would have preferred) applying a little influence would have caused the administrator to bend or break the rule in favor of the nice little lad.
Secondly, the application of the rule was not "raw power"; that is, of an official using his/her power to just make a rule and a penalty up out of thin air. The rule with a penalty was pre-deliberated and accepted by the community of parents, apparently without objection, so applying it was not wielding raw power, as you insist; it was maintaining consistency for all.
Thirdly, applying the rule to this situation was not abusive, especially if the penalty was to be reviewed by a hearing at the school for its fitness. The newspaper report suggested that the 'tribunal' could modify the severity of the penalty, as to its appropriateness.
That educator wanted to give the boy an unforgetible negative lesson regarding guns in the hope of furthering the educator’s Liberal agenda.
Sounds to me that you are suggesting that you can read the school administrator's mind just by reading an excerpt of a news summary of the statement from the school, and that you already know the political persuasion of the administrator, and that you have the right to pre-judge her job conduct, all in one breath. Well, it still is America, and you can get away with that.
Until that is, that someone calls you on it. Now, I'm not attacking you personally, but I don't have much respect for the way you have rationalized your position, and my outlook, and publicly presented it.
That's why I'm responding to your ideas on this article, as a conservative and law-abiding citizen who has learned how to make his will respond correctly to properly constituted authority in civilian and military life; to submit to what is right and rebel against that which is wrong, to the best of my ability.
I do not see that it is profitable to assume that every government employee is out to dominate and use me to their purpose. I think it's fair to cut them some slack, and let them do their job. And I think they did well in their handling of this little boy, who seemed to reflect my approach. I admired his response.
I did not admire the reporter's selection of the father's or mother's words to slant the article a bit to make it look like the boy was not treated fairly. Sorry you bought into that, apparently.
My response to my platoon leader, when reprimanded (and I was):
"Sir, yes sir! No excuse, sir!"
Got it? I expect the young lad has. And will do well in his time as a soldier, as an employee, and as a supervisor.