Seriously.
EDIT: I guess actually educating kids about guns is a bad idea. Just pretend they don't exist and there won't be any problems. Like sex.
hell this isn't even about gun education. Now they are telling children what toys they can and can't play with, on a seriously ASSININE level.
So now kids can't even play with freaking gijoes effectively.
Let's think about this. Seriously, the thing isn't even close to being anything you could. **** it.
I hope these people die in a fire. or get shot in the face.
EDIT. We are becoming a nation of Fat ****ing Sissies. We better just go ahead and change our colors to Yellow and Pink. Yellow to show that frankly we're eventually going to become to scared to even be functional human beings while also representing the color of our arteries and pink because we are going to become such sissies.
I get the whole zero tolerance thing, but what I do not get is people who think that means zero intelligence. To me it smacks of bureaucratic ass-covering. This fool would rather slap down anything even cursorily related to the policy than to later be blamed by equally stupid and reactionary parents and/or media should an act of gun violence occur.
The stupidly knee-jerk overreaction of one person does not mean society as a whole is so misguided. The fact that we are all angered by this is proof enough.
I get the whole zero tolerance thing, but what I do not get is people who think that means zero intelligence. To me it smacks of bureaucratic ass-covering. This fool would rather slap down anything even cursorily related to the policy than to later be blamed by equally stupid and reactionary parents and/or media should an act of gun violence occur.
I think at this point we've lost our Balls as a Society. This isnt' the only group of morons out there like this. (remember the GTA "controversy"?... hell the mass effect "sex scene" controversy? the list goes on and on)
At this point I'm starting to believe there needs to be a Do you have Balls test, before you are allowed to have any position of authority.
We've all but destroyed excercise time at school (read PE). Because "I remember feeling so bad because I wasn't good at gym!" Yeah **** you. Get off your fat ass and work out you Nancy.
"Guns are evil people get shot by them!" Yes, since no one has ever deserved a bullet between the eyes you freakin Puss. Without Guns, here's a hint we would never have expanded coast to coast, won every war we've fought to defend our freedoms, and the cops wouldn't be able to put down suspects that are endangering the lives of everyone around them without putting themselves at undue risk.
Grow a ****ing Pair.
I must be getting old.
Stupid Sissy Run society.
What happened to all the cries of "It's the standards of the community" and "it's the community's decision"?
if it was the community that call for it, sure.
But in this case it's pretty clear it's poorly done 'zero tolerance' policy. Sure people voted for it, but I doubt they really wanted it applied to legos
What happened to all the cries of "It's the standards of the community" and "it's the community's decision"?
Right here - The point of the thread (as I read it) is where those standards have brought us.
edited to add: On another note, I'd posit that its inevitable, as we push our "community" size to national and world levels. Part of my belief is that all decisions need to be made at the LOWEST possible level. Zero-tolerance (though started, I believe, in grass roots) was a policy that was served top-down (with the threat of denial of aid - another issue, but not going on that one).
Sanctions work.
We've all but destroyed excercise time at school (read PE). Because "I remember feeling so bad because I wasn't good at gym!" Yeah **** you. Get off your fat ass and work out you Nancy.
I am not familiar with your specific situation, and I agree that dropping physical exercise completely is a bad idea, but I do think there is merit in looking at the children that get turned off exercise because of bad experiences in gym class.
Also, I have to second EE in this. Not long ago, people seemed to be arguing that it was no big deal for a school to force a boy to cut his hair. Not only is this something that will affect him in his spare time, rather than just when he's a school, hair also tends to be a more important part in how people express their individuality and identity (and in this case, it was a way for the boy to do charity), and furthermore, it was a blatant case of sexual discrimination.
And yet, it was no big deal, while forbidding a few specific toys that the kids have ample opportunity to play with at home, is suddenly a catastrophe. Given your frequent mentioning of the term 'balls', and your dismissive references to sissies and the colour pink, may I ask if this perhaps is a question of masculinity? As in, it's OK to prevent a boy from looking like a sissy, but it's not OK to take away his toy guns?
The main difference is what the parents/child does after the punishment. In the hair case, the parents and child continued to break the rule and complained about the punishment. In this case (I haven't read the full article, but I assume it was an isolated incident), the child presumably will stop bringing said toy to school.
If the parents of the child (and child) decide to continually bring said toy to school and continually serve suspensions, then I would say something similar to what I said in the other thread. Something about how the parents are to blame because they think the attention is more important than their child's education.
I think if the hair case involved the child going to school on the first day and getting suspended, then I would be more against the school. But the parents/child were presumably warned and continued their behavior. They were making a stupid stand or craving attention, in my opinion. If this child/parents continue to bring the toy, then I would think they were either making a stupid stand or craving attention.
I am not familiar with your specific situation, and I agree that dropping physical exercise completely is a bad idea, but I do think there is merit in looking at the children that get turned off exercise because of bad experiences in gym class.Also, I have to second EE in this. Not long ago, people seemed to be arguing that it was no big deal for a school to force a boy to cut his hair. Not only is this something that will affect him in his spare time, rather than just when he's a school, hair also tends to be a more important part in how people express their individuality and identity (and in this case, it was a way for the boy to do charity), and furthermore, it was a blatant case of sexual discrimination.
And yet, it was no big deal, while forbidding a few specific toys that the kids have ample opportunity to play with at home, is suddenly a catastrophe. Given your frequent mentioning of the term 'balls', and your dismissive references to sissies and the colour pink, may I ask if this perhaps is a question of masculinity? As in, it's OK to prevent a boy from looking like a sissy, but it's not OK to take away his toy guns?
If you would recall I was against the boy's hair being cut in the first place. And finished with the same stance. It's a draconian stupid assed policy following the same "logic train" that this cockamaney crap does. "it's for the good of society!" Well I'm sorry but frankly if our Society is becoming so Yellow and Pinked as to suspend a kid over LEGOS because "it's a toy gun.. guns are bad" or "cut his hair. He can't be a proper human being with long hair!" then maybe society needs to be set a flame and burn for a while.
While Balls, is usually a reference to masculinity in this case it's used as a reference to actually having a backbone, courage and the ability to acknowledge that the world isn't a hippyville and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.
Balls in this case, is the "Man up you whiney douche" as in Suck it up, get over it and do better. Don't just sit there in denial saying it's anything's fault but your own, or the person that committed the act. Don't blame Guns for Violence, and stop heavy handedly doing **** to Coddle and make people Unnecessarily Soft.
A woman can have Balls in my eyes. And a man can be completely lacking them. Presently more and more I'm seeing our society being DeBalled, by wanna be Nannies that think they are doing what's best for everyone else by making them frankly Sheep. Mental Drugged up, cowardly fat sheep.
It is, indeed, sad and pathetic.
I weep for the future.
I would love to explain more, but I'm trying not to get banned... for a little while anyway...
Also, it has something to do with the feminization of boys...
IT'S A FRIGGIN LEGO! IT WON'T KILL ANYONE (well, a real gun doesn't kill anyone either: the person with a finger on the trigger does) UNLESS THEY SWALLOW IT! This is stupid, yes. Upper-level morons are neutering America, yes. Thus, I propose we allow all governments to completely and suddenly collapse. Most of the morons will weed themselves out, the imminent overcrowding problems will cease to be a threat, and new, somewhat-sensible governments will rise from the ashes.
Unsurprised. Unfortunately.
IT'S A FRIGGIN LEGO! IT WON'T KILL ANYONE (well, a real gun doesn't kill anyone either: the person with a finger on the trigger does) UNLESS THEY SWALLOW IT! This is stupid, yes. Upper-level morons are neutering America, yes. Thus, I propose we allow all governments to completely and suddenly collapse. Most of the morons will weed themselves out, the imminent overcrowding problems will cease to be a threat, and new, somewhat-sensible governments will rise from the ashes.
Want me to start in Pittsburgh...?
Thus, I propose we allow all governments to completely and suddenly collapse. Most of the morons will weed themselves out, the imminent overcrowding problems will cease to be a threat, and new, somewhat-sensible governments will rise from the ashes.
Um, how about "despotic, cruel power-hungry warlords will rise from the ashes?" You don't get "sensible" out of "anarchy". It's just not in the cards.
Thus, I propose we allow all governments to completely and suddenly collapse. Most of the morons will weed themselves out, the imminent overcrowding problems will cease to be a threat, and new, somewhat-sensible governments will rise from the ashes.
Um, how about "despotic, cruel power-hungry warlords will rise from the ashes?" You don't get "sensible" out of "anarchy". It's just not in the cards.
Eh. It'll be better in some respects. The things we lose are just vastly important ones we take for granted.
I have personally seen students stab other students with sharpened pencils, club them with backpacks filled with what has to be 35 lbs of books, and strangle/whip others with belts.
If they take away anything that can be used for violence, we won't have anything left.
Schools are all stupid about weapons. They focus on guns because one student with a gun can kill/main so many. What they fail to do is realize that guns do not inflict the vast majority of injuries in schools. Guns are expensive, loud, and (in many states) add 15 years to any crime you commit with one. I would propose that guns are not even the preferred weapon of those attending school.
I have personally seen students stab other students with sharpened pencils, club them with backpacks filled with what has to be 35 lbs of books, and strangle/whip others with belts.
If they take away anything that can be used for violence, we won't have anything left.
Boy, that takes me back. I remember the time some kid pulled a knife on me in elementary school.
He just friended me on Facebook.
A very annoying facet of Facebook.
I once nearly bludgeoned someone with a monitor in High School. I was pretty glad when a teacher stepped in and I could pawn the problem off on him.
Weapons are everywhere in school because everything can be used as a weapon. Heck, my school even had fire axes in metal-&-glass cases in the hall. Small metal mallets were chained to the metal part of the case so they could be smashed open in an emergy. Surprisingly, I never heard of anyone being axed to death at that school.
I suppose they would rather students/people live inside a bubble to minimize the risk of injury. Next thing you know, even doodling a weapon-like image will get you into trouble... (or has that already occurred?)
If you would recall I was against the boy's hair being cut in the first place. And finished with the same stance. It's a draconian stupid assed policy following the same "logic train" that this cockamaney crap does. "it's for the good of society!" Well I'm sorry but frankly if our Society is becoming so Yellow and Pinked as to suspend a kid over LEGOS because "it's a toy gun.. guns are bad" or "cut his hair. He can't be a proper human being with long hair!" then maybe society needs to be set a flame and burn for a while.
I do recall you weren't exactly in favour of regulating children's hairstyles in the other thread, but the overall tone there seemed to be a mix between "that's probably a tiny bit unfair" and "that's the district's own decision", both of them followed by an almost unanimous "now let's go hate on the mother for making a big deal out of it". And in this thread, people are making a much bigger deal out of a much smaller thing.
Presently more and more I'm seeing our society being DeBalled, by wanna be Nannies that think they are doing what's best for everyone else by making them frankly Sheep. Mental Drugged up, cowardly fat sheep.
Strange, I don't think it has anything to do with society changing from what it used to be, since similar regulations were upheld long before. In my parents' schools, in the 50s and 60s, dress codes were the norm, children weren't allowed to play with LEGOs (at least not inside), and double standards were a given thing. Or are you claiming that those damn hippies and their silly rebellion actually managed to give society more balls than it had had in the last 500 years, and that we're losing sight of their ideology today? ;)
I don't know about that, but I do know you can get in trouble for joining a Facebook page that hates on one of your teachers. Just happened to some kids someplace. Yup. Suspended or detentioned for behavior outside the walls of the school. Perfectly legal behavior.
And that's completely reasonable. If you want to complain about your teacher, either do so in private, or make some form of formal complaint to get the issue resolved. Don't start a public campaign against them that's going nowhere, just because you feel like whining. If a group of teachers had done it against a student, there would have been even worse consequences, and I don't think you'd have had a problem then. We should be able to require a minimum degree of civility and self-restraint from students as well as teachers, and hate-groups cross that line.
Yes and no. There are elements of the past which probably should be reinstated (such as Dueling.). Capital punishment. Alot of previously existing things like that existed as such for a reason.
Actually it's the hippies childrens fault, (the 70s kids) that we are in the Kiddy Gloves Cupcake Eating Society. I think it has quite abit to do with society changing. We are going from a soceity that values it's Freedoms and Liberties (which was in part the whole point of the Hippy Rebellion supposedly) to one that would much rather be pleased letting Fear, and psychological drugs rule over us all.
I think if we spent even one tenth of our time, actually teaching our children how to be good people rather than placing them in Bubble World we wouldn't have these problems that we're starting to see with increasing frequency. Part of being a Good person is actually having the Balls to face a wrong for what it is, part of being a good person is also having the Balls to do the right thing.
And what we are trying to teach the new generation apparently, is to have anything but the Balls to do it.
Update to the story:
I saw a story on my local news (since it apparently took place somewhere in NY). It said that the boy was not formally punished in anyway and a representative from the school district stated that the principal (or who ever was going to dish out the punishment) overreacted.
So no harm, no foul.
(Now, if the parents continue to badger the school, then I'd say they're pretty stupid.)
Yes and no. There are elements of the past which probably should be reinstated (such as Dueling.). Capital punishment. Alot of previously existing things like that existed as such for a reason.
You mean corporal punishment? I heard some states still allow corporal punishment in school (I know Ohio doesn't though).
Corporal punishment I'm against. (I believe firmly that punishment in that regard is the parents job. That being said not enough parents actually do their job anymore. Partly because they expect the Tv, School, friends and a shrink to raise their kids for them)
Yes and no. There are elements of the past which probably should be reinstated (such as Dueling.). Capital punishment. Alot of previously existing things like that existed as such for a reason.
Dueling? You mean that rule about people with better training/weapons, and/or a more favourable physique, having extensive rights to insult and verbally abuse others, without having to stomach to the same treatment? Count me out, overly macho 'I can beat up anybody'-types are already a pain in the butt as it is, having the law favouring them would make them even more intolerable.
Actually it's the hippies childrens fault, (the 70s kids) that we are in the Kiddy Gloves Cupcake Eating Society. I think it has quite abit to do with society changing. We are going from a soceity that values it's Freedoms and Liberties (which was in part the whole point of the Hippy Rebellion supposedly) to one that would much rather be pleased letting Fear, and psychological drugs rule over us all.
Since a generation is generally counted as 30 years, and most people old enough to rebel in the late sixties and early to mid 70s (the height of the movement), but young enough to want to, would have been born in the 50s, that actually makes it the 80s kids, which I believe includes you
Anyway, I wont disagree that, as much good as that movement did, and as necessary as it was, we lost something there, in the mist of rebellion. I recently had this conversation with my parents and one of their friends, who all recalled good things about the time before they overthrew society, and lamented how common courtesy was going the way of the dodo, as a result of the attitude of extreme individuality that they helped create.But it was never about rules and restrictions. And neither was it about balls, or being allowed to carry guns, or anything like that. In fact, it was the opposite, they often felt that the whole 'it's always your own fault', and the attitude of contempt and indifference towards victims, was one of the worst side-effects of rebelling against authorities, because it people became so self-sufficient that they forgot their social responsibility.
spoilered for length
My parents, I've started to notice, seem to aim to combine the best from both ideologies, believing in human rights, sexual freedom, gender equality, and education where children's individual needs are respected, but at the same time, they have very strict rules about personal duties and responsibilities. They've had one friend, one of their friends' daughter, one of my aunts, and three of my cousins, who all needed a place to stay, living with them at one point or another.
They've also run my uncle's company for months (including using their weekends to make deliveries) when he was unable to do it himself, they help out the old lady living next, they always offer to pick up my grandmother and give her a place to sleep whenever someone else invites her but don't provide adequate accommodations, etc., they uphold the law even when there's no one to judge them, and their biggest crime was smoking marijuana in their youth.
They've also run my uncle's company for months (including using their weekends to make deliveries) when he was unable to do it himself, they help out the old lady living next, they always offer to pick up my grandmother and give her a place to sleep whenever someone else invites her but don't provide adequate accommodations, etc., they uphold the law even when there's no one to judge them, and their biggest crime was smoking marijuana in their youth.
But they're about as far from duels, death penalties, and blaming people for their own misfortunes as can be. Politically, I think you'd hate them, they're feminazis and communists (by US standards at least), environmentalists, sissies, always trying to understand where people come from rather than just condemning them, in favour of rehabilitation over punishment, against guns, and really, really politically correct.
Erato, read my response on the difference between the cases. Update to the story: I saw a story on my local news (since it apparently took place somewhere in NY). It said that the boy was not formally punished in anyway and a representative from the school district stated that the principal (or who ever was going to dish out the punishment) overreacted. So no harm, no foul. (Now, if the parents continue to badger the school, then I'd say they're pretty stupid.)
Hmm, that's of the things I'm still getting used to on their internet. People will rail against something as if it's the coming of the anti-Christ, but they don't actually expect anyone to be serious about it in the real world. I personally think a system that demands kids to cut their hair like that is a bigger issue than a parent overreacting in righteous anger. That being said, it was mostly the difference in how seriously the original issue (restrictions in school) was taken. But I'm glad the boy wont be punished.
Nothing is so great of an equalizer as a Firearm in combat.
Personal honor is something that's being lost in society (ironically enough given how we are all supposed to be Unique and Special Snowflakes), and common decency is going the way of the dodo. I think a large reason that decency is going away is because frankly there's next to no form of feasible Reprisal, if you act like a douchebag towards someone else.
Yeah that other person will think you are a douche, but what do you care? You're a douche after all. However if you think you'll get the living hell beat out of you by that other person and five of his closest friends with baseball bats, or get shot in the face for being a Douche, chances are you'll at least think twice before being a Douche to everyone you meet.
And I'm sure your parents are great people. But really, what would they have thought of Hitler or Stalin? Would he be "reformable"? Or be capable of being taught that other people are people too regardless of their religious beliefs? There are people in this world that are beyond redemption and beyond reaching, and are just Evil.
There are also people that feel it's okay for your rights to be revoked for the betterment of themselves. And it is for these people that we have Bullets.
They would probably make an exception to their usual behavior in that case and be all for a bullet between Hitler's eyes.
I think the so called Hippy Rebellion took it too far, because frankly it IS your fault most of the time. Unless you are the victim of a crime, it's probably your fault. You create most of the problems that you face in life. It is also up to you to deal with and face them.
That is what was lost in my opinion. And at least over here I believe we measure generations by 20 year periods. The fifties self entitled kids, started the hippy movement. Kids born in the 60s continued it. And these are the ones that in my opinion are the source of alot of the School Marmism that's taking over.
And that's completely reasonable. If you want to complain about your teacher, either do so in private, or make some form of formal complaint to get the issue resolved. Don't start a public campaign against them that's going nowhere, just because you feel like whining. If a group of teachers had done it against a student, there would have been even worse consequences, and I don't think you'd have had a problem then. We should be able to require a minimum degree of civility and self-restraint from students as well as teachers, and hate-groups cross that line.
I don't know. Kids complain about their teachers to each other in and out of school verbally face to face, verbally over the phone, through texts, etc, etc. I can't see how it's ok to talk about a teacher face to face but not when it's done on Facebook. Unless, of course, it isn't. And if it isn't, the kids should face the same punishment for talking about a teacher outside of school that they apparently do for Facebooking about them. Personally, I'm not comfortable with that. I also have major issues when places of employment concern themselves with employee behavior outside of work that's both legal and done when the employee is not acting as a representative. That's going way too far. Now this is obviously a different situation, but I feel it's similar enough to apply the same thought process to it. If they're not causing an in-school disruption, they should face no in-school punishment.
Lines are getting more and more blurred with the continued technological advances made in communication. I understand that. But I still feel that there's an in-school and out-of-school and the two, barring certain circumstances, should stay separate.
Hmm, that's of the things I'm still getting used to on their internet. People will rail against something as if it's the coming of the anti-Christ, but they don't actually expect anyone to be serious about it in the real world. I personally think a system that demands kids to cut their hair like that is a bigger issue than a parent overreacting in righteous anger. That being said, it was mostly the difference in how seriously the original issue (restrictions in school) was taken. But I'm glad the boy wont be punished.
I think my reaction to this case was something to the extent of "eh, its bad, but not so bad". In both cases, I don't see what's wrong with allowing the school to set its rules. I think it would be wrong if the punishment was extremely (like originally reported) or the reaction to the punishment was extreme (like the other story). I think the rules of the school are acceptable in both cases.
I have no issue with a school enforcing a dress code or a school disallowing certain items. I may not agree with the specific rules, but they should be followed if you decide to go to the school. If you really care, you should try to change the rule or go to another school. Schools are not a place where children should be allowed to do whatever they want.
Yeah that other person will think you are a douche, but what do you care? You're a douche after all. However if you think you'll get the living hell beat out of you by that other person and five of his closest friends with baseball bats, or get shot in the face for being a Douche, chances are you'll at least think twice before being a Douche to everyone you meet.
And what, then, stops a douche and five of his douchy friends from beating the living hell out of someone with baseball bats? That's not balls, that's cowardice. Five armed individuals against one, likely unarmed, individual? I don't care what side you think you're on, nor who started it, if you and five friends take arms against an unarmed individual you are douches.
Cogratulations, in the name of punishing a douche, you have become an even bigger douche. Doesn't that make you feel special inside? This same kind of stupity is why there is tribal violence in Africa and the Middle East, because a few hundreds years ago someone's forefather stole someone else's forefather's cow. And people die over it for the next thousand years.
I agree that people should have a figurative pair, and that there should be repercussions to one's actions. But it seems all your solutions would do is change the problems from being purely social to being physical confrontations. You aren't solving the problem, you're just making it more destructive.
I don't know. Kids complain about their teachers to each other in and out of school verbally face to face, verbally over the phone, through texts, etc, etc. I can't see how it's ok to talk about a teacher face to face but not when it's done on Facebook. Unless, of course, it isn't. And if it isn't, the kids should face the same punishment for talking about a teacher outside of school that they apparently do for Facebooking about them. Personally, I'm not comfortable with that. I also have major issues when places of employment concern themselves with employee behavior outside of work that's both legal and done when the employee is not acting as a representative. That's going way too far. Now this is obviously a different situation, but I feel it's similar enough to apply the same thought process to it. If they're not causing an in-school disruption, they should face no in-school punishment.
I think I'm all about punishing people based upon online actions. If I went to school and circulated a note which listed all the reasons why a certain teacher is an ogre and she should get fired, I should be punished. It should be no different if I do it online. Children (actually everyone) need to remember that such websites are public and what you do and say on them can have real consequences.
Also, while I understand your sentiment (about punishment for legal actions taken outside of work), I don't think its realistic. Jobs have certain images and many legal actions can hinder them. They should have the right to fire an employee which is harming their business. For example, if I am a daycare worker and I release a sex tape, nothing illegal is happening. But that would hurt the image of the daycare and they should be able to fire you. The same goes if I'm a lawyer and I made a public post using racial slurs and other offensive language. If I represent a certain law firm, they should be completely in their right to fire you.
I want my business to be my business. Period. I don't think that's too much to ask, really.
Now I don't think it's all that great of an idea to join a Facebook page bashing your teacher. But that's something the parents should be teaching the kid - cuz it happens on their watch. The school should have no right to punish a kid for perfectly legal crap done outside its walls.
I guess I'm crazy. I think it's very possible to separate a person from their job. If I released a sex tape, it wouldn't be in the name of my employer. If someone took umbrage with my employer for what I did on my very own, they're an idiot.
I want my business to be my business. Period. I don't think that's too much to ask, really.
For good or for ill, that's not how the real world works. If I own a business, and people refuse to do business with me because one of my employees did something bad, you bet your ass I'd ****can them. I may not like doing it, but this is my livelihood we're talking about. And would you patronize a daycare who had an employee with a reputation for abusing children?
I'll also point out that pretty much every job application has a lovely bit of legal text stating that you can be fired at any time, for any reason or lack thereof.
See caring for children is kind of what you are supposed to do at Daycare. If you are a child abuser, it's kind of evident that, that's not what you are qualified to do.
A daycare worker having sex and releasing a tape does not affect their ability to take care of children. But parents may not want to have their children taken care of by said worker. So the daycare center loses business. But if the center terminates the worker, they don't have that stigma against them.
A lawyer can properly do his job but have racist attitudes. But once it becomes public knowledge, the credibility of the lawyer is hurt and if he works for a firm, the credibility of the firm could be hurt also.
For the Facebook thing, it could be done or accessed within their walls. And depending on the content of the site, it could be defamation or libel or something like that. But I just think its so stupid that the children should be punished.
The challangee as I recall with Dueling is allowed to set terms, and choice of weaponry.
Nothing is so great of an equalizer as a Firearm in combat.
I do believe skill has something to say, which means the question of training is still relevant. Furthermore, even if it wasn't, what good is it? It still randomises who get punished, it's got nothing to do justice.
Personal honor is something that's being lost in society (ironically enough given how we are all supposed to be Unique and Special Snowflakes), and common decency is going the way of the dodo. I think a large reason that decency is going away is because frankly there's next to no form of feasible Reprisal, if you act like a douchebag towards someone else.
Yeah that other person will think you are a douche, but what do you care? You're a douche after all. However if you think you'll get the living hell beat out of you by that other person and five of his closest friends with baseball bats, or get shot in the face for being a Douche, chances are you'll at least think twice before being a Douche to everyone you meet.
That's funny considering how busy many people are claiming we should just grow thick skin and not care how people speak and act towards us. I can't see the coherence in this, care to explain it to me?
And I'm sure your parents are great people. But really, what would they have thought of Hitler or Stalin? Would he be "reformable"? Or be capable of being taught that other people are people too regardless of their religious beliefs? There are people in this world that are beyond redemption and beyond reaching, and are just Evil.
Yes, there are those. But your average homeless person, the average unemployed, the average kid who fears to go to school, the average battered man/woman/kid, and even the average criminal is not among them. Where do you personally think the line goes between who's irredeemable and who's not?
I'm reminded of a conversation between my father and a woman at dinner at my grandparents.
spoilered for length
She insisted that the Muslim culture was inferior, and responsible for all the troubles of Muslim immigrants. My dad reminded her that a very large portion of those we call Muslims are actually Christians. The woman remarked something about how they'd had to flee from the Muslims in their home country, and my father reminded her that, background or no, the Christians weren't more inclined to do better.
Anyway, further into the conversation, language, and the barrier it represented, came up. She mentioned that it was their own fault if they didn't learn Danish, my dad said that many of them haven't had a say in it since they weren't taught it at home, she claimed it was sole responsibility of the immigrants to learn Danish and teach it to their children, my dad countered that it didn't matter why these children hadn't learned Danish, they were still disadvantaged, and blaming the parents wouldn't help.
She returned to her theory about it being the middle eastern culture that prevented them from learning, and my dad mentioned that among the British working class, some (native British) people had a vocabulary consisting of as few as 200 words, which made it next to impossible for than to get better paid jobs, and that even with full legal equality, this didn't chance. So obviously, it wasn't a uniquely Middle Eastern phenomenon. Again she said it was the parents' (who often had the same vocabulary) responsibility, and that nobody else ought to do anything about the situation, no matter how many disadvantaged kids it resulted in.
Anyway, further into the conversation, language, and the barrier it represented, came up. She mentioned that it was their own fault if they didn't learn Danish, my dad said that many of them haven't had a say in it since they weren't taught it at home, she claimed it was sole responsibility of the immigrants to learn Danish and teach it to their children, my dad countered that it didn't matter why these children hadn't learned Danish, they were still disadvantaged, and blaming the parents wouldn't help.
She returned to her theory about it being the middle eastern culture that prevented them from learning, and my dad mentioned that among the British working class, some (native British) people had a vocabulary consisting of as few as 200 words, which made it next to impossible for than to get better paid jobs, and that even with full legal equality, this didn't chance. So obviously, it wasn't a uniquely Middle Eastern phenomenon. Again she said it was the parents' (who often had the same vocabulary) responsibility, and that nobody else ought to do anything about the situation, no matter how many disadvantaged kids it resulted in.
For good or for ill, that's not how the real world works. If I own a business, and people refuse to do business with me because one of my employees did something bad, you bet your ass I'd ****can them. I may not like doing it, but this is my livelihood we're talking about. And would you patronize a daycare who had an employee with a reputation for abusing children?
I'll also point out that pretty much every job application has a lovely bit of legal text stating that you can be fired at any time, for any reason or lack thereof.
Last I checked, abusing children was against the law. And, you know, not abusing them is kind of a prerequisite to being a good daycare employee. I specifically stated - several times - that legal doings outside of work/school should be let alone.
I am also perfectly aware of the reality of the situation. This awareness in no way requires I like said reality. In other words, I understand it perfectly. I just think it's BS.
I agree with you in principle, but in practice, perception is a very important part of businesses. If a business has an employee who is perceived as bad, then it could negatively effect the business. So the business should have the rights to terminate its employee.
A daycare worker having sex and releasing a tape does not affect their ability to take care of children. But parents may not want to have their children taken care of by said worker. So the daycare center loses business. But if the center terminates the worker, they don't have that stigma against them.
A lawyer can properly do his job but have racist attitudes. But once it becomes public knowledge, the credibility of the lawyer is hurt and if he works for a firm, the credibility of the firm could be hurt also.
For the Facebook thing, it could be done or accessed within their walls. And depending on the content of the site, it could be defamation or libel or something like that. But I just think its so stupid that the children should be punished.
Well I think we're on the same page, actually. I understand the why, I just don't like it and would prefer it be different. As far as Facebook is concerned, that shouldn't be available in school, IMO. If it is and the kids choose that time - even free periods - to bash the teacher on the page, then they should be subject to punishment. In school, you should be subject to the school's rules, at work, you should be subject to the rules of your employer. Outside? You should be subject to the rules that apply wherever it is you are. That ain't how it works, but it's damn well the way it should.
I specifically stated - several times - that legal doings outside of work/school should be let alone.
So, it's illegal to have a bad reputation? People get reputations they don't deserve all the time.
You can't teach people to be able to help others, if they can't or won't help themselves and would rather put blame elsewhere. That sort of thing comes in steps.
It's kind of like New Orleans vs Haiti over here.
Honestly I feel we've done more for the Haitians already than we have for the Katrina victims. Because it didn't happen to us, it's okay to help someone else from circumstances beyond their control.
How that makes any sense is beyond me. You take care of your own first. Especially when they had no control over it.
New Orleans or Katrinaville as I call it from time to time is still a festering corpse.
Remember when I said, the comment about being a victim? That is where the line in the sand is drawn for me. When someone feels it's A-okay to get enjoyment from your suffering. At that point that person (the tormentor, the murderer, the bully etc) ceases to be human in my eyes and should be dealt with accordingly. It's not a very ambiguous line, and it's not a very thin line. Infact it's pretty straightforward.
If your suffering is a direct result from someone else or a circumstance that is truly beyond your control it isn't your fault and should seek help.
And it is your obligation to help people that really do need it. (and not peek in where you aren't wanted. *cough* Iraq*cough*)
So, it's illegal to have a bad reputation? People get reputations they don't deserve all the time.
Who said anything about reputation? You specifically chose an illegal action as an example to use against my stance. I merely clarified that I specifically stated more than once that the activities I was speaking of as 'off-limits' to school/work discipline should be legal and that illegal activites were not something I placed under the same umbrella.
I have no idea where you're going with this. Really.
I don't know. Kids complain about their teachers to each other in and out of school verbally face to face, verbally over the phone, through texts, etc, etc. I can't see how it's ok to talk about a teacher face to face but not when it's done on Facebook.
Facebook is not face to face, despite the name, it's a public domain. It's not very different from making huge signs about the teacher, or make written notes to hand out to anyone passing by. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to practice harassment unhindered, which includes attacking and shaming people who have to work with you in public. Vent about about them to your friends all you like, but don't start a public campaign against them unless you have a legitimate complaint.
So, it's illegal to have a bad reputation? People get reputations they don't deserve all the time.
Who said anything about reputation?
I did. "And would you patronize a daycare who had an employee with a reputation for abusing children?" Read it again.
Facebook is not face to face, despite the name, it's a public domain. It's not very different from making huge signs about the teacher, or make written notes to hand out to anyone passing by. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to practice harassment unhindered, which includes attacking and shaming people who have to work with you in public. Vent about about them to your friends all you like, but don't start a public campaign against them unless you have a legitimate complaint.
I don't see it as all that different from a group of kids going to the local Pizza Hut or whatever and talkin' about dumb ol' Miss So and So or smelly ol' Mr Whoever. And they do. Should these kids be punished by the school for talking about their teacher in a negative way outside of school? It's like this is being seen the way it is simply because it's more organized or something. This behavior occurs with or without Facebook. I can't reconcile punishing the kids just because this happened to be done on Facebook.
What if the kids used a nick name they gave the teacher to title the page? Stinky Teacher or whatever. Should they still be punished even though nobody was named? You could easily determine who Stinky Teacher was by doing a comparison of the group members and common classes. So where's the line?
I did. "And would you patronize a daycare who had an employee with a reputation for abusing children?" Read it again.
Ok. Abusing kids is still illegal. That's the important bit. It's not a good example against my argument if it doesn't follow my argument. I said legal for a reason.
I guess I'm crazy. I think it's very possible to separate a person from their job. If I released a sex tape, it wouldn't be in the name of my employer. If someone took umbrage with my employer for what I did on my very own, they're an idiot.
I want my business to be my business. Period. I don't think that's too much to ask, really.
But it is. In hiring you, I am hiring a person, not only a set of job-related skills. That sex tape WILL start going around the rumor mill at work and directly effect productivity. You are a detriment to the company, and need to be let go. It took me a while to concede (as I'm personally against the notion) but perception IS 90% the rule. How you appear will determine your fate.
I did. "And would you patronize a daycare who had an employee with a reputation for abusing children?" Read it again.
Ok. Abusing kids is still illegal. That's the important bit. It's not a good example against my argument if it doesn't follow my argument. I said legal for a reason.
A reputation does mean anything wrong was ever done. People get reputations they don't deserve all the time. If the person in question did nothing wrong, but gained the reputation, it is a perfectly good example.
But it is. In hiring you, I am hiring a person, not only a set of job-related skills. That sex tape WILL start going around the rumor mill at work and directly effect productivity. You are a detriment to the company, and need to be let go. It took me a while to concede (as I'm personally against the notion) but perception IS 90% the rule. How you appear will determine your fate.
Again, I understand it. I don't like it, however, and am entitled to speak against it.
A reputation does mean anything wrong was ever done. People get reputations they don't deserve all the time. If the person in question did nothing wrong, but gained the reputation, it is a perfectly good example.
Ah. Gotcha now. I'm a li'l more brain dead today than usual. I can say only what I have been in the last few posts: I understand why it's done, but I do not like it. In a case like this, I'm even more sickened by it. Firing someone for something they actually did is one thing. Firing them for a rumor that cannot be proved nor disproved, however, is something altogether different and totally disgusting.
Ah. Gotcha now. I'm a li'l more brain dead today than usual. I can say only what I have been in the last few posts: I understand why it's done, but I do not like it. In a case like this, I'm even more sickened by it. Firing someone for something they actually did is one thing. Firing them for a rumor that cannot be proved nor disproved, however, is something altogether different and totally disgusting.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse...
I vaguely remember that stuff. What a world.
I don't see it as all that different from a group of kids going to the local Pizza Hut or whatever and talkin' about dumb ol' Miss So and So or smelly ol' Mr Whoever. And they do. Should these kids be punished by the school for talking about their teacher in a negative way outside of school? It's like this is being seen the way it is simply because it's more organized or something. This behavior occurs with or without Facebook. I can't reconcile punishing the kids just because this happened to be done on Facebook.
I think a difference is that its recorded, spread, and signed on. Its more similar to a group of kids making a poster of why they dislike a teacher (I don't know what was actually on the Facebook site), signed it, and then stapled them to telephone poles all over town. I think that case isn't as cut and dry as kids talking about a bad teacher. When something goes on Facebook, it becomes documented and perpetuated so depending on what was written, it can cause much more serious problems.
I think a difference is that its recorded, spread, and signed on. Its more similar to a group of kids making a poster of why they dislike a teacher (I don't know what was actually on the Facebook site), signed it, and then stapled them to telephone poles all over town. I think that case isn't as cut and dry as kids talking about a bad teacher. When something goes on Facebook, it becomes documented and perpetuated so depending on what was written, it can cause much more serious problems.
So it's more organized. Got it.
What kind of more serious problems? It's kids whining about a teacher - just like they do all over the world every single day. If we're talking about false accusations and libel, well, those are illegal and then there's no problem (IMO) with disciplining the kids accordingly.
I think a difference is that its recorded, spread, and signed on. Its more similar to a group of kids making a poster of why they dislike a teacher (I don't know what was actually on the Facebook site), signed it, and then stapled them to telephone poles all over town. I think that case isn't as cut and dry as kids talking about a bad teacher. When something goes on Facebook, it becomes documented and perpetuated so depending on what was written, it can cause much more serious problems.
So it's more organized. Got it.
What kind of more serious problems? It's kids whining about a teacher - just like they do all over the world every single day. If we're talking about false accusations and libel, well, those are illegal and then there's no problem (IMO) with disciplining the kids accordingly.
And what happens when the teacher gains a false reputation amongst the community? Teenagers aren't exactly known for keeping strictly to the facts. Did you know I once wore a million year old t-shirt? It was news to me.
And what happens when the teacher gains a false reputation amongst the community? Teenagers aren't exactly known for keeping strictly to the facts. Did you know I once wore a million year old t-shirt? It was news to me.
So someone actually believed you wore a million year old tee shirt and you suffered for it? If not, no problem. Kids say crap that isn't true constantly. They also constantly exaggerate. This is a well known, well documented occurence, no? What kind of bad rep can they give a teacher that would impact their employability but would not also fall under false accusation or libel?
Kids say crap that isn't true constantly. They also constantly exaggerate. This is a well known, well documented occurence, no? What kind of bad rep can they give a teacher that would impact their employability but would not also fall under false accusation or libel?
Does it matter if it falls under false acusation or libel? Once the damage is done it is done. Like with the day care sex abuse scares of the 80s and 90s, people just believed the kids. Same with the Salem Witch trials. Did the fact that the accusations proved false get people the years they spent in prison back? Did it resurrect the people killed in witch hunts? A lot of people will say it can't happen again, but the fact that it has happened so often proves that it can.
Does it matter if it falls under false acusation or libel? Once the damage is done it is done. Like with the day care sex abuse scares of the 80s and 90s, people just believed the kids. Same with the Salem Witch trials. Did the fact that the accusations proved false get people the years they spent in prison back? Did it resurrect the people killed in witch hunts? A lot of people will say it can't happen again, but the fact that it has happened so often proves that it can.
It matters because false accusation and libel are against the law and therefore out of the realm of behavior I consider protected.
It matters because false accusation and libel are against the law and therefore out of the realm of behavior I consider protected.
Fair.
It matters because false accusation and libel are against the law and therefore out of the realm of behavior I consider protected.
I will also concede this point if the Facebook page did not make false claims. I thought you were saying stuff kids normally would say against a teacher but putting it on Facebook.
Fair.
Cool. I want to thank you for having some patience with me. Today I find myself terribly unable to communicate my thoughts properly and also a li'l slow to get the flow. I don't think I'm usually like this, but who knows? My brain ain't workin' right today, though, and that's a fact.
I will also concede this point if the Facebook page did not make false claims. I thought you were saying stuff kids normally would say against a teacher but putting it on Facebook.
To be honest, I wasn't able to find out what exactly was on it. The page was deleted when all the fuss started and nobody is talking about what was on it.
Stuff kids normally say about teachers, at least as far as my experience can take me, doesn't usually delve into the depths of false accusation. They can be mean, but they don't typically accuse teachers of abuse or things of that nature. It may be that I'm wrong in assuming that cuz I ain't been in school in a long time, but that's the way it was when I was there.
Erato: You gotta start small. You can't teach people to be able to help others, if they can't or won't help themselves and would rather put blame elsewhere. That sort of thing comes in steps.
And you can't easily teach people to trust and appreciate others if they haven't been trusted and appreciated themselves.
How that makes any sense is beyond me. You take care of your own first. Especially when they had no control over it. New Orleans or Katrinaville as I call it from time to time is still a festering corpse.
But as many people said in a previous thread, New Orleans had warning. Sure, some people didn't trust the warning, some people decided to take their chance rather than leave everything behind, some people just became indecisive and impassive in the face of danger, and others escaped but still lost everything. But they had warning, and if they were responsible, insurance. They didn't have to suffer, but because of their own stupidity, they did. So they don't deserve help, right?
Remember when I said, the comment about being a victim? That is where the line in the sand is drawn for me. When someone feels it's A-okay to get enjoyment from your suffering.
And when precisely is that? Here we have a saying, that you can spot an abusive family on the behaviour of their pets. The husband is treated badly at work, so he beats his wife, the wife beats the kids, and the kids beat the dog, who then starts acting agressively. They're all taking their frustrations out on those below them (assuming a traditional 'father knows best' kind of family), and thus getting release from their feelings of powerlessness (i.e. enjoyment), so which of them aren't human?
If your suffering is a direct result from someone else or a circumstance that is truly beyond your control it isn't your fault and should seek help.
But a lot of the people talking about personal responsibility also talk about bringing stuff on yourself. Kids who creep out other kids by being 'weird', women who provoke men by dressing too revealingly or flirt too much, homosexuals who disgust and freak out others by flaunting their lifestyle, Top Gear hosts who drive through southern US with liberal slogans and insults on their cars, or, as you said yourself, people who act like douchebags towards others with no fear of reprisal.
PS: I don't do this to be provocative or annoying, I don't mean to suggest there's a simple solution, or that I'm right, I'm just interested in your responses
Show
And you can't easily teach people to trust and appreciate others if they haven't been trusted and appreciated themselves.
But as many people said in a previous thread, New Orleans had warning. Sure, some people didn't trust the warning, some people decided to take their chance rather than leave everything behind, some people just became indecisive and impassive in the face of danger, and others escaped but still lost everything. But they had warning, and if they were responsible, insurance. They didn't have to suffer, but because of their own stupidity, they did. So they don't deserve help, right?
And when precisely is that? Here we have a saying, that you can spot an abusive family on the behaviour of their pets. The husband is treated badly at work, so he beats his wife, the wife beats the kids, and the kids beat the dog, who then starts acting agressively. They're all taking their frustrations out on those below them (assuming a traditional 'father knows best' kind of family), and thus getting release from their feelings of powerlessness (i.e. enjoyment), so which of them aren't human?
But a lot of the people talking about personal responsibility also talk about bringing stuff on yourself. Kids who creep out other kids by being 'weird', women who provoke men by dressing too revealingly or flirt too much, homosexuals who disgust and freak out others by flaunting their lifestyle, Top Gear hosts who drive through southern US with liberal slogans and insults on their cars, or, as you said yourself, people who act like douchebags towards others with no fear of reprisal.
PS: I don't do this to be provocative or annoying, I don't mean to suggest there's a simple solution, or that I'm right, I'm just interested in your responses
But one person's lack of common sense is hardly proof of a societal flaw.
Especially when we have so many good people out there at work.
... Cpt_Micha, you're a southern boy, aren't ya?
By transplant and most of the time it shows. I sound almost nothing like the Good Ole Boys down here, in accent or word usage. I've adapted Ya'll just cause it's a nice informal word and can mean so many things just by my tone, be it condescending, diplomatic, friendly etc.
I also don't share the Southerner sense of style and I don't share alot of cultural views with the typical Southerner. I'm a great deal more liberal.
My state is alot more "yankee" than most of the South (thank god. I couldn't imagine trying to live in Alabama or Arkansas. I'd be stoned, lynched or shot for sure) but you can still see the South here.
I also don't share the Southerner sense of style and I don't share alot of cultural views with the typical Southerner. I'm a great deal more liberal.
It's funny you say that, 'cause it was your views of "honor" that made me think southerner. "Culture of honor" and all that jazz, ya know?
Stuff kids normally say about teachers, at least as far as my experience can take me, doesn't usually delve into the depths of false accusation. They can be mean, but they don't typically accuse teachers of abuse or things of that nature. It may be that I'm wrong in assuming that cuz I ain't been in school in a long time, but that's the way it was when I was there.
When I was in elementary school, the rumour 'round the block was that the grade 6 teacher would get the girls in the class to come to the front to show him their work so he could look down their tops. One of my ladyfriends said he'd pulled that on her.
Junior high it was rumoured that one of the teachers smoked pot in the greenhouse and had killed two guys in Mexico back when he was in a biker gang. Most didn't believe those stories, but I'm pretty sure some did.
True or not, kids do talk about that stuff. And because of our stupid paranoid culture, even rumours can ruin somebody's career and life.
It isn't our society that needs to fall....
Damn straight. It's all those miserable trees. Slash it, burn it, pave it.
All of it.
It's funny you say that, 'cause it was your views of "honor" that made me think southerner. "Culture of honor" and all that jazz, ya know?
I was raised by a boy scout. (what the Boy Scouts used to be, not what they've become)
The south talks a big game about honor from time to time but really you don't see a whole lot of honorable behavior. That being said southerners are generally alot more courteous to other human beings down here as far as being willing to help someone out that's in a bad situation.
I think alot of what makes the South have undesirable traits is the Fire and Brimestone Baptism that runs so rampant down here, and in general poor education.
I was raised by a boy scout. (what the Boy Scouts used to be, not what they've become)
The south talks a big game about honor from time to time but really you don't see a whole lot of honorable behavior. That being said southerners are generally alot more courteous to other human beings down here as far as being willing to help someone out that's in a bad situation.
I think alot of what makes the South have undesirable traits is the Fire and Brimestone Baptism that runs so rampant down here, and in general poor education.
... you... have no idea what I meant by "culture of honor", do you?
Eh. If you're curious you can look it up yourself. The phrase is "culture of honor", and a bunch has been written about it, both in academic materials and other places.
A fancy term for respect for personal rights through threat of excessive violence. Like stabbing someone with a fork when they reach for your desert. The obvious down side is that it defaults to very few personal rights for those who fear personal harm more then they fear loss of property.