Airjoe wrote:
Just for the record, we actually do have to sign something that says that at the beginning of the year in my school. Same here. Education is a human right, but it doesn't say it has to be a good education... if the school kicks you out for being nasty to another pupil, so be it; find a different school that accepts such pupils. | |
Mxjerrett wrote:
if we ever wanted to get a gun(i am not saying anyone does) it would be very easy. Well exactly. I don't want to go off topic here, but the ownership (and subsequent firing of) guns is largely irrelevent in most of western society. With the exception of farmers who may need to defend their animals from predators, guns are barbaric objects that are just begging to get picked up by a ticked-off teenager with an itchy trigger-finger. | |
I see Myspace threats a lot. Most recently, someone at my school was suspended(for only 9 days, I think) for posting on their Myspace something like "[girl's name here], you're next" and having a photoshopped picture of the girl with a gun to her head. Sounds just as bad as the Yahoo! story you just posted to, but it didn't really make news and the student wasn't threatened with expulsion, nor did the parents argue with any "bounds overstepping."
Hiead | |
Alathon wrote:
Because suspending someone does NOTHING to alleviate danger. *At all*. That is true, but if anything did happen, the parents could sue the school, and that is the last thing they want. | |
Airjoe wrote:
Just for the record, we actually do have to sign something that says that at the beginning of the year in my school. How lame. =P We sign no such documents in my district, and I'm sure that most schools don't require said documents to be signed, either. Hiead | |
Actually, there was one inmate who got the death penalty in Texas. It was a lethal injection. It took over ten minutes to kill him and the entire time he was screaming and suffering. I think after that they should have banned lethal injection (I am against our capital punishment. You cannot teach people not to kill by killing, but, I do not think it should be banned. I think some people deserve it, though, like Suddam Hussein. I have no remorse for him whatsoever and would love to watch him get the chair).
| |
For mandatory brain control therapy. When are people going to realize the so long as you allow people to make decisions, they will make poor decisions. We need to take that liability away!
Actually, I don't see what the big deal is. If I had written that stuff and gotten a bunch of like minded misfits togeether in high school, I probably would have gotten in trouble, too. I was too busy doing things like studying, working, hanging out with friends or playing sports. Funny how that works- when you have stuff to do you get into less trouble. | |
Jmurph wrote:
Funny how that works- when you have stuff to do you get into less trouble. Well I do all of the same stuff you do, yet I manage to get in trouble while in the process of doing that stuff. Without bad decisions, life would be boring. | |
Education is a human right, we all have the right to learn, but that does not mean people HAVE to teach us to learn. A school dosen't have to accpet just anyone.
There are such things as records Elation, if a kid is kicked out of a school for being mean to another kid, the chances are another school is going to take that into consideration. And with technology the way it is today, such students do not need to be in a public school, sharing space with other students. They can just learn online. I know many kids that go to school on the web now. Now me, I like the public schools, I think it teaches our children something more then just numbers or facts. It teaches us social rules and standards, ect. But I can tell you what, I agree with the school. If some kid was making threats or blowing off steam at other children at the school, even online, that is something that would worry me if MY child went to that school. Id rather have a few idiots kicked out of school and maybe falsely accuse them, then have the chance of my kid having their head blowen off by some crazy bastard. Finally I don't know what you are talking about, school having no control off school grounds or outside. I have had plenty of frends busted by teachers blocks away from school, after school hours and they ended up getting detentions or suspended. Of course these kids were the same ones knifeing tires and throwing eggs, so they deserved it. | |
Elation wrote:
D4RK3 54B3R wrote: I haven't read that book yet, although I've heard a lot about it. | |
GokuDBZ3128 wrote:
Actually, there was one inmate who got the death penalty in Texas. It was a lethal injection. It took over ten minutes to kill him and the entire time he was screaming and suffering. Darn. That's nasty. I was under the impression that one of the drugs was supposed to paralyse you or knock you out or something along those lines while the other drugs killed you. To Wikipedia! 1. Sodium thiopental: to induce a state of unconsciousness intended to last while the other two injections take effect. 2. Pancuronium/Tubocurarine: to stop all muscle movement except the heart. This causes muscle paralysis, collapse of the diaphragm, and would eventually cause death by asphyxiation. 3. Potassium chloride: to stop the heart from beating, and thus cause death: see cardiac arrest. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection As I thought - one of the drugs induces unconsciousness, and one of the others causes paralysis. I guess they really screwed up that time... The paralysis one strikes me as completely unnecessary, and potentially very cruel. What if the potassium chloride dose didn't kill you, and the thiopental dose didn't last long enough to knock you out for the entire time? You wouldn't be able to move at all while you slowly suffocated to death. Nasty. | |
In response to your interest, I'd like to say that the education system is in no way in my chain of command. If I can poke fun at my sister services, I doubt a whole lot of people will really care about me making derogatory comments about the education system.
Yes, I agree, the constitution is not flawless. Yes, gun control may or may not be a valid point. But my point still stands. The internet is not gray area in the constitution, laws were left with vaguaries deliberately, because the forefathers were aware of changes in society. The basic fact of the matter is, that the school could not prove WHO posted said message, or if the situation occurred during school hours, or on school grounds. I stand by my point that if nothing harmful occurred, then there is NOTHING that should have been done. By your logic, if I kill your character in WoW, for instance, and you decide to take it personal, and let it drag into school, is PKing between classmates now grounds for suspension? Yes, it's a stretch, but my point is that crap happens. Instead of shielding children from "bullying" and teasing, why doesn't anyone realise that it is a part of living amongst humans, and teach children to cope with manners in a proper way. The main reason that cases like this piss me off, is because they teach rather than learning to deal with other people, you have to have the judicial system deal with the problem for you. This kid didn't, from any account make any action against this girl in real life, so what is the problem? What are we, some future-crime punishing facist society? No, we are supposed to be AMERICA, the light of the civilized world. And what are we doing, wasting time squabbling and asking "what if this happened...". Nothing EVER comes from "what if this happened", advancement, social and technological comes from "what if this was possible". My point still stands, that this kid didn't do anything legally wrong, besides make an offhand, and probably somewhat joking comment. If this kid gets the hell beat out of him, then it serves him right. That's how humans work, response to violence with violence. It doesn't make it right, but trying to move past it is just squandering resources. Spend time dealing with people that actually do something wrong, or ACTIVELY PLAN to do something wrong. In the military we have three points before someone is considered dangerous: - Incentive, meaning they have reason to cause harm. - Intent, meaning they mean to cause harm. - Capability, meaning they have access to the resources required to cause harm. What this basically means, is that if a person shows an active plan, to, and actually goes through the motions of impeding a mission, then they are expendable. It works, and only when these three points are overlooked, are there unneccesary casualties. Show me the proof that this kid was any more dangerous than the rest of the population, and I'll agree wholeheartedly. Until then, I'm sad to say that this was a poor move on the school's part. | |
Actually, the right to bare arms is directly aimed at keeping the population as armed as the nation. Why? Because, in the likely event that the government turns on the people and tries to become a dictatorship, people will be able to stand up and stop it, not just be pushed down because they where already stripped of all ability to fight back. Lets see you fight a government as big and powerful as the USA with hockey sticks and baseball bats.
Some thoughts to ponder on topic: Your rights end where others begin Sometimes actions have to be taken despite the rules Ends can justify means(In this case I think the ends won't end up like planned, this should have been handled diplomatically) Sometimes children are refused their constitutional rights because they are not old enough to understand the effects of their actions(giving 12 year olds guns doesn't seem like a good idea to me) Schools are normally run by people who shouldn't run a gas station You never get all your rights, I am 19 years old but cannot drink alcohol, despite being considered an adult in %90 other terms(including my "right" to die for my country, evidently I am old enough to sign up to possibly die, but not to buy a sedative to relieve the stress of being shot at for a living) Life is never fair, but kids should not be allowed to run around bullying other kids, it teaches them that being mean or violent will get them their way. Out of all the things the school system could have done, suspension was probably the worst. Private confrontations with the kids involved could have been enough, public humiliation normally just fuels hate and anger. | |
Point of duh: Harassment is not protected speech. Your speech and expressions may offend, it may challenge opinions, it may insult, it may be outside all bounds of good taste, but it may not reach the point where someone is incapable of simply ignoring you.
And not all threats have to be direct, or immediate, to be serious. Deliberately inciting violence is every bit as bad as causing it yourself, because you basically aim a nutjob in the right direction and pull their trigger. Lummox JR | |
Shades wrote:
...It teaches us social rules and standards, ect... gah! i snorted cola up my nose when i read that rubbish. the only social rules taught by your peers in school are how to disrespect others, and form stupid fan-boy groups (cliques). standards? pfft, the only standards i see are ones based on how low your pants can go before someone complains. (brings back fond memories of pushing teenager-rapper-wannabes over because they couldn't move their legs apart since their jeans are practically down around their knees... ah, the good old days). | |
Thats simply not the case! Arguments based on the ASSUMPTION that hate exists mutually, that there is capability or intent to harm should be dismissed at the base.
No one knows if the kid in question is violent. No one knows if the hate is mutual. No one knows if the kid would ever, in real-life beyond the anonymity and/or freedom of the internet EVER say much less do something even remotely linked to it.
Now had the kid in question harassed the person IRL or done something on school property, sure, then theres GROUNDS to believe.
Harassment on a personal MySpace is about as *thin* evidence as you can get. The school *suspects* something, what I'm saying is suspecting it and acting on a very very very slim suspicion without a shred to back it off is -wrong-
I've had people over to my house together who I knew didn't get along that well. I've had one of them state that they hated the other person and that they wanted to beat them up.
Has something ever happened ? No.
Do I suspect something would ever happen ? No.
You've already upped them to 'potentially violently opposed individuals'. Now you've even added the girl into it! How would I feel being accused of something like this even if I wrote some crap on a MySpace ? Violated. Completely, utterly violated. I'd give the school hell for it, too. If I want to vent on a MySpace, I will - Does that mean I'd *ever* act on it ? No.
Then you have grounds to act. Let me turn that around:
What if BECAUSE of this, the kids that got kicked out / suspended cause harm.
They didn't. They had no evidence supporting the kid in question was violent, they had no evidence supporting that the kid would ever act on it, they had no evidence supporting that the kid might have an unstable mental state.
Had they brought someone in to evaluate it and a state professional thought the kid was in danger of harming others, THEN you can say they knew it was a possibility.
Posting on a MySpace makes it no more a possibility than me pulling out a gun right now and blowing the head off my danish teahcer.
I'd fault the school if they didn't do the following:
1) Bring the kid in, talk to him. Mention that someone found his MySpace disturbing and how he felt about it or if he had any intentions to act upon it.
2) Look at the kids behavior in school
3) Bring in someone to talk to the kid and assess his mental state
What if the schools suspension now causes violence and much more hatred than was previously present? What if the suspension FUELS future problems not prevents them ? What if it made the kid think in ways he never had before. What if it made him feel wronged, violated ?
What if, because of this, the kid acts in a way that causes harm to others. Would you blame the school ? Because suspending someone does NOTHING to alleviate danger. *At all*.