A school in southern Sweden told a female student to "tone down" her homosexuality as a remedy to bullying from other students for being gay, prompting the girl to report the school for discrimination.
The victim's report, which has filed with the Swedish Equality Ombudsman (Diskrimineringsombudsmannen, DO), explains how the teen had to quit her studies at the Munkgård high school after severely mistreatment from other students.
Teachers at the school were unhelpful when she raised the matter with them, telling the girl to "tone down" her sexuality as other students were "confused and scared" by it.
According to the girl's report, the incidents began when she was assaulted in 2010 by a fellow student who had hit her in the head, causing a minor head fracture.
“She threatened to shove pliers into my eyes and then she took hold of the pliers and delivered three hefty hits against my temples and the area close to my eyes,” the girl wrote in the report.
When she later consulted the school about the incident, teachers told her it was all her own fault.
According to the report, the school told her:
“You’re the one to blame. It was your own fault. You provoked her,” adding that she should have “just hit back.”
After online research, the girl discovered that the school must report any mistreatment that occurs during school hours, and confronted the school, only to be told that it was up to her to make a report.
The case is now being handled by the DO, but before any compensation decisions are made, the school will be given the chance to comment, according to DO case officer Sara Stenberg.
“We have made a request for the principal of the school to comment on the case. This is standard procedure. They have until July 6th to make a comment,” she told The Local.
'A minor head fracture'?!?! A principal learned someone suffered 'a minor head fracture' in his school and answered 'you should've hit him too'?!?! I don't... I can't... God... I hope there's a Hell somewhere for dumbfraks like these...
I mean, 'head fracture'. Just repeat this mentally, how bad this sounds.
''Oh honey what's up, you look pale?'' ''Oh nothing mommy, I was totally being a annoying butch at school and some kid fractured my head for it. But don't worry, I spoke to my principal, next time I'll make sure I get him too, so everything will be fine''
You know, maybe this warrants some attention from some online community prone to some hacktivity...
Terrible. Hope the suit goes through without a hitch and some people learn how to better deal with this than the sad way it was handled.
I am a bit confused as to the "minor head fracture" bit. Brain still in skull: minor, out of skull: major? It still sounds bad, minor heart attack is still life threatening, minor head fracture sounds pretty rough as well.
Unless someone has threatened your life, attacking someone's face with pliers while threatening to pluck out their eyes indicates psychopathic levels of anger. And that seems much more troubling than a student being openly gay.
To be fair, "You should have hit back." is right. The rest of it is questionable, but if someone comes at you with pliers and the intent to do harm, F them up.
When will kids learn that junior high and high school are NOT the time to be expressing your individuality? Children are ruthless at that age. All of them. Even the ones who pretend to be good.
Wait until college to show any kind of personality that might go against the status quo. Then you can start suing people without your pesky parents getting a hold of your money.
To be fair, we don't really know what she was being asked to "tone down" from. Being overtly sexual, regardless of what the nature of it is, can get you bullied.
Granted homosexuals definitely have it worse in the vast majority of places.
dogma wrote:To be fair, we don't really know what she was being asked to "tone down" from. Being overtly sexual, regardless of what the nature of it is, can get you bullied.
Granted homosexuals definitely have it worse in the vast majority of places.
I know plenty of gay people who blend in quite nicely with society without issue, and who are openly gay. They don't dress flamboyantly, they don't talk with made up lisps. They act normal, and are treated normal.
Pro tip: If you act like Big Gay Al, you WILL get gak for it.
You think Anderson Cooper runs around screaming like a school girl and saying the word "fabulous" at everything? No. He acts normal, and people treat him normal.
Being gay has feth all to do with being annoying. Some people want attention, negative or not, so they act out to be noticed. Those people deserve the hate that comes their way, whether straight, gay or asexual.
dogma wrote:To be fair, we don't really know what she was being asked to "tone down" from. Being overtly sexual, regardless of what the nature of it is, can get you bullied.
Granted homosexuals definitely have it worse in the vast majority of places.
I know plenty of gay people who blend in quite nicely with society without issue, and who are openly gay. They don't dress flamboyantly, they don't talk with made up lisps. They act normal, and are treated normal.
Pro tip: If you act like Big Gay Al, you WILL get gak for it.
You think Anderson Cooper runs around screaming like a school girl and saying the word "fabulous" at everything? No. He acts normal, and people treat him normal.
Being gay has feth all to do with being annoying. Some people want attention, negative or not, so they act out to be noticed. Those people deserve the hate that comes their way, whether straight, gay or asexual.
No matter how annoying she was being, she would not deserve death. The attack could have crippled her or killed her. If the school has not been following procedure, then they need to be reprimanded. They are endangering their students.
dogma wrote:To be fair, we don't really know what she was being asked to "tone down" from. Being overtly sexual, regardless of what the nature of it is, can get you bullied.
Granted homosexuals definitely have it worse in the vast majority of places.
I know plenty of gay people who blend in quite nicely with society without issue, and who are openly gay. They don't dress flamboyantly, they don't talk with made up lisps. They act normal, and are treated normal.
Pro tip: If you act like Big Gay Al, you WILL get gak for it.
You think Anderson Cooper runs around screaming like a school girl and saying the word "fabulous" at everything? No. He acts normal, and people treat him normal.
Being gay has feth all to do with being annoying. Some people want attention, negative or not, so they act out to be noticed. Those people deserve the hate that comes their way, whether straight, gay or asexual.
No matter how annoying she was being, she would not deserve death. The attack could have crippled her or killed her. If the school has not been following procedure, then they need to be reprimanded. They are endangering their students.
I'm not arguing that at all. No violence against children should be tolerated.
I'm just telling kids to not put targets on their backs. No one should die over trying to be yourself in high school. Save it for real life.
dogma wrote:To be fair, we don't really know what she was being asked to "tone down" from. Being overtly sexual, regardless of what the nature of it is, can get you bullied.
Granted homosexuals definitely have it worse in the vast majority of places.
I know plenty of gay people who blend in quite nicely with society without issue, and who are openly gay. They don't dress flamboyantly, they don't talk with made up lisps. They act normal, and are treated normal.
Pro tip: If you act like Big Gay Al, you WILL get gak for it.
You think Anderson Cooper runs around screaming like a school girl and saying the word "fabulous" at everything? No. He acts normal, and people treat him normal.
Being gay has feth all to do with being annoying. Some people want attention, negative or not, so they act out to be noticed. Those people deserve the hate that comes their way, whether straight, gay or asexual.
There is a difference between being annoyed and attempting to fething MURDER SOMEONE
Aerethan wrote:
Being gay has feth all to do with being annoying. Some people want attention, negative or not, so they act out to be noticed. Those people deserve the hate that comes their way, whether straight, gay or asexual.
I don't think that's true, but I do think a sort of reminder to understand your surroundings is an important part of growing up; preferably not by way of skull fractures. The girl that assaulted the victim should have been disciplined, but we don't know what the victim was doing, either at the time or historically, so we can't pass absolute judgment on the school for telling her to tone it down.
She didn't deserve the assault, but she may have been able to take steps to protect herself as well.
It's Sweden. If they've forgotten the nordic truism of "Always Carry Yer Axe" then they deserve to be assaulted with pliers. I mean, really, wasn't she asking for it by not carrying an axe?
Hey you lot know Im gay friendly and all for gay rights, but I have to play devils advocate here with you guys all jumping on the "sue the school!" bandwagon.
At the end of the day, kids are mother fethers! I am not attempting to justify the awful assault, and the plier wielder should of course be suspended of something, but I was a little bastard when I was 13, most people are, we are pack animals and when you are a kid you want to fit in so you act like the majority, when I was in high school if you were different, you got bullied. Now I am not saying its not a sad state of affairs, or that it is sad that children...er.. act like children?
But is it really that bad for the school to do a little bit of victim blaming?
It makes no mention of the girls appearence or anything, but if she was told to "tone down" her sexuality, surely she is being a bit weird? How is it you can tell she is a lesbian by just looking at her? Is she going to school with a skin head, some buster browns and a "I love tits" shirt on? There is nothing at all wrong with that of course, but if you think what's fine in your twenties is fine in high school, you are very naive, didn't her parents tell her its fine to be gay but it might cause her some gak if you walks around school looking like the bass player from the 4 non blondes?!
If I was a teacher and this type of thing was happening to a male student, then I would say to the kid "Listen kid, none of it matters when you grow up so try not to get upset, there is nothing at all wrong with being gay, but children are childish, and because you are different they WILL pick on it and single you out.. so could you not try to just be a little bit less aggressively homo? You know.. maybe not wear the eye liner and the ass-less chaps to class?"
So friends.. despite me feeling bad for the girl, until we know exactly what it is that she does that makes her "visibly lesbian" I must blame the parents for letting her go to school dressed so, and by definition......
mattyrm wrote:Hey you lot know Im gay friendly and all for gay rights, but I have to play devils advocate here with you guys all jumping on the "sue the school!" bandwagon.
At the end of the day, kids are mother fethers! I am not attempting to justify the awful assault, and the plier wielder should of course be suspended of something, but I was a little bastard when I was 13, most people are, we are pack animals and when you are a kid you want to fit in so you act like the majority, when I was in high school if you were different, you got bullied. Now I am not saying its not a sad state of affairs, or that it is sad that children...er.. act like children?
But is it really that bad for the school to do a little bit of victim blaming?
It makes no mention of the girls appearence or anything, but if she was told to "tone down" her sexuality, surely she is being a bit weird? How is it you can tell she is a lesbian by just looking at her? Is she going to school with a skin head, some buster browns and a "I love tits" shirt on? There is nothing at all wrong with that of course, but if you think what's fine in your twenties is fine in high school, you are very naive, didn't her parents tell her its fine to be gay but it might cause her some gak if you walks around school looking like the bass player from the 4 non blondes?!
If I was a teacher and this type of thing was happening to a male student, then I would say to the kid "Listen kid, none of it matters when you grow up so try not to get upset, there is nothing at all wrong with being gay, but children are childish, and because you are different they WILL pick on it and single you out.. so could you not try to just be a little bit less aggressively homo? You know.. maybe not wear the eye liner and the ass-less chaps to class?"
So friends.. despite me feeling bad for the girl, until we know exactly what it is that she does that makes her "visibly lesbian" I must blame the parents for letting her go to school dressed so, and by definition......
It doesn't matter if you're visibly anything. Assault is assault. Last time I checked, fracturing someone's skull is illegal, even in Viking Sweden. I can just imagine telling black kids in immediate post-segregation Arkansas, "Awe, why didn't you fight back? Have you ever though about being a little less... African? Wearing white face paint, maybe?"
It doesn't matter if you're visibly anything. Assault is assault. Last time I checked, fracturing someone's skull is illegal, even in Viking Sweden.
I can just imagine telling black kids in immediate post-segregation Arkansas, "Awe, why didn't you fight back? Have you ever though about being a little less... African? Wearing white face paint, maybe?"
What the feth have black kids got to do with anything? There were a few black kids in my high school, I never once heard them get racially abused. They would have got some gak if they rocked up to school looking like boy george though!
I didn't say it wasn't assault either. I simply said that the girls parents and the school aren't being ridiculous if they say "being gay is fine and when you are grown up you can dress however you wish, but kids are horrible, so try not to stand out so much"
It doesn't matter if you're visibly anything. Assault is assault. Last time I checked, fracturing someone's skull is illegal, even in Viking Sweden.
I can just imagine telling black kids in immediate post-segregation Arkansas, "Awe, why didn't you fight back? Have you ever though about being a little less... African? Wearing white face paint, maybe?"
What the feth have black kids got to do with anything? There were a few black kids in my high school, I never once heard them get racially abused. They would have got some gak if they rocked up to school looking like boy george though!
I didn't say it wasn't assault either. I simply said that the girls parents and the school aren't being ridiculous if they say "being gay is fine and when you are grown up you can dress however you wish, but kids are horrible, so try not to stand out so much"
Simple common sense.
I think you missed the point. Might have something to do with you living in the U.K. though. What I meant: Schools have a responsibility to protect the children under their aegis whether those children are flamboyant or not. Dressing like Boy George doesn't mean you deserve a concussion followed by the authorities telling you to "dial back the gay a bit." while not prosecuting the psychopath that bashed your head in.
To make it clear, children should be able to dress however they wish within the constraints of the laws of their country without fear of persecution. And if they are subject to persecution, the bullies should be punished. Anything less than full protection and enforcement of rights courts tragedy and disaster.
It doesn't matter if you're visibly anything. Assault is assault. Last time I checked, fracturing someone's skull is illegal, even in Viking Sweden.
I can just imagine telling black kids in immediate post-segregation Arkansas, "Awe, why didn't you fight back? Have you ever though about being a little less... African? Wearing white face paint, maybe?"
What the feth have black kids got to do with anything? There were a few black kids in my high school, I never once heard them get racially abused. They would have got some gak if they rocked up to school looking like boy george though!
I didn't say it wasn't assault either. I simply said that the girls parents and the school aren't being ridiculous if they say "being gay is fine and when you are grown up you can dress however you wish, but kids are horrible, so try not to stand out so much"
Simple common sense.
I think you missed the point. Might have something to do with you living in the U.K. though. What I meant: Schools have a responsibility to protect the children under their aegis whether those children are flamboyant or not. Dressing like Boy George doesn't mean you deserve a concussion followed by the authorities telling you to "dial back the gay a bit." while not prosecuting the psychopath that bashed your head in.
To make it clear, children should be able to dress however they wish within the constraints of the laws of their country without fear of persecution. And if they are subject to persecution, the bullies should be punished. Anything less than full protection and enforcement of rights courts tragedy and disaster.
And to be completely fair your armchair psychology deducing that the person that did this was a psychopath is pretty specious. I mean, for all we know the pliers wielder had her pet turtle murdered by this rage filled hussy who then, in a completely unrelated newsbit turned out to be gay; so she took her love for little Leonardo and fury at a system that ignored the callous murder of her only friend in the world - her pet turtle, and used that rage to gain righteous vengeance on the slayer of her little shelled chum.
My point, I guess, is let us not invent facts for stories to support our own prejudices, even if they are super amusing. What if the gay chick was a super bitch and the other girl got fed up and pliered her stupid face? Is it more or less of a crime because her victim was gay? What if the pliers chick was gay too? Would that be worse or better? Or could we all just shut the feth up and go on with our lives and let people handle their own gak?
Surtur wrote:There's so much wrong with this thread I don't even know where to begin.
Why though?
My premise is simple.
I like gay people, I am extremely gay friendly, I think gay people should be free to dress however they like and I think that gay people should have total freedom and equality..
However, holding teenage school children to the same account as adults as you lot are doing is flat out ridiculous. I was never really a bully, but I laughed along at some of the gak that happened because it was actually amusing and the laughter of the rest of class is somewhat infectious. My mate Snell set a goths hair on fire at school, we all laughed. My mate woodsy taped a razorblade onto a paper aeroplane and threw it at a weird kid, it stuck in his leg and we all laughed, Woodsy got suspended for a week.
Me, Snell and Woodsy all left school, got jobs, have families and have never been to prison, we are all now into our thirties.
You are allowing your empathy and horror at a horrible assault to cloud your judgement because It can illicit an emotional response.
I am putting forward a very simple point. Teenagers want to fit in, they are stupid, easily led and rash. So when a 13 year old kid in high school does some bullying, it is nothing like a 25 year old man going and beating the gak out of someone because he hates lesbians.
I stand by my comment 100% because it is perfectly logical. Yes the assault was wrong and the offender should be punished.
But no, they probably aren't a "psychopath" and will grow up to be a normal member of society. And how can you visibly tell the girl is a lesbian? If she is a proper walking freakshow then yes the parents of the victim and the school have an iota of common sense if they said something like "Listen, maybe you should try to fit in a little better and not wear your gimp suit to school today"
Holding school kids to the same account as adults is ridiculous.
And to be completely fair your armchair psychology deducing that the person that did this was a psychopath is pretty specious. I mean, for all we know the pliers wielder had her pet turtle murdered by this rage filled hussy who then, in a completely unrelated newsbit turned out to be gay; so she took her love for little Leonardo and fury at a system that ignored the callous murder of her only friend in the world - her pet turtle, and used that rage to gain righteous vengeance on the slayer of her little shelled chum.
My point, I guess, is let us not invent facts for stories to support our own prejudices, even if they are super amusing.
And to be completely fair, that entire paragraph was an exercise in pointless rhetoric, so I guess that leaves us even. She may not literally be a psychopath, but in popular colloquialism she meets the definition.
But to play your game, here are the facts we have:
Chick is gay
Chick got beaten with pliers and received a fractured skull.
Stated reason from the defendant for the attack: She's gay. "A school in southern Sweden told a female student to "tone down" her homosexuality as a remedy to bullying from other students for being gay, prompting the girl to report the school for discrimination."
Stated reason from the attacker for the attack: ??? “She threatened to shove pliers into my eyes and then she took hold of the pliers and delivered three hefty hits against my temples and the area close to my eyes,”
Action taken by school: "Hey gay chick, don't be gay annnnd maybe fight back next time?" “You’re the one to blame. It was your own fault. You provoked her,” adding that she should have “just hit back.”
That's all we know, and as any good empiricist will tell you, we draw conclusions based off of the knowledge we have and revise when new data becomes available.
Bromsy wrote:What if the gay chick was a super bitch and the other girl got fed up and pliered her stupid face? Is it more or less of a crime because her victim was gay? What if the pliers chick was gay too? Would that be worse or better? Or could we all just shut the feth up and go on with our lives and let people handle their own gak?
Well, obviously, if we were going to do that, we wouldn't be commenting on this in the first place.
So fethed up. While I agree that the 'fabulously camp' type of attention seeking is annoying I've yet to find a real life 'fabulous' lesbian.
Look at it this way ; if she was bullied for being black telling her to 'dial back on the race' would be seen as absurd. Encouraging her to fight back is also extremely stupid.
Of course we only have one side to the story at the moment.
Surtur wrote:There's so much wrong with this thread I don't even know where to begin.
Why though?
My premise is simple.
I like gay people, I am extremely gay friendly, I think gay people should be free to dress however they like and I think that gay people should have total freedom and equality..
However, holding teenage school children to the same account as adults as you lot are doing is flat out ridiculous. I was never really a bully, but I laughed along at some of the gak that happened because it was actually amusing and the laughter of the rest of class is somewhat infectious. My mate Snell set a goths hair on fire at school, we all laughed. My mate woodsy taped a razorblade onto a paper aeroplane and threw it at a weird kid, it stuck in his leg and we all laughed, Woodsy got suspended for a week.
Me, Snell and Woodsy all left school, got jobs, have families and have never been to prison, we are all now into our thirties.
You are allowing your empathy and horror at a horrible assault to cloud your judgement because It can illicit an emotional response.
I am putting forward a very simple point. Teenagers want to fit in, they are stupid, easily led and rash. So when a 13 year old kid in high school does some bullying, it is nothing like a 25 year old man going and beating the gak out of someone because he hates lesbians.
I stand by my comment 100% because it is perfectly logical. Yes the assault was wrong and the offender should be punished.
But no, they probably aren't a "psychopath" and will grow up to be a normal member of society. And how can you visibly tell the girl is a lesbian? If she is a proper walking freakshow then yes the parents of the victim and the school have an iota of common sense if they said something like "Listen, maybe you should try to fit in a little better and not wear your gimp suit to school today"
Holding school kids to the same account as adults is ridiculous.
I remember Columbine very clearly, so maybe I'm a bit biased. Eric and Dylan did the kinds of things you describe you and your cohort doing quite often. No-one thought Eric was a psychopath until he started plugging rounds into kids in the cafeteria.
Also, an anecdotal story:
Friend of mine got made fun a great deal in middle school by a particular kid--beaten up, bullied, exactly the kind of thing you and your friends did. So, one day my friend ambushed said kid at the bus stop, bashed his brains in with a brick, ran away. Never got caught. Laughed about it for years to come. But to be fair, he probably was a psychopath by the textbook definition.
But, my attitude also probably has something to do with where I grew up. We had policemen stationed at my schools. When kids got into fights, they got arrested and charged as adults. It was called a "Zero Tolerance" policy. Worked pretty well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phototoxin wrote:So fethed up. While I agree that the 'fabulously camp' type of attention seeking is annoying I've yet to find a real life 'fabulous' lesbian.
Look at it this way ; if she was bullied for being black telling her to 'dial back on the race' would be seen as absurd. Encouraging her to fight back is also extremely stupid.
Of course we only have one side to the story at the moment.
My point exactly. From the facts we have, it's pretty heinous. Perhaps it will come to light that she did indeed kill said attacker's beloved baby turtle and that was the actual motive for the attack. But, until that unlikely day, it's a hate crime.
And to be completely fair your armchair psychology deducing that the person that did this was a psychopath is pretty specious. I mean, for all we know the pliers wielder had her pet turtle murdered by this rage filled hussy who then, in a completely unrelated newsbit turned out to be gay; so she took her love for little Leonardo and fury at a system that ignored the callous murder of her only friend in the world - her pet turtle, and used that rage to gain righteous vengeance on the slayer of her little shelled chum.
My point, I guess, is let us not invent facts for stories to support our own prejudices, even if they are super amusing.
And to be completely fair, that entire paragraph was an exercise in pointless rhetoric, so I guess that leaves us even. She may not literally be a psychopath, but in popular colloquialism she meets the definition.
But to play your game, here are the facts we have:
Chick is gay
Chick got beaten with pliers and received a fractured skull.
Stated reason from the defendant for the attack: She's gay. "A school in southern Sweden told a female student to "tone down" her homosexuality as a remedy to bullying from other students for being gay, prompting the girl to report the school for discrimination."
Stated reason from the attacker for the attack: ??? “She threatened to shove pliers into my eyes and then she took hold of the pliers and delivered three hefty hits against my temples and the area close to my eyes,”
Action taken by school: "Hey gay chick, don't be gay annnnd maybe fight back next time?" “You’re the one to blame. It was your own fault. You provoked her,” adding that she should have “just hit back.”
That's all we know, and as any good empiricist will tell you, we draw conclusions based off of the knowledge we have and revise when new data becomes available.
Bromsy wrote:What if the gay chick was a super bitch and the other girl got fed up and pliered her stupid face? Is it more or less of a crime because her victim was gay? What if the pliers chick was gay too? Would that be worse or better? Or could we all just shut the feth up and go on with our lives and let people handle their own gak?
Well, obviously, if we were going to do that, we wouldn't be commenting on this in the first place.
I would argue that rhetoric that makes you think isn't pointless, but hey, who the feth am I, right? I guess the point I was going for was to think about stuff, and you neatly dodged that one, so... yay for you I guess.
deathholydeath wrote:
I remember Columbine very clearly, so maybe I'm a bit biased. Eric and Dylan did the kinds of things you describe you and your cohort doing quite often. No-one thought Eric was a psychopath until he started plugging rounds into kids in the cafeteria.
Also, an anecdotal story:
Friend of mine got made fun a great deal in middle school by a particular kid--beaten up, bullied, exactly the kind of thing you and your friends did. So, one day my friend ambushed said kid at the bus stop, bashed his brains in with a brick, ran away. Never got caught. Laughed about it for years to come. But to be fair, he probably was a psychopath by the textbook definition.
But, my attitude also probably has something to do with where I grew up. We had policemen stationed at my schools. When kids got into fights, they got arrested and charged as adults. It was called a "Zero Tolerance" policy. Worked pretty well.
Thats pretty weird, I figured the killers at columbine would have been the bullied, not the bullies! I dunno, just sorta like one day they had enough so they shot every fether.. I didnt presume they were actual bullies who one day thought "feth it, wedgies are kids stuff, lets shoot the bastards instead!"
I strongly diagree with coppers arresting and charging kids as adults for fighting. Its fething ridiculous frankly.
All kids have fights at school, I had 3 or 4, 3 of the 4 occurring because I won one against a lad, and at my school there was a fething league table! I beat a lad up who started on me, and then the "4th hardest in the year" wanted to have a fight with me because I had apparently moved up to "third hardest"
My point is, kids feth about. I am 100% against any form of discrimination against gay people into adulthood, but I think kids need to be cut some slack because you aren't the same person at 24 as you are at 14.
I think calling the bully who hit the lesbian girl a "psycho" is likely to be totally wrong, and I think that arresting and charging school kids for fighting is fething lunacy.
deathholydeath wrote:
I remember Columbine very clearly, so maybe I'm a bit biased. Eric and Dylan did the kinds of things you describe you and your cohort doing quite often. No-one thought Eric was a psychopath until he started plugging rounds into kids in the cafeteria.
Also, an anecdotal story:
Friend of mine got made fun a great deal in middle school by a particular kid--beaten up, bullied, exactly the kind of thing you and your friends did. So, one day my friend ambushed said kid at the bus stop, bashed his brains in with a brick, ran away. Never got caught. Laughed about it for years to come. But to be fair, he probably was a psychopath by the textbook definition.
But, my attitude also probably has something to do with where I grew up. We had policemen stationed at my schools. When kids got into fights, they got arrested and charged as adults. It was called a "Zero Tolerance" policy. Worked pretty well.
Thats pretty weird, I figured the killers at columbine would have been the bullied, not the bullies! I dunno, just sorta like one day they had enough so they shot every fether.. I didnt presume they were actual bullies who one day thought "feth it, wedgies are kids stuff, lets shoot the bastards instead!"
I strongly diagree with coppers arresting and charging kids as adults for fighting. Its fething ridiculous frankly.
All kids have fights at school, I had 3 or 4, 3 of the 4 occurring because I won one against a lad, and at my school there was a fething league table! I beat a lad up who started on me, and then the "4th hardest in the year" wanted to have a fight with me because I had apparently moved up to "third hardest"
My point is, kids feth about. I am 100% against any form of discrimination against gay people into adulthood, but I think kids need to be cut some slack because you aren't the same person at 24 as you are at 14.
I think calling the bully who hit the lesbian girl a "psycho" is likely to be totally wrong, and I think that arresting and charging school kids for fighting is fething lunacy.
Where did you grow up anyway?!
The ghetto in Louisiana. "First in everything you want to be last in. Last in everything you want to be first in."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:
I would argue that rhetoric that makes you think isn't pointless, but hey, who the feth am I, right? I guess the point I was going for was to think about stuff, and you neatly dodged that one, so... yay for you I guess.
Accusing me of using "armchair psychology" for engaging in colloquial speech and then moving onto a reductio absurdum analogy is hardly an exercise in thought provoking rhetoric.
I don't think any of you have touched on this yet, but the most scary part of the story is that if she had hit the girl back, it would just have got worse for her: she would probably have been sued, and knowing what sueing is like in america and large parts of europe, she could easily have lost. So to her head teacher, there was nothing she could have done that would have resulted in her being better off, unless this appeal works. If that is true, it means that she could basically have a head fracture every day and there'd be nothing against the people doing it. That fact is almost as scary as any kind of horror movie, as it's the same thing happening in either: The victim's basically having their whole world torn down around them and there's nothing that could ever be done about it.
deathholydeath wrote:
I remember Columbine very clearly, so maybe I'm a bit biased. Eric and Dylan did the kinds of things you describe you and your cohort doing quite often. No-one thought Eric was a psychopath until he started plugging rounds into kids in the cafeteria.
Also, an anecdotal story:
Friend of mine got made fun a great deal in middle school by a particular kid--beaten up, bullied, exactly the kind of thing you and your friends did. So, one day my friend ambushed said kid at the bus stop, bashed his brains in with a brick, ran away. Never got caught. Laughed about it for years to come. But to be fair, he probably was a psychopath by the textbook definition.
But, my attitude also probably has something to do with where I grew up. We had policemen stationed at my schools. When kids got into fights, they got arrested and charged as adults. It was called a "Zero Tolerance" policy. Worked pretty well.
Thats pretty weird, I figured the killers at columbine would have been the bullied, not the bullies! I dunno, just sorta like one day they had enough so they shot every fether.. I didnt presume they were actual bullies who one day thought "feth it, wedgies are kids stuff, lets shoot the bastards instead!"
I strongly diagree with coppers arresting and charging kids as adults for fighting. Its fething ridiculous frankly.
All kids have fights at school, I had 3 or 4, 3 of the 4 occurring because I won one against a lad, and at my school there was a fething league table! I beat a lad up who started on me, and then the "4th hardest in the year" wanted to have a fight with me because I had apparently moved up to "third hardest"
My point is, kids feth about. I am 100% against any form of discrimination against gay people into adulthood, but I think kids need to be cut some slack because you aren't the same person at 24 as you are at 14.
I think calling the bully who hit the lesbian girl a "psycho" is likely to be totally wrong, and I think that arresting and charging school kids for fighting is fething lunacy.
Where did you grow up anyway?!
The ghetto in Louisiana. "First in everything you want to be last in. Last in everything you want to be first in."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:
I would argue that rhetoric that makes you think isn't pointless, but hey, who the feth am I, right? I guess the point I was going for was to think about stuff, and you neatly dodged that one, so... yay for you I guess.
Accusing me of using "armchair psychology" for engaging in colloquial speech and then moving onto a reductio absurdum analogy is hardly an exercise in thought provoking rhetoric.
I guess that you determine for yourself what is thought provoking, you know, for yourself. And really, I wasn't getting all that fancy with the old thought process, I just used basic deductive reasoning with a few creative inferences that could have very well been omitted from the story for any number of reasons. Hardly absurd. The basic point I was getting at still simply remains - and I dare say this is a point I have most consistently championed throughout my postings here - we don't know. We have a third party with the notable interest of "selling copies" arbitrarily assigning guilt and responsibility without the niceties of a trial or any confessions.
Once again... we have some facts, and some suppositions, and you are assigning them equal credibility.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
p_gray99 wrote:I don't think any of you have touched on this yet, but the most scary part of the story is that if she had hit the girl back, it would just have got worse for her: she would probably have been sued, and knowing what sueing is like in america and large parts of europe, she could easily have lost. So to her head teacher, there was nothing she could have done that would have resulted in her being better off, unless this appeal works. If that is true, it means that she could basically have a head fracture every day and there'd be nothing against the people doing it. That fact is almost as scary as any kind of horror movie, as it's the same thing happening in either: The victim's basically having their whole world torn down around them and there's nothing that could ever be done about it.
This isn't the UK or the US, hopefully enough of the old Scandinavian retribution laws would still be in place that she could strike the other girl down like the righteous hand of Odin and then been about her business.
Surely if other pupils were "scared and confused" by her sexuality then that's a failing in education within the school, being gay isn't that weird.
Kids bully each other for all sorts of reasons, the conclusion that some are drawing is that she must have been behaving in an overly camp stereotypical manner which annoys others. Though how 'annoyance' can ever begin to mitigate physical assault with metal tools is beyond me. But honestly, people act and behave in different ways and some people bully others for it. You don't even know the kid was actually gay, I was bullied at school for being gay but I never have been. Is it a crime now to behave in certain ways that could even be perceived as being gay? You can't just change your personality, if some people choose to pick up on things you do and use them as an excuse to attack you, then the onus shouldn't be on you to change to suit the bullies, the school should address the problem of the bullies. If it wasn't for her being 'overly gay' then the bullies would be picking on a kid for being too nerdy, for reading books, for being clever, for wearing glasses, being small, being fat, being black, being disabled, etc. I used to get picked on for being good at school and doing well at class, is the advice that I should have dumbed-down to fit in?
Bromsy wrote:This isn't the UK or the US, hopefully enough of the old Scandinavian retribution laws would still be in place that she could strike the other girl down like the righteous hand of Odin and then been about her business.
Hopefully. I just wish people were less idiotic here in the UK. It can really get quite annoying hearing about some of the things courts let slip.
Anyway, enough off-topic. How much do you think the head teacher's actions were to do with a predudice against homosexuality? I can't imagine that kind of reaction if it were over skin colour, at least not in europe where racism seems to be considered far worse.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Surely if other pupils were "scared and confused" by her sexuality then that's a failing in education within the school, being gay isn't that weird.
Kids bully each other for all sorts of reasons, the conclusion that some are drawing is that she must have been behaving in an overly camp stereotypical manner which annoys others. Though how 'annoyance' can ever begin to mitigate physical assault with metal tools is beyond me. But honestly, people act and behave in different ways and some people bully others for it. You don't even know the kid was actually gay, I was bullied at school for being gay but I never have been. Is it a crime now to behave in certain ways that could even be perceived as being gay? You can't just change your personality, if some people choose to pick up on things you do and use them as an excuse to attack you, then the onus shouldn't be on you to change to suit the bullies, the school should address the problem of the bullies. If it wasn't for her being 'overly gay' then the bullies would be picking on a kid for being too nerdy, for reading books, for being clever, for wearing glasses, being small, being fat, being black, being disabled, etc. I used to get picked on for being good at school and doing well at class, is the advice that I should have dumbed-down to fit in?
Of course not!
But nobody at my school ever told someone who was clever to be less clever, or who was black to be less black. That is just more slippery slope nonsense, so lets just stick to the case at hand. The fact that the school actually mentioned it, logically says that something about her behaviour and appearance was noticeably and obviously strange.
Lads who were a little effeminate or spoke softly got called gay when I was at school, but even that wouldn't draw the schools attention. A teacher wouldn't say "speak more aggressively!" to a softly spoken kid who gets called gay would they!? They would tell the lads off who were taunting them!
But the fact the school mentioned it, infers that the girl was going to school looking noticeable and overtly lesbian/weird.
As I said, there is nothing wrong with looking like that at all. I believe that if you want to march down the street dressed like a fething Pikachu you have the right and you should be allowed to do so free from persecution.
However, I wouldn't let my son or daughter go to school looking like that at 14, because I fething KNOW they will get butchered for it! There is a big difference between dressing "expressive" when you are 30 and dressing that way when you are on your way to a school full on hundreds of hormonal little gaks who pack together and mock anything that stands out from the crowd.
People that think I am in any shape or form condoning an awful attack, or mistreatment of gay people arent bothering to read my posts. I am simply saying that school is different to adult life, and you have to meet the kids half way if you are smart. A parent should sit down and discuss this with a child if they want to walk out of the house on a school day looking like Betelgeuse! Ergo, the school does kinda have a point.
If my 13 year old daugther walked into the kicthen dressed like this
I would say "Dear, I love you, and you can dress however you please when you graduate.. but please, do your Dad a favour and go get fething changed, because I don't want to have to scrape your pretty face off the tennis courts.. you know how stupid some kids your own age are.. they aren't as mature as you.. and sadly your gonna get fething marmalised if you turn up for class looking like that"
Bromsy wrote:This isn't the UK or the US, hopefully enough of the old Scandinavian retribution laws would still be in place that she could strike the other girl down like the righteous hand of Odin and then been about her business.
Hopefully. I just wish people were less idiotic here in the UK. It can really get quite annoying hearing about some of the things courts let slip.
Anyway, enough off-topic. How much do you think the head teacher's actions were to do with a predudice against homosexuality? I can't imagine that kind of reaction if it were over skin colour, at least not in europe where racism seems to be considered far worse.
There's quite a conservative streak through some teachers, reading the Times Educational Supplement reflects quite a bit of this in many regards, but that is one of the main educational newspapers in the UK.
Prejudice against homosexuality by staff does occur in UK schools and faith schools are more prone to it in my experience, and there are lots of faith schools. Quite a lot of schools for example don't have a specific policy for dealing with homophobia as they do with things like racism and disability. I've seen examples of pupils not being supported when being bullied about their sexuality (some staff avoid dealing with homophobic bullying because they personally don't agree with homosexuality, alternatively staff are undermined from taking action because senior staff won't back them up when tackling homophobia). In some cases gay members of staff have been undermined and bullied themselves by their superiors. If your head teacher is a bigot, you're not in a good situation to help yourself or kids being affected.
Children have to be taught about acceptable behaviour. There are various ways to do that. To ignore behaviour is not one of them. We can't just let things go with the mantra that, "children will be children".
Kilkrazy wrote:Children have to be taught about acceptable behaviour. There are various ways to do that. To ignore behaviour is not one of them. We can't just let things go with the mantra that, "children will be children".
Of course not, which is why the bully should of course be punished for assaulting the girl. Not a single person in the thread has advocated no action at all be taken!
I'm simply saying that it is flat out ridiculous to treat children IDENTICAL to adults, such as having two lads arrested by the police and charged with assault if they have a fight behind the bike sheds.
There needs to be a system of punishment and reward to bring out the best in children and to educate them about how gaks gonna work when they enter the big wide world, but the point is entirely valid, that you shouldn't treat school kids identical to grown ups, and a responsible parent doesn't let their kids dress however the feth they please. It certainly is worth pointing out to a child that they are likely to come up against ridicule and abuse if they stand out at school, ridicule and abuse of the like of which they will never see as an adult.
For example I don't have a problem with cross dressing or transvestites or anything, but you can bet your ass I wouldn't let my 12 year old son go to school in a dress!
I'm all for self defense, but there is a line. Crossing the line turns you in to criminal scumbag that deserves to be put in jail.
The line gets moved depending on how you're provoked-- if no threats are made against your person or those you love, if no attempt to harm you or your loved ones physically is made, you have no cause for violence in almost all cases (there's some exceptions where, such as in the case of burglary and other break-ins, you have a reasonable expectation of harm, but those situations are quite rare in and of themselves). But, given that after a search in any news article that I could find I found no evidence given of her having been violent towards the girl who assaulted her, or even gave the girl reason to expect her to be violent, the assaulter stepped over that line.
The school officials were being skull-frakked stupid. "If you're hit, hit them back" is just the old policy of an eye for an eye. While it may make sense to some people, it's only because they refuse to actually think about what they're advocating-- in the end, it means that all disputes in the high school (and, being full of teenagers, the disputes are endless in every sense of the word) will inevitably escalate to end in regular violence, with the weaker of the two combatants ending up in a hospital or just plain dead.
There is no excuse. The school officials were stupid, unethical, and downright inhuman. There really isn't much else to say in the matter. They are trash and scum, and should all, at the very LEAST, go in to probation and have their eligibility to hold their job reviewed.
More likely, they should lose their jobs for encouraging violence within their schools like the fething idiots they are. And the girl who assaulted her should be suspended, with juvenile criminal charges brought against her.
Melissia wrote:The school officials were being skull-frakked stupid. "If you're hit, hit them back" is just the old policy of an eye for an eye. While it may make sense to some people, it's only because they refuse to actually think about what they're advocating-- in the end, it means that all disputes in the high school (and, being full of teenagers, the disputes are endless in every sense of the word) will inevitably escalate to end in regular violence, with the weaker of the two combatants ending up in a hospital or just plain dead.
I couldn't agree more. As Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". If she had hit back, the fight could have ended with both of them dead, and could easily have left one of them at least brain damaged, ruining their entire life. It's just plain stupid. I mean, why do we consider orks to be stupid if we are recommending the course of action they'd take?
Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend were beaten up by a group of people aged between 15 and 17. The reason for the assault was that she was a goth. She later died from the injuries she sustained.
I don't care how old you are, assaulting someone based on their looks is wrong and you deserve to be charged with a criminal offence.
Squigsquasher wrote:Sigh...And there was me thinking Sweden had one of the best education systems in the world...
We did. Sadly, no more.
For what it's worth as far as I've seen in Swedish media there's been a public outcry about this. I can't see the principal getting away with that comment easily, if at all.
Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend were beaten up by a group of people aged between 15 and 17. The reason for the assault was that she was a goth. She later died from the injuries she sustained.
I don't care how old you are, assaulting someone based on their looks is wrong and you deserve to be charged with a criminal offence.
See, I'm gonna sound like a hippy here, but this is the type of thing I am on about.. I remember the case well, because the poor girl was only 8 stone wringing wetm and its an absolute tragedy that the poor lass was killed. But I also think its sad that two of the little fethers got life in prison.
Kids that age are dumb as feth, and I just think that its not just one life wasted but three. And I'm normally hardcore when it comes to crime.. but I learned long ago that very little is black and white.
Well, except Islam obviously.. but that's just me.
Maybe its because I was such a little bastard when i was 13, and I was never in any bother after the age of about 16, and at the ripe old age of 32 have never been out of work and have no criminal record.
Do you see what I'm saying?
The assault was at 0100hrs, no doubt the killers were doing what I was doing at that age, and getting pissed at the park, when they started showing off by kicking some goth bloke, I doubt they intended to kill them because they used no weapons.. you realise as an adult that booting someone in the crust can kill a man, but I gave several people a shoeing when I was a kid. I look back now with horror and think "feth me I could have killed someone!" but at the time, you just do what everyone else is doing. Plenty of times its stomp or be stomped!
I once got mashed round the head with three cricket stumps taped together and then knocked unconscious with a sock full of snooker balls.. at the time, once I got my head stitched back together, I didn't even think it was a big deal either, I didn't think they were after killing me and I didn't call the police or anything.
As I said, I just think gak gets really complicated when your talking about adolescents.
And maybe its my rough upbringing changing my perceptions.. but I really think that treating 13 year old's like 33 year old's is short-sighted and wrong, I see things like this as a terrible tragedy for the victims, but also a wasted life due to some out of character feth up by a kid who could possibly have grown up into a decent member of society.
It is above the pay grade for someone like me to figure out, but alls I am saying is that I am very surprised when otherwise liberal people suddenly start sounding hyper right wing just because they care deeply about the topic.. Is that not a touch hypocritical? I dare say you would want me to "see the bigger picture" if I was spouting off like I usually do about hanging people for murder or something!
mattyrm wrote:
I'm simply saying that it is flat out ridiculous to treat children IDENTICAL to adults, such as having two lads arrested by the police and charged with assault if they have a fight behind the bike sheds.
I realy don't get this. Two kids have a fight in the school yard. People say "oh kids". Same kids have a fight on the highstreet. They get arrested. schools fail time and again to protect children and enforce rules properly.
The thing is, not treating an assault as a serious matter when they're young might give them the idea that it isn't a big deal, so they just beat the crap out of someone who annoys them and then that person ends up dead.
By getting the Police involved, even if it is just for an unofficial word or a caution, sends a clear message that this kind of thuggish behaviour is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
Many places have a zero tolerance policy regarding violent behaviour. If you kick off and attack someone in a hospital then the police are called automatically, if you attack someone on a train the police will be called, if you attack someone in a Games Workshop store then the police will be called. Why should a school, a place for young people to learn and which has a legal requirement to maintain a safe environment for these young people, be any different?
Regarding you feeling that it is sad that two of them got life sentences (and also their names released to the public on order of the Judge) for the murder of Sophie, the investigating officer described it as one of the most violent crimes he had ever investigated. If you're old enough to decide you want to beat up someone just because you don't like the way they dress then you're old enough to go to prison. Stupidity is not a legal defence. To use a silly cliche "You do the crime, you do the time."
deathholydeath wrote:
That's all we know, and as any good empiricist will tell you, we draw conclusions based off of the knowledge we have and revise when new data becomes available.
Any good empiricist also understands when it is prudent to withhold judgment when there is limited evidence available. This isn't academia, there are actual consequences to drawing conclusions which go beyond publishing a paper that is later found to be inaccurate.
deathholydeath wrote:
Accusing me of using "armchair psychology" for engaging in colloquial speech and then moving onto a reductio absurdum analogy is hardly an exercise in thought provoking rhetoric.
The argument wasn't an analogy, or RAA, and it certainly wasn't both because you can't mount an argument based on RAA using analogy. Trying to do so basically means you're constructing a straw man.
What do they mean by "toning down her sexuality"? Was it, as Matty stated, the way she was dressing, or was she coming on to the other girls?
We had some gay kids at my school that would try to get some action happening with straight kids and some nasty fights would happen.
At that age the hormones are happening big time and there is quite a bit less control.
Dogma, an empiricist also needs to know when they have enough evidence, as well.
Because you have MORE than enough evidence to say something like this:
Melissia wrote:The school officials were being skull-frakked stupid. "If you're hit, hit them back" is just the old policy of an eye for an eye. While it may make sense to some people, it's only because they refuse to actually think about what they're advocating-- in the end, it means that all disputes in the high school (and, being full of teenagers, the disputes are endless in every sense of the word) will inevitably escalate to end in regular violence, with the weaker of the two combatants ending up in a hospital or just plain dead.
There is no excuse. The school officials were stupid, unethical, and downright inhuman. There really isn't much else to say in the matter. They are trash and scum, and should all, at the very LEAST, go in to probation and have their eligibility to hold their job reviewed.
School officials should not be encouraging violence in their FETHING school.
Melissia wrote:School officials should not be encouraging violence in their FETHING school.
Sure, but I'm less interested in that part of the story than I am in the part about the girl's sexuality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:What do they mean by "toning down her sexuality"? Was it, as Matty stated, the way she was dressing, or was she coming on to the other girls?
We had some gay kids at my school that would try to get some action happening with straight kids and some nasty fights would happen.
At that age the hormones are happening big time and there is quite a bit less control.
Well, there's not necessarily anything wrong with coming on to someone of the same sex. Its when you keep doing it to a single person despite being told that they weren't interested. If that's the case, then "tone it down" is a perfectly reasonable request.
Still though, anything short of an attempt at sexual assault isn't really grounds for responding with violence.
dogma wrote:To be fair, we don't really know what she was being asked to "tone down" from. Being overtly sexual, regardless of what the nature of it is, can get you bullied.
Granted homosexuals definitely have it worse in the vast majority of places.
I know plenty of gay people who blend in quite nicely with society without issue, and who are openly gay. They don't dress flamboyantly, they don't talk with made up lisps. They act normal, and are treated normal.
Pro tip: If you act like Big Gay Al, you WILL get gak for it.
You think Anderson Cooper runs around screaming like a school girl and saying the word "fabulous" at everything? No. He acts normal, and people treat him normal.
Being gay has feth all to do with being annoying. Some people want attention, negative or not, so they act out to be noticed. Those people deserve the hate that comes their way, whether straight, gay or asexual.
Wo wo wo! Big Gay Al is awesome! He takes care of lost pets. He's like Southpark's only saint.
Relapse wrote:What do they mean by "toning down her sexuality"? Was it, as Matty stated, the way she was dressing, or was she coming on to the other girls?
We had some gay kids at my school that would try to get some action happening with straight kids and some nasty fights would happen.
At that age the hormones are happening big time and there is quite a bit less control.
Doesn't matter one bit. Regardless of what Matty says, kids assaulting kids is just as serious as adults assaulting kids. Saying that 'kids will be kids' and should be treated in a different way when it comes to violence, because of hormones, is just a horrible way of bringing up children.
The 'pliers' kid's parents should be properly sued for trauma. Any fething kid moronic enough to put pliers to another kid's face should have the priviledge of later coming unto adulthood with a 200 000$ legal debt.
The principal should have his career ruined. Simple as that. That... 'person' doesn't deserve a job in education.
Melissia wrote:School officials should not be encouraging violence in their FETHING school.
Sure, but I'm less interested in that part of the story than I am in the part about the girl's sexuality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:What do they mean by "toning down her sexuality"? Was it, as Matty stated, the way she was dressing, or was she coming on to the other girls?
We had some gay kids at my school that would try to get some action happening with straight kids and some nasty fights would happen.
At that age the hormones are happening big time and there is quite a bit less control.
Well, there's not necessarily anything wrong with coming on to someone of the same sex. Its when you keep doing it to a single person despite being told that they weren't interested. If that's the case, then "tone it down" is a perfectly reasonable request.
Still though, anything short of an attempt at sexual assault isn't really grounds for responding with violence.
At times there would be repeated aproaches, other times it would be a grab action, and sometimes it would be an initial approach that would be enough to start the fight, ending with the gay kids getting beaten up. As I said, at that young age, kids are dealing with hormones, figuring out their place and social status.
An adult knows far better how to handle the. situation than a teenager who may never have been approached in a homosexual way before.
dogma wrote:Sure, but I'm less interested in that part of the story than I am in the part about the girl's sexuality.
... why, again?
Relapse wrote:At times there would be repeated aproaches, other times it would be a grab action, and sometimes it would be an initial approach that would be enough to start the fight, ending with the gay kids getting beaten up. As I said, at that young age, kids are dealing with hormones, figuring out their place and social status.
An adult knows far better how to handle the. situation than a teenager who may never have been approached in a homosexual way before.
And assaulting anyone for these situations should be punished.
If I beat the gak out of every guy who approached me multiple times in high school, I'd be in jail with a rap sheet a mile long. Or at least psychiatric counseling and permanent suspension.
At times there would be repeated aproaches, other times it would be a grab action, and sometimes it would be an initial approach that would be enough to start the fight, ending with the gay kids getting beaten up. As I said, at that young age, kids are dealing with hormones, figuring out their place and social status.
An adult knows far better how to handle the. situation than a teenager who may never have been approached in a homosexual way before.
- Hey honey bear, come here, there's something I need to tell you!
- Is it about flowers and bees, mom? Brazzer.com already told me everything about flowers and bees, you know?
- Ok honey, bear that thought, we'll come back later on it. No, I wanted to tell you about people that like people that are like them.
- Oh you mean homos and gays?
- Yeah, that's it. You know those people might look funny sometimes, and you might feel that it's okay to laugh at them, but remember how you feel when people laugh at you? They feel the same way, so really, it isn't okay.
- I know that mom, don't be silly.
- Cool. But also, sometime, one of those person might think they really like you, and they might think you like them too...
- Bweurk! Cotties!...
- Yeah... but you know, if that happens, just tell the person your not interested, and do it politely. Imagine if you liked someone, and told them, and they answered by laughing at you, I bet you wouldn't feel good right?
- I guess so...
- So we agree? Never to laugh, or insult gays because there gays or because they flirt with you?
- Yeah!!
-Okay now unto this brazzer website. I'm going to kill your dad, you know?
In an ideal world it would be all polite and no thanks, I don't swing that way. The truth of the matter, whether you like it or not, is the fact that a lot of people on this thread are correct, kids are stupid, and gak's gonna happen a lot of times if they feel infringed or threatened and they have the physical ability to do something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
dogma wrote:Sure, but I'm less interested in that part of the story than I am in the part about the girl's sexuality.
... why, again?
Relapse wrote:At times there would be repeated aproaches, other times it would be a grab action, and sometimes it would be an initial approach that would be enough to start the fight, ending with the gay kids getting beaten up. As I said, at that young age, kids are dealing with hormones, figuring out their place and social status.
An adult knows far better how to handle the. situation than a teenager who may never have been approached in a homosexual way before.
And assaulting anyone for these situations should be punished.
If I beat the gak out of every guy who approached me multiple times in high school, I'd be in jail with a rap sheet a mile long. Or at least psychiatric counseling and permanent suspension.
If someone grabbed me, I'd level them and be justified.
Relapse wrote:If someone grabbed me, I'd level them and be justified.
Grabbed you? As in grope you? No you wouldn't, at least if you're reasonnable. You'd be flushed red with indignity, and wouldn't have a single clue how to react.
Then, later on, you'd laugh about it. Hey, that means someone thinks you have a cute ass.
Melissia wrote:And a court date with a criminal charge chaser, mister Internet Tough Guy.
Just stating a bit of personal history. As far as charges go, it comes down to the fact that the grabber is the assaulter, I acted in self defense.
In most country, self-defense will only be applicable in cases of intended or perceived assault. 'Leveling' a guy because he grabbed your ass isn't a justified reaction unless you held the beleif that it was the only way to stop further illegal actions. Which will be left to the judge to decide.
Can't say for the States, but here in Canada, you'd be the assaulter.
I'm ready to bet that whatever story you lived, didn't get to courts.
Melissia wrote:And a court date with a criminal charge chaser, mister Internet Tough Guy.
Just stating a bit of personal history. As far as charges go, it comes down to the fact that the grabber is the assaulter, I acted in self defense.
In most country, self-defense will only be applicable in cases of intended or perceived assault. 'Leveling' a guy because he grabbed your ass isn't a justified reaction unless you held the beleif that it was the only way to stop further illegal actions. Which will be left to the judge to decide.
Can't say for the States, but here in Canada, you'd be the assaulter.
I'm ready to bet that whatever story you lived, didn't get to courts.
That's already far more serious, especially if the guy was also pinning you down. THAT I could easily see ging down the assault road.
You're right, it didn't go to court.
Is what happens most of the time. Violence between adults is just as grave as violence between kids ; it all depends on the level of aggressivity. 2 adults exchanging a few punches shouldn't necessarily go to court ; 1 kid beating the other with a weapon should.
deathholydeath wrote:
That's all we know, and as any good empiricist will tell you, we draw conclusions based off of the knowledge we have and revise when new data becomes available.
Any good empiricist also understands when it is prudent to withhold judgment when there is limited evidence available. This isn't academia, there are actual consequences to drawing conclusions which go beyond publishing a paper that is later found to be inaccurate.
I honestly don't think there's going to be much in the way of consequences for posting in Dakkadakka's OT forums either.
dogma wrote:
deathholydeath wrote:
Accusing me of using "armchair psychology" for engaging in colloquial speech and then moving onto a reductio absurdum analogy is hardly an exercise in thought provoking rhetoric.
The argument wasn't an analogy, or RAA, and it certainly wasn't both because you can't mount an argument based on RAA using analogy. Trying to do so basically means you're constructing a straw man.
Yeah, I was pretty drunk and trolling by that point.
dogma wrote:Sure, but I'm less interested in that part of the story than I am in the part about the girl's sexuality.
... why, again?
Because schools failing to punish extreme violence is nothing new, and any moral outrage I may have isn't useful given my country of origin.
However, the whole thing about "toning down" your sexuality is less frequently reported in an official capacity, and also something that is problematic from the perspective of gays rights. More so than the assault, because I think there's a fair consensus that attacking someone for being gay is bad.
Dogma's got a point. Just look at the number of post here that, without condoning the violence, at least seems to diminish the responsability of the attacking kid because butches and flaming queens are annoying... without even knowing what was the specific of the case...
dogma wrote:However, the whole thing about "toning down" your sexuality is
Irrelevant.
Claiming that someone should tone down their sexuality is not a justification for assault like you seem to suggest.
I find the clear and open sexuality of many heterosexuals (Especially couples; stop making out in front of me, it's just rude) to be annoying, can I hit them because of it? Certainly it's a bigger issue than a few, rare, annoyingly open homosexuals, and there are far more people that I should be hitting if oversexualization is justification for cracking someone's skull open with a pair of pliers.
Perhaps I should also be castrating annoying jocks who attempt to overly sexualize themselves?
Melissia wrote:Claiming that someone should tone down their sexuality is not a justification for assault like you seem to suggest.
Where on Earth did you get that idea? He appears to me to be making the argument I would expect you to make, only he's doing a better job of it. He's said any violence toward the kid is out of line. He's said that violence is school is not entirely unexpected or novel, and that the school's comment toward the victim is the really weird part here. But that we have too little data to make any conclusive judgments about the victim or the school, because we don't have all the facts to put the reported details into context.
You must be getting something different out of them than I am. To me he appears interested in the story because of the school taking this unusually stupid and offense tack with the victim.
And I already did make the argument of self defense, and pointed out various nuances in it. But as I said, I've looked through numerous articles and found no reference to any physical assault from the victim. I don't see any reason to believe that she did anything to provoke being assaulted with pliers until her skull fractured.
Hell if she was just getting pushy and hitting on someone who didn't want it, I would have expected a slap or a shove, or at the very most a balled up fist. Instead? She was repeatedly struck in the face with pliers, with the intent of STABBING OUT HER EYES. This is the sort of activity associated with hate crimes more than overly aggressive responses to flirting.
I don't particularly get that Dogma was questionning her possible responsibility for the acts, just wondering what might be the repercussion of the 'tone down your sexuality' comment in this case.
I mean, there's no amount of fabulousness that will ever justify an assault, that seems pretty self-evident (but again, some posters here... ). From what I understand Dogma was really just wondering what kind of legal gak the principal could get over his comment. Like, ''Is it actually legal for a principal to give this kind of advice?'' or ''How fast will special interest group completly (and rightfully) ruin this moron's life?''
But then again, I might be better off letting him defend himself
I think what Dogma is saying is that the whole violence horse has been beaten to death. We have this whole new thin that has presented itself to us, and people want to continue to beat dead horse.
He wants us to discuss something new, such as the toning down comment, and what effects it may have on said student and the gay rights community as a whole.
(Man I hope I got it right, I bet first prize is awesome!)
To be honest, I don't see how this "new thing" itself isn't also a dead horse that has been beaten time and again.
But then again, conservative talking heads whining about the oversexualization of children/teenagers is about as mundane as them whining about Obama and trying to pin everything bad happening on him, from stubbing their toes that morning, to the next world war that they think will happen when the UN (which is actually a powerful new world order that secretly controls everything in the world) tries to force the next Romney to submit to some secret agreement that they think Obama has made with it that rends asunder the USA's sovereignty.
Melissia wrote:And a court date with a criminal charge chaser, mister Internet Tough Guy.
Thats wrong actually. If someone grabs you thats battery. Your response may be considered self defense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Relapse wrote:If someone grabbed me, I'd level them and be justified.
Grabbed you? As in grope you? No you wouldn't, at least if you're reasonnable. You'd be flushed red with indignity, and wouldn't have a single clue how to react.
Then, later on, you'd laugh about it. Hey, that means someone thinks you have a cute ass.
Beleive me, I've been there.
Again, no thats battery or sexual assault/battery (depending on the local state's jurisdiction). If a woman is groped she is well within her legal rights to level the groper, or have the attacker arrested and convicted for such.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Melissia wrote:And a court date with a criminal charge chaser, mister Internet Tough Guy.
Just stating a bit of personal history. As far as charges go, it comes down to the fact that the grabber is the assaulter, I acted in self defense.
No not in any western country or any state or county, self defense doesn't apply to he grabbed my ass.
Frazzled wrote:Thats wrong actually. If someone grabs you thats battery. Your response may be considered self defense.
Repeatedly beating someone with a pair of pliers until their skull fractured, with the stated intent of stabbing out their eyes, is not going to be so easily justified. I guarantee that if I did that to guys that violated my personal space, it'd go on my criminal record. I'm all for self defense, but there's a point where you have gone from self defense to simply attacking someone for the sake of attacking them.
Like if someone burst in to your home, and you shot them, then, still angry, you shot up their car and desecrated the corpse while calling to threaten their family. It shows a level of aggression that goes beyond mere self defense.
Frazzled wrote:Thats wrong actually. If someone grabs you thats battery. Your response may be considered self defense.
Repeatedly beating someone with a pair of pliers until their skull fractured, with the stated intent of stabbing out their eyes, is not going to be so easily justified. I guarantee that if I did that to guys that violated my personal space, it'd go on my criminal record. I'm all for self defense, but there's a point where you have gone from self defense to simply attacking someone for the sake of attacking them.
I said self defense. Thats offense. Read the post and not whats in your head.
If you don't like it too bad. The legislation and drumbeat for this was driven by women. I'm just fine with that. Nothing says "personal space" like a swift punch to the nards.
Like if someone burst in to your home, and you shot them, then, still angry, you shot up their car and desecrated the corpse.
Frazzled wrote:I said self defense. Thats offense. Read the post and not whats in your head.
Ahem:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
“She threatened to shove pliers into my eyes and then she took hold of the pliers and delivered three hefty hits against my temples and the area close to my eyes,” the girl wrote in the report.
My post! You were replying to me. Groping is sexual assault/battery and not to be tolerated by anyone against anyone. If people don't like, the law tells them to suck it.
Groping is a crime.
As the immortal bard once said: No means no you fether!
Any time you're in an intense, potentially life-threatening situation, the body naturally kicks into "fight or flight" mode. It's an unconscious reaction where -- in a matter of adrenaline-pumped nanoseconds -- you size up the danger and either a) fight your way to safety or, if the perceived danger is too great b) flee the scene. If you're Priscilla Dang, though, sometimes you do both at the same time.
Dang was on a run in a Vancouver, Wash., neighborhood last Friday when two teenagers on bikes, one 16, the other 18, approached her from behind. "One went in front and made eye contact with me like a smirk, like I thought he was saying 'Hi,'" said Dang of the encounter to KATU. "The next thing I knew I was pretty much groped on my bottom behind left side."
Unfortunately for the alleged gropers, the 23-year-old woman has taken kung-fu lessons since she was 5. Her family owns the Summit Wushu Academy, an Oregon martial arts studio.
She instantly pushed one of the teenagers to the ground and made him apologize. When the second teenager called her a derogatory term, Dang says she snapped, hitting him in the face several times while simultaneously dodging his punches. According to The Columbian, when he pulled out a knife she used his bike as a shield until a passerby showed up and called 911.
"I think they knew they messed with the wrong girl," Dang added to KATU.
Both suspects fled the scene and were later apprehended by sheriff's deputies, reports KPTV. The 18-year-old suspect is now facing fourth-degree assault charges, while the 16-year-old will be judged by a juvenile prosecutor.
The girl who assaulted her should get time in Sweden's equivalent of Juvie Hall, if they have it. Expulsion, too. No excuse for it.
That said, what was this girl doing/wearing that would prompt the school to say she should tone it down? I'd really like to hear the other side of this story.
Melissia wrote:Well, when three people give three different interpretations of his post, it probably is better to let him explain
Mannahnin, Dreadwinter, and Kovnik have it right. I'm not claiming, at all, that the assault was justified. There are circumstances in which the use of force is justified, but the simple exercise of sexuality is not one of them (short of fending off sexual assault, obviously)*. This is, I think, the consensus of nearly everyone in society, though obviously there are exceptions.
I'm only claiming that the most interesting part of this case is that the school requested that the girl "tone down" her sexuality, both from a legal and moral standpoint. From a legal standpoint we'll probably never know, as I doubt many people here speak Swedish. From a moral standpoint, however, the question is one regarding the degree of sexuality being expressed by the victim. If it was simply a matter of it being clear that she was homosexual, then the request was inappropriate. If she was making repeated advances on not only the girl who assaulted her**, but other girls in the school (as in successive advances on the same people), and those advances were consistently being turned down then there is merit to the request. This is also true if the advances were physical.
And, to be perfectly clear, I think the same standard holds for heterosexual students as well. In many ways schools are like less formal places of business, and the latter types of behavior would not be tolerated in many of those. If anything students only receive clemency because, well, they're young and stupid. They can't be expected to fully understand how to show an interest in an appropriate manner, so they get chided first, and disciplined second; provided at least the mistake was innocent.
*Though I'll add that there is something to be said regarding proportionality. If your average woman slaps your average man making repeated lewd comments (bearing in mind that your average woman is no physical threat to your average man), the slap is justified.
**Again, this doesn't justify the assault, but I've seen violence occur because a particularly aggressive gay man continually made advances on a friend of mine who was notoriously unstable (he once threatened me with a hatchet). The tipping point being the time he whispered into his ear "The only reason you're not gay is because you don't know what it feels like to receive anal from a man." Where "receive anal from a man" were not the words used. My friend, proceeded to break the guy's nose and bruise several of his ribs. If this occurred between heterosexuals it would be no less inappropriate, but the balance of forces is very different due to simple genetics.
Melissia wrote:Well, when three people give three different interpretations of his post, it probably is better to let him explain
Mannahnin, Dreadwinter, and Kovnik have it right. I'm not claiming, at all, that the assault was justified. There are circumstances in which the use of force is justified, but the simple exercise of sexuality is not one of them (short of fending off sexual assault, obviously)*. This is, I think, the consensus of nearly everyone in society, though obviously there are exceptions.
I'm only claiming that the most interesting part of this case is that the school requested that the girl "tone down" her sexuality, both from a legal and moral standpoint. From a legal standpoint we'll probably never know, as I doubt many people here speak Swedish. From a moral standpoint, however, the question is one regarding the degree of sexuality being expressed by the victim. If it was simply a matter of it being clear that she was homosexual, then the request was inappropriate. If she was making repeated advances on not only the girl who assaulted her**, but other girls in the school (as in successive advances on the same people), and those advances were consistently being turned down then there is merit to the request. This is also true if the advances were physical.
And, to be perfectly clear, I think the same standard holds for heterosexual students as well. In many ways schools are like less formal places of business, and the latter types of behavior would not be tolerated in many of those. If anything students only receive clemency because, well, they're young and stupid. They can't be expected to fully understand how to show an interest in an appropriate manner, so they get chided first, and disciplined second; provided at least the mistake was innocent.
*Though I'll add that there is something to be said regarding proportionality. If your average woman slaps your average man making repeated lewd comments (bearing in mind that your average woman is no physical threat to your average man), the slap is justified.
**Again, this doesn't justify the assault, but I've seen violence occur because a particularly aggressive gay man continually made advances on a friend of mine who was notoriously unstable (he once threatened me with a hatchet). The tipping point being the time he whispered into his ear "The only reason you're not gay is because you don't know what it feels like to receive anal from a man." Where "receive anal from a man" were not the words used. My friend, proceeded to break the guy's nose and bruise several of his ribs. If this occurred between heterosexuals it would be no less inappropriate, but the balance of forces is very different due to simple genetics.
Pretty much bang on, right there.
Another thing to factor in might be if the girl with the pliers had bad experiences with lesbians before and if the girl that got assaulted did something that was the straw that broke the camel's back. A lot of ifs right there because we don't have the full story, I think.
I only bring this up because I know a couple people that got tired of beIng grabbed by guys and went beserk after one time too many of being groped.
Melissia wrote:And a court date with a criminal charge chaser, mister Internet Tough Guy.
Thats wrong actually. If someone grabs you thats battery. Your response may be considered self defense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Relapse wrote:If someone grabbed me, I'd level them and be justified.
Grabbed you? As in grope you? No you wouldn't, at least if you're reasonnable. You'd be flushed red with indignity, and wouldn't have a single clue how to react.
Then, later on, you'd laugh about it. Hey, that means someone thinks you have a cute ass.
Beleive me, I've been there.
Again, no thats battery or sexual assault/battery (depending on the local state's jurisdiction). If a woman is groped she is well within her legal rights to level the groper, or have the attacker arrested and convicted for such.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Melissia wrote:And a court date with a criminal charge chaser, mister Internet Tough Guy.
Just stating a bit of personal history. As far as charges go, it comes down to the fact that the grabber is the assaulter, I acted in self defense.
No not in any western country or any state or county, self defense doesn't apply to he grabbed my ass.
Wanna bet?
Absolutely, I thought you were a lawyer fraz. Using the AZ law as example (since thats were I live.)
13-404. Justification; self-defense
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:
1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or
2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or
3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:
(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and
(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.
Bolded important bit, as with most self defense laws it only counts as self defense if you believe that you can not safely disengage from the encounter and can only use force to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary. So can you charge the groper with battery/assault absolutely, can you shove him/pepper spray him, debatable I would lean towards yes, can you deck/stab/shoot/taze/etc. him, no.
Guy that got decked: well you see your honor, I grabbed his nads because I wanted to have sex with him, and that's when he hit me...
Judge: Case dismissed because the plantiff is an idiot.
Or:
Guy that got decked: well you see your honor, I stumbled and accidently brushed my hand across the front of his trousers
Judge: In light of there being no evidence of sexual assault by the plaintiff, no camera/film/etc, and plenty of evidence of violence taken against the plaintiff for apparently little to no reason, the decker gets the cane.
Guy that got decked: well you see your honor, I grabbed his nads because I wanted to have sex with him, and that's when he hit me...
Judge: Case dismissed because the plantiff is an idiot.
Or:
Guy that got decked: well you see your honor, I stumbled and accidently brushed my hand across the front of his trousers
Judge: In light of there being no evidence of sexual assault by the plaintiff, no camera/film/etc, and plenty of evidence of violence taken against the plaintiff for apparently little to no reason, the decker gets the cane.
You think that would work eh? Try it.
More to the point these laws and court cases were put in place to protect women against gropers. to wit your example:
Guy that got decked: well you see your honor, I stumbled and accidently brushed my hand across the front of her blouse.
Judge: You're so full of gak its not funny. Bailiff, beat this man again please.
My point was "Word against Word". I would certainly hope in a legal system you actually require evidence.
You have evidence.
You will lose.
I suggest you try it. Further I suggest you find the nearest karate tournament. Grope a female black belt. Stand for your principles and become that test case!
MrDwhitey wrote:What evidence? Someones word is enough evidence to send someone to jail? My oh my, and I thought you lived in a democracy.
Nope, but it will be enough to get the female 4th degree blackbelt off, if even charged (not in a million freaking years). On the positive, you'll still be in the hospital after she hurts you real bad. Sounds like justice to me.
dogma wrote:
And, to be perfectly clear, I think the same standard holds for heterosexual students as well.
Apologies if I have told you this one before, I have been here I while now and I might be repeating myself.
I was in a pub in Middlesbrough a few years back and there was a hen party in, probably about 12-14 women. All dressed up, all being loud.. you know how they are.
Anyway, I was stood at the bar with a mate, and three of them were getting served in front.. they turned round and looked at us, and then one of them said "Hey! You look a bit like Robbie Williams!" (gak pop singer) I replied "Oh I have been told that before.. is that good or bad then?" at this point, one of the girls nudged her mate, and they all grinned, and then with a speed that defied her ample frame, she snaked a hand out, and fully grabbed my gonads. Like both of them, inside her palm, in a strangely vice like grip that I wouldnt have thought possible for one of the fairer sex.
I instantly and involuntarily gasped and went "GAAH!" as it hurt quite a bit.. and this brought hoots of laughter and derision from not only the crowd of her friends at the table, but also half of the strangers present. At this point I tried to tear myself clear, but she properly had hold of my sack hard, it was like I was being pinched by Spongebobs fething boss, and the sharp movement was actually extremely painful, it was I reckon.. about 50% knacker sack and about 50% pubes getting ripped out.
I then did an impromptu karate chop on her wrist and when I looked up the grinning bar man casually said "what's yours then mate?" as if this type of thing happens on a daily basis.
At which point I replied "Jesus!... can you imagine the scene if I just rammed three fingers up her fething skirt?!"
I tell you.. if you think this type of gak is ever going to work both ways, you must have another thing coming! Many a day I think things would be simpler if I was born a woman...
If only so I could get a job on an RM base and be an absolute filth bag.
Can you imagine!? 700 men, aged 18-35 and all super fit?! I would be air-tight every night of the week!
dogma wrote:
And, to be perfectly clear, I think the same standard holds for heterosexual students as well.
Apologies if I have told you this one before, I have been here I while now and I might be repeating myself.
I was in a pub in Middlesbrough a few years back and there was a hen party in, probably about 12-14 women. All dressed up, all being loud.. you know how they are.
Anyway, I was stood at the bar with a mate, and three of them were getting served in front.. they turned round and looked at us, and then one of them said "Hey! You look a bit like Robbie Williams!" (gak pop singer) I replied "Oh I have been told that before.. is that good or bad then?" at this point, one of the girls nudged her mate, and they all grinned, and then with a speed that defied her ample frame, she snaked a hand out, and fully grabbed my gonads. Like both of them, inside her palm, in a strangely vice like grip that I wouldnt have thought possible for one of the fairer sex.
I instantly and involuntarily gasped and went "GAAH!" as it hurt quite a bit.. and this brought hoots of laughter and derision from not only the crowd of her friends at the table, but also half of the strangers present. At this point I tried to tear myself clear, but she properly had hold of my sack hard, it was like I was being pinched by Spongebobs fething boss, and the sharp movement was actually extremely painful, it was I reckon.. about 50% knacker sack and about 50% pubes getting ripped out.
I then did an impromptu karate chop on her wrist and when I looked up the grinning bar man casually said "what's yours then mate?" as if this type of thing happens on a daily basis.
At which point I replied "Jesus!... can you imagine the scene if I just rammed three fingers up her fething skirt?!"
I tell you.. if you think this type of gak is ever going to work both ways, you must have another thing coming! Many a day I think things would be simpler if I was born a woman...
If only so I could get a job on an RM base and be an absolute filth bag.
Can you imagine!? 700 men, aged 18-35 and all super fit?! I would be air-tight every night of the week!
HOLY FETH Matty that sounds hidiously painful...... how log did you take to recover-i cant imagine your pain....... you poor . Still a hilariously good laugh though .(sorry for laughing at you agony)
anyway if you want real pain-practice sword training with my freind. training blades only.
Hes broken mine but im still pummeling him even with the top quarter of my Bastard sword missing(the Bastard sword being the sword that i am most proficient with).
Realising hes losing badly he tries the sneaky tactic of kicking me in the nads with his steel toecapped boots.
suffice to say im in agony but somehow i manage to put all of this pain aside and fight back for several minutes before seeing an opening and proceeding to rip straight through his defences and inflict a coup de grace on him accept his surrender and walk some distance away before collapsing in total agony.
i remained there for about 5 minutes before i could force myself up.
Getting back on topic: Its fething VILE what happened to that poor girl. if ide been there ide have kicked the gak out of the fether that assaulted her be they male or female. Why cant people who are individual be different. so what she likes other girls whats wrong with that? i hope she takes every penny the school and that homophobic little slut have. My rage at this knows no bounds and as such i have been forced to crank Theartes des Vampires Carmilla up to potentaly fatal levels to try and counter my hate rage before i declare war on sweden(there already on probation in my books for sheltering my dad)
Melissia wrote:And what they did was wrong, but that sort of thing happens with men as well. Dunno why you seem to think otherwise.
I dont think otherwise! I just thought you might like to hear that story.
I will say though, men wouldn't report that kinda thing cos the coppers would probably laugh at you as well. It probably happens far less to women because the blokes know they will end up in cuffs if they do gak like that!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
master of ordinance wrote:[
anyway if you want real pain-practice sword training with my freind. training blades only.
I can well imagine cos sword fighting hurt as a kid when you got twatted on the hand with a wooden sword!
I have little interest in learning now though, it seems a bit close to LARPing for me.. When am I ever going to need to sword fight anyway!?
MrDwhitey wrote:What evidence? Someones word is enough evidence to send someone to jail? My oh my, and I thought you lived in a democracy.
Nope, but it will be enough to get the female 4th degree blackbelt off, if even charged (not in a million freaking years). On the positive, you'll still be in the hospital after she hurts you real bad. Sounds like justice to me.
I love that example since I sat in on a trial for a friend of mine that is a 4th degree black belt who was accused of battery. We were working on a construction site and one of the foremen decided he wanted to prove what a hardass he was by threatening my bud with a hammer when they were alone in a basement of the complex we were building.
He took one punch from my friend that caused $8,000 dollars worth of damage to his face and broke several bones on the left side of his head.
It was a case of word against word and my bud didn't even bother with a lawyer, in a trial that only went a couple of hours. In the end, the judge ruled it a case of mutual combat and my bud got off free.
The thing that sealed it was when my friend was questioning his accuser, he drew a map of the room on a board and asked where the accuser was standing when he pulled the hammer on him. His accuser indicated where he was standing, and my friend then said, "So you admit to pulling the hammer out at me."
The idiot replied by saying, "But I put it back".
At that point, it was pretty much in the bag and my friend wasvindicated a few days later with the judges descision.
MrDwhitey wrote:What evidence? Someones word is enough evidence to send someone to jail? My oh my, and I thought you lived in a democracy.
I'm off to work now, go post that weiner dog firing fireworks at people some more, wouldya?
Actually in the court system eyewitness testimony is often placed above fact or hard evidence, so yes someones word is more then enough to send someone to jail, thats how most rape cases (false or real) are convicted.
Fraz I know that if this were to ever actually happen that it would be unlikely to be convicted, I was just pointing that technically you are not legally justified to do it. But as we both know, actual legality /= what actually happens
mattyrm wrote:When am I ever going to need to sword fight anyway!?
That's what all the 40K tank commanders said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:What evidence? Someones word is enough evidence to send someone to jail? My oh my, and I thought you lived in a democracy.
I'm off to work now, go post that weiner dog firing fireworks at people some more, wouldya?
Actually in the court system eyewitness testimony is often placed above fact or hard evidence, so yes someones word is more then enough to send someone to jail, thats how most rape cases (false or real) are convicted.
Fraz I know that if this were to ever actually happen that it would be unlikely to be convicted, I was just pointing that technically you are not legally justified to do it. But as we both know, actual legality /= what actually happens
But if you have two eyewitnesses both offering conflicting accounts then you need more evidence to disprove one side.
MrDwhitey wrote:What evidence? Someones word is enough evidence to send someone to jail? My oh my, and I thought you lived in a democracy.
I'm off to work now, go post that weiner dog firing fireworks at people some more, wouldya?
Actually in the court system eyewitness testimony is often placed above fact or hard evidence, so yes someones word is more then enough to send someone to jail, thats how most rape cases (false or real) are convicted.
Fraz I know that if this were to ever actually happen that it would be unlikely to be convicted, I was just pointing that technically you are not legally justified to do it. But as we both know, actual legality /= what actually happens
Thats my point. Legally the black belt chick IS JUSTIFIED in using force to defned against harmful or offensive touching. Its classic self defense.
Which in no way resembles this: Drunken fratboy: grope Karate Chick with issues: Now you die. Drunken fratboy: wa... Karate Chick with issues rips out his spleen. Crowd: Finish Him! Karate Chick with issues rips out spine. Crowd: Maximum Fatality!
MrDwhitey wrote:What evidence? Someones word is enough evidence to send someone to jail? My oh my, and I thought you lived in a democracy.
I'm off to work now, go post that weiner dog firing fireworks at people some more, wouldya?
Actually in the court system eyewitness testimony is often placed above fact or hard evidence, so yes someones word is more then enough to send someone to jail, thats how most rape cases (false or real) are convicted.
Fraz I know that if this were to ever actually happen that it would be unlikely to be convicted, I was just pointing that technically you are not legally justified to do it. But as we both know, actual legality /= what actually happens
Thats my point. Legally the black belt chick IS JUSTIFIED in using force to defned against harmful or offensive touching. Its classic self defense.
Which in no way resembles this:
Drunken fratboy: grope
Karate Chick with issues: Now you die.
Drunken fratboy: wa...
Karate Chick with issues rips out his spleen.
Crowd: Finish Him!
Karate Chick with issues rips out spine.
Crowd: Maximum Fatality!
Did you not read my posts then, yes she can you use force, it is a matter of how much force. But serious question, is matty, in his example, justified in punching the chick in the face hard enought to knock her out, or break her jaw, or something similar. Is a woman justified in doing the same thing to a man who gropes her.
MrDwhitey wrote:Wow. The hammer guy in your anecdote is stupid as feth.
My friend is really good with the way he can get people to trip up and admit things. This wasn't his first time in court. Once he got challanged as he was walking along with his 2 year old on his shoulders. He put his son down, thumped the guy in a one punch fight picked his boy back up, and went on his way as his assailent lay on the sidewalk.
In that trial, he simply told the judge he didn't hit the guy until after he put his son down.
The judge , upon hearing that my bud was carrying a child when he was attacked, threw out the case and layed into the plaintiff
MrDwhitey wrote:Youbedead, the defendant is allowed to be an eyewitness to his own case?
Yep, in fact testimony is the only form of evidence that doesn't require another form of evidence to be permitted. In a court someone saying that it rained holds more weight then a meteoroligical report saying it didn't rain.
MrDwhitey wrote:What evidence? Someones word is enough evidence to send someone to jail? My oh my, and I thought you lived in a democracy.
I'm off to work now, go post that weiner dog firing fireworks at people some more, wouldya?
Actually in the court system eyewitness testimony is often placed above fact or hard evidence, so yes someones word is more then enough to send someone to jail, thats how most rape cases (false or real) are convicted.
Fraz I know that if this were to ever actually happen that it would be unlikely to be convicted, I was just pointing that technically you are not legally justified to do it. But as we both know, actual legality /= what actually happens
Thats my point. Legally the black belt chick IS JUSTIFIED in using force to defned against harmful or offensive touching. Its classic self defense.
Which in no way resembles this:
Drunken fratboy: grope
Karate Chick with issues: Now you die.
Drunken fratboy: wa...
Karate Chick with issues rips out his spleen.
Crowd: Finish Him!
Karate Chick with issues rips out spine.
Crowd: Maximum Fatality!
Did you not read my posts then, yes she can you use force, it is a matter of how much force. But serious question, is matty, in his example, justified in punching the chick in the face hard enought to knock her out, or break her jaw, or something similar. Is a woman justified in doing the same thing to a man who gropes her.
What a man is justified in doing and what a woman is justified in doing are different things.
I should point out that this applies only to US courts. Im not terribly familiar with how you run thing in jolly ol' England
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
youbedead wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
youbedead wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:What evidence? Someones word is enough evidence to send someone to jail? My oh my, and I thought you lived in a democracy.
I'm off to work now, go post that weiner dog firing fireworks at people some more, wouldya?
Actually in the court system eyewitness testimony is often placed above fact or hard evidence, so yes someones word is more then enough to send someone to jail, thats how most rape cases (false or real) are convicted.
Fraz I know that if this were to ever actually happen that it would be unlikely to be convicted, I was just pointing that technically you are not legally justified to do it. But as we both know, actual legality /= what actually happens
Thats my point. Legally the black belt chick IS JUSTIFIED in using force to defned against harmful or offensive touching. Its classic self defense.
Which in no way resembles this:
Drunken fratboy: grope
Karate Chick with issues: Now you die.
Drunken fratboy: wa...
Karate Chick with issues rips out his spleen.
Crowd: Finish Him!
Karate Chick with issues rips out spine.
Crowd: Maximum Fatality!
Did you not read my posts then, yes she can you use force, it is a matter of how much force. But serious question, is matty, in his example, justified in punching the chick in the face hard enought to knock her out, or break her jaw, or something similar. Is a woman justified in doing the same thing to a man who gropes her.
What a man is justified in doing and what a woman is justified in doing are different things.
MrDwhitey wrote:Youbedead, the defendant is allowed to be an eyewitness to his own case?
Yep, in fact testimony is the only form of evidence that doesn't require another form of evidence to be permitted. In a court someone saying that it rained holds more weight then a meteoroligical report saying it didn't rain.
That's akin to saying that an eyewitness saying he saw the defendant shoot a man trumps the factual evidence that the deceased was in fact stabbed.
Factual evidence > Eyewitness unless the eyewitness is supported by the factual evidence.
MrDwhitey wrote:Youbedead, the defendant is allowed to be an eyewitness to his own case?
Yep, in fact testimony is the only form of evidence that doesn't require another form of evidence to be permitted. In a court someone saying that it rained holds more weight then a meteoroligical report saying it didn't rain.
That's akin to saying that an eyewitness saying he saw the defendant shoot a man trumps the factual evidence that the deceased was in fact stabbed.
Factual evidence > Eyewitness unless the eyewitness is supported by the factual evidence.
Except the eyewitness can say he was shot and it would be permissible, the fact that he was stabbed can only be permissible if supported by another form of evidence, such as testimony from a medical examiner
youbedead wrote:But serious question, is matty, in his example, justified in punching the chick in the face hard enought to knock her out, or break her jaw, or something similar. Is a woman justified in doing the same thing to a man who gropes her.
Absolutely not.
There are occasions where I would entirely say "go for it" and chin a woman, but that is when you can actually be hurt or make a good argument that you actually felt threatened../ A girl shoving off to her friends and grabbing your beanbag isn't one of them.
I always meet force with force, hence I have never been charged by the authorities.
The chop to the wrist was justified, and that's what happened. If she then attacked me I would have chinned her because I HAVE hit women before, again, I have several stories but this isnt the place for them.
One girl hit me over the head with a bottle in the street in Exmouth and when I put my palm to my head and it came back red, she got an uppercut before the second swing. I didn't kick her on the floor or anything obviously, because the threat was neutralized, just one smack and she went down like a knackered lift. I didn't get arrested and twenty people saw it.
I think I'm a fething expert frankly, training for Northern Ireland I got drilled and drilled and drilled and drilled on it for about 9 months.. basically only like on like is justified, and ultimately you always have to ask yourself "what would a jury think?"
I actually used to school my lads on this kinda thing.. I made a rhyme "Don't forget CCTV, always count 1-2-3"
Basically a variation of some NI training, we got taught to use the "count to three rule" if the press were about in case we were filmed smashing a local scum-bag round the face with a baton, because if a news crew films you hitting someone over there, they best have thrown 5 at you first or your gonna get crucified.. and you know for a fact command wont back you either. Similar to policemen.
Anyway, said rule has never failed me in its real world application (drunken nights on the town!)
I also punched a woman in a club once and I didn't get thrown out. She batted me round the head, I blocked it, and the next two, and then I slowly counted to three. At this point I jabbed her in the face and she was stunned that nobody present seemed to give a feth. Would you If you saw a woman throw 12 punches at a guy before he tossed one into her?
Oh yeah and once I mashed a bag of molten cheesy chips into a girls face because I didn't have a free hand and she was swinging for me ... she caught me a good one in the fething throat and it went downhill from there.. actually the more I think about it the more of these stories I have..
I grew out of that "intervening in strangers fights" gak when I was about 20. If I saw a chick throw ten into a guy before he poked one into her, Id probably laugh my fething ass off frankly.
A man should never ever hit a woman, so I demand the same fething treatment. I always let a chick have 3 free ones, but if she is still swinging after that she will catch one up. I honestly think it helps build a harmonious relationship! I mean, I've lived with my missus for 4 years and neither of us has ever laid a glove on the other, but she has told me a few times (we rarely fight, but everyone has a shouting argument once in a while) that the only reason she hasn't punched me in the face when she has been super angry is because she knows for a fact I would hit her back.
youbedead wrote:I should point out that this applies only to US courts. Im not terribly familiar with how you run thing in jolly ol' England
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
youbedead wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
youbedead wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:What evidence? Someones word is enough evidence to send someone to jail? My oh my, and I thought you lived in a democracy.
I'm off to work now, go post that weiner dog firing fireworks at people some more, wouldya?
Actually in the court system eyewitness testimony is often placed above fact or hard evidence, so yes someones word is more then enough to send someone to jail, thats how most rape cases (false or real) are convicted.
Fraz I know that if this were to ever actually happen that it would be unlikely to be convicted, I was just pointing that technically you are not legally justified to do it. But as we both know, actual legality /= what actually happens
Thats my point. Legally the black belt chick IS JUSTIFIED in using force to defned against harmful or offensive touching. Its classic self defense.
Which in no way resembles this:
Drunken fratboy: grope
Karate Chick with issues: Now you die.
Drunken fratboy: wa...
Karate Chick with issues rips out his spleen.
Crowd: Finish Him!
Karate Chick with issues rips out spine.
Crowd: Maximum Fatality!
Did you not read my posts then, yes she can you use force, it is a matter of how much force. But serious question, is matty, in his example, justified in punching the chick in the face hard enought to knock her out, or break her jaw, or something similar. Is a woman justified in doing the same thing to a man who gropes her.
What a man is justified in doing and what a woman is justified in doing are different things.
youbedead wrote:But serious question, is matty, in his example, justified in punching the chick in the face hard enought to knock her out, or break her jaw, or something similar. Is a woman justified in doing the same thing to a man who gropes her.
Absolutely not.
There are occasions where I would entirely say "go for it" and chin a woman, but that is when you can actually be hurt or make a good argument that you actually felt threatened../ A girl shoving off to her friends and grabbing your beanbag isn't one of them.
I always meet force with force, hence I have never been charged by the authorities.
The chop to the wrist was justified, and that's what happened. If she then attacked me I would have chinned her because I HAVE hit women before, again, I have several stories but this isnt the place for them.
One girl hit me over the head with a bottle in the street in Exmouth and when I put my palm to my head and it came back red, she got an uppercut before the second swing. I didn't kick her on the floor or anything obviously, because the threat was neutralized, just one smack and she went down like a knackered lift. I didn't get arrested and twenty people saw it.
I think I'm a fething expert frankly, training for Northern Ireland I got drilled and drilled and drilled and drilled on it for about 9 months.. basically only like on like is justified, and ultimately you always have to ask yourself "what would a jury think?"
I actually used to school my lads on this kinda thing.. I made a rhyme "Don't forget CCTV, always count 1-2-3"
Basically a variation of some NI training, we got taught to use the "count to three rule" if the press were about in case we were filmed smashing a local scum-bag round the face with a baton, because if a news crew films you hitting someone over there, they best have thrown 5 at you first or your gonna get crucified.. and you know for a fact command wont back you either. Similar to policemen.
Anyway, said rule has never failed me in its real world application (drunken nights on the town!)
I also punched a woman in a club once and I didn't get thrown out. She batted me round the head, I blocked it, and the next two, and then I slowly counted to three. At this point I jabbed her in the face and she was stunned that nobody present seemed to give a feth. Would you If you saw a woman throw 12 punches at a guy before he tossed one into her?
Oh yeah and once I mashed a bag of molten cheesy chips into a girls face because I didn't have a free hand and she was swinging for me ... she caught me a good one in the fething throat and it went downhill from there.. actually the more I think about it the more of these stories I have..
I grew out of that "intervening in strangers fights" gak when I was about 20. If I saw a chick throw ten into a guy before he poked one into her, Id probably laugh my fething ass off frankly.
A man should never ever hit a woman, so I demand the same fething treatment. I always let a chick have 3 free ones, but if she is still swinging after that she will catch one up. I honestly think it helps build a harmonious relationship! I mean, I've lived with my missus for 4 years and neither of us has ever laid a glove on the other, but she has told me a few times (we rarely fight, but everyone has a shouting argument once in a while) that the only reason she hasn't punched me in the face when she has been super angry is because she knows for a fact I would hit her back.
My friend had been charged several times, but never convicted, and he has a lot of similar stories. Another bud of mine who is about 6' 5"
and 300 lbs., had to pull his niece and nephew out of the way of a drunk driver's pick up in a mall parking lot one Christmas. The truck mirror hit him in the shoulder, so he threw a bottle he was carrying through the trucks back window.
The fool driving then hit the hooks, backed up, and pulling himself up to his full 5'8" height and drunkenly started mouthing off. The next thing he knew, he was picked up overhead, slammed into the bed of his pickup and beaten.
He crawled out of his truck to a couple of cops and complained about being attacked. The cops took one look at him and one look at my friend after hearing their stories and told the guy he was lucky he hadn't been really hurt, and told him he was busted.
The only reason he wasn't badly hurt was my friend didn't think it was a good idea for his new wife see him totaly unload on someone.
The whole point of the stories about my friends are to illustrate the fact that people accused of battery don't go to court or get convicted as much as a lot of people seem to think.
The only one I ever got charged for was knocking a tooth out of the kid who had a dentist father, but that was just high school.
Context: The old man told me "Good job." because they had matching tattoos of bald eagles ripping out of their legs despite having no family serving. Which is to say, stupid patriotism.
mattyrm wrote:I don't doubt it Relapse, Ive been in feth loads of fights, and Ive never been charged..
I haven't won them all mind! But the law of averages states I should have been in the dock at least once!
I think people get chinned regularly over here anyway, it doesn't usually hit court unless some serious gak happened.
Same here, back in my mis spent youth. That's the reason I shake my head when I hear people saying, like it's a given, someone is going to get arrested, go to jail, lose a bunch of money in a law suit, etc. because they beat someone in a fight.
When someone goes into a fight, they'd better expect to get hurt.
The guys that start fights, then press charges when they get hurt, are the same as kids that start gak and then run and hide behind their moms when things go bad for them.
Most judges can pick this up when someone like this presses charges, and with what I saw from the stories, it's a joy to watch it backfire on those type of people.
dogma wrote:The only one I ever got charged for was knocking a tooth out of the kid who had a dentist father, but that was just high school.
Context: The old man told me "Good job." because they had matching tattoos of bald eagles ripping out of their legs despite having no family serving. Which is to say, stupid patriotism.
Haha, I think the fether deserved it simply for the chad tattoo..
I should probably point out that I think that is someones messing with then fething break them, I was just pointing out that no those actions aren't actually legal. Never fight someone unless you're willing to go to court or end being injured or injuring someone, or as my uncle said if you're not prepared to kill someone then it's not worth it.
mattyrm wrote:I don't doubt it Relapse, Ive been in feth loads of fights, and Ive never been charged..
I haven't won them all mind! But the law of averages states I should have been in the dock at least once!
I think people get chinned regularly over here anyway, it doesn't usually hit court unless some serious gak happened.
Same here, back in my mis spent youth. That's the reason I shake my head when I hear people saying, like it's a given, someone is going to get arrested, go to jail, lose a bunch of money in a law suit, etc. because they beat someone in a fight.
When someone goes into a fight, they'd better expect to get hurt.
The guys that start fights, then press charges when they get hurt, are the same as kids that start gak and then run and hide behind their moms when things go bad for them.
Most judges can pick this up when someone like this presses charges, and with what I saw from the stories, it's a joy to watch it backfire on those type of people.
I always found the secret was to not stick around. . .
My point was "Word against Word". I would certainly hope in a legal system you actually require evidence.
The word of the defendant and the supposed victim is evidence. The outcome depends on whom the jury believes.
That's why defending barristers used to put such emphasis on blackening the reputation of victims in rape trials, and why they were stopped from doing it.
dogma wrote:To be fair, we don't really know what she was being asked to "tone down" from. Being overtly sexual, regardless of what the nature of it is, can get you bullied.
Granted homosexuals definitely have it worse in the vast majority of places.
I have known several gays that took it to a level that broke decorum and invited reprisal. There's a distinct difference between a highschooler being openly gay and a highschooler wearing a net shirt and pink feather sash every other day. Physical violence isn't an acceptable answer to most social situations, this one included, but there's how the world should work and how it actually does. "Don't do things that get you beat up" isn't always bad advice.
That said, the school should react to violence in a consistent manner regardless of the cause or participants and they clearly didn't seem to be doing that.
dogma wrote:To be fair, we don't really know what she was being asked to "tone down" from. Being overtly sexual, regardless of what the nature of it is, can get you bullied.
Granted homosexuals definitely have it worse in the vast majority of places.
I have known several gays that took it to a level that broke decorum and invited reprisal. There's a distinct difference between a highschooler being openly gay and a highschooler wearing a net shirt and pink feather sash every other day. Physical violence isn't an acceptable answer to most social situations, this one included, but there's how the world should work and how it actually does. "Don't do things that get you beat up" isn't always bad advice.
That said, the school should react to violence in a consistent manner regardless of the cause or participants and they clearly didn't seem to be doing that.
And the school should not actively encourage violence like this one did.
dogma wrote:To be fair, we don't really know what she was being asked to "tone down" from. Being overtly sexual, regardless of what the nature of it is, can get you bullied.
Granted homosexuals definitely have it worse in the vast majority of places.
I have known several gays that took it to a level that broke decorum and invited reprisal. There's a distinct difference between a highschooler being openly gay and a highschooler wearing a net shirt and pink feather sash every other day. Physical violence isn't an acceptable answer to most social situations, this one included, but there's how the world should work and how it actually does. "Don't do things that get you beat up" isn't always bad advice.
That said, the school should react to violence in a consistent manner regardless of the cause or participants and they clearly didn't seem to be doing that.
And the school should not actively encourage violence like this one did.
I would say they more Reactively encouraged violence... but sometimes, the Nordic Fury, it crops up, even in the later generations of overly socialized panzies we scandahoovians left behind in the old countries ( ) ... And there is little than can be done on a micro scale to cure the Fury.
Bromsy wrote:
I would say they more Reactively encouraged violence... but sometimes, the Nordic Fury, it crops up, even in the later generations of overly socialized panzies we scandahoovians left behind in the old countries ( ) ... And there is little than can be done on a micro scale to cure the Fury.
I thought that was what the untold amounts of beer was for?!?!?
For feth sake's, if not that, why are you people hurting yourself so much?!?!? It's not like you need beer glasses...
Bromsy wrote:
I would say they more Reactively encouraged violence... but sometimes, the Nordic Fury, it crops up, even in the later generations of overly socialized panzies we scandahoovians left behind in the old countries ( ) ... And there is little than can be done on a micro scale to cure the Fury.
I thought that was what the untold amounts of beer was for?!?!?
For feth sake's, if not that, why are you people hurting yourself so much?!?!? It's not like you need beer glasses...
Well I can't speak for all my Nordic brothers and sisters, but I drink beer because it makes me stronger, smarter, and more attractive to the ladies. Plus it makes my taste buds get all awesome like.
Bromsy wrote:
I would say they more Reactively encouraged violence... but sometimes, the Nordic Fury, it crops up, even in the later generations of overly socialized panzies we scandahoovians left behind in the old countries ( ) ... And there is little than can be done on a micro scale to cure the Fury.
I thought that was what the untold amounts of beer was for?!?!?
For feth sake's, if not that, why are you people hurting yourself so much?!?!? It's not like you need beer glasses...
Well I can't speak for all my Nordic brothers and sisters, but I drink beer because it makes me stronger, smarter, and more attractive to the ladies. Plus it makes my taste buds get all awesome like.
Yeah because ya'll athletic blond master race needs help with hot women... jeez...
Bromsy wrote:
I would say they more Reactively encouraged violence... but sometimes, the Nordic Fury, it crops up, even in the later generations of overly socialized panzies we scandahoovians left behind in the old countries ( ) ... And there is little than can be done on a micro scale to cure the Fury.
I thought that was what the untold amounts of beer was for?!?!?
For feth sake's, if not that, why are you people hurting yourself so much?!?!? It's not like you need beer glasses...
Well I can't speak for all my Nordic brothers and sisters, but I drink beer because it makes me stronger, smarter, and more attractive to the ladies. Plus it makes my taste buds get all awesome like.
Yeah because ya'll athletic blond master race needs help with hot women... jeez...
Hey, that blonde gak is Sweden, I'm Norweigan and we got all kinds of hair color from all that adventurous raping and pillaging we did.
Personally I have brown hair and awesome metallic red facial hair ...
...better picture
Bromsy wrote:
Hey, that blonde gak is Sweden, I'm Norweigan and we got all kinds of hair color from all that adventurous raping and pillaging we did.
Personally I have brown hair and awesome metallic red facial hair ...
...better picture
Sorry, too many master races for me to keep track off If I may ask, what's the point of adventurous raping and pillaging if you're bringing back the toddlers home anyway?
Well, that was the fun part of Scandinavian raping and pillaging - obviously we only applied the first to attractive women, which just made the gene pool stronger.
And since we weren't total bastards about the whole taking people home in bondage thing IE thralls - we had good integration.
Was this at a far-right Swedish school? I thought Swedish people are very liberal people. I would not associate myself with any homosexuals but I would not go out of the way to assault or insult them that is waste of my time and theirs. Did it state the manner she behaved? It doesn't state it. I've known of lesbian students at my Schools who groped other straight female students in the change rooms. If they acted in an inappropiate way I'm not suprised, if she is acting normal it is unacceptable.
rockerbikie wrote:Was this at a far-right Swedish school? I thought Swedish people are very liberal people.
Sadly, stupid people are everywhere.
EDIT: Just thought I'd clarify since it might be misunderstood: I'm referring to the Principal, not to you.
Also, thought I'd put in the caveat that we don't know what really happened yadda yadda, but based on the info we have it was stupid.
Exactly. Though to put in retrospective. I know of a gay person who considers homsexuality to be the superior sexuality, he thinks gay or lesbian sex should only be taught at schools and that straight people should strip down and basically bend over for homsexual people. This is the other end of stupidity on the political scale. It is insane, most stupid person I've have ever meet. Most LGB people I meet are ok but I don't want to associate myself with them. Once everywhile I have found a true nutter at one of my Schools.
. Still a hilariously good laugh though 
...better picture