Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No, I'm fairly sure I'm not I witnessed a few of those assaults myself. And the resulting "punishments" after the proceedings. Heck, because of Zero Tolerance policies, the principle actually considered punishing THE WITNESSES. That last part was probably personal stupidity on his part and likely uncommon (Though not as much as you think, Zero Tolerance policies are always stupid, just look for stories of students with diabetes not being allowed their medicine because they thought it was a drug, despite the school nurse saying it was medicine...).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The US school system's actual educational quality ain't the only thing messed up. Their inability to intelligently discipline has always also been such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And don't think this is an old thing either. Zero Tolerance policies have resulted in stupidities quite recently. Such as last year the administrators of one school ordered a twelve year old who doodled what basically amounts to "I like my friends" with absolutely no obscenity or anything remotely offensive in it on a desk to be arrested, handcuffed, paraded around in front of everyone else, and then sent to the precinct to be booked.

I can understand talking about a historical person's persecution due to his/her/its orientation. So long as the person warrants discussion based on achievement. (The example of the man who broke the enigma code is a good one)

But why talk about sexuality in school outside of sex ed? it is no more relevant than fetishes held by historical persons (I'm looking at you Napoleon!)

School is not the place to teach 'social understanding'. In fact, any attempt to do so is the same as teaching religion in school. Fine, imo, if purely an elective. But to force it into the minds of children is not acceptable.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:School is not the place to teach 'social understanding'.

And yet, school is the primary place where social understanding is learned.

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:School is not the place to teach 'social understanding'.

And yet, school is the primary place where social understanding is learned.

But not taught.

Learning by interaction is fine. Homosexual students should not be prohibited from interacting with their peers (and I am unaware of this happening).
So children and teens will make their own minds up on how to interact with homosexuals the same way they learn to interact with Mexicans, whites, etc.

People are allowed to dislike other humans and/or groups. They may not harm or intimidate them.
"Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Except that they, by necessity, must do so in order to ensure a friendly learning environment for all students, not merely for the racists/misogynists/antisemites/homophobes/etc.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:"Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

When people stop swinging their fists into gay people's noses with a much higher degree than the normal population that might start to apply.

Melissia wrote:Except that they, by necessity, must do so in order to ensure a friendly learning environment for all students, not merely for the racists/misogynists/antisemites/homophobes/etc.

Really?
Necessity?

Are you are saying that it is impossible for there to be a friendly learning environment unless the teacher gets up and attempts to force the students to change their values?

If nothing is said on sexuality, how is the environment automatically unfriendly?

Does not wanting a child to be told that he has to believe that homosexuality is normal make a parent "racists/misogynists/antisemites/homophobes/etc"?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Are you are saying that it is impossible for there to be a friendly learning environment unless the teacher gets up and attempts to force the students to change their values?

Pretty much, yes. Children are sociopath a-holes.

Ahtman wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:"Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

When people stop swinging their fists into gay people's noses with a much higher degree than the normal population that might start to apply.

I think you are missing the intent of that statement and taking it at literal face value.

Individuals are allowed to hate white people, but may not threaten or harm white people.
Individuals are allowed to hate black people, but may not threaten or harm black people.
Individuals are allowed to hate gay people, but may not threaten or harm gay people.

See what this means?
you cannot legislate acceptance. You can only enforce fair treatment.
As it applies to the OT, school is not the place for preaching acceptance any more than is the place to preach discrimination.

Melissia wrote:Pretty much, yes. Children are sociopath a-holes.

Don't know about sociopath, but definitely a-holes. Mostly.

I blame the cool kids. They bring everyone else down.

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Are you are saying that it is impossible for there to be a friendly learning environment unless the teacher gets up and attempts to force the students to change their values?

Pretty much, yes. Children are sociopath a-holes.

Dear Lord! I hope you never have children!

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Dear Lord! I hope you never have children!

You mean just because I actually observe the highly manipulative, greedy, and often downright malicious behavior of the majority of children and LEARN from said behavior about the nature of children instead of going gushy and thinking "d'aww! how cute!", I shouldn't be around children?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Are you are saying that it is impossible for there to be a friendly learning environment unless the teacher gets up and attempts to force the students to change their values?

Pretty much, yes. Children are sociopath a-holes.

Dear Lord! I hope you never have children!

Actually, she's smack on. Young children are exactly like that. It's not that I hate kids or anything, but when they're at a really young age it's simply not accurate to claim otherwise.

I think a less socially inept way to put it is that they haven't yet learned how to deal with other people as well as most adults, but that's just me.

In fact, we currrently socially train said sociopathic-ness out of children as part of trying to make society itself a better place for everyone.

This is why we punish children for being mean or breaking rules in the first place, because otherwise they'll keep doing it because they're sociopathic a-holes who don't understand or necessarily care about social mores. They don't know how to behave yet. They're constantly learning all their lives-- up to and even in to adulthood.

I think we might be abusing the definition of "sociopath" here as well.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I think you are missing the intent of that statement and taking it at literal face value.

No, I didn't, though I think you misunderstood mine.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Individuals are allowed to hate white people, but may not threaten or harm white people.
Individuals are allowed to hate black people, but may not threaten or harm black people.
Individuals are allowed to hate gay people, but may not threaten or harm gay people.

Violence towards gays and minorities doesn't come from people that are indifferent or accepting of others. Of course people are allowed to hate if they choose, but it is also a root cause of many problems. Considering that for longer than not homosexuals hide to hide who they were for fear of physical, mental, and community abuse, it isn't that far fetched to try and correct some of that by showing that gay people are not some weird thing to be treated like a monster in the forest but people like anyone else. How does one help reduce the levels of violence and discrimination? Education. The very fact people are pissing in their pants angry that schools can even mention that gay people are people to show just how much it needs to be taught.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:See what this means?
you cannot legislate acceptance. You can only enforce fair treatment.
As it applies to the OT, school is not the place for preaching acceptance any more than is the place to preach discrimination.

This is in no way close to legislating away hate, but allowing schools to talk about gay people openly. If you think they are teaching to discriminate, you aren't looking clearly at what this is and are another prime example of exactly why it should be told to our children.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I think we might be abusing the definition of "sociopath" here as well.

Not so much abusing it as not using it properly at all. Like calling a car a tree.

Ahtman wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I think we might be abusing the definition of "sociopath" here as well.

Not so much abusing it as not using it properly at all. Like calling a car a tree.

Monster Rain wrote:I think we might be abusing the definition of "sociopath" here as well.

I was using it in the sense of "no conscience".

"Today kids, we're going to watch a movie"

The teacher puts in a video of Margaret Cho.

One student laughs.

I think your idea that children don't have a conscience is... misguided.

Only posting an image or an orkmoticon is rather spammy. Please try a bit harder to contribute or reconsider the value of your contribution.

Monster Rain wrote:I think your idea that children don't have a conscience is... misguided.

I would agree that it's completely true.

The ego takes time to develop. Children begin only with the id, and considerable time is needed for the ego to take control. Children lack the simple 'humanity' that a fully developed and (relatively) mentally healthy adult would have. They aren't capable of the same kind of metaphorical understanding (it could be argued that many 'fully developed' adults aren't quite there yet either) or critical thinking that an adult is.

Considering your conscience is more attributed to the superego I'm thinking that a lot of people have a habit of abusing psychological terms.

And what age are we considering to be children here?

I was assuming school age through adolescence give or take, considering the subject of the thread.

And during that age, many schoolchildren still haven't fully developed a conscience or respect others, with only the particularly well raised ones having done so. Disrespect isn't illegal, but it is something that should be discouraged, I think.

An ironic statement, considering this whole line of conversation started with someone calling an entire classification of people "sociopathic a-holes."