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.

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.

Aerethan wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

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.

- 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.

And a court date with a criminal charge chaser, mister Internet Tough Guy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It wasn't my ass that got grabbed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama 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.

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.

You're right, it didn't go to court.

Relapse wrote:It wasn't my ass that got grabbed.

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

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?

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.

Because that appears to be what Dogma's recent posts were about, Mannahnin.

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.

Melissia wrote:Perhaps I should also be castrating annoying jocks who attempt to overly sexualize themselves?

Regardless of everything else on-topic ; Yes, yes you should.

If only for the awesome headlines.

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

Well, when three people give three different interpretations of his post, it probably is better to let him explain

Oh man, my turn to guess!

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!)