- Jan 7, 2002
- 12,755
- 3
- 0
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
Maybe you should look up what that word means.
I'm not sure how knives of any sort not being allowed in school is sensationalism, but your use of required items in order to shock and exaggerate isn't. Frankly, just because you want to attack me to try and bolster your argument doesn't change the fact that you are sensationalizing.
You agree that butterknives are not necessary. The rest of the items you mentioned are. I'm not disregarding your argument because it better fits mine. I'm disregarding your argument because it's stupid. You even agreed with me in the fact that they are not necessary. Are you arguing that pencils and the like are not necessary?
There are a lot of unnecessary items that aren't allowed in school for a plethora of reasons. I'm sure your next response will revolve around another sensationalism about some unnecessary item that isn't specifically banned, but I'll head that off before you even get a chance: 1) they need to cause a sufficiently large distraction or threat 2) not everything is going to be specifically mentioned, as the possibilities are endless.
Everything is harmless if they aren't used in a harmful manner. There are hundreds of examples of items that aren't harmful when used properly, but action of varying severity (taking item away to outright suspensions) should be taken if someone brings it into school.
I'm sure kids had guns in school before any school was ever shot up, probably hundreds of times. So your argument is now "guns should be allowed in schools because there were plenty of times when they didn't cause any harm?"
Look, it's pretty simple what they are doing by banning those. They are trying to give less opportunities for violence and head off any problems before they start. It only takes one kid to bring in a butter knife and do damage for the parents to sue the school for not taking enough precations.
The problem is that people tend to be a "there is nothing wrong until something bad happens" mentality and they combine it with "if anything bad ever happens or someone does something I don't like, I'm suing someone." So the schools are in the situation where if they don't ban them, they'll get sued, and if they do ban them, they'll get bad press. At least with the bad press, if people throw enough of a fit and get the policy changed, if/when something does happen, they school has something to fall back on.
Last edited:
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
heh. i remember going to school during hunting season. It was not unusual to see bows, guns and knives in trucks/cars.
hell i carried a pocket knife since i was 10. most my teachers knew it too.
times have changed though. now? i would be labeled a terriost and plotting to destroy the school lol
hell i carried a pocket knife since i was 10. most my teachers knew it too.
times have changed though. now? i would be labeled a terriost and plotting to destroy the school lol
You can run them through the school office. There is an administrator at the school that can/does handle this. If you make them aware of it, you won't have any problems.
Zero-tolerance, as has been said at least half a dozen times before and conveniently left out over and over again, is not perfect and that's why there is an appeals system.
Is this a serious question?
Logical, but poorly applied in this particular discussion.
The discussion we are having isn't whether or not the teacher having been awake would have prevented the use. The discussion is the use of a device specifically banned with spelled out consequences (which has morphed more into a zero-tolerance debate). It's obvious he did, and he's getting the specified punishment.
A lot of people can't get past the subject of the photo and can't understand that the subject doesn't even matter. The only way the subject matters in this case is that it's likely what exposed him as using the phone to begin with. Had it been an innocuous picture that wouldn't have been brought up, then he wouldn't have been caught and punished.
Had the thread title been "student gets suspended for using phone in school," most of the people currently defending him would be calling him a dumbass for not being able to wait until the end of the day.
Pre-school massacres, you could get away with a lot more. Unfortunately, many, many kids have had their lives brutally cut short in school violence in recent memory. The reaction is to do the best to catch anything that could potentially happen well before it happens.
I grew up through these massacres and saw them make the changes first hand. Sure, I felt a lot of them were bullshit at the time, but then I grew up and matured, then realized the reasons behind them.
Last edited:
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
I've kept my posts to the issues at hand refraining from personal attacks to try to bolster my arguments. You come in just so you can do a personal attack.
Yes, you are mature and I am not.
You are actually arguing over this.
He should have gotten a warning about the cell phone, but not a suspension.
Taking one still photo of a slacking substitute teacher is not the same as futzing around in class disturbing everyone by taking pics of yourself and facebooking them during class.
Was this kid a chronic ass, or was this an isolated incident?
He should have gotten a warning about the cell phone, but not a suspension.
Taking one still photo of a slacking substitute teacher is not the same as futzing around in class disturbing everyone by taking pics of yourself and facebooking them during class.
Was this kid a chronic ass, or was this an isolated incident?
He might have gotten warnings. We don't actually know that information the article doesn't have that information.
1) Subject is irrelevent to why the student was suspended
2) Appeals system.
Don't think that was ever mentioned in the articles.
Hey look! More insults and no actual discussion! So your argument now stands at "You are immature, I'm right, so there."
The only thing you've come into this thread to do is to attack me. Have a discussion instead of just attacking me because my viewpoints are different. Present your side of the argument and cease with the attacks. If you are incapable of doing that, then we are done.
fatpat268
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2006
- 5,853
- 0
- 71
God damn. Shut up already. Woe is me, every one is attacking me.
I know what the word means. Perhaps you don't, I don't know.
That's not my argument... that they're not necessary. In some cases they are... you know for eating stuff? My point was, was that you can take practically anything to assault and harm someone. Hell, you could a water bottle of all things and inflict some major damage, but would it make any sense to ban those? Absolutely not.
Good for you. Want a cookie? Doesn't make your argument any less wrong. Besides you practically negate your whole argument by your second point there... it goes in complete contradiction of zero tolerance policies. If you want to enforce zero tolerance, you better damn well cover EVERYTHING, otherwise parents will just bitch and complain when their kid gets hurt by something else. Which is why zero tolerance policies don't work. It's been said time and time again, school administrators need to exercise judgement with some of these issues, and not just throw a blanket over the issue and say "ZERO TOLERANCE!" It's irresponsible, and the world simply doesn't work like that after school (unless you live in California and three strikes, but that's another argument for another day).
Seriously? You're gonna go with that? Name the uses for a gun besides bludgeoning and shooting living things. There are none. Name the uses for a simple pocket knife.
Now I'm not saying that schools should be a free-for-all where kids can take anything they want, dress how they want, and do what they want. Yea, life works like that. There will always be the next thing that can harm someone, but we don't need to exist in a society of padded walls just because we're afraid hurting someone.
Beev
Diamond Member
- Apr 20, 2006
- 7,775
- 0
- 0
Teacher should lose his job, student deserved the punishment.
Teacher was sleeping (obviously) and thus should not be a teacher. Student broke a rule about using phones, deserves punishment. It really, really doesn't matter what he was doing with his phone. I'm sure he knew of the rule. Having proof of the sleeping teacher is 100% moot.
Teacher was sleeping (obviously) and thus should not be a teacher. Student broke a rule about using phones, deserves punishment. It really, really doesn't matter what he was doing with his phone. I'm sure he knew of the rule. Having proof of the sleeping teacher is 100% moot.
slag
Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 10,473
- 81
- 101
No, you are missing the boat. Its called Zero Tolerance, not Zero Tolerance unless you contest it and then we'll review it. Once the policy is in place, its there. There is no review, no appeal, its in place and there is no wiggle room.
eits
Lifer
Miramonti
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2000
- 28,653
- 100
- 106
The injustice lies in whether or not the teacher was reprimanded, not the student, who was already in violation of the known rules.
The fact the school says they won't discuss student or teacher discipline and therefore apparently won't say what happened to the teacher is bullsh!t, the parents have a right to know.
The fact the school says they won't discuss student or teacher discipline and therefore apparently won't say what happened to the teacher is bullsh!t, the parents have a right to know.
I have neither given you warrant to attack me (other than my opinion differs) nor provoked you into attack. I've kept it civil. I'd appreciate it if you do the same.
While I know a lot of people on OT seems to value pointless "zingers" as some form of support to "winning the argument," it doesn't actually do anything to promote discussion of the topic. To some, their entire existance is defined by being a complete jerk to whoever they are replying to. They lead sad and pathetic lives.
While normally I'm an eye for an eye poster (take shots at me, I'll wing them back), I'm trying to avoid doing that going forward as it just sends entire threads into a death spiral of worthlessness.
If you can't handle a discussion without resorting to attacks and insults, then don't reply. It doesn't add anything to the conversation and derails an otherwise worthwhile discussion. I believe my opinions to be right (as everyone believes theirs to be), but I'm open to them being wrong, or at very least seeing it from another perspective. Just jumping in and being a complete jerk just because you disagree doesn't provide any logic or reasoning behind your opinion and just makes you look like you can't come up with anything.
No, you don't know what it means. Sorry, but it's true. You are trying to shock and exaggerate using common and necessary items at schools, while I'm using items that aren't common or necessary.
Like what? I went through 8-ish years of taking my lunch to school and there wasn't a single instance where it was needed. What exactly has to be in a lunch that REQUIRES a knife? Everything that would require a knife can, and should, be taken care of in the packing of the lunch.
My point is there is a line with blurry edges. Some things are less blurry than others. Knives are much less of a blurry line than a water bottle. There are things that can be used as weapons, but they are required for school like pens and pencils. Some things can't be helped, but knives can.
How does my second point negate my entire argument? The only way it could is if there was a single zero tolerance policy to encompass all things that could possibly happen in school. There isn't. The zero tolerance policies always target one specific area (drugs, weapons, violence), and there is always a way to appeal them.
Zero tolerance isn't meant to be applied to every policy in every situation. There won't/shouldn't be zero tolerance dress policies or zero tolerance language policies. Protecting the schoolchildren from potential harm is rather important and come up quite a bit as of late, and having zero tolerance rules have their place when used appropriately.
As I've stated before, the policy of no cellphones, which started this discussion, is not really one that's all that important and I doubt he'll get suspended for using his phone once (zero tolerance policy stipulation). However, had the kid been caught using it over and over with the teacher pic being the final straw, it's a different story where suspension might be more warranted for repeated rules violation. We do not know how many times he was busted with it, we don't even know if it was a zero tolerance policy.
Name one thing in school where a simple pocket knife is necessary. It's not the 1001 uses of a pocket knife that's the problem. It's the fact that it's not necesary at school and can be dangerous (to yourself and others), with the school held liable.
I too, had a pocket knife. I took it to school a number of times for no real reason. I even recall my 4th grade teacher asking to borrow it (maybe she was just taking it away for the day, now that I think about it...). I never got in trouble for it, though.
9/10, the knife won't be used as a weapon. The issue arises the 1/10 it is, and by the fact that it's completely unnecessary to have a pocket knife in school, it's banned. Just because
Yes, there will always be "the next thing." There always has, always will be. However, you are looking at it from a very, very large extreme that doesn't even come close to encompassing my viewpoint.
You are acting as if everything is under zero tolerance with suspension being the punishment, which just isn't true. First off, zero tolerance doesn't mean "Break the rules once, get suspended" - it means "Break the rules once, suffer the consequences" where the consequences could be as little as getting the item taken away, or as extreme as expulsion. It's perfectly fine to have zero tolerance, especially in instances like weapons, violence, etc as long as there is an appeals system to allow for extenuating circumstances that will inevitably arise.
When I was a kid, there was a zero tolerance policy against those slap bracelets (first time they became popular). Teacher saw you with one, it was hers. No questions asked. I didn't like it at the time, but those things sure were a distraction. After only a few days, you never saw them in school again.
There is always the ability to appeal, whether it's specifically stated or not.
The teacher doesn't stand a chance. He's done (rightfully). School isn't like the police where they can't use evidence obtained "against the rules."
Privacy policy could easily be part of a union contract (I don't know the Oklahoma school system or if it's unionized). And no, the parents of the student don't have the "right" to know what happened to someone else (at least not in this situation). They can probably guess when the teacher never comes back, though.
GotIssues, I think there is a very simple point you miss. And this applies across the board with our education system. Teachers and administrators do not want to think or examine a situation. They want a rule they can point to.
They pretty much want zero thinking. Zero tolerance is generally zero thinking.
This doesn't apply just to discipline, but all other things too. Our public education system should be about educating our children. I will give you a perfect example of something that I would like to do with my child but I would never be allowed to because there is zero thinking by public schools these days.
When I was a kid, my school system had a "limit" of the number of days you could miss. However, if a parent worked with a child's teacher about school work, the number of missed days did not matter. My mom(while poor) did work a job(airline ticket agent) that allowed us to travel freely. My mom believed seeing the world had importance and made sure I got my school work done too. But it also meant, I missed more than the "max" number of absences for a given year. However, I wasn't failed because I passed all my tests and did ok in class.
That would never fly in the current system. Schools do not want to think or look at what is best for a child. I am sorry but if my son misses 3 weeks of school but can pass all your tests, it doesn't matter. My wife and I are already planning to take a 30 day vacation when our second child turns 7-8. Why? Because he/she will be adopted and we want to go back to his/her birth country. No amount of schooling would substitute for that. And no, we aren't going to schedule it during the summer. We already recognize, we might as well home school that semester because schools are too rigid and dumb to handle simple things like that.
It is sad that our school systems have turned into what they have become over the past 20 years. 20 years ago, what my wife and I want to do with our children would not have been a problem. But it is now. Inflexibility is not something to strive for in education. In the world there are always exceptions to the rule but our school systems do not function in that way.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
I posted long before you got here. Read the thread and get back to me.
Also:
You're just upset that anyone is daring to disagree with you. You're not interested in debate, you've made up your mind and anyone who disagrees "lacks the maturity for an actual debate." Well that pretty much ends the conversation doesn' it?
Last edited:
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,293
- 11,424
- 136
Yesterday my kid had a roast beef gravy dinner tomorrow he's having lasagna, I hope your not suggesting he eats those with his fingers.
MikeyIs4Dcats
Lifer
- Nov 5, 2001
- 18,366
- 3
- 0
both can certainly be eaten with a fork. I rarely use a knife, cutting most things with my fork.
MagnusTheBrewer
IN MEMORIAM
- Jun 19, 2004
- 24,122
- 1,594
- 126
Meh! My Kindergarten teacher took real naps while we pretended to and she kept a bottle of whiskey in her desk drawer. Besides, ninth graders need to be suspended every once in a while just for being ninth graders.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,293
- 11,424
- 136
I wouldn't want to try and eat school roast beef with just a fork!
Most things can probably be eaten by just picking them up with your hands and biting chunks off, doesn't mean it's the best way though.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter