Zero Tolerance is going way to far. Ive Never been in favor of it, but now i hate it.

Edit: Spelling

------------------
"I am not a Marxist." -- Karl Marx

This message has been edited by ic0n0 on July 03, 2001 at 08:14 AM

------------------
"I am not a Marxist." -- Karl Marx

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Hmmm

All starts with this

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I guess from that report that was linked to that the above does not apply anymore. Or this kid is not a person.

------------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.< TeamWolfguard.com >
< Robot Conflict >

quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

the good of the many outweigh the good of the few...or the one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CatKnight:
the good of the many outweigh the good of the few...or the one.

---

Hey! Leave Trek out of this

But, you're right. It's the debate and compromise we live every day. We pay in rights and freedoms in order to get security. In this case, he overpaid and should get a refund... like a 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card.

And I agree with the conclusion that 'Zero Tolerance' is a 'Zero Intelligence' policy. It takes discretion out of the hands of the people who are supposed to be exercising it.

I think back to high school, and there were a lot of things that would have gotten me in big trouble, had it been in today's climate. Fucking brats thought they were doing something good for geeks... thought they were sending a message. Fucking fuck fuck shits.

I'm in the same situation this kid was in. I seem like the type of kid to go shoot up a school. And so do more then half of my friends. We "fit the profile". Here's the odd part: None of us want to. The only reason any kid shoots up a a school is because they see some other kid doing it on TV and think it's an easy way out. Personally, I've thought about it. I know a lot of people who have, too. Does that mean I want to? No. I think all the people that picked on me and shit are idiots, because they are. I scare them now. Not because they think I'm going to kill them, but because they know I'm smarter then them. I've proven I'm stronger, faster, and smarter then the lot of them. That frightens them. I have no problem with that, because it's the truth. I know there's kids out there better then me now and kids that are smarter and crap, but that doesn't frighten me. I know one day I'll be successful in some way or another, and that's all that matters to me right now. Getting there.

Anyways, I know that's how all my friends who "fit the profile" think of it, too. I wouldn't be shocked if "Joseph K." feels the same way. All these people getting all freaked out everytime I play a Disturbed song or piss their pants everytime I say "man, sometimes I just want to break something" are morons. Ignorant fucks who can't think for themself so they left some idiot in Congress say "No Tolerance!" and they agree. It makes me sick to know that if I simply say "fuck off and die" to somebody at school, I can be put in jail. IT'S DAMNED WORDS.

Yes, I do believe, and know, that some kids can't cope with life and see getting their dad's gun as a simple way of taking care of things. We need to get it into kids heads that that's not the only way. Expelling a kid or having the cops involved isn't the way to do this.

No, I don't know how to fix the problems of the world, or school violence at that, any better then anyone else. But the current ways of handling it are damned stupid, and if you agree with them, or so much as slightly do, you're a fool.

------------------
Net Syndrome - < http://www.netsyndrome.net/ >
Spydir Web - < http://www.netsyndrome.net/spydirweb/ >

edit: spelling

This message has been edited by LiNeY on July 03, 2001 at 01:46 PM

about the "profile" the terms that define the profile are so fucking broad, id estimate about 90\% of schoolkids fit it. it (being the one issued by the US Gov't (hmm....theyre my new employers....maybe i shouldnt talk bad about them...oh well)) include things like people who are depressed, or who feel lonely, stuff like that. basically, they define every ordinary teen, and then define some of the extremes too. the only people who arent in the profile are popular smart straight edge kids. that is all. everyone is a fucking target.

its really stupid, but you can fight back. there are so many cases involving what a state/city/school can and can not do regarding suspending you. know your rights. theres a large range of things they can suspend/expel you for, but im pretty sure they have to tell you before they do it, and give you a trial. if they dont, then do some nonviolent resistance (fall on the ground, stick your fingers up your ass and wave them at whoever is trying to push you out.)

the solution, as i see it, is to evaluate so called at risk students on a case by case basis, to see if they actually are at risk. assuming children are evil without knowing them is just not cool.

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here

---

spydir, just because YOU, YOURSELF, an INDIVIDUAL, CLAIM to be no THREAT to the school, the GOVERNMENT has NO WAY of telling apart TENS OF THOUSANDS potential dangerous teens. stop pretending as if your liberal eutopia bullshit will ever work. the school system has to use means that are REALISTIC. THEY PROFILE PEOPLE BECAUSE THE DEATH OF MORE THAN 20 HIGH SCHOOLERS IS WAY WAY BEYOND ACCEPTABLE. they can't even allow the POSSIBILTY.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LiNeY:
the profile of a juvenile likely to run amok: well-groomed, good grades, well-liked. I think most of us fit that profile more or less.

---

Hmm. I'm a loner, i dress in black, i fail every class.. cause im not there.. I hate everyone, the world included.

Do you think the quoted student or the one i made up is more likely to go psycho and shoot the shit?

Who do you think is going to

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
[person guy's mad scientist guy] i want you to touch my butt! <insert heavy breathing>[/person guy's mad scientist guy]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CatKnight:
THEY PROFILE PEOPLE BECAUSE THE DEATH OF MORE THAN 20 HIGH SCHOOLERS IS [b]WAY WAY BEYOND ACCEPTABLE. they can't even allow the POSSIBILTY.[/B]

---

but ruining the lives of thousands just to save the few is ok? i mean, yes, i know were talking about dying here, but if you start expelling kids right and left, theres gonna be a shitload of kids not going to college, who are gonna get stuck in shit jobs because of it, but hey, ruin part of a generation as long as you save a few lives, right? its not the rights of the few at stake here, its the rights of OUR generation. its not just people still in school, its young people in general. they starting to see us all as violent eruptions waiting to happen. its becoming age profiling. if theyre young, theyre guilty. and sure, it maye save a few lives, but lets think about it. a certain percentage is actually likely to go kill people right? so its ok. but then is racial profiling ok? cause im sure a few black people, or a few spanish people are gonna go kill people, so if we pick on them all, just to save a few, its ok, right? if we as a generation continue to let schools/the government/whatever profile being young as being violent, we will lose our rights.

schools do have the resources. most of these cases are really simple. you talk with the kid for a while, and youll begin to understand some. like how a kid with a tweetybird on a chain thats too long IS NOT A THREAT TO THE SCHOOL. shes in 6th grade, she doesnt need to be expelled because she has a fucking chain. a little common sense and a little good judgement are what is needed. zero tolerance just does not work.

you know what else? if i was a kid who was teetering on the edge, and my school expelled me because they thought i was dangerous, i bet id go kill some people. i mean, if your gonna get in trouble and be punished for something, you might as well be guilty, right?

and yes, it is republican bullshit, because the standard republican response is "if it costs money, it must be bad" and yes, determining if children are actually at risk or not does cost money. but it is not bad. if someone had been there to identify the columbine kids as at risk, then they might have gotten the help they so obviously needed before they went and killed all those people. using your republican logic, expelling them, would probably just have sent them over the edge anyway, solving jack shit.

the major problem with all this shit is the media. they blow things out of proportion, they stretch the truth, and they flat out lie. for example, yknow how kids who wear black trenchcoats are at risk (no, its not in the manual, but you know they get watched). this is because the 2 columbine kids were in the supposed "trenchcoat mafia". fact: there was no trenchcoat mafia. fact: the two kids at columbine were NOT wearing trenchcoats.

to sum up: ruining lives of lots of people, does little to save any one elses life. schools have the resources. expulsion? not the answer. yes, it is republican bullshit. yes, it is media bullshit.

thank you. and for the record, my report would have gotten an A- instead of a B- if it wasnt a day late. i did a shitload of research for this, my facts are supported, but i kinda torched my backpack( ) on the last day of school, so i dont have them anymore.

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CatKnight:
im sick of people telling me to cram my republican bullshit up my ass. if plain and simple logic is what you call republican bullshit, then by all means i will.

---

Face it Springfield, you need me. You want someone like me to rule you with an iron fist...
Bad missquote of Sideshow Bob.

Now, for the other side of what i think.

Yes, the government should profile people and try to take them out of circulation before they can do damage. (or take them out of the gene pool before they breed but that’s another thing) The job of the judicial branch is to protect society with the tools at hand. If someone gets picked up along the way that is innocent they should be smart enough to make amends to that person.

What was done to this kid is wrong. He made a simple statement. They should of picked him up, questioned him, and released him. What they are still doing to him now is wrong and I think they ruined this kids life. This will be with him forever.

So basically what I’m saying is right idea, bad implementation

------------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.< TeamWolfguard.com >
< Robot Conflict >

Pot is The Answer. If all of those gun-happy motherfuckers had taken the time to sit the fuck down and smoke some ganja, they would've mellowed out faster than Maxwell House coffee with half-&-half. If not, then they would have been at least to fux0r3d to find the triggers.

<rant>

This "Zero Tolerance" bullshit is the most asinine thing I've heard in my life. I couldn't even bring a plastic butter knife (you heard me!) to school thanks to Columbine; God forbid a real knife. My VP even banned water pistols. It's 32° C out there, we're sweating like hogs, and we're not even allowed to cool off. What the fuck?!?!

</rant>

------------------
1.2 GHz Athlon + FIC AD11 + 400W ATX = 跊
512MB Crucial PC2100 = 贄

0wning more 0wnage than anything has ever 0wned before = priceless.

quote:

---

CK said: the school system has to use means that are REALISTIC. THEY PROFILE PEOPLE BECAUSE THE DEATH OF MORE THAN 20 HIGH SCHOOLERS IS WAY WAY BEYOND ACCEPTABLE. they can't even allow the POSSIBILTY.

---

Quite frankly, this is crap. This is the same as racial profiling truckers on Interstates to tell whether or not they are 'likely to be carrying contraband.' Arresting someone because they fit a profile is not only wrong, it's illegal. Zero tolerance is so beyond stupid I don't know where to begin. First of all, how many people have been arrested and basically scarred for life (they probably put this shit in documents employers look at as well) over this. How many school shootings have there been. You're not going to stop the people that want to do it. They're goingt o bring a gun some random day and kill people if they want to do it. If the don't want people to do, try setting up a less hostile environment than a standard high school. They encourage people to do stupid things, while the administration wanders around and tries to enforce rules.

Profiling is based on prejudices. No matter what criteria you put in the profile (racial background, family surroundings, money, etc.), you always get to prejudices. Who are the "usual suspects"? "Kids who wear black", "kids who say they hate the world", "the Trenchcoat mafia". Admitted, maybe some of the people who commit the crimes fit these description. Others don't. And most kids fitting the profile are in no way connected with even thinking about running amok.

Example: suppose part of your profile is "people who dress in black". You go to a local high school, and pick all the kids wearing black. Who do you find? A girl who dresses in black because she thinks it's pretty. A kid who wears black because his grandmother died last week. An existentialist who digs the Sartre look. A guy wearing a detnet shirt and black pants. A saxo player who imitates Bird Parker. BASICALLY, ANYONE CAN BE SUSPICIOUS. And with a profile, chances are that you catch a lot of innocent people and do not even recognize most of the "dangerous" ones.

"Those who judge their enemy simply by their appearance are doomed to fail"

Something like that. Can't for the life of me remember, but it seems applicable.

oh yeah and rock and roll and violent films and tv and radio and trees and water and cars made me do it!

------------------
Dammit Mc-Bain around here we do things by the book!

BOOM!!!

Bye book

This message has been edited by Dark Knight Bob on July 04, 2001 at 02:47 PM

------------------
"Thank you, God, for giving us leotards." -Koichi
-< PersonGuy >

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattimeoZ80:
i don't like zero tolerance either, but i do think its the only way. there is no way to know for sure, as ck said... thats not republican bs, thats logic. think about it... its better to be safe. there is no way to know.

---

i disagree, its not logical to say that people are guilty until proven innocent (and how many of these people have been later proven innocent after being expelled and having all that shit on their record? not many).

and honestly, its not better to be safe. if i were somehow able to give up my life to 100\% ensure all the rights of this and future generations, i would. i would also hope im not the only one who feels this way. so if you think about it, its not better to be safe, because while your life may not be in danger, your freedom is. 20 lives a year is very little to pay for the freedoms of an entire generation. hell, weve lost millions (billions?) to wars weve fought, with the only real thing we had to gain or keep was our freedoms. and now we want to give them up to save so few lives (in comparison). i think thats truly sad.

and in probably 75\% to 80\% of these cases, id bet way more, simply talking to the kid could clear the entire matter up. if it didnt, you can seek more professional help. if you dont treat them on an individual basis, find out the problem, and FIX the problem, then the problem still exists, whether its at school or at home. a kid with a gun is just as dangerous at school as he is at any crowded location. kicking them out doesnt do anyone any favors.

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here

---

We don't need gun control, what we need is bullet control. Bullets should cost 񙇈 each. If they did, there would be no more innocent bystanders.

"Damn, man, you must have done something to really piss him off. He just put โ,000 worth of bullets in you!"

Yes I realize that I often turn to comedy to explain difficult situations, but I think some of the best stuff is rooted in truth. Or at least truth according to a certain perspective. Laughter is an effective medicine.

------------------
When 1337 hax0rs start impaling each other with swords and typing code with a hook on one hand, then they can modify the term "pirate."

The good thing is that everybody knows not to press their luck. It's like saying the word 'bomb' at an airport... you don't do it because they have zero tolerance in the matter.

The bad thing is that it minimilizes the jobs of people who, presumably, are qualified to make decisions and judge the case by case situations on the facts. It takes discretion away from the people appointed to exercise discretion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattimeoZ80:
all i'm saying is that zero tolerance makes a lot of sense... of course every matter should be looked into, and if it turns out it was harmless maybe a few days suspension or something. i'm definitely not saying expel everyone that talks about guns, but everything should be taken seriously, and no time should be wasted. if it turns out it was harmless then screw it, back to school the kid goes.

---

ahh, yes, but this is not zero tolerance. in zero tolerance, there is no looking into the matter, finding out circumstances, etc, its just a matter of whether an offense was committed or not. if the answer is yes, then they give the maximum punishment possible. this is usually expulsion. when a kid is expelled from a school, that makes getting into college a shitload harder, probably like 10x as hard. and its already hard to get into college (for most people). thats the main problem. a suspension isnt nearly as bad as an expulsion, and most of these cases, if they can by the rules, the "authorities" are giving expulsions

that doesn't sound very fun to me. i would like to be in control of ruining my own life, i don't need your help.

everyone is a individual. and somethimes we forget that. if you don't treat everyone as an individual then how can you expect to be treated as one?

i bet the founding fathers would roll over in thier graves if they could see the US now. don't get me wrong i love my country, all i ever heard growing up was how great america was and we we're always the good guys, and we won our freedom, blah blah blah, but know i guess the government is in the business of making money so they set our freedows and laws aside. just look at the laws they make now! they are bullshit and half-ass written also they compromiseon the bills and put a bunch together. WHAT KIND OF BULLSHIT IS THAT.

ahh fuck it. i'm getting to pissed to finish this. plus i'm t work so ......

quote:

---

Originally posted by pengu1nn:
anybody who says anything about [ck] doesn't have any sense.

---

i agree

quote:

---

ck your lame...i think your logic is flawed...personaly i don't give a shit about you ck...

---

what kind of position are you in to critisize my logic when you just insulted yourself by your own?

"Face it Springfield, you need me! Deep down you know you want an iron-fisted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king!"

1-I agree with you and praise you
2-I disagree and tell you why
3-You make a good argument, and I change my stance (usually I just don't reply )
4-You make an "argument" that is dumb and makes no sense and flame me at the same time. You get berated repeatedly by me.

try to figure out which one you are doing based on my reply! you can make a game out of it!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
so true, so true. unfortunately, ck has yet to realize that logic only involves things that are COMPLETELY objective. very very few things in life are COMPLETELY objective, and ck thinks that a lot of stuff that is SUBJECTIVE is actually OBJECTIVE. zero tolerance is a SUBJECTIVE subject matter. something like physics is usually an OBJECTIVE one. sense and logic are 2 different things, and ck has yet to grasp that difference. sense is based on feelings and opinions, as well as facts, and logic is based solely on fact.

---

haha sithiee. actually logic does not just apply to things that are objective. besides, it's not like im using pure mathematical logic to make my arguments. by logic, i mean linking thoughts that make sense to create a new thought. it doesn't matter wether the specific case of zero tolerance is subjective, because that's not the point we are arguing. we are arguing wether it is right to have zero tolerance policies are not. ironically i pretty much agree with you.

oh and btw this argument started when you started talking about how zero tolerance is bad because lots of people think bad things all the time, which doesn't relate to it at all. the whole point of zero tolerance is to take immidiate response to actions, not thoughts.

------------------
"Put the cheese on my bum." -Tom Green
-< PersonGuy >

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheTaxMan:
First, by your thought CK, anyone who agree's with you is using logic, and anyone who says otherwise isn't.

---

so true, so true. unfortunately, ck has yet to realize that logic only involves things that are COMPLETELY objective. very very few things in life are COMPLETELY objective, and ck thinks that a lot of stuff that is SUBJECTIVE is actually OBJECTIVE. zero tolerance is a SUBJECTIVE subject matter. something like physics is usually an OBJECTIVE one. sense and logic are 2 different things, and ck has yet to grasp that difference. sense is based on feelings and opinions, as well as facts, and logic is based solely on fact.

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here

---

beyond that, the numbers show that schools are and have been the SAFEST place kids can be.

ck et al, doesn't that kind of kick the foundation out from your arguments?

Columbine was a fluke - it just happened to be one that made good (or bad, depending on your POV) television. High school shootings were going on years before it happened, but usually the kids were from poor, minority families, and usually they picked off less than a dozen before the cops got 'em.

Overall, high school shootings have DECLINED since the 80s. WE DON'T NEED ZERO TOLERANCE.

Furthermore, zero tolerance and other reactionary policies are downright foolish. A lot of this terrorist crap is inspired by "live free or die" propaganda. Really want to take the wind out of these people's sails? Give them back their natural rights, the ones that people keep trying to take away.

Freedom of thought and freedom of speech would be a good start.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
yes, we now have school prayer again in virginia. oh, my bad a "moment of silence" in which we can read, pray, or study.

---

Actually prayer in school has NEVER been illegal! Students, teachers, facalty, and visitors alike have ALWAYS been alowed to pray in school. Just put yo hands togetha and PRAISE THE LAWD!! I'm sure it's written in the bible somewheres that praying doesn't require speaking. It's only been illegal to conduct organized prayers in public schools, which is perfectly fair. Go to church if you want to rejoice and be glad in the day that the lord just made!

------------------
"Put the cheese on my bum." -Tom Green
-< PersonGuy >

------------------
"I am not a Marxist." -- Karl Marx

Oh and to add a little fuel to my Virginia fire, I saw a 30 minute program about Fetal Alchohol Syndrom. It was talking about mothers who drink while pregnant. This can make the baby's eyes look far appart, their faces look flat, lower their IQ, lower their attention span, and lower their ability to reason, abstract, and plan. The point is Virgina suddenly made A LOT MORE SENSE after I saw that! That explains it! (note: Sithiee says he comes from, "a DIFFERENT part of Virgina." )

------------------
"Put the cheese on my bum." -Tom Green
-< PersonGuy >

and i come from nothern VA. most residents of VA can tell you that the northern part of VA is very different from the southern part.

edit: on what D_S_L (hahahahaha) said, hes absolutely true. studies and statistics have shown that zero tolerance has had NO noticable effect on school violence, or really anything. the rates of anything have not changed as a result of zero tolerance, except the rate of kids having their lives ruined for small things.
------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here

---

This message has been edited by Sithiee on July 08, 2001 at 11:26 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by CatKnight:
oh and btw this argument started when you started talking about how zero tolerance is bad because lots of people think bad things all the time, which doesn't relate to it at all. the whole point of zero tolerance is to take immidiate response to actions, not thoughts.

---

before any more debating (haha...arguing is probably better) can be done we have to come to a standard definition of what zero tolerance is supposed to be, and what it has come to encompass.

zero tolerance is not about the immediate repsonse factor. hell, id love it if authorities could make an immediate response to every actual wrongdoing in this country. however, zero tolerance is the idea of punishing EVERY breach of the rules with the maximum punishment allowed. this is what it has come to encompass. lets take the example of the kid in the news article. what he said could be construed as a clear and present danger(the test defining whether speech puts anyone in immediate danger, and therefore not protected under the first ammendment) but only just barely and from a certain point of view. so he broke the rule. on a scale of 1 to 10 it was about .0000000001. they gave him the maximum punishment they could. that is zero tolerance. its not about the timing of the response. its not about the reason behind the response. its about to what the response is given to, and to what extent it is given to.

as i see it, that is the problem. zero tolerance has no room to allow any discretion. this may releive school administrators and whatnot, because then when they ruined some kids life, it wasnt their fault, because they had to set an example or something. here is some logic for you (ck). for every action, there is an blank and opposite reaction. whats that blank? equal. that is how it should be. at most, all this kid should have gotten is a stern talking to, maybe a slap on the wrist. giving him the maximum punishment for the minimum transgression is not logical, nor does it make sense.

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pengu1nn:
just look at the laws they make now! they are bullshit and half-ass written also they compromiseon the bills and put a bunch together. WHAT KIND OF BULLSHIT IS THAT.

---

sorry, i just saw this.

this has been going on for a long ass time, and its just how it is. whats bad, is when a bill gets rejected based on the intent of the law, it gets slightly rewritten so as to hide the intent a little, and then it gets passed. yes, we now have school prayer again in virginia. oh, my bad a "moment of silence" in which we can read, pray, or study. nice how they snuck that pray in there. you know what the intent of the law is? (so this appears on topic) if school children have religion in their lives, theyre less likely to be like the columbine kids. too bad only maybe half the classrooms are actually quiet, and only like half the quiet kids are awake.id guestimate maybe 40 people at my school may have prayed during this wasted 3 hours. you ask why im annoyed? not only because i think its a crock of bullshit to be putting praying time back in schools, but because its another fucking minute every first period that i had to stay awake for and wait for the damn thing to be over with. imagine if you were taking a nap, and then someone woke you up in the middle....hmm....sleep...that sounds good right now. sorry to have gotten off topic. goodnight.

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here

---

A pretty fair balance, if you ask me. Don't be fooled by the "school prayer" propaganda - these people are out to make America a Christian country again.

Yes, we DO have people in this country that want to lead us like the hardcore Muslim fundamentalists do in the mideast... except they answer to Jehova instead of Allah.

Back to the school shootings... if we want to cut them back, probably the MOST EFFECTIVE thing to do would be to implement real, honest-to-goodness gun control. I don't mean we take guns away, or trample all over gun-owner's rights : we simply note that gun owners have inalienable RESPONSIBILITIES as well as RIGHTS. One of those responsibilities is to police their weapons. That's why the Founding Fathers were placed the words "a well-regulated militia" in the second amendment.

Right now, the militia is regulated like shit. However, that doesn't mean we should let a bunch of propellerheads who've never even FIRED a gun regulate it - no way!!!

Get the RIGHT PEOPLE for the job - the gun owners. Let them set policies they think are fair and just. If we gave them this authority, I think we'd find that they started doing things like requiring basic weapons training to own a gun... special weapons training to own a super-gun... and a license to own a gun.

We could start with the NRA. Just tell them the truth - "look, we have a real problem in this country with shitheads that own guns and have NO IDEA how to handle them. You guys have always been about gun control - here's how you shoot a gun, here's when you shoot a gun, here's what you NEVER do with a gun - that kind of stuff. Well, we think it would be a good idea if gun owners - the honest ones, like most of your members - got some authority to help us have a safe and sane society, you know, one where you don't have to worry too much about getting shot by some dumbass kid, but if you want some guns for self defense or hunting or collecting, that's okay too. You won't have the government breathing down your neck as long as you're cool about it and don't kill someone or hold them at gunpoint without a damn good reason. 'Course, gun owners would be the ones deciding what a 'damn good reason' was."

Just a thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:

and i come from nothern VA. most residents of VA can tell you that the northern part of VA is very different from the southern part.

---

I do believe there is something on the books that if puerto rico is ever accepted to the union and fucks up the whole 50 state thing that theyre gonna cut virginia into northern Va and southern Va. Its kinda fucked up how theyre holding PRs stateship because they want to keep a round number.

------------------
Radio Dj: so now that your not on saturday night live what are you gonna do?

Jim Bruer: I dont know.. fight mexicans or something.

FUHAOHB2IPDEFCIPUDQNFQFYLOEGOGB

quote:

---

I do believe there is something on the books that if puerto rico is ever accepted to the union and fucks up the whole 50 state thing that theyre gonna cut virginia into northern Va and southern Va. Its kinda fucked up how theyre holding PRs stateship because they want to keep a round number.

---

plus they don't wanna have to make a new flag either

ps. help me im being attacked by a moth! AAAAIIIIHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
/me runs away screaming.

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chmod:
plus they don't wanna have to make a new flag either

---

shut up newbie, you fucking lame ass fucker. go fuck your mom.. and your father too. Not to mention your sister, while she does the dog... So what? Just because the dog is a bitch doesnt mean she can't fuck her!

I agree with you D_S_L. In actuality, what Sithiee said is correct about the NRA. A large portion of the NRA is dedicated to gun safety, education, etc. And I agree that it is a VERY good idea to understand the workings and potential of a gun before owning one. I took gun safety classes when I was a teenager. The info in these classes is still with me to this day as I handle my gun.

This weekend, I'm going to be taking my CCW (Conceal and Carry Warrent) classes. It's a 16 hour mandatory class in which I learn how to be a responsible gun owner, and my reward is that I'm not on pins and needles when I transport my gun. I also get to feel like an elite group that is more responsible, and allowed by law to handle that responsiblity ourselves.

I have no problem with classes and education. The problem is that many left-wingers are so reactionary that they want to push right past education and safety and move toward firebombing the Remington manufacturing plants with lawsuits. They won't be happy with anything that makes guns look like something that can be handled responsibly. That's why it's so refreshing to hear you, D_S_L, speaking as such.

And as for zero tolerance, it's a preventative measure. As was ignored before, it's like saying 'bomb' at an airport. You don't do it even as a joke. People understand that, and they don't do it. The reason is because it's tough to understand the context of the comment on the fly, and it can be played off as a joke later.

The problem I see with preventing this type of talk is that it squashes all indicators of when trouble will happen. However, students that are willing to shoot up a school usually have preexisting conditions that urge them to talk about this sort of thing, whereas most normal students will suppress that urge in order to keep out of trouble. This lights troubled students up like flares.

Alright. I've spun myself into a circle. Have fun.

As another analogy, it's like the 'We Card' program at gas stations. Without it, it makes the cashier feel like the bad guy when he has to ask for ID when buying 'grits. With the policy in place, he is no longer bound to make a discretionary choice (in a few seconds) with the influence of politics or personal feelings... things that are VERY subjective in making decisions and he is no longer liable for the outcome.

Same as schools. It's not fair to put a principle in a position where he has to figure out the intent of the student and whether or not he/she is a threat. He will be bent one way or another based on people around him, teachers, students, THE student, superintendants, parents, etc. That's not the kind of environment where a good decision can be made. And, when the wrong decision is made, somebody is liable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by askheaves:
Shut up, SLATE.

---

Hehe.. He's my friend IRL, so I was just welcoming him to the forums. Silly guy

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
[person guy's mad scientist guy] i want you to touch my butt! <insert heavy breathing>[/person guy's mad scientist guy]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLATE:
shut up newbie, you fucking lame ass fucker. go fuck your mom.. and your father too. Not to mention your sister, while she does the dog... So what? Just because the dog is a bitch doesnt mean she can't fuck her!

---

friends don't let friends fuck each other's mom's

quote:

---

Originally posted by askheaves:
That's why it's so refreshing to hear you, D_S_L, speaking as such.

---

wow!!! thanks!!! You know, when I'm getting props from conservatives, I must be doing something right

'course when I say that liberalism is about NOT being bound to dogma, I mean all dogma, liberal or conservative or whatever. My liberalism isn't about the Left's Favorite Issues, it's all about creative thinking - identifying new problems and coming up with better solutions to existing ones.

As I see it, the job of a good conservative is to review all these new-fangled ideas coming from liberals, and let us know what you think - and tell us if we've got our heads too far up our asses.

This means, of course, that we're ALL liberal at some times, and conservative at others... but that's another thread.

Back to ZERO tolerance for a moment. While I agree with your analogy to an extent, you're not going to convince me that we should take that sort of judgement out of the hands of teachers and administrators and just say "look, if you say this or draw that in school, we're going to kick you out." There are other, more effective ways to contain violence than that.

The largest thing Zero Tolerance is going to accomplish is to make kids more pissed off and more resistant to authority than they already are. Why? Because it forces to authorities to engage in Doublespeak - talking about America, Land of the Free out of one side of their mouth, and "you say certain politically incorrect things here, we fuck up your life" with the other. An even worse contradiction is "we should all be tolerant, except when it may scare someone or piss someone off or anything that someone somewhere might get upset about, regardless of Reason - then tolerance is horrible, and we'll all rally around Zero Tolerance!!"

Okay, this may ramble a bit, but I hope you can see what I mean... my challenge to the Zero Tolerance supporters is to try and think of ANOTHER way we could achieve the same thing, without making a mockery of human rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CatKnight:
friends don't let friends fuck each other's mom's

---

i know
hehe
read more carefully. HE fucks his mom, not me fucks his mom
haha

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
[person guy's mad scientist guy] i want you to touch my butt! <insert heavy breathing>[/person guy's mad scientist guy]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by askheaves:
Same as schools. It's not fair to put a principle in a position where he has to figure out the intent of the student and whether or not he/she is a threat. He will be bent one way or another based on people around him, teachers, students, THE student, superintendants, parents, etc. That's not the kind of environment where a good decision can be made. And, when the wrong decision is made, somebody is liable.

---

first off, you would have the counselor, or someone who is trained for that kind of stuff do the assessment, and second, it is fair. principals get paid a whole lot of money to be decision makers. theyre supposed to look at the facts and be able to make a decision. if theyre making good decisions, they dont need the support of something like zero tolerance, because theyre schools will be civil places, and the children will be learning and doing well, and not getting in lots of trouble. principles, unlike students, are there by choice, and they have a shitload more responsibility, and if they cant handle it, they should step down, and let someone who can have their job.

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here

---

Sithee's right... instead of Zero Tolerance, if you're really worried why not just have a counselor or school principal sit down with the kid and see how serious he is??? We don't need to be cuffing kids just for SAYING something - or drawing a picture that ALL OF US drew at least once. (My teachers got run over by tanks, as was my preference...)

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
[person guy's mad scientist guy] i want you to touch my butt! <insert heavy breathing>[/person guy's mad scientist guy]

---

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
all the kids picked on me.

---

You fit the profile of someone who might go apeshit with a gun. I'm afraid you'll have to come with me.

/me tells the teacher, who calls the cops, who handcuff Sithiee "for his own protection." The cops throw him into jail without charging him with a crime... then release him 71.9 hours later. 6 hours after that he is arrested again, without charge... /me explains to the concerned citizens that all of this is necessary to ensure "the safety of EVERY ONE of our children. We can shut down the HEINOUS plans of this DANGEROUS criminal mastermind - but only if we strengthen our Zero Tolerance policy. God bless."

This message has been edited by damien_s_lucifer on July 09, 2001 at 10:10 PM

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here

---

Aiee. Spelling is pretty bad :P

I forgot about the concept of 'in loco parendo'. The school's responsibility extends from the moment the kid leaves the front door of their home until they get back into it at night (unless they stop at work, or something).

Wow... Puts it into perspective for me. The girls knew they had an easy way of getting back at this kid, and took it with no regard for what it would do to him. Girls are evil.

And why choose that "profile" for a killer? Why not also include people who are isolated, low achievers, loners. I'm sure there's just as many killers who fit THAT profile. Why stop there? "Middle-of-the-road" people - so average it nearly drives them nuts because they crave more attention, more power - make up a good proportion on killers as well.

Where DOES it end? It ends when they can conclusively prove that EVERYONE can "fit the profile", and when every word can be re-interpreted as a threat, or hinting at a subliminal psychopath.

My apologies if it's a breach of forum etiquette to cross reference other forums, but check out this link < http://forums.gameclubcentral.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=general&Number=24407&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&part=2&vc=1 >

Something that started as a joke got into a conversation about pretty much the same thing but from a different angle. If you're not up for a long read, just skip the link , there's been enough good points made in this forum as it is.

I've been getting way to serious recently. Gotta get me something sinful to chill me out, heh.