homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

Forum Home Post A Reply

my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home


» The Geek Culture Forums! » News, Reviews, Views! » Politics/Religion/Current Affairs » Finger Guns » Post A Reply


Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password (max 13 characters):
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

 

Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused   Happytears  
blush   Beard of Peter Gabriel!   crazy   tired   ohwell   evil  
shake head   cry baby   hearts   weep   devil wand   thumbsup  
thumbsdown   Geek   Applause   Angel   Envy    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?
Options


Disable Graemlins in this post.


 


T O P I C     R E V I E W
Venture
Member # 32021
 - posted May 18, 2010 09:37
This article made me laugh, and then the videos! ha. Would be something I would do. I think I will go make a finger gun video now! hehe

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/04/21/terror-tots-girl-suspended-for-terroristic-threat-in-pointing-finger-at-teacher-and-saying-pew-pew/
 
dragonman97
Member # 780
 - posted May 18, 2010 10:13
I may be a gun-detesting NYer, but come on!!!

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, ffs.
If that's not a cut and dried case, I'm not sure what is.

Aside: A bunch of the videos on that page are awesome. [Big Grin]
 
GrumpySteen
Member # 170
 - posted May 18, 2010 14:34
dragonman97 wrote:
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, ffs.

Yes, but it says absolutely nothing about anyone having the right to bear fingers.
 
MacManKrisK
Member # 955
 - posted May 18, 2010 16:31
quote:
Originally posted by dragonman97:
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, ffs.

Agreed, even though I am a gun-detesting, tree-hugging, VW-bus-driving liberal. However...

The article makes no mention of weather or not she was wearing long sleeves; and nothing in the Second Amendment, nor the rest of the Constitution, says anything about bare arms. [Razz]
 
The Famous Druid
Member # 1769
 - posted May 18, 2010 17:33
I dunno about Merkinistan, but here in oz making a threatening gesture towards a teacher is guaranteed to result in some kind of disciplinary action, and it doesn't surprise me that this kind of thing is taken more seriously in the land of Columbine.

btw - since when is a 13 year old a 'tot' ?
 
Ashitaka
Member # 4924
 - posted May 19, 2010 00:02
A few students when I was in high school waved at our physics teacher using the right hand rule they had learned that day. Unfortunately "resourceofficer" thought they were flipping him the bird and they got fined, being unable to explain to a high school drop out (GED earner) what they were really doing. He thought they were making it all up( the right hand rule) not to get a ticket.
 
Erbo
Member # 199
 - posted May 19, 2010 00:51
This has less to do with the Second Amendment than it has to do with the insane "zero tolerance" policies schools everywhere have been imposing for years, removing any semblance of human intelligence and human judgement from the disciplinary process, for fear of lawsuits.

There used to be a great blog called "Zero Intelligence" that chronicled the abuses of these "zero tolerance" policies. Sadly, it seems to have vanished from the face of teh Interwebs.

Here's another example: a girl who was suspended from school for touching a pill. Literally; she was handed an Adderall capsule by another student, then handed it back, saying, "I don't want this." The school decided that the brief time she spent holding that pill constituted "possession" and suspended her anyway.

And another: A girl was suspended from school for two weeks, and recommended for expulsion, for taking her own prescribed birth control pill. The girl was an honor student with no discipline problems whatsoever...and, ironically, if she had been caught with heroin, it would have landed her only a five-day suspension.

And one more: A kid suspended from school for drawing little doodles of guns. Jesus, when I think about some of the things I drew on my folders back when I was in high school, it's damn lucky they didn't have "zero tolerance" back in those days, or I would surely have been locked up and the key thrown away. [Roll Eyes] [shake head]

The phrase "common sense" is now obsolete...it's not really all that common anymore.

I have no real solution to this problem...other than a phrase I seem to repeat depressingly often these days: Homeschool your kids, people.
 
TheMoMan
Member # 1659
 - posted May 19, 2010 03:01
____ Only in Motown.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/18/AR2010051805853.html
 
Ashitaka
Member # 4924
 - posted May 19, 2010 04:01
Erbo___________good point, Thisis why we need judges. If laws were "zero toleance" a simple computer program could replace all judges by simply decided if a preponderance of eveidence was reached and then printing out the punishment.

The question iswho in the schools should be the judge in these cases. Should that person be and elected, appointed, or simply hired by HR.
 
The Famous Druid
Member # 1769
 - posted May 19, 2010 07:22
quote:
Originally posted by Erbo:
This has less to do with the Second Amendment than it has to do with the insane "zero tolerance" policies schools everywhere have been imposing for years, removing any semblance of human intelligence and human judgement from the disciplinary process

Good to see a conservative who admits "zero tolerance" is a crock of sh1te. [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause]
 
Erbo
Member # 199
 - posted May 19, 2010 21:02
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Good to see a conservative who admits "zero tolerance" is a crock of sh1te. [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause]

And what's so "un-conservative" about wanting to return to the days when correct moral choices were possible, and it was within the capacity of ordinary men and women to make them, without having to fall back on saying like they did to that one girl, "I wish we didn't have to do this to you, but rules are rules"?

Of course, Ashitaka also hits a good point: which men and women ought to make these judgements? And then, of course, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? All things that have to be answered. But getting rid of every last shred of human judgement, in favor of a "rules are rules" approach, seems to me to cause more problems than it solves.
 
The Famous Druid
Member # 1769
 - posted May 19, 2010 23:28
quote:
Originally posted by Erbo:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Good to see a conservative who admits "zero tolerance" is a crock of sh1te. [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause]

And what's so "un-conservative" about wanting to return to the days when correct moral choices were possible, and it was within the capacity of ordinary men and women to make them
Oh come on Erbo, you know it's the usual suspects on the "Tough on Crime" Right, who have pushed so hard for Zero Tolerance, mandatory minimum sentences, and the like.

So now we have laws that get teenage girls convicted as child pornographers for sending a naughty self-pic to their boyfriend, and having to display Child Sex Offender signs in their front yard for the rest of their life. Or 12 year old kids getting mandatory jail-time for minor shoplifting offenses.

And if any politician tries to stop this madness, we all know where the loudest howls of protest will come from, people like the American Family Association, Glenn Beck, FAUX News....
 
Ashitaka
Member # 4924
 - posted May 20, 2010 00:11
quote:
Oh come on Erbo, you know it's the usual suspects on the "Tough on Crime" Right, who have pushed so hard for Zero Tolerance, mandatory minimum sentences, and the like.

So now we have laws that get teenage girls convicted as child pornographers for sending a naughty self-pic to their boyfriend, and having to display Child Sex Offender signs in their front yard for the rest of their life. Or 12 year old kids getting mandatory jail-time for minor shoplifting offenses.

And if any politician tries to stop this madness, we all know where the loudest howls of protest will come from, people like the American Family Association, Glenn Beck, FAUX News.... [/QB]

I do not think, when the conservatives/democrats pass these laws, they are intending the consequences you have listed above.

The thing is, a conservative, by definition, errs on the side of caution. ( If they didn't err on the side of caution, they wouldn't be conservative!)

The solution would be a more reasoned discussion of where to draw lines rather than the current reactionary state of discourse.
 
dragonman97
Member # 780
 - posted May 20, 2010 21:18
Ash: That can't work, as I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG. [Wink]
 
Callipygous
Member # 2071
 - posted May 21, 2010 08:28
quote:
Originally posted by Ashitaka:
The thing is, a conservative, by definition, errs on the side of caution. ( If they didn't err on the side of caution, they wouldn't be conservative!)

Hmmm... really?

One other point, we are of course making our judgements based on a newspaper report heavy on opinion and ridicule, and light on facts. I don't know what it's like in the US, but over here teachers can have quite a tough time controlling classes of 13 year olds, and are very limited in what resources they can call on to maintain discipline. So perhaps there might be a bigger picture we cannot see.
 
GrumpySteen
Member # 170
 - posted May 21, 2010 10:42
There's an article with more information and less opinion and ridicule here.
 
Erbo
Member # 199
 - posted May 21, 2010 17:44
Here's yet another ridiculous example, courtesy of La Shawn Barber: A teenager in Schenectady, NY, is suspended for two days for wearing a rosary. What was the school's problem? The suspension was...wait for it..."out of concern [it] may be gang-related."

[Roll Eyes]

Well, I suppose it is an emblem of a particular "gang." [Wink] However, this "gang" is quite harmless, as these things go. Unfortunately, it's also one of the few "gangs" that, under the liberal way of thinking, it's permissible, nay, praiseworthy to discriminate against. [shake head]

And once again, they have proven that Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence.
 
The Famous Druid
Member # 1769
 - posted May 21, 2010 22:57
quote:
Originally posted by Erbo:
Well, I suppose it is an emblem of a particular "gang." [Wink] However, this "gang" is quite harmless, as these things go. Unfortunately, it's also one of the few "gangs" that, under the liberal way of thinking, it's permissible, nay, praiseworthy to discriminate against. [shake head]

Yeah, don't you just hate religious intolerance?

</sarcasm>
 
dragonman97
Member # 780
 - posted May 21, 2010 23:46
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Erbo:
Well, I suppose it is an emblem of a particular "gang." [Wink] However, this "gang" is quite harmless, as these things go. Unfortunately, it's also one of the few "gangs" that, under the liberal way of thinking, it's permissible, nay, praiseworthy to discriminate against. [shake head]

Yeah, don't you just hate religious intolerance?

</sarcasm>

Karma's a b*tch, ain't it?
 




Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam