Does zero tolerance contribute to school shootings?
Shouse
I don't know if it's a causal thing, but I believe there is a point here. Did
you hear about the case of the alternative public school in New York where the
principal got in trouble for allowing two combative students to settle their
differences with boxing gloves? He had heard that the two were headed for some
kind of gun battle after school and therefore forced them to fight each other
in the gym after school. By the time they finished they were both totally
tired out and ready to shake hands.
The principal claimed he saved two lives. Last I heard, his superiors were
still debating what to do.
righ...@sodangerous.com
wing nut;
>
>I don't know if it's a causal thing, but I believe there is a point here.
How about:
a) the Conservative idea that vengeance is justifiable, God given
'value'
b) the idea that "guns" settle problems (another conservative idea)
c) The conservative view that individual "rights" supercede social
and cultural interests
d) The conservative view that the "end" justifies whatever means
necessary to achieve it?
John Shafto
>
<snip nonsense>
> c) The conservative view that individual "rights" supercede social
> and cultural interests
I'm glad to see you admit this.
> d) The conservative view that the "end" justifies whatever means
> necessary to achieve it?
This is a leftist position, as is confirmed by many notorious
leftists throughout history, and left's regular willingness to
trample individual rights for 'the greater good' (while
hypocritically claiming to support individual rights which
superficially support their 'more govt power' positions)
--
"2+2=4" --73-0x49-1001001
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
righ...@sodangerous.com
<john@~NOSPAM~mato.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
>>
><snip nonsense>
>
>> c) The conservative view that individual "rights" supercede social
>> and cultural interests
>
>I'm glad to see you admit this.
>
>> d) The conservative view that the "end" justifies whatever means
>> necessary to achieve it?
>
>This is a leftist position, as is confirmed by many notorious
>leftists throughout history,
Oh, which ones specifically?
And who do you define as "left"?
>and left's regular willingness to
>trample individual rights for 'the greater good' (while
>hypocritically claiming to support individual rights which
>superficially support their 'more govt power' positions)
Then you don't subscribe to the founders views?
What "government power" positions are you talking about?
How do we "hypocritically" claim to support rights?
How do we "trample individual rights", and which ones would that be?
John Shafto
start calling me names, the conversation will be over, fair?
<righ...@sodangerous.com> wrote in message news:3b95510d....@news.enetis.net...
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 15:41:28 -0600, "John Shafto"
> <john@~NOSPAM~mato.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
> ><righ...@sodangerous.com> wrote in message news:3b952861....@news.enetis.net...
> >>
> ><snip nonsense>
> >
> >> c) The conservative view that individual "rights" supercede social
> >> and cultural interests
> >
> >I'm glad to see you admit this.
> >
> >> d) The conservative view that the "end" justifies whatever means
> >> necessary to achieve it?
> >
> >This is a leftist position, as is confirmed by many notorious
> >leftists throughout history,
>
> Oh, which ones specifically?
Stalin, Hitler, PolPot, and many others.
> And who do you define as "left"?
Anyone who believes that the interests of the collective,
society, or community are more important than individual rights,
and/or anyone who has a desire to increase govt power, control,
regulation, or interference, at any point in time, is on the left (statist)
at that point in time. On some issues in the past I would have been
a little left, but at the current state of our govt(s), I am almost always
right. (pun intended :)
> >and left's regular willingness to
> >trample individual rights for 'the greater good' (while
> >hypocritically claiming to support individual rights which
> >superficially support their 'more govt power' positions)
>
> Then you don't subscribe to the founders views?
Of course I do, that is what conservatism is about,
conserving the founders liberal govt views, even if
extrapolating them to modern issues. Of course,
we are so far beyond the intent of the founders today
that I am more often a radical liberal, than a conservative
liberal. There's not much liberalism left to conserve anymore,
but I would like to conserve whatever is left.
> What "government power" positions are you talking about?
Let's take economic liberalism for example, it is a thing of
the past. Our economic system is becoming more and
more illiberal (authoritarian) when the govt takes at least
half of most people's labor (economic output), and tightly
regulates many businesses (often to the benefit of some over others).
How about social liberalism, what ever happened to that? Our govt
tells us how we must behave socially through many laws.
Manners and social pressure are a thing of the past when laws
are enacted to require/forbid many types of social behavior.
> How do we "hypocritically" claim to support rights?
Take for example a mother's right to her body (pro-choice),
why doesn't she have a right to her body when she uses it to
make money? How about racism? How is it anti-racist to
encourage racial groups to use the govt for the benefit of
their racial group?
> How do we "trample individual rights", and which ones would that be?
The most blatant violation is the left's constant attempts to
increase theft of people's labor (taxes), a violation of the right of
self ownership. We should all have the choice, as individuals,
how much of our labor we are willing to give to govt, and
social pressure, rather than guns, should be the way it is
encouraged. You want to see more 'will of the people',
then trust them to excercise their will some more. I don't
think the left is nearly as interested in the 'will of the people'
as they claim, they are interested in their will being enforced
via govt power.
As for enumerated rights, the left's constant attack on the
second amendment is obvious (right to self defense via arms),
as well as the left's attack on free speech (via campaign
finance reform, and the '60 day' rule included in it). Then
there's the 5th amendment (right to property), and the left's
federal regulatory attacks via EPA and asset forfeiture.
The left's attacks on freedom of religion have been harsh at
times, albeit usually less through regulation than than through
rhetoric.
Before you go on a rant about social conservatives, who
want to use govt to impose their will, they are centrist
(at best) in my view, and the only thing that pulls them a
bit right of the real leftists is the fact that they are
often somewhat economically liberal (though not always).
Also, many 'liberals' are more right than they would like
to admit, particularly when they advocate liberal govt
policies like eliminating 'the war on drugs', or honestly
defend free-speech, freedom of association, etc without
an agenda to increase govt power behind it.
Julian D.
wrote:
>The following is reprinted from http://www.sianews.com
>
>School has started again in most of the country by now, and many
>students, parents, teachers and school staff may be wondering when and
>where the next school shooting will occur. Will it be their school or
>at the opposite end of the country? The randomness makes school
>shootings nearly impossible to predict.
>
>Over the past few years, many theories have been forwarded as to the
>cause of such shootings. Some blame the violence in television, the
>media and movies, others cite the easy access to weapons, some
>attribute the cause to poor parenting skills, and yet others believe
>it to be a combination of the three.
>
>There is a lot of violence in entertainment today; movies, TV, network
>and cable news, and in the lyrics of the music popular today. I saw
>thousands of killings in both TV and movies growing up in the 60's and
>70's, and while far less graphic than today's depictions, neither I
>nor any other children stood up in the cafeteria and mowed down our
>fellow classmates with gunfire. In fact, the relatively bloodless
>killings of the past would seem to be more harmful to the
>impressionable minds of children due to the less graphic depictions.
>Today's movie deaths are far more realistic and to me would seem to
>show the real consequences of violence than that of the past. I do not
>feel that violence in the entertainment business can inspire anyone to
>a criminal act that is not already inclined to act that way in the
>first place. Quick, name the violent video games and movies that
>Hitler and Stalin played as children.
>
>Easy access to guns can facilitate the ease of killing large numbers
>of victims, but the gun is just a tool to do the deed, not the
>inspiration. Up to the mid to late 50's, schools actually had gun
>clubs and students brought firearms to school. To be sure, they were
>under lock and key with teacher supervision during school hours, but
>not when being transported to and from the campus. Likewise, many
>inner city schools are inundated with armed students, and save for the
>occaisional gang related shooting, there have been no mass killings,
>probably due to the likelyhood of return fire. I certainly would not
>advocate allowing students to carry firearms in class, but it seems to
>act as a deterrent in some cases. We have many laws regulating guns,
>and a student intent on a mass murder is not going to worry about an
>additional 6 months added to his sentence, should they be caught.
>
>Poor and inattentive parents can contribute to the problem; children
>from homes where the parents are indifferent to them, abusive or
>neglectful certainly view the world with far less optimism than those
>raised in loving and caring homes. Children who feel unloved are
>definately at risk for striking out at those who have an easier life
>than they and harboring feelings on jealousy and resentment that can
>fester and in time, boil over into a rampage. The problem is though,
>poor parenting has gone on since the beginning of man, and school
>shootings are a very recent phenomenom.
>
>I believe zero tolerance has something to do with the proliferation of
>school shootings in the 90's. Like school shootings, zero tolerance
>rules are a relatively new occurance. When I was younger, I was teased
>constantly about my last name, my height, and my stuttering (which was
>far worse when I was younger than today). Giving an oral report was an
>invitation to a full weeks worth of harrasment. I finally fought back
>in 9th grade, and since I was defending myself, I knew I faced little,
>if any consequences. Once I had established that I was not going to
>take the abuse anymore, I was rarely picked on, except in a joking
>manner among friends.
>
>Thanks to zero tolerance, fighting back is no longer an option. In
>many school districts, police citations are issued to all students
>involved, whether they started the fight or where defending
>themselves. No longer can children defend themselves against the
>school bullies or mean spirited playground taunts. If they try to stop
>the harrasment on their own, they face detention or suspension,
>depending on how vigorously they attempt to stem the bullying. School
>officials seem to do little to stop harrasment of students by other
>students, either by ignoring the situation or giving out token
>punishments, which only serve to further anger the bully.
>
>These days, you have chilren who reach junior high and high school
>having endured years of teasing and bullying, with no end in sight and
>no way to fight back without facing disciplinary action. Finally, some
>kids just snap, and fight back with as much firepower as they can get
>their hands on. Another tragedy happens, and the media spends weeks
>analyzing the situation, finally settling in on guns, violent
>entertainment and poor parenting as the reason, and usually in that
>order. I think we also need to take a look at how zero tolerance can
>also be contributing to the recent rash of shootings. Fighting should
>not be tolerated in schools, but students should be able to reasonably
>defend themselves without consequence. Maybe if we return to more
>sensible discipline in schools, maybe one vital piece of the school
>shooting puzzle can be removed and at least some of the violence
>averted.
I was told by my parents to hit back at least twice as hard if anyone
was to strike me. And it worked quite well. I broke 2 kids' noses, a
collarbone of another, and one finger of a seriously deluded senior
who underestimated the smaller 9th grader.
These days, the school officials would have tied me up, kicked me out
of school, slapped my mom, and called child protective services to see
what the hell my parents were teaching me at home.
Nonetheless, my two daughters will be taught as I was. This zero
tolerance bullshit will be fought. It doesn't help anything. It's
extremist garbage. But my kids will avoid public school anyway.
Kids today are being raised by all too absent parents who have no
business being parents and who do not parent whatsoever.
They try to be their kids friends. That doesn't work. It's the
liberal 'do your own thing' type thinking that turns out these types
of parents. A more liberal society brought about this lack of respect
and outright blatant disdain for authority, other people, and
discipline.
Kids are taught that life is cheap, be it abortion, violence on tv, or
no responsibility whatsoever for their actions. I blame this all on
liberalism.
Trying to stop school violence by kicking some little girl out of
school for having a nail file on a key ring, or accidently dropping
the butter-knife she used to make her pb&j sandwich at home in her
school-bag will not solve anything.
JD
America will not regress.
righ...@sodangerous.com
<john@~NOSPAM~mato.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
>> >This is a leftist position, as is confirmed by many notorious
>> >leftists throughout history,
>>
>> Oh, which ones specifically?
>
>Stalin, Hitler, PolPot, and many others.
They were DESPOTS and TOTALITARIANS you toad.
Wouldn't make a bit of difference which "side" they were economically,
they exhibited CONSERVATIVE ideological positions.
>> And who do you define as "left"?
>
>Anyone who believes that the interests of the collective,
>society, or community are more important than individual rights,
Our founders did also. Why do you think they formed a government?
The "bill of rights" merely assuaged those who were doubtful of a
"government", based on prior experience.
>and/or anyone who has a desire to increase govt power, control,
>regulation, or interference, at any point in time, is on the left (statist)
>at that point in time.
"Statist" my ass. The primary characteristic of Conservatism is NO
change. The reactionary character of social conservatives manifests
itself in descrying ANY change.
The main character of "liberalism/progressivism is change. What's
confusing YOU, is the misguided belief that "going back" to prior
cultural and social mores is a desirable thing. You ever read what it
was like BEFORE we "changed"?
You also have some monstrous misguided notion that the federal
"gummint" grabbed, or usurped power simply because it was greedy, (or
didn't have anything to do in a given era). If you can't
intellectually and honestly comprehend WHY the federal government
"took" power away from the states, or the USSC followed it's line of
reasoning to limit or curtail state and local government, you can't
credibly respond to, or defend your "beliefs" that the federal
government has "too much power". Find out WHY they took it away.
Crissakes, it's been publicized enough.
>On some issues in the past I would have been
>a little left, but at the current state of our govt(s), I am almost always
>right. (pun intended :)
What "current state"?? What's that mean. You're using insinuation,
or innuendo to suggest something you haven't managed to support with
evidence. What has the federal government done that's illegal,
unwarranted, or unconstitutional?
>> Then you don't subscribe to the founders views?
>
>Of course I do, that is what conservatism is about,
>conserving the founders liberal govt views, even if
>extrapolating them to modern issues.
You're not serious? There is no effort by conservatives to
"extrapolate" anything. "Original intent" is NOT a legitimate or
recognized doctrine. It has NEVER been, nor will it ever be.
The "founders views" are not constitutional doctrine.
It IS a conservative BELIEF that it SHOULD be. That don't make it
constitutionally acceptable.
The "founders" provided a framework with which to govern society. It
has been the ACCEPTED view that it does not imply "no change". Even
the founders wrote that "original intent" was NOT their philosophy,
and at least Two of the "founders" engaged in a constitutional fight
to settle WHO had the right to interpret what the "founders intended".
>Of course,
>we are so far beyond the intent of the founders today
HOW?
>that I am more often a radical liberal, than a conservative
>liberal. There's not much liberalism left to conserve anymore,
>but I would like to conserve whatever is left.
"Conserving" a misguided interpretation of "what the founders wanted"
is why you can't sort it out.
>
>> What "government power" positions are you talking about?
>
>Let's take economic liberalism for example, it is a thing of
>the past. Our economic system is becoming more and
>more illiberal (authoritarian) when the govt takes at least
>half of most people's labor (economic output), and tightly
>regulates many businesses (often to the benefit of some over others).
Why do they do that?
>How about social liberalism, what ever happened to that? Our govt
>tells us how we must behave socially through many laws.
You keep saying "our government". Ever ask yourself what "our
government" is?
"Our government" is a duly elected representational system. It is NOT
an entity. You keep saying "government" AS IF it were a person. "Our
government", albeit a bureaucracy, has a specific set of limitations
that are governed by a rule of law.
YOU don't get to "interpret" what "our government" ought or should do
as an INDIVIDUAL. You get to be part of a Collective which the
"founders" formulated to do those things that provide us as a culture.
Conservatives fan the flames of anti-governement bigotry as a
functionof political strategy. There is a reason why "government"
does what it does respective of regulation, rules, taxes, and most of
it is for society, NOT for individuals.
>Manners and social pressure are a thing of the past when laws
>are enacted to require/forbid many types of social behavior.
Because we LEARNED from past mistakes. Insensitivity to others
feelings, beliefs simply because (as an individual) you feel entitled
to excercise YOUR freedom, is irresponsible, un-christian-like, and
unethical.
>> How do we "hypocritically" claim to support rights?
>
>Take for example a mother's right to her body (pro-choice),
>why doesn't she have a right to her body when she uses it to
>make money?
WE, as a society, have made that determination. "Using bodies" also
begets disease, undesirable activities, and exploits the vulnerable.
Being "pro-choice" is a religious issue. Religion is predicated
belief. Belief is a function of Faith. Faith is NOT empirical and
has no evidentiary value.
>The most blatant violation is the left's constant attempts to
>increase theft of people's labor (taxes),
How can the Left "steal" anything in a representative government? If
YOU'VE got more votes, we don't get to do anything, do we? The
"founders" inclusion of "general welfare" (as interpreted by the ONLY
arbiter of what the constitution "says") lays the foundation for why
we 'collect taxes" and the uses made of them
You're still attempting to argue "individual" as opposed to
collective. You're losing. And your losing because a nation that
does not recognize the collective nature of it's culture, or society,
is doomed to fail.
> We should all have the choice, as individuals,
>how much of our labor we are willing to give to govt, and
>social pressure, rather than guns, should be the way it is
>encouraged.
Absolute, utter nonsense. Loonytarianism is crap. Other than a few
nut cases, there is NO support for those idiotic beliefs.
>You want to see more 'will of the people',
>then trust them to excercise their will some more. I don't
>think the left is nearly as interested in the 'will of the people'
>as they claim, they are interested in their will being enforced
>via govt power.
Then you haven't equated the government "forcing" with WHY the
"government forces".
>As for enumerated rights, the left's constant attack on the
>second amendment is obvious (right to self defense via arms),
There is no right of individuals in the 2nd amendment.
>as well as the left's attack on free speech (via campaign
>finance reform, and the '60 day' rule included in it).
The USSC's interpretation that: Money = Speech, is, at best, a joke.
Should any law enacted by congress limiting money that comes before
any court other than the present one, will be upheld.
NO ONE "should" be stupid enough to believe that the wealthy and
powerful should have MORE speech based solely on money.
I see where this is going.
Loonytarian beliefs are bogus. They always have been, and always will
be.
John Shafto
in message news:73oaptouvhsrsvmnd...@4ax.com...
>
<snip>
> A more liberal society brought about this lack of respect
> and outright blatant disdain for authority, other people, and
> discipline.
How can a society be liberal? An individual can be liberal (with their kids
or whatever), but only a govt can be Liberal to Strict (Authoritarian)
on a national scale. Liberal and Authoritarian refer to someone/thing in
a superior position. Society is not superior to itself, or even to the individuals
contained within it. Society and govt are not the same thing, govt is a tool
of society, and a society (democratic or not) may prefer a liberal (or strict) govt,
but that does not make the society itself liberal (or strict), because a society
has no control of itself without a govt acting on it's behalf. The govt is always
in a superior position over society at any given time, which is why societies
create governments to control themselves.
A society (or individual) can be Conservative to Radical, depending
on how much they are willing to change, or are changing, but that
is a function of the members of that society acting individually. The
terms conservative and radical are highly to subjective to the state
of the society at any given time. The Russians might have been very
conservative in 1948, but they were certainly less so in 1990.
Their govt is also more liberal today than it was in 1948
as a result of the society's desire to change.
Shouse
>How about:
Not conservative ideas. Actually, they all seem quite in line with the left's
new found respect and admiration for people like Andrea Yates and Colin
Ferguson.
Shouse
>From: righ...@sodangerous.com
>On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:17:39 -0600, "John Shafto"
><john@~NOSPAM~mato.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
>>> >This is a leftist position, as is confirmed by many notorious
>>> >leftists throughout history,
>>>
>>> Oh, which ones specifically?
>>
>>Stalin, Hitler, PolPot, and many others.
>They were DESPOTS and TOTALITARIANS you toad.
Wow. Right out of the box. Stalin and Pol Pot (and we can add Mao) were stone
cold leftists.
More noteworthy is this guy's immediate use of foul names--now that's what I
call zero intelligence.
Joe R. Golowka
> > d) The conservative view that the "end" justifies whatever means
> > necessary to achieve it?
>
> This is a leftist position, as is confirmed by many notorious
> leftists throughout history, and left's regular willingness to
> trample individual rights for 'the greater good' (while
> hypocritically claiming to support individual rights which
> superficially support their 'more govt power' positions)
Actually, people on both the left and right have claimed this.