School Damage

[Baldwin for Christ]

Shhhhh. Don't confuse the issue with FACTS.

If I say the word "ass" in a classroom, im going to the office. How is that freedom of speech.

Free speech isn't the idea "I can say any word I want at any time and place without consequence", and a substantial body of case law at the highest levels of Constitutional interpretation have upheld that.

[Bendira]

Ahahahahaha. This is a hilarious topic.

Teenagers raging against high school systems, claiming both that (a): they are corrupt, totalitarian regimes that make the U.S.S.R. or North Korea look fantastic and (b): that they are staffed with incompetent, moronic, and neglectful (if not outright malevolent) faculty.

Stupid Evil can't be that organized and claiming a regime of that nature is so dramatized that nobody could ever live up to such a reputation. But I'm sure you're so smart that you don't need to worry about these details.

Get off it. The system has problems, but student perspective is a far bigger one.

Im in college now, so I hardly feel im one of the teenagers your refering to. Rather, I am somebody that could see through the stupidity of the educators at the school, who often times I would correct midclass because of their stupidity. Both A and B you listed are correct, as in my experience, schools are staffed with total idiots.

I still remember the school lunches in elemantary school. Kids are too young then to realize that they could form together and demand things from the staff. The school lunches were like UNICEF rations. The mental abuse that occurs in those early years really has an effect on us. The horrible lunches, the often times verbally abusive teachers. This only gets better and better as the years progress, until you are in high school, where you are still being abused. The stress and anguish that is forced upon people is utterly disgusting. And for what? Most of it is propagandized garbage in the end, or information you just as well could have gone without.

[Bendira]

If I say the word "ass" in a classroom, im going to the office. How is that freedom of speech.

Free speech isn't the idea "I can say any word I want at any time and place without consequence", and a substantial body of case law at the highest levels of Constitutional interpretation have upheld that.

Free speech isn't the idea "I can say any word I want at any time and place without consequence"

Actually thats the exact definition of free speech as I understand it, if consequence is defined as forceful action against somebody on public property.

[Baldwin for Christ]

Free speech isn't the idea "I can say any word I want at any time and place without consequence", and a substantial body of case law at the highest levels of Constitutional interpretation have upheld that.

Free speech isn't the idea "I can say any word I want at any time and place without consequence"

Actually thats the exact definition of free speech as I understand it, if consequence is defined as forceful action against somebody on public property.

Where are you getting your "understanding" from? Have you looked up phrases like "fire in a crowded theater"? Have you really taken the time to learn about free speech and how it is derived from statute and case law?

Its well and good to critique education, or anything else, so long as you've taken the time and effort to learn about what you're attempting to refute...

[Katganistan]

Shhhhh. Don't confuse the issue with FACTS.

If I say the word "ass" in a classroom, im going to the office. How is that freedom of speech.

Depends on the context, as always. "You are an ass" is going to get you sent to the office. Speaking of donkeys, or of Bottom in Midsummer Night's Dream, won't. And your experience in one school certainly is NOT universal.

Then again, you rail against authority in every thread you write, so really, your agenda's not hard to see here. You come up with ridiculous 'what-ifs' like "What if I get stopped for speeding, but I didn't know speeding was against the law, and then the cop sees some anarchist book in my back seat -- he's going to actually recognize it and execute me on the spot!!!!"

Forgive me if I take your perception of reality with the Mount Everest of salt.

[Bendira]

Actually thats the exact definition of free speech as I understand it, if consequence is defined as forceful action against somebody on public property.

Where are you getting your "understanding" from? Have you looked up phrases like "fire in a crowded theater"? Have you really taken the time to learn about free speech and how it is derived from statute and case law?

Its well and good to critique education, or anything else, so long as you've taken the time and effort to learn about what you're attempting to refute...

Your assuming my interpretation of what constitutes free speech is the same as the U.S. Governments.

[Katganistan]

Free speech isn't the idea "I can say any word I want at any time and place without consequence", and a substantial body of case law at the highest levels of Constitutional interpretation have upheld that.

Free speech isn't the idea "I can say any word I want at any time and place without consequence"

Actually thats the exact definition of free speech as I understand it, if consequence is defined as forceful action against somebody on public property.

Try yelling "fire!" in a theater.
Or "HE'S GOT A GUN!" in a public building.

[Bendira]

If I say the word "ass" in a classroom, im going to the office. How is that freedom of speech.

Depends on the context, as always. "You are an ass" is going to get you sent to the office. Speaking of donkeys, or of Bottom in Midsummer Night's Dream, won't. And your experience in one school certainly is NOT universal.

Then again, you rail against authority in every thread you write, so really, your agenda's not hard to see here. You come up with ridiculous 'what-ifs' like "What if I get stopped for speeding, and then the cop sees some anarchist book in my back seat -- he's going to actually recognize it and execute me on the spot!!!!"

Forgive me if I take your perception of reality with the Mount Everest of salt.

So are you in favor of police writing tickets because of somebodies political beliefs?

[Person012345]

Depends on the context, as always. "You are an ass" is going to get you sent to the office. Speaking of donkeys, or of Bottom in Midsummer Night's Dream, won't. And your experience in one school certainly is NOT universal.

Then again, you rail against authority in every thread you write, so really, your agenda's not hard to see here. You come up with ridiculous 'what-ifs' like "What if I get stopped for speeding, and then the cop sees some anarchist book in my back seat -- he's going to actually recognize it and execute me on the spot!!!!"

Forgive me if I take your perception of reality with the Mount Everest of salt.

So are you in favor of police writing tickets because of somebodies political beliefs?

[Tagmatium]

So are you in favor of police writing tickets because of somebodies political beliefs?

Bless 'im, he tries to twist peoples' words...

[Baldwin for Christ]

Where are you getting your "understanding" from? Have you looked up phrases like "fire in a crowded theater"? Have you really taken the time to learn about free speech and how it is derived from statute and case law?

Its well and good to critique education, or anything else, so long as you've taken the time and effort to learn about what you're attempting to refute...

Your assuming my interpretation of what constitutes free speech is the same as the U.S. Governments.

No, I'm asking you where you get your definition from. If you just made it up based on a simplistic rendering that allows you to do what you want, then you're doing what children do, and so you have the understanding that children have.

Aren't you yourself using concepts derived from the government, like "public property"? Interesting how you have no problem utilizing an aspect of government when it suites you, but depart from its validity quickly once it doesn't. You can't even keep your own argument straight, much less consistently or cogently apply legal concepts.

The idea of free speech as it would be enforceable in the school comes from the U.S. Government, via its foundational document, the Constitution, and the interpretation of it by the judicial body established therein, the Supreme Court. If you want to ignore those things, you've already tossed out the legislation that would restrain the government from violating your free speech.

If this horrid censorship that you complain of is merely of the kind of puerile petulance you've demonstrated here, I doubt the school is robbing your audience of anything more profound than banal profanities like "ass". Don't worry, there are plenty of places where you can excercise what you think is such profound freedom, so you are only being denied the captive audience of the other students and the faculty, something free speech never guaranteed you in the first place.

[Katganistan]

Bless 'im, he tries to twist peoples' words...

Yeah, that's what trolls do.

Here's the thread I was talking about.

No, Bendira, I am talking about your propensity for making up the most ridiculous arguments in the universe to prove that everyone in the world is a fascist for not letting you do whatever you want, whenever you want it, no matter who else it damages, inconveniences, or annoys. Like insisting that your right to deafen the neighborhood should override everyone else's right to be able to hear themselves think in their own home (also in that same thread).

[Bendira]

Bless 'im, he tries to twist peoples' words...

Yeah, that's what trolls do.

Here's the thread I was talking about.

No, Bendira, I am talking about your propensity for making up the most ridiculous arguments in the universe to prove that everyone in the world is a fascist for not letting you do whatever you want, whenever you want it, no matter who else it damages, inconveniences, or annoys. Like insisting that your right to deafen the neighborhood should override everyone else's right to be able to hear themselves think in their own home (also in that same thread).

You used my police officer giving a ticket for a book in the back seat an example of one of my ridiculous arguments. So I am just wondering if you support ticketing via political discrimination. I don't think im twisting your words, im just asking for clarification on your position.

[Person012345]

Yeah, that's what trolls do.

Here's the thread I was talking about.

No, Bendira, I am talking about your propensity for making up the most ridiculous arguments in the universe to prove that everyone in the world is a fascist for not letting you do whatever you want, whenever you want it, no matter who else it damages, inconveniences, or annoys. Like insisting that your right to deafen the neighborhood should override everyone else's right to be able to hear themselves think in their own home (also in that same thread).

You used my police officer giving a ticket for a book in the back seat an example of one of my ridiculous arguments. So I am just wondering if you support ticketing via political discrimination. I don't think im twisting your words, im just asking for clarification on your position.

I'm pretty sure she/he doesn't think that. Kat is simply saying that claiming that people get ticketed for having a political position, and not because they were speeding, is ridiculous. Or that claiming they should be allowed to speed because to not let people speed is fascism. Or whatever the hell it is you argue.

[Bendira]

Your assuming my interpretation of what constitutes free speech is the same as the U.S. Governments.

No, I'm asking you where you get your definition from. If you just made it up based on a simplistic rendering that allows you to do what you want, then you're doing what children do, and so you have the understanding that children have.

Aren't you yourself using concepts derived from the government, like "public property"? Interesting how you have no problem utilizing an aspect of government when it suites you, but depart from its validity quickly once it doesn't. You can't even keep your own argument straight, much less consistently or cogently apply legal concepts.

The idea of free speech as it would be enforceable in the school comes from the U.S. Government, via its foundational document, the Constitution, and the interpretation of it by the judicial body established therein, the Supreme Court. If you want to ignore those things, you've already tossed out the legislation that would restrain the government from violating your free speech.

If this horrid censorship that you complain of is merely of the kind of puerile petulance you've demonstrated here, I doubt the school is robbing your audience of anything more profound than banal profanities like "ass". Don't worry, there are plenty of places where you can excercise what you think is such profound freedom, so you are only being denied the captive audience of the other students and the faculty, something free speech never guaranteed you in the first place.

I got my definition from my own interpretation of free speech, which is very similiar if not identical to Murray Rothbard's. If I am a part owner of something (public property), I should be able to say whatever I want on it. The idea of me using government infrustructure rendering me a hypocrite is absurd, as I didn't ask to be born into this situation, and I do not intend on starving to death on the floor of my home because I refuse to use government built roads. Again, to the constitution. Im not talking about the U.S. governments interpretation of free speech, which is not very free. And the fact that free speech dosn't guarentee me a captive audience in a class is laughable, considering the point of public education is to supposibly teach us about other idea's. If it truly was for that, then whats wrong with free discussion in a classroom setting?

[Baldwin for Christ]

Yeah, that's what trolls do.

Here's the thread I was talking about.

No, Bendira, I am talking about your propensity for making up the most ridiculous arguments in the universe to prove that everyone in the world is a fascist for not letting you do whatever you want, whenever you want it, no matter who else it damages, inconveniences, or annoys. Like insisting that your right to deafen the neighborhood should override everyone else's right to be able to hear themselves think in their own home (also in that same thread).

You used my police officer giving a ticket for a book in the back seat an example of one of my ridiculous arguments. So I am just wondering if you support ticketing via political discrimination. I don't think im twisting your words, im just asking for clarification on your position.

Is there really no part of you that recongizes it was the contrived hyperbole of your examples that make them ridiculous?

I really hope you outgrow this adolescent victim mentality that you're so mired in, or you're going to need a lot more government help over the years than you're ostensibly sincere beliefs would allow you to accept...

[Bendira]

You used my police officer giving a ticket for a book in the back seat an example of one of my ridiculous arguments. So I am just wondering if you support ticketing via political discrimination. I don't think im twisting your words, im just asking for clarification on your position.

I'm pretty sure she/he doesn't think that. Kat is simply saying that claiming that people get ticketed for having a political position, and not because they were speeding, is ridiculous. Or that claiming they should be allowed to speed because to not let people speed is fascism. Or whatever the hell it is you argue.

I think she is capable of speaking for herself, but if what you say is true, then she should realize that police discriminate all the time. To ignore that is to ignore history.

[Bendira]

You used my police officer giving a ticket for a book in the back seat an example of one of my ridiculous arguments. So I am just wondering if you support ticketing via political discrimination. I don't think im twisting your words, im just asking for clarification on your position.

Is there really no part of you that recongizes it was the contrived hyperbole of your examples that make them ridiculous?

I really hope you outgrow this adolescent victim mentality that you're so mired in, or you're going to need a lot more government help over the years than you're ostensibly sincere beliefs would allow you to accept...

The jews had a victim mentality too. Fuck em. Damn kids and their silly notions of right and wrong.

[Person012345]

I'm pretty sure she/he doesn't think that. Kat is simply saying that claiming that people get ticketed for having a political position, and not because they were speeding, is ridiculous. Or that claiming they should be allowed to speed because to not let people speed is fascism. Or whatever the hell it is you argue.

I think she is capable of speaking for herself, but if what you say is true, then she should realize that police discriminate all the time. To ignore that is to ignore history.

Maybe it could be argued against blacks etc. but the police don't go around ticketing people because they saw an anarchy book in the back seat of a car travelling at 100mph. It's more likely to be the whole "100 mph" thing.

[Sun Aut Ex]

Oh, you know, silly things like universal literacy, basic scientific literacy, basic history, not thinking things like 'The Sun Revolves around the Earth' or 'Diseases are caused by God's will'

Silly things, I'm sure you'll agree. Who needs an education in this day and age?

Except that "'Diseases are caused by God's will" has been replaced with "You must know algebra or you will definitely become a hobo and die".

I was told that my chosen field (programming) was very maths heavy and that I would need to master various complex maths in high school to get a job in the industry.

You know how many times I've used complex maths since I finished school? Zero.

[Bendira]

I think she is capable of speaking for herself, but if what you say is true, then she should realize that police discriminate all the time. To ignore that is to ignore history.

Maybe it could be argued against blacks etc. but the police don't go around ticketing people because they saw an anarchy book in the back seat of a car travelling at 100mph. It's more likely to be the whole "100 mph" thing.

My friend donates to the police ball fundraiser every year and puts a sticker on his winshield labeling him a donor. Needless to say, he has never gotten a ticket since he started donating. Funny how that works.

[Baldwin for Christ]

I got my definition from my own interpretation of free speech, which is very similiar if not identical to Murray Rothbard's. If I am a part owner of something (public property), I should be able to say whatever I want on it. The idea of me using government infrustructure rendering me a hypocrite is absurd, as I didn't ask to be born into this situation, and I do not intend on starving to death on the floor of my home because I refuse to use government built roads. Again, to the constitution. Im not talking about the U.S. governments interpretation of free speech, which is not very free. And the fact that free speech dosn't guarentee me a captive audience in a class is laughable, considering the point of public education is to supposibly teach us about other idea's. If it truly was for that, then whats wrong with free discussion in a classroom setting?

So not only do you present arguments indicative of an emotionally constipated kid, you don't even present a very original one.

The fact is, being "part" owner of anything doesn't give you unilateral rights, because there are other "owners". Your rights stop where other's begin. Getting that is a big, big part of growing up.

And teaching about "other's beliefs", while open dialogue and contribution is laudible, is not the same as saying that everyone around you has to listen to what you have to say when you want to say it when they are gathered for purposes that aren't entirely about you. (Again, a concept that's central to growing up).

[Baldwin for Christ]

Is there really no part of you that recongizes it was the contrived hyperbole of your examples that make them ridiculous?

I really hope you outgrow this adolescent victim mentality that you're so mired in, or you're going to need a lot more government help over the years than you're ostensibly sincere beliefs would allow you to accept...

The jews had a victim mentality too. Fuck em. Damn kids and their silly notions of right and wrong.

Yes, of course, now your situation is comparable to that of the Jews. I'm sure we can bulldoze Auschwitz and replace it with a memorial to your ability to say "ass".

You do realize that your'e coming off as more and more of pissy child, right?

[Person012345]

Maybe it could be argued against blacks etc. but the police don't go around ticketing people because they saw an anarchy book in the back seat of a car travelling at 100mph. It's more likely to be the whole "100 mph" thing.

My friend donates to the police ball fundraiser every year and puts a sticker on his winshield labeling him a donor. Needless to say, he has never gotten a ticket since he started donating. Funny how that works.

your point being?

[Bendira]

I got my definition from my own interpretation of free speech, which is very similiar if not identical to Murray Rothbard's. If I am a part owner of something (public property), I should be able to say whatever I want on it. The idea of me using government infrustructure rendering me a hypocrite is absurd, as I didn't ask to be born into this situation, and I do not intend on starving to death on the floor of my home because I refuse to use government built roads. Again, to the constitution. Im not talking about the U.S. governments interpretation of free speech, which is not very free. And the fact that free speech dosn't guarentee me a captive audience in a class is laughable, considering the point of public education is to supposibly teach us about other idea's. If it truly was for that, then whats wrong with free discussion in a classroom setting?

So not only do you present arguments indicative of an emotionally constipated kid, you don't even present a very original one.

The fact is, being "part" owner of anything doesn't give you unilateral rights, because there are other "owners". Your rights stop where other's begin. Getting that is a big, big part of growing up.

And teaching about "other's beliefs", while open dialogue and contribution is laudible, is not the same as saying that everyone around you has to listen to what you have to say when you want to say it when they are gathered for purposes that aren't entirely about you. (Again, a concept that's central to growing up).

Well thanks "Mr. Christ" for giving me the generic "you need to grow up" argument. Thats a really good argument, because it accurately refutes what I have to say, amirite? Being a part owner of something actually does give you certain rights, in the business world anyways. Which is why I am for the privitization of all public property. And the fact that I need to grow up because I think you should be able to speak freely in a classroom is lol.