I can't find the exact quote you are refering to but here are a few that
Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and die.
-- Herbert Clark Hoover
I hate those men who would send into war youth to fight and die for
them; the pride and cowardice of those old men, making their wars that
boys must die.
-- Mary Roberts Rinehart
I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to
-- George McGovern
But is it illegal to WISH you could kill the president? That is very
different than actually making a threat.
I'm even less happy with laws that make it illegal for me to do something
because of how someone else MIGHT abuse what I use in my activity. That
should be unconstitutional. in fact, it *IS* unconstitutional, as it
interferes with my "pursuit of happiness..."
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
If you believe that someone who believes that someone needs to be
institutionalized for twisting a fictional hypothetical situation into a death
threat needs to be institutionalized, then you need to be institutionalized,
and anyone who disagrees with that needs to be institutionalized too,
plus anybody who responds to this message, so neener-neener.
Okay, how about remedial English 090?
If <hypothetical situation> then <hypothetical action> # Declaration
of intent to perform <hypothetical action> in the real world.
Are you with me so far?
Is there actually any other -rational- way to interpret it? If so,
please illuminate me.
Because you're dealing with the mentality of teenagers -- and every time
we have one of the 'Columbine' things (or more recently, the murder of
Daniel Horowitz' wife by a 16-year-old 'goth'), we keep asking "why
didn't someone recognize the SIGNS???"
Erego, as a matter of policy, such threats against the president are
taken seriously (as in investigated and a determination of their
seriousness made). It's the same thing as saying 'bomb' in an airplane,
or do you not understand that one either?
Um, because the "signs" are being interpreted subjectively and
Ergo, and as a matter of policy, perhaps there ought to be an
objective threat against the President, or anyone else for that
matter, before you make an arrest. Sadly, I do understand that it is
the same thing today as saying 'bomb' in an airplane. I understand
the difference between saying 'bomb' and saying 'I have a bomb' as
well, and I mourn the loss of good sense that has made the former
probable cause for arrest and harassment.
But hey! If it only saves one life. . . Bah. If it only saved one
life I might get behind it. What I can't get behind is saving only
one set of hurt feelings and catering to irrational fears.
The code of conduct applies to the students and is fully explained at the
beginning of the school year, every year, in detail that a moron and their
parents can understand. It was nothing new to either. The girl fully
understood that she would get the reaction she got from the administration,
which at the very least would be expulsion. She got what she wanted.
It is a well known fact here that if you want out of school all you have to
do is imply a threat and you're gone.
Without exception zero tolerance ends up resulting in zero rational
thought on the part of those set to administer the policy. What a
waste for everyone involved.
Sorry, your "well known fact" scares the daylights out of me. I guess
my last word on the subject will be that if your code of conduct is so
subjective that someone can read a threat into the gal's writing and
successfully expell and prosecute her for it, I'm glad as hell that I
can still afford to send my son to a private school that rewards
critical thinking and creativity in both the staff and the students.
I'm sorry, just where did you see that they have "successfully expelled"
or even "prosecuted" her?
She was arrested. There will be a hearing today. The result of the
hearing is unknown (since it hasn't occurred yet). There is not a
single word that I could find in that article about her being expelled.
Frankly, I would be horrified if she WASN'T at least suspended for some
period of time.
I am also 100% against zero-tolerance -- but that's not what was applied
in this case (if you read the article and the circumstances). I am 100%
against what you appear to be preaching, which is "100% acceptance",
where no matter WHAT someone does in a school they're just being
'creative' or 'thinking critically'.
P.S. I would point out that when the girl was asked why she did it, the
response wasn't anything along the lines of "I was attempting to provoke
thought in my civics class by providing an exaggerated, satirical,
modern 'modest proposal'", it was more along the lines of "I dunno".
That strikes me as closer to John Hinckley than Jonathan Swift.
folded in the first place. As I remarked earlier, she's a clueless
piece of work.
Calling me a fan of 100% acceptance is kind of a reach. I will,
however, accept 100% of anything that is legal and doesn't actually
harm someone else (this does not include shattered sensibilities or
hurt feelings however). It doesn't have to be in good taste or even
especially smart. This is the U.S. It's our $Diety given right to be
flaming idiots as you and I are proving now with our respective
exaggerations to make our points.
Of course, if the bullies, jocks, populars, normals, etc. threaten an
uncool, you can be almost certain that teacher's eye will be
Of course the other way around, you get your Zero Tolerance.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.