- Joined
- Jan 2, 2009
- Messages
- 17,927
- Reaction score
- 10,823
- Location
- Washington State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
No, but I could probably find quite a few that were shot for pointing their middle finger.
It's a behaviour problem. The boy, Nathan was part of a larger group of boys that were playing cops and robbers in the classrooms, in the halls, all over the school, ignoring teachers, upsetting other students, disrupting class and creating an atmosphere of unruliness and chaos. Over the course of a month, the school sent out many letters to all the parents warning them of the problem and that there would be consequences if the behaviour continued. Nathan was the first boy to get caught and he admits he was warned. So what exactly is your problem? Do the teachers have a right to control the classroom in their care? Are they there to teach or babysit? Do you want them to be responsible for your kids? Then stop undermining and attacking them or your kids won't have any teachers or schools at all. Hard labor and low wages will be the future for your kids. Do you understand now or are your knees still jerking?
OMG, boys being boys. Well hell, lets make them wear dresses to school.It's a behaviour problem. The boy, Nathan was part of a larger group of boys that were playing cops and robbers in the classrooms, in the halls, all over the school, ignoring teachers, upsetting other students, disrupting class and creating an atmosphere of unruliness and chaos. Over the course of a month, the school sent out many letters to all the parents warning them of the problem and that there would be consequences if the behaviour continued. Nathan was the first boy to get caught and he admits he was warned. So what exactly is your problem? Do the teachers have a right to control the classroom in their care? Are they there to teach or babysit? Do you want them to be responsible for your kids? Then stop undermining and attacking them or your kids won't have any teachers or schools at all. Hard labor and low wages will be the future for your kids. Do you understand now or are your knees still jerking?
Most bullies are cowards, who only pick on victims that they do not expect to fight back.
If a bully picks on someone smaller and weaker than himself, but his victim does fight back, the bully is going to get hurt. Perhaps he won't be hurt as badly as his victim, but he will be hurt. And next time, he'll choose a different victim, and hope that that victim doesn't fight back. The one who fought back, he'll likely leave alone.
If a rule or law is wrong then I have no problem with my kids not obeying such. You don't get rid of bad laws/rules by sitting down and obeying them. Just ask Rosa Parks.
Over the top hyperbole and gross exaggeration hardly serves any point you are trying to make. If you enroll your kids in a school and you have an issue with them following the rules of that school- find another school to your liking or better yet - you become the school and home school them. Make sure you advise them to NOT obey their teacher there also and to question that teachers authority and disobey if necessary. That would be poetic justice. DO NOT undermine the ability of the school to take care of its student population by telling your kids NOT to follow rules and disobey them.
And I have no idea what any of that has to do with fascism.
I fully disagree, most people that were considered bullies in our schools. Were in actuality pretty much sissies once they were tagged and tagged hard.Most bullies are not cowards and generally are tougher than other kids. Television has presented the fiction you tell for decades, and how the smaller kid wins because he's braver. From Opy on Andy Griffith to the Karate Kid, this is a theme told a thousand times. Good always triumphs and fights are won by courage against cowardly bullies. There is not reality in those fictions. TV and movies are not reality. Who wins a fight is the better fighter. It's that simple.
Telling your kid to fight someone much larger than him - as young as 10? - and that you would be embarrassed of him if not is horrible parenting advise in my opinion.
Are we really talking about MY kid? Mine knew to NEVER back down, back away, grovel, cry or beg. Mine, like me, were told as soon as it looked like you were going be pushed, touched, punched, slapped to go for it. Knock the crap out of them. I got your back. But dont let me find out that you were the bully. My parents and then me raised no sissies.
They were also told once it was on, it was on till the end. And everything was fair. Everything. Anyway you can cause them pain do it.
Let me guess, you told yours to run and find a teacher. Who wouldnt care if your kid was laying there in a pool of blood.
Fascism is about obeying an order blindly, without thought. If my child can think for himself and he clearly sees a rule that is stupid or nonsensical he is free to disobey that rule and I will defend him. Blindly obeying authority is a dangerous precedent to teach to a child- there must be a reason and a good reason why a child should obey a rule and its not simply because someone higher up than him tells him so.
That is horrific parenting advise in my opinion. Yes, I would want my child to tell a teacher and to tell me. I would want her to avoid the fight. In addition, generally if there is a fight the school will treat both as equally responsible and suspend or expel them both, Education and grades were the highest priority of her education and being expelled for fighting would severely damage her academic record. That doesn't seem to have been your priority by your messages.
Where I grew up the men forced the boys to fight and gambled on the outcome. The loser often was brutally abused and assaulted in sadistic ways. I was likely in over 1000 such fights by age 15, when I successful fled using great violence to do so. What you are posting about courage and being in the right wins a fight is total nonsense.
Your message is radical, very. That if you kid though someone might be going to shove them, you want your kid to rip out that other kids eyes permanently blinding the other kid, stomp on the other kids face and throat, beat that other kid with a metal chair and any and all other violence and injury. Simply put, those words are you telling your kid to be a terribly violent bully himself. But, then, I suspect they are just words and nothing else. Hopefully if not your kid was smarter than to listen to you.
I would never encourage my child to get in a fight my child couldn't win and certainly would not disown or be embarrassed of my child for not doing so. That is not only terrible advise, it is very stupid and in my opinion evil parental demands on a child. While I don't know you or your kid, it is likely mine kid could "beat the crap" out of your kid or you - and she's female. But I would want her to avoid a fight at school in everyway possible and for her to know that she does not have to prove her courage, toughness or skill to anyone. If a fight thrust upon her I would want her to get out of it as quickly as possible and go directly to school staff over it.
One can suspect all they want, but the bottom line is it is plain stupid to expel a student for pointing a finger.
I quit reading at the 1000 fights you were in Bruce.
OMG, boys being boys. Well hell, lets make them wear dresses to school.
Now, you are putting words in my mouth. As usual. I never said the "school should" do anything. But "I" was brought up to not back down when it was obvious someone was going to make contact. I passed that on. You have issue with that.I don't care to go further down this path with you, particularly with 2 mod warnings already about too deeply personalizing this.
Back on topic directly, if what the 10 year old did was bullying or to intimidate another child, that warranted punishment. If he had been doing so before, told to stop and notices of the problem to the parent(s) and it continued, that would warrant a suspension. It wouldn't be a "gun" rules violation, but a violation of rules against bullying and harassing other students.
It absolutely is not correctly addressed by having the two boys fight-it out in the school yard, which appears what you think the school should do and is the answer to bullying.
It's a behaviour problem. The boy, Nathan was part of a larger group of boys that were playing cops and robbers in the classrooms, in the halls, all over the school, ignoring teachers, upsetting other students, disrupting class and creating an atmosphere of unruliness and chaos. Over the course of a month, the school sent out many letters to all the parents warning them of the problem and that there would be consequences if the behaviour continued. Nathan was the first boy to get caught and he admits he was warned. So what exactly is your problem? Do the teachers have a right to control the classroom in their care? Are they there to teach or babysit? Do you want them to be responsible for your kids? Then stop undermining and attacking them or your kids won't have any teachers or schools at all. Hard labor and low wages will be the future for your kids. Do you understand now or are your knees still jerking?
Now, you are putting words in my mouth. As usual. I never said the "school should" do anything. But "I" was brought up to not back down when it was obvious someone was going to make contact. I passed that on. You have issue with that.
Good for you. We raise no sissies in our home.
There was a link at the bottom of your ABC article that said it came from the Colombus dispatch. Press that link button and you get the full article. The ABC article you posted appears to be an RSS feed.I haven't seen that part about playing cops and robbers after repeatedly told to stop. The OP link I posted stated he was suspended for 3 days as a zero-tolerance on "guns" for pointing a finger like a gun at another kid's head.
Now you are claiming that isn't what happened at all, but rather was suspended for being disorderly and refusing to stop. Is the original report totally factually wrong? Is the school now changing it's story?
Those are two ENTIRELY different reasons why he was suspended. Which one is it?
Strawman? In what way exactly? I clearly stated the time to dispute a policy is when it is proposed before the school board or school itself. Once it is the official policy, then a responsible parent can pursue several avenues including lobbying for a change, removing the child from school to a different school where the policies are different, or even home schooling. I was very clear that the responsible parent DOES NOT use their child as some sort of insurgent being taught to break the rules as that only undermines the school and the population of the school.
Now how is that a strawman?
Now, you are putting words in my mouth. As usual. I never said the "school should" do anything. But "I" was brought up to not back down when it was obvious someone was going to make contact. I passed that on. You have issue with that.
Good for you. We raise no sissies in our home.
There was a link at the bottom of your ABC article that said it came from the Colombus dispatch. Press that link button and you get the full article. The ABC article you posted appears to be an RSS feed.
because it has nothing to do with my post. schools are suppose to use logic and thinking skills that is what school is about. no tolerance policies are the exact opposite of that. it is the opposite of having to think and use your brain.
The policy is stupid which is why states legislature are trying to pass laws to prevent this very thing from happening. If a teacher or principle can't tell the difference between a threat and general kid play then they need to quit their job.
no tolerance goes against the very reason that people go to school. to learn to think and to analyze a situation and make a logical decision.
So if a teacher told you take your seat and be quiet, what are you going to do, beat her/him up? And you wonder why there is 'zero tolerance" policies? Stop wondering, it's people like you that are the reason.
because it has nothing to do with my post. schools are suppose to use logic and thinking skills that is what school is about. no tolerance policies are the exact opposite of that. it is the opposite of having to think and use your brain.
The policy is stupid which is why states legislature are trying to pass laws to prevent this very thing from happening. If a teacher or principle can't tell the difference between a threat and general kid play then they need to quit their job.
no tolerance goes against the very reason that people go to school. to learn to think and to analyze a situation and make a logical decision.
The school felt otherwise and they have a right to do that. If you do not like the school rules - you can
1- lobby the school to change them
2- lobby the school board to change them
3- find a school with rules more to your liking
4- home school your own children
Your reply was civil disobedience. Do you even know the purpose of civil disobedience? The whole idea is to break the law or rule, stand trial for it, let your example serve to turn the public against the policy. It is not to have your kids break the rules and then pretend they can get away with it because Macho Man back home wants them to grow an bigger pair and has trouble with authority.
Sorry pal - but it did not work that way. Never in all my 33 classroom years did any parent triumph in a dispute about the rules the way you pretend you would. That is from real life.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?