man this is messed up, how can the knif weilding pyro maniac get away with it while the victims has to continue suffering god this is sick
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
One of the many reasons I hate people.
- Thread starter MongoTheGeek
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is pretty sickening. Around here, in the public schools, if two guys get into a fight, the police are called. I mean just a normal fight that will happen from time to time among adolecents. They take the kids into seperate rooms and try and talk them into pressing charges against one another. If nobody wants to press charges, then they are both charged with disorderly conduct. I had a teacher from West Virginia who said "Back home, the broke the fight up, and took the guys out back. They gave them both a pair of boxing gloves and made them finish it there! There weren't a whole lot of fights because kids knew they were going to have to finish what the started, with no friends to jump in and nobody to save your butt!" Hell, if it is supervised and they don't let you kill anyone, this may just be the way to go! It makes me sick that in one town, a normal fight results in criminal charges, while in other areas people can be picked on for no reason, with serious threats and assults with weapons, and nothing happens.
My four year old was getting bullied at daycare last year! It was another four year old, but twice his size. His father was a big ole fat hillbilly in his 40's who thought it was funny. My sone would cry in the morning, not wanting to go to daycare. I teach my kids not to fight, not even hit a person back unless you are backed into a corner and have no choice. But, we had tried everything. We told Micah to keep being nice to the kid. We talked to the teacher, owner of the daycare, parents, an aunt. Nothing changed. Finally, I told him to hit the kid back. I said that it only applied to this kid, and the old rule about not hitting unless you have to stays the same for everyone else. (I guess, in a way, he had to.) So, the kid comes up and pushes him down and then does some WWE wrestling move where he jumps on him with his elbow extended. Micah got up and punched him right in his nose. The kid left him alone for a couple of days, then he started hitting Micah and then running off. So, I told Micah to next time grab his shirt and keep hitting him until the teacher stops him. Same thing. It worked once, then the kid would hit him, and spin to free himself and run away. We decided to take Micah out of the daycare. (Quit a shame, considering my wife works there!) Micah's best friend Robby is in his class, so Micah didn't want to leave the daycare. During what would have been his last week, the other kid came up and hit him again. I guess Micah just snapped. He grabbed the kid's shirt with both hand and started shaking him. He fell backward into a bookshelf and knocked it over! Micah started pounding his stomach and saying "You stupid butthead. Leave me alone! I don't want a new daycare. I told you not to touch me!" The poor kid didn't even look at Micah for the rest of the week, so we left him in daycare. We never heard of any more problems with the two fighting. One day, Micah said "Daddy, Travis said we can be friends now if I don't beat him up again." And they are cool now. I feel sorry for Travis, though. His dad encourages this crap, and one day when he is older he is going to get himself killed.
My four year old was getting bullied at daycare last year! It was another four year old, but twice his size. His father was a big ole fat hillbilly in his 40's who thought it was funny. My sone would cry in the morning, not wanting to go to daycare. I teach my kids not to fight, not even hit a person back unless you are backed into a corner and have no choice. But, we had tried everything. We told Micah to keep being nice to the kid. We talked to the teacher, owner of the daycare, parents, an aunt. Nothing changed. Finally, I told him to hit the kid back. I said that it only applied to this kid, and the old rule about not hitting unless you have to stays the same for everyone else. (I guess, in a way, he had to.) So, the kid comes up and pushes him down and then does some WWE wrestling move where he jumps on him with his elbow extended. Micah got up and punched him right in his nose. The kid left him alone for a couple of days, then he started hitting Micah and then running off. So, I told Micah to next time grab his shirt and keep hitting him until the teacher stops him. Same thing. It worked once, then the kid would hit him, and spin to free himself and run away. We decided to take Micah out of the daycare. (Quit a shame, considering my wife works there!) Micah's best friend Robby is in his class, so Micah didn't want to leave the daycare. During what would have been his last week, the other kid came up and hit him again. I guess Micah just snapped. He grabbed the kid's shirt with both hand and started shaking him. He fell backward into a bookshelf and knocked it over! Micah started pounding his stomach and saying "You stupid butthead. Leave me alone! I don't want a new daycare. I told you not to touch me!" The poor kid didn't even look at Micah for the rest of the week, so we left him in daycare. We never heard of any more problems with the two fighting. One day, Micah said "Daddy, Travis said we can be friends now if I don't beat him up again." And they are cool now. I feel sorry for Travis, though. His dad encourages this crap, and one day when he is older he is going to get himself killed.
musicpyrite said:I try to hide the fact that im dyslexic, but some how, people still find out - and make fun of me for it.
I feel like shi* half the time at school
sometimes i just wanna say "F*** IT!"
I'll tell you what bro, You shouldn't feel ashamed for your dyslexia. I'm dyslexic and while it sucks sometimes (esp. when I have to read massive texts and and write papers), I look at it as an advantage. Although little is known about the cause of dyslexia, I believe us dyslexics are capable of higher-order problem solving due to our non-linear "thinking outside of the box" brain processes. On the whole, we are more creative than the rest, and if I could take a pill to make it go away I wouldn't because it is an important part of who I am, and I've learned to be proud of that. As for those little bi.....es in your school giving you a hard time, screw them, because you have a special gift that most people will never get (we're in good company check these guys out: http://www.dyslexia.com/qafame.htm). I know they may be popular now, but from my experience, the kids who were prom king and queen/bullies in High School either (a) didn't go to college and are working in fast food places with 3 kids at the age of 20, or (b) went off to college and got STD's or drank/drugged themselves out of school and are looking for ways to pay back those college loans. I know High School can suck at times, but trust me, if you hang in there for a few more years, you'll find that college is a whole different game. Feel free to PM me sometime if you ever wana chat about stuff.
JesseJames said:
The thing is that some kids are not as strong as you or i were in school (I too was the brunt of attacks). That is one of the reasons behind teen suicide.
No one should suffer from scars from their school years. Life will provide those in later years.
It's amazing how evil kids can be! But to send a ray of light in to this fog of childhood traumas (I have mine to):
One thing I have noticed on my way through the educational system, a journey I'm about to end, is that people have kept getting nicer and nicer, more and more sensible
Hope I'm not the only one with this experience...
One thing I have noticed on my way through the educational system, a journey I'm about to end, is that people have kept getting nicer and nicer, more and more sensible
Hope I'm not the only one with this experience...
GorillaPaws said:
I went to Carnegie Mellon. Our football team got great support from the band. When ever the opposing team scored the band cheered "That's alright, that's okay, They're gonna work for us someday."
Determination and finding what you are good at can lead to incredible success despite tremendous adversity.
latergator116 said:
Somehow I think this is good....
I was 15. 6'7" and 145 lbs. I got teased a lot. One guy kept it up one day. I threw my books down and beat the living **** out of him. 2 days suspended, the rest of my days at school were quiet... not one bully. And that guy actually became a friend.... maybe he saw the error of his ways, maybe he grew up respecting violence as a means to an end.
Throwing someone down the stairs is pretty dangerous though.
Revenge and harming others goes against every fiber of my being, but sometimes it just has to be done.
MongoTheGeek said:
*lol* - makes me wonder where my chilhood bullies are now ...they sure ain't working for me...hmm, some of them were the arcetypical nasty rich-kids, they have probably all finished business or law school by now (that's where dumb arcetypical nasty rich-kids go in Denmark
)
MongoTheGeek said:
Um, where do you live, I'll come threaten you with a knife and then set your hair on fire. I bet you were never threatened with such things when you were in school but children should never have to face that. Especially when the superintendent knows but doesn't do a damn thing. Send the victim home and let the attacker continue schooling. That kid should be suspended, told not to return, and not allowed to move to the next grade, thus making him repeat the grade he is presently in again. That should teach him the meaning of respect. And If I was that childs father, I would take him down town and thrown in jail.
when i was in elementry school i was quite over weight and stuttered really bad. i got picked on a lot. i beat the tar out of a lot of people. if my grandma hadn't working their i would have gotten into a lot more trouble than i did. only suspended a couple times i think. no one really messed with me, at least to my face.
like Mongo says, once you're in the real world all this crap stops and people actually are grown up, and even if there's someone who's not, there are more people who are mature to get your back.
i hated elementry school, i hated middle school, i hated high school... now i have a successful job and i'm starting to enjoy life after all those wasted years (not an endorsement to not go to school, go, it just sucks sometimes).
anywho... </rant>
like Mongo says, once you're in the real world all this crap stops and people actually are grown up, and even if there's someone who's not, there are more people who are mature to get your back.
i hated elementry school, i hated middle school, i hated high school... now i have a successful job and i'm starting to enjoy life after all those wasted years (not an endorsement to not go to school, go, it just sucks sometimes).
anywho... </rant>
You shouldn't let people think that being dyslexic is embarrasing to you, since that will feed their desire to pick on you. Simply state that Einstein was dyslexic, so you have no problem with it.
musicpyrite said:I know how you feel.
I'm only a freshmen in high school.
lived in california untill 11 years old - got picked on
lived in georgia until 13 years old - got picked on
currently living in massachusetts - get picked on
I try to hide the fact that im dyslexic, but some how, people still find out - and make fun of me for it.
I feel like shi* half the time at school
sometimes i just wanna say "F*** IT!"
(the parents should file a suit)
I believe the idea is that some people are not developed enough to comprehend the higher forms of communication to resolve a dispute. But, those people do understand the simplest form, which is: a fist to the face. For those of us who do understand more complex communication, that can be loosely translated to: When you hurt me, I will hurt you back. Typically people don't like being hurt, so they back off.
And before you state that that would be "lowering" oneself to their level, I disagree. I think it's simply teaching them boundary lessons that their parents never did, so that they can learn to live at our level.
And before you state that that would be "lowering" oneself to their level, I disagree. I think it's simply teaching them boundary lessons that their parents never did, so that they can learn to live at our level.
legion said:Yes.. that's just great. Let's just encourage more violence in the world to solve problems.
MarkCollette said:
that's a very interesting point of view on the subject and one that i might agree with. i've often felt the same way but have never been able to put it into words as you have.
Stories like these are why I laugh at the idea of the "innocence" of children. I can remember coming home in fifth grade and rationalizing to my mom the treatment I received this way: Children are no less than animals in the process of being civilized. Until the veneer of morality and codes of behavior has been applied over their basic animal nature, they will continue to act like little beasts.
Although I'll never condone it, I know exactly why the Columbine killers were able to do what they did. When everyone around you isolates you and tells you you're different, you have a couple of choices: Believe them that this is a bad thing, and forfeit any self-esteem you may have left; or say to yourself that different is good. Better, in fact, because you can see this other level and those who torment you can't. It's the "superiority of perception" argument.
Once you go too far down that road, it's a pretty short hop to the dehumanization of others that allows people to kill each other.
Although I'll never condone it, I know exactly why the Columbine killers were able to do what they did. When everyone around you isolates you and tells you you're different, you have a couple of choices: Believe them that this is a bad thing, and forfeit any self-esteem you may have left; or say to yourself that different is good. Better, in fact, because you can see this other level and those who torment you can't. It's the "superiority of perception" argument.
Once you go too far down that road, it's a pretty short hop to the dehumanization of others that allows people to kill each other.
Les Kern said:
Wow! 6' 7" at 15! No wonder why you beat the **** out of him.
I don't think my brother meant to push him down the stairs. I think he was just trying push him to the ground. Even if he was trying to push him down the stairs, the kid deserved it...
MarkCollette said:
But the Good Book teaches us to turn the other cheek. And we see time and time again that violence only brings more violence.
The issue is that we need now more than ever a zero tolerance towards school bullying.
I'm not sure who said it but:
"The only dignified response to tyranny is violence."
I don't condone violence to solve disputes but sometimes you just have to open up a keg of whoopass. You know?
"The only dignified response to tyranny is violence."
I don't condone violence to solve disputes but sometimes you just have to open up a keg of whoopass. You know?
There is a computer simulation of society where little programs can trade resources, a good thing because they could then duplicate themselves when they got a variety. They can also cheat and not finish the trade. The researchers then let different algorithms battle it out.
The best algorithm was 'tit for tat'. The programs would trustingly trade resources. If a 'cheater' came along, they would all cheat for a while, until a super-trusting one broke the ice and they all reverted to trading (the cheater, in the meantime, had no advantage and was usually lost from the population.)
What that means is, be nice, but if someone comes along and tries to bully you, stop being nice. I guess it would be interesting if they ran it again but made 'bullies' that could just take stuff. Interesting to see what sort of response would evolve. ** Nerd program hacks into bully source code and removes replication routine **
The best algorithm was 'tit for tat'. The programs would trustingly trade resources. If a 'cheater' came along, they would all cheat for a while, until a super-trusting one broke the ice and they all reverted to trading (the cheater, in the meantime, had no advantage and was usually lost from the population.)
What that means is, be nice, but if someone comes along and tries to bully you, stop being nice. I guess it would be interesting if they ran it again but made 'bullies' that could just take stuff. Interesting to see what sort of response would evolve. ** Nerd program hacks into bully source code and removes replication routine **
Chip NoVaMac said:
I am sorry, but I must respectfully, and completely, disagree. I will ignore the religious statement, as it falls beyond the scope of this thread.
I think that it is not violence which breeds violence, but a misapplication of violence which breeds violence. People typically expect that if they bring a certain quantity of violence to bear on you, that they will receive a similar quantity in return. It's when the returned violence falls outside of this accepted range, that the violence levels increase.
By definition, the initiator of violence has given more than they have received, so yes, of course, they are breeding violence, and will undoubtedly receive even more in return.
And when an excessive amount has been returned, like when killing that person's love ones, then of course, that can be excessive, and escalate the violence.
But, on the other hand, when one returns too little violence, then one is showing a sign of weakness, which will be interpreted by the violent initiator as a sign that they may safely continue, and even escalate, their violence. In social settings, lack of disapproval of an action, is typically interpreted as approval of the action. It is no different with violence. In fact, sufficient lack of disapproval may well lead the attacker to believe that they may now start attacking other parties who are perceived to be weak. In this case, the "peaceful" victim, has now led to others being victimised.
Ideally, if one is at a disadvantage, and is unable to stop an attacker, one could appeal to authorities for protection. But, if the authority chooses not to intervene, then the victim will be even worse off, because they have been shown to be quite weak, and the attacker will have received non-disapproval from a higher authority. This is why one should typically attempt to protect themselves before appealing to an authority.
Being unable to protect oneself also leads to others respecting you less, even when those others are members of civil society, and are not of the debasing attacker mindset. When one is less respected, then one can be less certain of help from the group, as they will not want to be associated with your lower level of respect. Also, one is easier to demonize when one is less respected, so one is even more likely to be victimised.
The implications are clear: once another party has done, or threatenned to do, violence to you, then you are bound by a duty to yourself, and those around you, to respond. Your resulting violence should not be too little, or too much, and if you are incapable of reasonably responding, you should defer to an authority.
But, never acquiesce.
Unfortunately, I also disagree with your recommendations for "zero tolerance" towards the actions of children.
Children are people who are learning to live within the boundaries of adult life. Of course, the younger they are, the smaller the subset of adault life that they are restricted to. When children are learning to live within a boundary, they typically learn it, by crossing that boundary, feeling the consequences, and then learning not to cross it again. Since they are regularly infracting the boundaries, to have "zero tolerance" would simply make misfits of all children, and deny their natural learning mechanisms. Instead, authorities should use sound judgement of the situation to decide how much punishment, if at all, is required.
Violence among children is no different. Little scuffles should be treated differently then pathologically sadistic exploitation. They should never be lumped together. This also helps teach children the concept of shades of grey, which is vital in adult life.
And finally, I will leave you with a debatable assertion: small quantities of violence amongst children are necessary to prepare them for the much more violent adult life awaiting them. Of course, this violence should be tempered by judgement, and honour.
MarkCollette said:
My religious reference is the basis on the Faith upon which this nation was founded. I am sure that similar references can be found in other religious texts.
And it goes to the root of how we deal with each other, whether child or adult. It is the evaporation of the religious and moral fibers, and thoughts likes yours that has led us to a society of people that have little care for each other.
You talk of teaching children the boundaries of existing in the adult world. Your comments smack of what is better for the individual not for the body whole. Why else do we have people running red lights, doing well above the speed limit, and cutting each other off? Sometimes leading to bloodshed. Or worse the bloodshed at Columbine.
If my religious reference falls beyond the scope of the topic so does this non-secular BS.
Chip NoVaMac said:
That phrase has been used incorrectly for centuries. I learned this in my religion class in college. You might be suprised what it REALLY means...
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/143/story_14367_1.html
From the article:
"To illustrate with the saying about turning the other cheek: it specifies that the person has been struck on the right cheek. How can you be struck on the right cheek? As Wink emphasizes, you have to act this out in order to get the point: you can be struck on the right cheek only by an overhand blow with the left hand, or with a backhand blow from the right hand. (Try it).
But in that world, people did not use the left hand to strike people. It was reserved for "unseemly" uses. Thus, being struck on the right cheek meant that one had been backhanded with the right hand. Given the social customs of the day, a backhand blow was the way a superior hit an inferior, whereas one fought social equals with fists.
This means the saying presupposes a setting in which a superior is beating a peasant. What should the peasant do? "Turn the other cheek." What would be the effect? The only way the superior could continue the beating would be with an overhand blow with the fist--which would have meant treating the peasant as an equal.
Perhaps the beating would not have been stopped by this. But for the superior, it would at the very least have been disconcerting: he could continue the beating only by treating the peasant as a social peer. As Wink puts it, the peasant was in effect saying, "I am your equal. I refuse to be humiliated anymore."
Sorry for the hijack....but Jesus was more of a revolutionist than a passivist
agreenster said:
Not too further hijack the thread, but religious writings are open to interpretation in every way. Using historical context one could say that Homosexuality is more an issue of the times that the writings took place, than the "word" of God.
The point is that that since i was a young "pup", the "Church" has fallen out of favor. And with that there has been an increase in civil disorder. Please don't get me wrong. I am for the separation of Church and State.
What I am saying is that our "loss" of "Faith" is a partial root to some of the problems that we see in the world today. For myself "Faith" was taught from the bottom up. "Faith" could also be described as "right and wrong".
This reminds me of the 1980's mantra of "greed is good". I am tired of hearing that first place is the only place that counts in todays world.
What we are seeing in this thread is the reason that there are many students in schools today that don't fit in, or worse yet don't feel safe.
Chip NoVaMac said:
My posting was my opinion of how to deal with brutish people who have themselves decided not to abide by the rules of society. Whether those rules are derived from your faith, some special book, a social contract, or otherwise, is pretty much irrelevant, since they have none-the-less chosen to break those rules. That is why your religious comment was irrelevant to my posting.
I find it laudable that you aspire to some greater cause, but if your methods remain ineffective at protecting those whom you are responsible for, then perhaps you should remain open to differing opinions. This is not a personal attack, but a response to your advice of turning the other cheek. I dare say it is impossible to turn the other cheek when some criminal has already shot you dead.
I have no idea how thoughts like mine are responsible for any wrong in this world. I am merely a pragmatist, who prefers to understand the world as best as I can, using tools of analysis and empericism. If some religious belief will hold up to those tools, then I will gladly follow it, and if does not, then I fail to see how that can lead to wrong.
I fail to see how preparing children for the rest of their lives is somehow indicative of a preference of individualism over collectivism. In fact, one must respect boundaries more if one wishes to be a good citizen of a group. So, if I advocate a more effective method of teaching boundaries, then I am obviously not favoring individualism. Perhapse you feel instead that my suggestion was not actually more effective. That I could understand. In which case I would ask you to show me a better way, not because I wish to debate you, but because I prefer to be corrected when I am wrong.
I assume that when you refer to my writing as "non-secular BS", that you actually mean secular. Hopefully my responses have sufficiently corrected your misconceptions that you will not feel the need to call them "BS".
trudd said:
I agree, Its alot more serious than that, Buring someone hair? How did the kid do that|? Maybe the school didnt look at that and think maybe the kid might try buring down the school next, and the Knife?? Good idea, leave him in school so he might get pissed off on day and stab a student or something.
Someone at that school ought to be lossing their job!