quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: When I was in High School, the Adams boy was suspended for holding feet with his girlfriend under the table in biology class. That's not even necking.
Holding feet? How the heck does that work? Were their big toes opposable?
I think it was interlocking the feet, like imagine going arm in arm with somebody.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Newsflash. Middle school students have always described school as a prison. It is one of the oldest cliche-metaphors going.
Yes... but this is a rather big problem, isn't it?
No. I think it is a natural part of adolescent development to see adults, the rule-makers, as oppressors.
Many teachers who enjoy being popular with children become the cool teachers who don't follow the rules and let kids get away with them. When I look back over my years of being in school, I have a good deal of the "ew" factor when I think of them.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edited to add: Pink Floyd references aside, I do agree this is a big problem. It is, though, unavoidable (I think) when you are dealing with groups this size.
I know there are many kids who go to camps that have hundreds of kids, yet they do not describe the camps as prisons. I also know for a fact that the same kids who said Middle School was like a prison also said their Elementary Schools did not feel that way - despite the fact that Elementary Schools (at least where I live) contain hundreds of kids as well. Thus I don't think the number of kids alone makes it unavoidable. Rather, I'd argue that the structure of the secondary school system is what makes it unavoidable.
quote:I think it is a natural part of adolescent development to see adults, the rule-makers, as oppressors.
Again, if this is the case, why aren't all adult-run activities considered oppressive? A great many kids are involved in at least some sort of adult-run activity that they enjoy. Many others are involved in activities that their parents force them to do, but that I suspect they don't consider oppressive. In fact, I can't think of anything other than school from when I was younger that I considered to be prison-like.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We(general we) are afraid to tell our kids to sit down and shut the heck up, because we might impinge on their personal rights.
Personally, I very rarely see this idea in practice. Far more often I see adults telling their kids (and kids they don't even know at all) to shut up and sit down and behave, often through threateningly clenched teeth or with hands of steel wrenching the kid's arm off.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many teachers who enjoy being popular with children become the cool teachers who don't follow the rules and let kids get away with them.
Elizabeth, when my daughter heard I was going back to school to get my education degree, she begged me not to become the "cool teacher" that wanted to be every students' friend. Teachers like that, in her words, are "sad."
Xap, I think that it's a bit unfair to compare middle school to summer camp. Summer camp is two weeks and completely voluntary, there is no law that says you must go to summer camp. Middle school on the other hand is required. And the big difference between elementary school and secondary schools isn't the way it's run or structured, but the age of the kids. In fact, secondary schools offer kids more freedom of choice. My daughter gets to determine her schedule and take several elective classes per year.
Yet, as the teachers here have pointed out, the "school is a prison" attitude many kids have in middle school persists. I think it's a function of adolescence, not anything the schools are doing wrong.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Xap, I think that it's a bit unfair to compare middle school to summer camp. Summer camp is two weeks and completely voluntary, there is no law that says you must go to summer camp.
Not to mention the lack of required curriculum.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I go to Prince William County Schools, which are the schools right beside the ones in Fairfax County. I can tell you that they may honestly have a legit claim when it comes to overcrowded schools and gang activity because just 3 years ago, when I was in middle school, there were some pretty high profile gangs getting involved in trying to recruit kids at school. There were a ton of fights, and there was so much of a problem of overcrowding that they eventually turned a high school that had just been finished being built into a Middle School. Now that school, which draws from like 30 different communities, has the responsibility of keeping these 4000 kids away from the drugs and guns that come with the nieghborhoods they live in. The school I attended wouldn't allow guys to wear pink shirts, because at the time it was a gang sign. Northern Virginia honestly isn't the rich suburb that everybody thinks it is.
However, a lot of this also has to do with the fact that many of the principles and administrators of the middle schools in my area are well over 50, which means that they may have a different set of morals than the kids and the parents. This may also be influencing their decision, especially in the case that the article provided cited. A lot, I repeat, a lot of the problem is caused by the fact that Northern VA is growing way too quickly for the current school system to catch up, and this means that there will always be kids in school who feel that they have lost their personal space.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The school I attended wouldn't allow guys to wear pink shirts, because at the time it was a gang sign."
This is a good point, and one the media would pick up on and say, "Can you believe this? They are outlawing pink shirts in schools!" For a while, it was the one rolled pants leg. The colored bandanas. Sometimes, I could see how a high-five could be an act of violence. It sounds crazy, out of context, but kids are sometimes diabolically brilliant at sending messages of harm to others.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"However, a lot of this also has to do with the fact that many of the principles and administrators of the middle schools in my area are well over 50, which means that they may have a different set of morals than the kids and the parents."
Exactly. Those darned baby-boomers were all so rigid in their morals, growing up in the Sixties and all.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: Exactly. Those darned baby-boomers were all so rigid in their morals, growing up in the Sixties and all.
No, don't take it the wrong way, but I mean there is obviously a large generation gap. A lot of what was not acceptable then is acceptable now and vice versa.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not taking it the wrong way. There is always a generation gap. It is just that, if anything, an administrator in hsi or her fifties has been through some pretty liberal times.(they may not be liberal, of course, but it was a time of great change) The fact remains that middle school kids, and high school kids, are all about testing the limits, and finding out what the boundaries are. It doesn't matter who is in charge(though some people are decidedly better administrators than others)
I think Mark Twain said what I am thinking better than I am trying to say it:
"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."
(sometimes the quote is "when I was sixteen" but you get the point.)
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I sympathize with the parents who think kids should be allowed to shake hands and hug one another, I totally understand where the school is coming from on this one.
There are three big problems the school needs to control.
1. fighting (self evident) 2. Gangs (hand shakes and high fives are often gang behavior) 3. Sexual harassment
All of these are serious problems that the school needs to keep undercontrol. While as a responsible adult its seems that one should be able to distinguish between touching as part of one of these three problems and normal healthy human contact, we aren't talking about reasonable adults. We are talking about middle school kids many of whom see it as their role in the world to push the boundaries set by adults.
Furthermore, its often difficult to draw a clear line. How does a rule distinguish between the guy that is touching a consenting girl friend and one who is harassing a girl with unwanted touching? How do you make rules that have clearly defined lines without being overly complex? I recently spend a week as an adult leader for a group of 15 year olds and while most of them were responsible and cooperative, a few were a real pain in the neck.
I know very well that if the rules allowed appropriate touching, the Principal and teachers would get arguments from every student ask to stop inappropriate behavior. I suspect thats how they ended up with this super strict rule to begin with.
"She was fine with me kissing her saturday, how was I supposed to know she didn't want her bum pinched today"
"We weren't fighting, it was all in fun"
"Those weren't gang handshakes, we learned them in boyscouts."
When dealing with teenagers its often easier to make a simple strict rule than to deal with every case individually.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How does a rule distinguish between the guy that is touching a consenting girl friend and one who is harassing a girl with unwanted touching?
I think if you managed to it in your sentance, they can manage to do it in the rule.
Just sayin'.
Let me give you an example you might relate to.
Let's say the group of boys you were watching was closer to junior high age. 12, rather than 15.
And while a few of them were a real pain in the neck, a couple of them are great boys. Never a problem. They get along with each other really well. They pal around a lot, they play games together, they're the best of friends. Like the lady sang about in that song in Fox and the Hound.
And while they're walking one of the days, one of them puts his arm around his buddy as they talk. They've never been closer.
But you've got this rule about no touching. And while you realize there's nothing wrong with what they're doing, just because you don't want to have an argument later with somebody else about some other form of contact, you make him take his hand off his shoulder.
He's not in trouble, you don't yell at him, you just go, "Uh-uh, guys," and make them break the embrace.
Well, both boys were enjoying the affection. They saw nothing wrong with it, and they saw nothing sexual about it. But now they've been sent the message that it's "wrong."
So they're left with the message that affection is wrong, which implies that enjoying affection is wrong. Which makes them think they're bad for wanting something that, to be perfectly honest, there's nothing wrong with.
Where does this go? Maybe nowhere. Maybe they both just shrug and go on. Or maybe one of them starts to think that maybe the affection was more sexual than he thought it was, otherwise why would it be wrong? Or, they go on with their friendship, but it's still kind of awkward, because now before they can spontaneously show affection in healthy ways, they always have to think about it and wonder if it's okay or not.
I am not just saying, "Oh, that's a silly rule they made up for no reason." I understand they have reasons for making the rule. Everybody who's ever so much as seen a movie about teenagers understands why they made this rule, let alone people who've worked with them.
What I'm suggesting is that even through they legitimate reasons for making it, if enforced, this rule will cause actual, real harm to the good kids.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The crux of the matter, though is that we need to educate in general about these issues, and health classes are one of the first to go in the pass-the-state-tes world.
Most of the time, if kids understand the difference, they will be OK. Some will not ever be OK with limits.
There are also an incredible amount of people who simply hate being touched. I was one. I hated hated hated being hugged, and still do, in general, unless I feel very comfortable with someone.
What I tell fifth graders is just that. I tell them how different people have different comfort levels. One great thing to do is the proximity test. Have kids(or adults!) stand in a line facing a partner. Start the other partner about ten steps away, and come a step closer. The people on the line not moving have to be honest about when they feel the "ew" factor take over. Mine is pretty far away. Some people are OK with someone coming right into their faces.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xap, I think that it's a bit unfair to compare middle school to summer camp. Summer camp is two weeks and completely voluntary, there is no law that says you must go to summer camp. Middle school on the other hand is required.
So do you think that if there was a law requiring summer camp for adolescents, the kids would consider it a prison?
I'm not sure that you are giving adolescents enough credit when you suggest their thoughts on school are just a phase. My suspicion is that adults, if subject to the same envirnoment that exists for students in many middle and high schools, would feel it is like a prison too. I'm inclined to think that the structure of the school is much more to blame, and that there are probably schools out there that do not feel like a prison to the kids.
quote:So they're left with the message that affection is wrong, which implies that enjoying affection is wrong.
Or they are left with the message that adults/teachers have no common sense about what is right and what is wrong. That lack of credibility would be a problem if adults/teachers are then asked to teach kids to have character, or to not do drugs, etc.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:[/QB]Originally posted by docmagik: But you've got this rule about no touching. And while you realize there's nothing wrong with what they're doing, just because you don't want to have an argument later with somebody else about some other form of contact, you make him take his hand off his shoulder. [/QB]
The problem is that schools can't treat students fairly, because they have to treat them the same. School officials know that any time they deal with something on a case-by-case basis, they are at risk for being sued.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Schools are often so unreasonable when it comes to rules that the teachers themselves fall into the traps that they were trying to avoid in the first place. When you get disciplined for running, when you were running away from somebody who is trying to knock your lights out, then there is a problem. The school I went to said that you weren't allowed to defend in a fight, even if it was more than one person. Sometimes I can see what these types of rules try to acheive, but at the same time they need to understand that they have to let kids have at least the impression that they can have at least a bit of freedom.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: The school I went to said that you weren't allowed to defend in a fight, even if it was more than one person.
So, you were supposed to just stand there and let them beat the crap out of you?
This rule, whether implicit or explicit, in my experience, is darn near universal in high schools in America.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: It worked for Gandhi...
Are you contending that it is moral to use the coercive power of the state to punish someone for physically stopping an aggressor from physically damaging them?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the point of the rule is to discourage fighting period. Alot of excessive use of force is excused with the, "I was just defending myself" line of defense.
I mean look at Ender, he killed (though accidental) that other boy out of, "defense" because he knew that if he did not make an example of him he would have to deal with that boy and others in the future.
Still though giving both the agressor and the defender the same punishment seems wrong to me, at least in cases where its clear who started it.
edit: I just realized Ender kills Bonzo as well and arguably he was simply attempting to disable Bonzo's ability to keep fighting. I was referencing the bully at the beginning in my post.
quote:Are you contending that it is moral to use the coercive power of the state to punish someone for physically stopping an aggressor from physically damaging them?
Sometimes yes, it is.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: The school I went to said that you weren't allowed to defend in a fight, even if it was more than one person.
So, you were supposed to just stand there and let them beat the crap out of you?
He said the only thing you could do was run away or scream for help, that was it. It was like 'Ok just let them kill you, don't worry we'll give them a couple hours of detention afterwards.'
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you contending that it is moral to use the coercive power of the state to punish someone for physically stopping an aggressor from physically damaging them?
Sometimes yes, it is.
How about in this situation and, if so, why?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This entire thread strengthens my opinion that the entire school system should be scrapped for private schools funded by vouchers.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've been saying for years that high fives cause cancer. Apparently, JT has been listening.
That is from a sketch on Mad TV. They were doing a skit on Antique Roadshow from the future. They made a comment about how it was before they knew that high fives were what causes cancer.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I generally favor the idea of vouchers, but I haven't seen any reason to think that private schools are less inclined to make rules like this one.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
EG -- you are correct. It took place in the year 3000, and they were looking at things from the year 2000. One was a cell phone, and they mentioned that back then, people thought that they caused cancer, but of course, we know now that it is high fives that cause cancer.
It's been a running joke on Galactic Cactus, Jon Boy's forum, for quite some time.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: The school I went to said that you weren't allowed to defend in a fight, even if it was more than one person.
All the public schools I went to had this same policy. I was in several fights from 6th grade on. I was never the initial physical aggressor, but I did have a mouth, and much to my regret, I used it. I would defend myself and get suspended for 5 days and not be allowed to make up ANY missed tests or work.
I found it completely unfair that the person who initiated violence gets the same punishment as one who defends themselves. That is my biggest complaint. I can understand that sometimes kids will say, "I was only defending myself" all too often, but a lot of the times, they are being truthful. Sometimes kids really are simply defending themselves from violence. To talk about Gandhi again, and eye for an eye may very well make the world blind, but can't we stop people from taking our eye out in the first place (i.e. preventing them from really beating the crap out of you)?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I generally favor the idea of vouchers, but I haven't seen any reason to think that private schools are less inclined to make rules like this one.
Agreed. And I say this as someone with experience teaching in four private schools, and having kids in another three. (Not all at once. )
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about in this situation and, if so, why?
In middle school fights, at least from what I remember, it is usually the case that both parties see themselves as defending themselves. Here's the sort of fights that often happen: -One person is teased. He defends himself by fighting back. The other then defends himself by fighting too. -One person playfully or accidently hits/hurts another kid. That kid then defends himself by fighting back. The first kid then defends himself by fighting too. -Two kids get in an argument. Both act aggressively toward the other and eventually a fight starts, or they challenge one another to a fight at a later time.
I don't ever remember seeing a fight in middle school where some aggressive kid just jumps a victim and starts physically attacking him. I'm sure that happens, but it is much more rare than a fight that evolves from some other dispute.
That means that punishing only the one who starts physically fighting first would be unfair. As often as not, a victim who is getting teased can throw the first punch. Are you going to punish the victim there for starting the fight and let the instigator off? The instigator will say he was just defending himself, after all - and he was.
So, yes, in that case it is moral to punish the person who fights back to defend himself, because otherwise it would make fairly assigning punishment impossible. Furthermore, the students need to be taught that both sides typically are losers when fights occur - that being in the moral right does not stop one from being hurt or punished when you decide to turn things into a physical fight. That's a lesson that will serve them well as adults.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:-One person playfully or accidently hits/hurts another kid. That kid then defends himself by fighting back. The first kid then defends himself by fighting too.
Thus the no-touching rule in middle schools...
(And that characterization of middle school fights is very accurate, in my experience.)
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In middle school fights, at least from what I remember, it is usually the case that both parties see themselves as defending themselves. Here's the sort of fights that often happen: -One person is teased. He defends himself by fighting back. The other then defends himself by fighting too. -One person playfully or accidently hits/hurts another kid. That kid then defends himself by fighting back. The first kid then defends himself by fighting too. -Two kids get in an argument. Both act aggressively toward the other and eventually a fight starts, or they challenge one another to a fight at a later time.
You leave out many - in my experience, most - of the fights. For example: - 3 football players try to shove someone into a locker. -someone walks up to another, punches him in the nose, and pulls back his fist to punch again.
quote:I don't ever remember seeing a fight in middle school where some aggressive kid just jumps a victim and starts physically attacking him. I'm sure that happens, but it is much more rare than a fight that evolves from some other dispute.
Your experience does not match mine - it is not more rare than the other kind. But the relative frequency is irrelevant to the larger point - the policies state that even if there is perfect evidence that force was used in defense, the defender will be punished. So difficulty of determination doesn't factor into the larger question.
quote:That means that punishing only the one who starts physically fighting first would be unfair. As often as not, a victim who is getting teased can throw the first punch. Are you going to punish the victim there for starting the fight and let the instigator off? The instigator will say he was just defending himself, after all - and he was.
So, yes, in that case it is moral to punish the person who fights back to defend himself, because otherwise it would make fairly assigning punishment impossible.
Punish the one being teased for fighting. Punish the teaser for teasing. That wasn't so hard. There are two steps to assigning punishment: determining what happened ("fact finding"). Even in the face of doubt, the fact finder must arrive at a conclusion as to what happened. Once that conclusion has been arrived at, punishment is assigned.
All of your reasons go to the first step, and is the reason I always considered punishment in school to be more concerned with convenience than justice. There was no opportunity or effort expended to determine the truth, because it was "too difficult."
It's a strange theory that we have to punish someone defending himself in order to avoid "unfairly" letting someone else off of being punished.
quote:Furthermore, the students need to be taught that both sides typically are losers when fights occur - that being in the moral right does not stop one from being hurt or punished when you decide to turn things into a physical fight. That's a lesson that will serve them well as adults.
Please. A cornered student who doesn't fight back is going to be hurt much worse. You don't have to tell someone being attacked that fighting hurts - they know it. And few adults are punished for using force if they can demonstrate that the use of force was in self defense. Even in the case where force was properly used in self defense, but the person is punished anyway, it's because of an error in fact finding, not a decision to throw one's hands in the air because attempting to find a just outcome is too hard to do.
What you're actually teaching is 1) schools, faced with difficulty in fact finding, have thrown up their hands and created a policy not based on morality or justice; and 2) the aggressor, who likely does not care about suspension, will not be deterred from attacking again.
Apparently, based on your summary of most common fights, you haven't been in that position. Good for you. However, condemning those who are in that position to face not only bullies but an absolutely unsympathetic - and not even allowing the victim to TRY to demonstrate that self defense was involved is very unsympathetic - power structure makes for a lonely, frightening, and miserable middle school existence.
It's very kind of you to want to teach them that getting punched hurts. However, they already know that.
It's rather ironic that you're taking this position, considering your on-going commentary on middle-schools being "prisons." Prison is one of the only other places where all use of force, even if proven to be in defense of oneself, is punishable.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, there seems to be difficulty in distinguishing "retaliation" from "defending oneself." It's not like there isn't a half-thousand years of very well-defined reasoning to draw on in making that distinction.
Here's the raw incident to be considered: A is in the bathroom. B comes in while C, D, E, and G block the door - escape is impossible. B punches A and draws back his fist to punch A again.
If A uses force in an attempt to prevent being hurt more, is it moral for an authority who knows these facts absolutely to punish him?
I get that the most likely result will be C, D, E, and G lying about the situation and A being punished for fighting because the authority figure decides that the use of force wasn't for defense. But that's a very different result, even with the same punishment, than the authority either refusing to investigate at all to determine if A was defending himself or the authority knowing that it was defense and punishing anyway.
Making an error in determination is a mistake by the authority and continuing victimization of A by B, C, D, E, and G. The other two are immoral acts, and A is being victimized by the authority. That's much worse.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you contending that it is moral to use the coercive power of the state to punish someone for physically stopping an aggressor from physically damaging them?
In a particular situation in which the punished person physically stopped an aggressor from physically harming him, it might be moral for the state to punish. There are two situations:
1) where the fact finding was conscientious, fair, provided opportunity for hearing, yet arrived at the wrong answer because of honest limitations on human capacity for fact-finding (this is bad thing, but not a moral failing unless we don't periodically try to improve our fact finding processes based on lessons learned.
2) where the use of force is disproportionate to the threatened harm, which would be unlikely (but still possible) to come into play in middle-school situations.
The policy I am against is one that states defense is never a justification for use of physical force, which is what the school policies I've been talking about state.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:2) where the use of force is disproportionate to the threatened harm, which would be unlikely (but still possible) to come into play in middle-school situations.
quote:You leave out many - in my experience, most - of the fights. For example: - 3 football players try to shove someone into a locker. -someone walks up to another, punches him in the nose, and pulls back his fist to punch again.
Again, I never saw or heard of anyone just going up and punching someone unprovoked when I was in middle school.
And if 3 football players push you up against a locker, it is NOT a good idea to try to start fighting them, unless you happen to be very good at martial arts or something. That is the best way to get hurt.
If you don't believe my characterization of middle school fights, do you have any information that would suggest otherwise. Google brought up this summary of a study :
"Among the 11-year-old pupils, a smaller percentage of fights (14.8 per cent) had no obvious immediate cause. The two most common causes of fighting at this age were aggressive retaliations to teasing (25.9 per cent) and aggressive retaliations to accidental injury/hurt (18.5 per cent)."
These are the sorts of fights I referred to. Retaliatory fights.
quote:Apparently, based on your summary of most common fights, you haven't been in that position. Good for you. However, condemning those who are in that position to face not only bullies but an absolutely unsympathetic - and not even allowing the victim to TRY to demonstrate that self defense was involved is very unsympathetic - power structure makes for a lonely, frightening, and miserable middle school existence.
Now you are making up assumptions about my background when you know nothing about it. They are false assumptions. I've seen plenty of bullies in school. Physically fighting them is one of the worst possible ways to deal with them, except in extreme circumstances. It was no coinsidence that the ones who got in the most fights were the ones who fought back the most at the least provocation.
quote:Here's the raw incident to be considered: A is in the bathroom. B comes in while C, D, E, and G block the door - escape is impossible. B punches A and draws back his fist to punch A again.
If A uses force in an attempt to prevent being hurt more, is it moral for an authority who knows these facts absolutely to punish him?
That depends on whether or not their is a rule forcing the authority to punish A in that situation.
Here's the thing about rules and laws: they don't always yield a fair result. But if following the rule is better than judging everything on a case by case basis, then following the rule can be morally justified.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if 3 football players push you up against a locker, it is NOT a good idea to try to start fighting them, unless you happen to be very good at martial arts or something. That is the best way to get hurt.
It is if you're claustrophobic and they're trying to put you in the locker.
quote:That depends on whether or not their is a rule forcing the authority to punish A in that situation.
Here's the thing about rules and laws: they don't always yield a fair result. But if following the rule is better than judging everything on a case by case basis, then following the rule can be morally justified.
Considering the ones following the rules were the ones making the rules, the distinction is meaningless. But this rule MANDATES an unjust result. Such a rule is not morally justified.
quote:These are the sorts of fights I referred to. Retaliatory fights.
Fine. But the other fights do exist - large numbers of them. And the rule results in an unjust outcome.
I note that you haven't addressed the meat of my points - the distinction between fact-finding errors and the difference in harm caused by error v. unjust exercise of authority.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must be a statistical outlier, because I thought school was fun, not a prison. Also, when it comes to defending oneself, I think the opinions of the parents have a lot to do with how schools react to each individual case. One time, three bullies chased me around the school. The school also had that "don't fight back" rule, so I ran. I stupidly ran into the restroom where they cornered me, so I jumped on the lead bully and tried to bite his thumb off. The other two were freaking out and hitting me on the head. Looking back, I think it's hilarious, but at the time I was really scared and not thinking straight. I just bit harder and harder. There was blood. Mmmmmm.
In the end, I wasn't punished. The principal wanted to punish me, but he was sympathetic. I think the bullies were frequent visitors or something. My parents defended my right to self-defense, and that was the last time I was bullied. I think it worked out pretty well.
So... when it comes to bullies, do what Ender did! Utterly and completely destroy them, so no other bully even thinks about bullying you. Posts: 80 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was being a little facetious. <-- you know?
Although to say it only worked because he didn't have to go back is a bit off. We don't know how it would have worked out of he did return; we don't have that story. Unless I'm forgetting something important...
But you're right about him being unhappy. Oh so guilty!
Posts: 80 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How the heck does that work? Were their big toes opposable? 
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
