BF2S Forums Cali school defends shock tactics

SEREMAKER wrote:

THE_EYE wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

I guess I should have given better details, I'm not saying take one of the students and stick him in a car and fake a death

take a young cop or EMT in plains clothes with 2 cars all ready wrecked and place them like that just gotten into the accident and then showcase everything that EMT, police and FD do when they hit the scene .... then possible bring out a woman as a " mother " and show her emotions as she watches her " son " get placed into an ambulance

Waste of tax payers dollars tbh

compared to the $1000 toilet seat cover

You forgot the $500 hammer too

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Law is both enforced and created by authority, so in order for laws to be worth following, authority must be respectable.

Law is created by the majority and enforced by authority. Authority can be corrupt and the law remain intact.

Yes, but when that happens, the law becomes enforced as a weapon against the people rather than a tool FOR the people.  I'm arguing that the quality of authority matters more than the quality of law.  Law is malleable to the behaviors and interests of authority.

Law in a republic like ours is also NOT made by the majority but by representatives who supposedly support the majority's interests, but I think we both know how far away from that our current government is.  Our government primarily serves the interests of the rich and, more specifically, lobbyists.

By the same token, it would appear the authorities in the OP care more about manipulating people than in keeping people safe.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So, essentially, what you're saying is that this was an excellent way to scare the dumb kids and annoy or maybe amuse the smart ones.

I guess if you're into scaring kids and amusing others, this little event made sense.  I'm not really into that though.

I am in to that kind of stuff. If you're dumb enough to fall for such an outlandish situation so hard you're crying...I'll be the first to laugh.

I sincerely hope your job is in no way connected to minors.

Turquoise wrote:

Yes, but when that happens, the law becomes enforced as a weapon against the people rather than a tool FOR the people.  I'm arguing that the quality of authority matters more than the quality of law.  Law is malleable to the behaviors and interests of authority.

Which is exactly why this did and should breed a distrust of authority. Distrust of the law itself however was not and should not have been founded.

Turquoise wrote:

Law in a republic like ours is also NOT made by the majority but by representatives who supposedly support the majority's interests, but I think we both know how far away from that our current government is.  Our government primarily serves the interests of the rich and, more specifically, lobbyists.

Theoretically authority isn't a bad thing either, but of course that's not how things play out. This is normally a pretty good argument, but not when it comes to drunk driving. Anyone, even alcohol companies lobbying against legislation that would help stop drunk driving is committing political suicide.

Turquoise wrote:

By the same token, it would appear the authorities in the OP care more about manipulating people than in keeping people safe.

You would manipulate them to keep them safe how? You can't expect a nice powerpoint presentation to keep kids from drinking on prom night.

Turquoise wrote:

I sincerely hope your job is in no way connected to minors.

I'm 17, don't worry.

Reciprocity wrote:

Did they inform all 20 classrooms of all 26 deaths at once?  or did they do 1 or 2 missing people from each class as examples?

If it's the latter it's even dumber, as soon as people cross-check it's obviously a host. Don't think it would take very long either, I assure you it would be done within five minutes with cell phones/text messaging and something this serious.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Which is exactly why this did and should breed a distrust of authority. Distrust of the law itself however was not and should not have been founded.

Why not?  For all practical purposes, law and authority are the same because of their direct connection.  The point is...  If the initial purpose of this stunt was to encourage more awareness of drunk driving, it was very awkward and irresponsible to do this.  The deceit involved only muddles the issue by getting the students to wonder how much of what they are being told is true.  To have teachers complicit in this also eroded the bond between the students and them.

So really, this only accomplished distrust for authority -- except in the dumber kids who won't make the connection.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Theoretically authority isn't a bad thing either, but of course that's not how things play out. This is normally a pretty good argument, but not when it comes to drunk driving. Anyone, even alcohol companies lobbying against legislation that would help stop drunk driving is committing political suicide.

I won't disagree with you there.  Many things are mistakenly done in the name of the common good.  We have sex laws in America that have actually landed young husbands with minor brides in prison (look up a site called moral outrage -- it's pretty fucked up), but of course, in the name of politics, no one running for office wants to touch that topic.

Still, that doesn't mean these misguided Pavlovian experiments are acceptable from a rational viewpoint.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You would manipulate them to keep them safe how? You can't expect a nice powerpoint presentation to keep kids from drinking on prom night.

I'm suggesting that they treat kids like they have some brains.  Blatant paternalism only breeds contempt.

Turquoise wrote:

Why not?  For all practical purposes, law and authority are the same because of their direct connection.  The point is...  If the initial purpose of this stunt was to encourage more awareness of drunk driving, it was very awkward and irresponsible to do this.  The deceit involved only muddles the issue by getting the students to wonder how much of what they are being told is true.  To have teachers complicit in this also eroded the bond between the students and them.

So really, this only accomplished distrust for authority -- except in the dumber kids who won't make the connection.

Apparently (according toe the article) it scared some kids shitless too. I don't doubt the minor effect this had on the students as far as anti-drunk driving, and if this wasn't big enough to get its own news article I don't think it would have been effective for its intended purpose. I just happen to think that not only were the unintended (though impossibly unforeseen) consequences were also beneficial in the long run.

As far as not taking everything they are told as true...good. Now if they start questioning the Pythagorean theorem or something, they're idiots, but what you are taught should not be accepted blindly. My English teacher this past year was quite good and had a lot to offer, but that doesn't mean I accept her interpretation on all the books/passages she read. Her insight, while valuable and generally magnitudes better than mine, I  will not always see as correct.

Even in classes with absolutes, teachers are not perfect. I know for a fact that some of the things I have been told in physics this past year were wrong, and corrected the teacher on verbal mis-steps more times than I can count on one hand this year These were things that the rest of the class wouldn't have caught and I only caught because I have a very physics oriented mind and background. Teachers are still human, and if it put a chink in their armor of infallibility in the minds of the students that had previously seen them as perfect, good.

Turquoise wrote:

Still, that doesn't mean these misguided Pavlovian experiments are acceptable from a rational viewpoint.

Eh, if they act like dogs when a bell rings, treat them like it.

Turquoise wrote:

I'm suggesting that they treat kids like they have some brains.  Blatant paternalism only breeds contempt.

I'll be the last in line to say kids of this age don't have any brains...but that's the point. I mean, if these were middle schoolers/elementary schoolers, this would be a whole different ball game. As it is however, these kids are old enough to both a) accept that some really shitty things happen in life and we have to get on with our lives and b) think for a second before emotionally reacting.

These kids are practically adults, if they want to be treated like them they should act like them.

Commie Killer wrote:

Our school did this, though they were required to tell us all about what was going on beforehand so everyone pretty much laughed at the whole exercise.

Ours too. Utterly ineffective.

Lotta_Drool wrote:

I know if I went around pulling this " Prank" on people I would be arrested.

Really? Based on what?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

I know if I went around pulling this " Prank" on people I would be arrested.

Really? Based on what?

There are many laws, and someone would use one that fits.  Be it harrassment, causing public panic, or whatever.

Try doing this to a couple cops or a judge, see what happens.  It is common sense.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Really? Based on what?

There are many laws, and someone would use one that fits.  Be it harrassment, causing public panic, or whatever.

Try doing this to a couple cops or a judge, see what happens.  It is common sense.

Why would they take it seriously?

If you aren't committing a crime, you can't pull it off well. If the person has an ounce of either intelligence or skepticism, you aren't going to pull the wool over their eyes.

Are you nuts?  Have you ever been told someone you cared about died?  I have, you don't give a thought about who told you or cercumstances, or wonder if it is " a joke " because you are instantly paralysed because your friend is dead.

You have a lot of life to experience.

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

There are many laws, and someone would use one that fits.  Be it harrassment, causing public panic, or whatever.

Try doing this to a couple cops or a judge, see what happens.  It is common sense.

Why would they take it seriously?

If you aren't committing a crime, you can't pull it off well. If the person has an ounce of either intelligence or skepticism, you aren't going to pull the wool over their eyes.

Are you nuts?  Have you ever been told someone you cared about died?  I have, you don't give a thought about who told you or cercumstances, or wonder if it is " a joke " because you are instantly paralysed because your friend is dead.

You have a lot of life to experience.

Who were you told by?

You seriously think that if I called you up in a week and told you your wife had died, you would instantly believe me?

The human mind does a lot of things without even thinking about it very quickly. If you have no reason to trust the person telling you, you aren't going to be "paralyzed".

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why would they take it seriously?

If you aren't committing a crime, you can't pull it off well. If the person has an ounce of either intelligence or skepticism, you aren't going to pull the wool over their eyes.

Are you nuts?  Have you ever been told someone you cared about died?  I have, you don't give a thought about who told you or cercumstances, or wonder if it is " a joke " because you are instantly paralysed because your friend is dead.

You have a lot of life to experience.

Who were you told by?

You seriously think that if I called you up in a week and told you your wife had died, you would instantly believe me?

The human mind does a lot of things without even thinking about it very quickly. If you have no reason to trust the person telling you, you aren't going to be "paralyzed".

If you have no reason to doubt a person you tend to believe them because people don't go around saying people died when they didn't.  I found out that a very close friend was in the hospital dying from a mutual acquaintance when I stopped at a McDonalds at lunch break during highschool.  No thought ever crossed my mind to question him, I instantly went into shock, my mind swimming, legs got weak, and I had to sit down.  After a few seconds I asked him which hospital he was at and I left as soon as he told me. 

What do you think happens when someone dies?  How old are you?

"if it saves one life, it's worth it."
[paraphrase]"kids these days need to toughen up" (oh, we've never heard that one before)

Alright, people...

"Dude, my school told me that a bunch of kids died and I was like WTF, then they were like LOL so I was like ROFL. The next day I cheated on my biology exam because, like, stuff like that's OK."

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Boy who cried wolf...

[...] What were they thinking?

Lotta_Drool wrote:

If you have no reason to doubt a person you tend to believe them because people don't go around saying people died when they didn't.

There you go.

=====

Now there's times when lying is cool, especially with obvious jokes like this one:

Ronald Reagan wrote:

My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.

But that school's bit was just uncalled for. I remember getting jerked around by public schooling bullshit when I attended, and envy these students none of it.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-06-13 07:09:24)