BF2S Forums Cali school defends shock tactics

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Hardly, but when the means are a non-issue, why does it matter what they are?

To you, they are a non-issue.  Not to me.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You identify the rules by the enforcement. Why? They have nothing to do with each other. Look at our government, we have completely separate branches for making law and enforcing law. People should follow the law because it's the law, and people should learn to advance their education, not because the teachers are good.

The law is not always worth following.  Sure, there are consequences for not following it, but I can think of many cases throughout history and even in this country where laws are ridiculous and not worth following partially because of enforcement.  Enforcement has everything to do with the worth of the law.

For example, there used to be literacy and educational tests for polls in the South.  Except, mostly only black people were tested before they could vote, whereas white people were allowed to vote without being tested.  It was obvious that the laws were enforced to support racism rather than for any measure of education or literacy.

The tests themselves didn't seem that bad, but the enforcement was the problem (not to mention the intentions of the legislators to begin with).

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I hardly think the bar has been lowered any when it comes to moral fiber, we just get to hear more about it with the modern media.

While it is true that Nixon wasn't exactly moral himself, I'd say FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Reagan were considerably better people than Clinton and Bush.  You really don't think Bush lowered our standards for the presidency?  Most of the world seems to.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The solution to what? Whiny kids?

No, the solution to things like drunk driving.  Leading by example and moral guidance are far better than any silly scare tactics.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

So what if a kid doesn't get any of those teachers? He's doomed to failure?

Now, you're just being argumentative.  Senor is suggesting that teachers SHOULD be role models, because inevitably, they heavily influence their students, whether or not they'd like to admit it.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-06-14 11:39:04)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Since when did teachers have to be role models? I think a few too many of those teacher-goes-to-the-ghetto-and-turns-things-around movies are getting to you. Role models should come from home.

Besides, one instance is hardly "lying their teeth out", and they have plenty of plausible deniability should they choose to use it. There was a police officer right there telling the story for god's sake.

You're right, politicians aren't role models but teachers are. I mean, sure that guy is the most powerful man on earth, and sure he got there by lying, but kids don't look at that stuff.

You're right, it's a pathetic ruse. A pathetic ruse that obviously got through to the more pathetic students, and those would be the ones drinking and driving yes?

Resetting my dangling jaw for the moment:

a) Teachers do not have to be role models, but are encouraged to do so by administration and the classes they took to get their teaching degree. It's kinda hard to imprint data into someone's head if you don't have at least some of their respect. Of course parents should be proper role models, but you should realize how often that doesn't work out.

b) I believe, unless I remember the article wrong, that this was multiple instances of 'lying their teeth out,' if you count quantity of 'dead' students. Additionally, as said before, it is the sort of lie of the most grotesque nature.

c) You just said they weren't supposed to be role models. And here you say 'sure, lie your ass off to get what you want.' This is where our moral structure parts.

d) No, it pissed them off. And do you think all people irked by that stupid ploy are drunks who are licensed to drive?


===

Next up:

[over the intercom] The International Space Station has just been destroyed by terrorists.
{fifteen minutes later}
[intercom] Just kidding. I bet you don't support terrorists anymore!

---

[cell phone #1] I'm sorry, honey, I just don't love you anymore and am going with someone else.
[cell #2] WHAT?!
[cell #1] Just kidding! I bet you'll never cheat on me.

a) There are a lot of role model possibilities, and they are hardly limited to teachers. The point was teachers are neither the only role model, nor the most influential one in most cases, and what they do should not screw over a kid morally for life.

b) It was a single instance, there was no history of this kind of behavior. It's not like they do this on a monthly basis or something.

c) I'm saying you can't pick and choose who you say influences our kids. A few teachers go along with a ruse to keep people from driving dunk on prom night, and people flip out. I don't see anywhere near the same reaction to politicians, and from a success stand point, a lot more kids are going to be looking for powerful leaders than underpaid teachers.

d) This was not a general drunk driving campaign, these types of things are specifically aimed at high school seniors, trying to keep them from drinking at prom. It was aimed at every single person who was affected, very efficient in that manner.

situation 1) There is not a single beneficial aspect here, not even an attempt. Not even comparable.

situation 2) ...not that big of a deal. I bet that conversation has actually happened hundreds of times.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Hardly, but when the means are a non-issue, why does it matter what they are?

To you, they are a non-issue.  Not to me.

Hence the debate.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You identify the rules by the enforcement. Why? They have nothing to do with each other. Look at our government, we have completely separate branches for making law and enforcing law. People should follow the law because it's the law, and people should learn to advance their education, not because the teachers are good.

The law is not always worth following.  Sure, there are consequences for not following it, but I can think of many cases throughout history and even in this country where laws are ridiculous and not worth following partially because of enforcement.  Enforcement has everything to do with the worth of the law.

For example, there used to be literacy and educational tests for polls in the South.  Except, mostly only black people were tested before they could vote, whereas white people were allowed to vote without being tested.  It was obvious that the laws were enforced to support racism rather than for any measure of education or literacy.

The tests themselves didn't seem that bad, but the enforcement was the problem (not to mention the intentions of the legislators to begin with).

You provided a wonderful counter example. The law itself was not a problem, but the enforcement. The law had nothing to do with the people enforcing it wrongly.

The law itself is always pure. It may be confusing, or ridiculous, or even unjust, but it is pure.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I hardly think the bar has been lowered any when it comes to moral fiber, we just get to hear more about it with the modern media.

While it is true that Nixon wasn't exactly moral himself, I'd say FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Reagan were considerably better people than Clinton and Bush.  You really don't think Bush lowered our standards for the presidency?  Most of the world seems to.

I think that a president's legacy depends not on his actions, but on how much the public knows about his actions.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The solution to what? Whiny kids?

No, the solution to things like drunk driving.  Leading by example and moral guidance are far better than any silly scare tactics.

It's really made a difference so far.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

So what if a kid doesn't get any of those teachers? He's doomed to failure?

Now, you're just being argumentative.  Senor is suggesting that teachers SHOULD be role models, because inevitably, they heavily influence their students, whether or not they'd like to admit it.

I contest that teachers heavily influence students by necessity.

RAIMIUS wrote:

To those who say "suck it up pussies," fuck off.  I doubt most of you have had friends unexpectedly die, while engaged in low risk activities.  It sucks.  If you don't get emotional after that, you probably need help (seriously).

As opposed to losing friends in high-risk situations?

I'm not one of them, but many of the people saying suck it up I'm sure have lost friends in very stressful situations.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

To those who say "suck it up pussies," fuck off.  I doubt most of you have had friends unexpectedly die, while engaged in low risk activities.  It sucks.  If you don't get emotional after that, you probably need help (seriously).

As opposed to losing friends in high-risk situations?

I'm not one of them, but many of the people saying suck it up I'm sure have lost friends in very stressful situations.

(Not trying to minimize others experiences here)  If for example, one of the military members/veterans etc. lost a friend in combat, it would not be AS unexpected (Yeah, it would still suck royally).  Combat, skydiving with a new style parachute, etc carry an acknowledged risk.  However, most people will not consider their friends dying while in class, driving to school, walking down aisle 7 at Jewel, etc.

Think about several situations.  1. An elderly cancer patient dies after several months of health problems  2. An overweight man dies of a heart attack at age 60 3. A college sophomore is murdered by a stranger, while sitting in a lecture hall.  All are tragic, but 3 is definitely more shocking than 1, and very likely more surprising than 2.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

To those who say "suck it up pussies," fuck off.  I doubt most of you have had friends unexpectedly die, while engaged in low risk activities.  It sucks.  If you don't get emotional after that, you probably need help (seriously).

As opposed to losing friends in high-risk situations?

I'm not one of them, but many of the people saying suck it up I'm sure have lost friends in very stressful situations.

Probably not, because people who lose friends in said situations generally have more of a sense of empathy -- something that is distinctly lacking in certain people in this thread.

I was referring to the fact that most of the people saying suck it up are either in active military service or are veterans.

I tend to agree with RAIMUS, but granted the death is more shocking, the overall situation is going to be a lot more stressful on someone than only having to deal with the death of a friend.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

So what if a kid doesn't get any of those teachers? He's doomed to failure?

No, and that isn't even close to what I said.

No, he's not doomed to failure because there are plenty of role models to choose from.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

No, he's not doomed to failure because there are plenty of role models to choose from.

My point was that teachers should be role models.  I know my point is not lost by you, so I wonder if you are ignoring it on purpose.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying they don't have to be.

There are thousands of people on the planet many of which are more influential than teachers, and they all should be role models. Hell, everyone should be a role model to our children, it takes a village and all that. However, that doesn't mean that everyone does act like a role model, and the whole system doesn't come crashing to pieces if one person falls down on the job.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying they don't have to be.

There are thousands of people on the planet many of which are more influential than teachers, and they all should be role models. Hell, everyone should be a role model to our children, it takes a village and all that. However, that doesn't mean that everyone does act like a role model, and the whole system doesn't come crashing to pieces if one person falls down on the job.

That is a valid point, but teachers are pretty high on the list of people who should be setting an example.  You almost spend as much time at school as you do awake at home.

Sharing a classroom with 30 other kids for an hour while the teacher is either grading papers or teaching to a test. Some teachers are cool, some aren't, some are admirable, some aren't, but I don't think I could call any of my teachers true role models.

It might not be that way everywhere, but it's that way where I am and it's probably the same way there. (big schools)

Wouldn't driving after after recieving shocking and upsetting news also be dangerous?