Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Common Sense taught in school

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Mar 20, 2002
 Comments:
I know this will piss off some teachers who read this entry but I don't care. I'm really tired of the lack of common sense in school.
diaries

More diaries by Narcissus
Time for great celebration!!!!
I hope I'm not alone in this battle, but lately I've been very dissapointed in local school districts (at least in my area). It's almost like the teachers havn't got a clue what goes on in the "real world". Take this story for example. This boy made an honest mistake but he is now expelled from his school for his error. The solution I propose is don't let these young teachers come straight out of college and go right back into school, be it elementary or secondary. They should be required to have real world experience and not just from the stupid MTV show. I understand that they are a little paranoid but they could use a little common sense on these matters. If a kid has never been in trouble for even the slightest mishap before then why should he be removed from school on his first screw-up much less a butter knife in the bed of a pick-up truck.

       
Tweet

Uh... (none / 0) (#1)
by Akumu on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 09:30:20 PM PST
Your "story" link just links back to your own diary entry.

-akumu-

Not sure y (none / 0) (#2)
by Narcissus on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 09:36:03 PM PST
see if if worx now...


--------------------------------
Ok, who picked the flower???

 
Another teenager thinks school is unjust (none / 0) (#3)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 09:48:19 PM PST
What a surprise.

You should be glad schools are taking a hard line against weapons. What if it had been a pocket knife or a machete? What if he'd "accidentally" brought a gun to school? No student deserves special treatment in this situation. He brought a weapon to school, h should deal with the consequences, honor student or no.

Warning warning ! (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 02:48:37 AM PST
Next terrorist attack known to occur soon with most dangerous weapon: butter knives. All butter knives must be declared to the FBI.
It is a known fact too that gangs use that weapon a lot. We cannot count the daily casualties. Butter knives must be banned of the life of any good American.
George Bush.

You laugh now (none / 0) (#6)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 04:22:36 AM PST
I doubt you'd find it so funny if your son was being threatened with a pocket knife and the police refused to step in until they'd finished quibbling over whether or not it constituted a deadly weapon. Zero tolerance exists for a reason. It works.

Zero Tolerance (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Yoshi on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 04:35:34 AM PST
Zero Tolerance has really taken on two meanings since its inception. On one hand, and what zero tolerance was originally intended for, it means that an offender will get the maximum penalty for whatever crime they commit.

On the other hand, zero tolerance has taken on a new kind of meaning. It now means that the offender has no chance to plead their case, as the school board is required to enforce some mythical "zero tolerance" ban on common sense. If the kid brings a weapon to school, give him the maximum penalty. But if it's something that's disputable, like a bread knife, let him plead his case. This is just a further abomination of our nation's public school system, and why we need to support George W. Bush's plan for school vouchers, so we can pull our kids from these braindead public schools.

 
IT WAS A BUTTER KNIFE ! (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 06:18:17 AM PST
They should ban pencils: more dangerous than butter knives.

Yep. Ban pencils (none / 0) (#9)
by because it isnt on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 06:26:03 AM PST
The kids should write with crayons instead. If it's good enough for the leader of the free world, it's good enough for our kids.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Uh... (none / 0) (#12)
by hauntedattics on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 08:21:25 AM PST
It was a bread knife. There is quite a difference between a bread knife and a butter knife. A difference you'd know if you were a good kid and helped your mom empty the dishwasher every once in awhile.




 
Here comes the obvious quote! (none / 0) (#16)
by jvance on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 10:41:16 AM PST
Ban pens too. Because as everyone knows, the pen is mightier than the sword.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Threat (none / 0) (#13)
by Akumu on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 08:42:03 AM PST
If the "Zero Tolerence" policy was to expel any student who brandished or threatened another person with a weapon, I would agree with you. BUT IT WAS LYING IN THE BED OF HIS PICKUP TRUCK!

Also, calling a bread knife a weapon is ridiculous. You could more easily kill someone with a well-sharpened pencil than with a bread knife. Ban all pencils and pens! Every student should be at school wearing nothing more than a strait-jacket.

-akumu-

Expand Your Vocabulary (none / 0) (#21)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 03:45:45 PM PST
or,

Read for Better Comprehension:

A Pictorial Study by T. Reginald Gibbons, esq.

Bread Knife

Butter Knife

Addendum: Why should the school wait until a student's life has been put in jeopardy before taking action? Isn't that like refusing to quit smoking until you've already developed lung cancer?

 
An act vs a thing (none / 0) (#19)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 12:48:10 PM PST
I doubt you'd find it so funny if your son was being threatened with a pocket knife and the police refused to step in until they'd finished quibbling over whether or not it constituted a deadly weapon.

A chair can serve as a deadly weapon. Even bare hands can serve as a deadly weapon. Will we ban students from schools for handling chairs or for possession of hands?

Zero tolerance exists for a reason. It works.

Zero tolerance exists because someone with more of good intentions than intelligence pushed it through. It doesn't work. It never worked well and never will work and the cases when it backfires will be only more and more common.

I doubt I would finnish my HS if zero tolerance policies would be in place there. I doubt more than 1/4 of the students there would finish it.

On the other hand, zero tolerance could have a beneficial side-effect - teaching children to doubt about the Authorities and sanity (and sanctity) of their Rules.


Zero tolerance (none / 0) (#20)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 03:35:59 PM PST
I suggest you lay off calling Rudolph Giuliani an idiot. He is perhaps the most heroic human being of these sad times. After introducing zero tolerance (or "pushing it through" as you would have it), New York's crime problems were spectacularly reduced. People wouldn't be in favour of it if they weren't seeing favourable results.

In fact, you've revealed yourself as completely unable to comment on the issue of zero tolerance, since you don't understand why it is entirely central to the application of the method to attack minor infringements such as "harmless" weapons. This case is a perfect example zero tolerance, and why zero tolerance works.

I am an idiot (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Akumu on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 03:49:15 PM PST
Please explain to me in terms so simple that even I can understand; how can expelling a model student for the possesion of what only bread considers a deadly weapon reduce crime?

The only theory I can come up with is that if everybody is already in prison for meaningless reasons, they cannot commit serious crimes.

-akumu-



Another would-be sophist (none / 0) (#23)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 04:01:55 PM PST
I don't need to explain it to you. The reason I don't need to explain why it works is because the empirical proof that it works can be seen everywhere it is used. New York, for instance, would be the prime example.

Sophists (none / 0) (#25)
by Shinkansen on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 04:23:08 PM PST
I believe that Socrates showed us why the sophist way of teaching was a poor way it tends to not be accurate and pure "knowledge." Also, I think empirical proof doesn't always show all proofs for all things. (Now, lets not get into a debate over free will here because its really easy to do so...)

Arguments like the one you are using are used a lot, the I don't have to explain it you type..., but are also easily countered. People tend to use arguments like this to avoide arguments rather then to solve them. (I.e. Roman Catholic Church)

There are some instances where using the zero-tolerance approach to situations has been beneficial. To tell you the honest truth, many situations. Still, the point here is that there is an honor roll student who has been expelled for having a butter knife in his truck. This could be compaired to the police pulling up next to you at a traffic light, seeing that you have a butter knife in your car, and arresting you. I doubt that you are going to do a lot with that knife other then separate soft meats, or spread spreadables onto some surface.


Shinkansen!!



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

A little empiricism would help you a lot (none / 0) (#28)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 05:20:41 PM PST
So I'll repeat myself.

Well... (none / 0) (#32)
by Shinkansen on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 05:43:46 PM PST
Okay, I see your difference, and after seeing the movie of the knife that he had, i dont think much has changed. The knife was not serriated, which makes it a lot less potent. Although.. Looking up "Butter Knives" on google has led me to this butter knife which makes me wonder what we are really talking about here. Butter knives look more dangerous then bread knives.



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

 
Iv'e said it before... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Akumu on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 05:39:13 PM PST
And I'll most likely say it again: post hoc ergo proctor hoc. If you can't demonstrate the mechanism by which zero tolerance reduces crime, it cannot be said that it was in fact zero tolerance that caused the drop.

This is simple logic. It is ignorant and dangerous to infer causality from correllation.

If you can show me that in every single case wherein zero tolerence was employed, crime dropped, then I might give more credence to the causation theory. However, there is still the question of the mechanism. If zero tolerance lowers crime rates by punishing the innocent and infringing on civil liberties, is it worth it? If your answer is yes, I suggest you take up residence in a totalitarian-run country, and be ready to be one of the innocents punished.

-akumu-

 
The only zero tolerance that should be in place... (none / 0) (#24)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 04:19:45 PM PST
...is zero tolerance to zero tolerance.

I suggest you lay off calling Rudolph Giuliani an idiot. He is perhaps the most heroic human being of these sad times.

He isn't an idiot. But he is a slime and a fascist. 9/11 shown how an opportunity can wrap a power-hungry slimeball into an aura of glory. America needed an icon, he was in place and jumped to the opportunity. He was criticized before and people don't change overnight. Also, why he awarded the contract for hauling away the steel beams to a Mafia-connected company, and hadn't let the experts to examine them before selling them as scrap metal? One time I had more dirt on him in memory, but he isn't important for me enough to remember for prolonged time. I could find the references though... By the way, why is dancing banned in NYC bars?

After introducing zero tolerance (or "pushing it through" as you would have it), New York's crime problems were spectacularly reduced.

And police brutality was spectacularly increased. If I am to be beated or harassed by the robbers or by the cops, what's the difference?

People wouldn't be in favour of it if they weren't seeing favourable results.

By far not everyone is in favour. Too many get screwed as a side effect.

In fact, you've revealed yourself as completely unable to comment on the issue of zero tolerance, since you don't understand why it is entirely central to the application of the method to attack minor infringements such as "harmless" weapons.

To make a "feel-good" appearance that something is being done? To steamroll over minorities and anyone who doesn't look like a suit'n'tie businessman? To shot dead anyone who attempts to draw a purse on a policeman?

This case is a perfect example zero tolerance, and why zero tolerance works.

This case is a perfect example of how zero tolerance regularly tends to blow right into the face of the very innocents whom it is intended to protect.


He isn't innocent (none / 0) (#26)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 04:34:39 PM PST
Any more than he'd be innocent if he'd brought a gun to school by accident. His knife is a weapon, and is specifically banned on school premises. If you want to continue this discussion, I recommend you read up on zero tolerance. You obviously don't understand it, since you continue to find this case remarkable. It isn't.

Zero tolerance is the only answer to the crime problems of our nation's school system. The liberals had their chance, and they introduced a bunch of namby-pamby soft punishment methods, such as the honor system that quickly left many of our nations schools in an unmanageable state, or worse, a state of siege, complete with security guards and metal detectors.

As for your irrational hatred of Rudolph Giuliani, I am quite at a loss. He did more for that city than any administrator since DeWitt Clinton. If you don't believe me, take a walk through Times Square sometime, and see how it's changed. His final term ended in the most horrible way imaginable, and all you liberalists can do is abuse him for rising to the challenge. In a world full of people like you, it warms my heart that there are still men like Mayor Giuliani who lay aside concerns about the approval of the liberal mob and simply do their jobs.

 
I read the story three times (none / 0) (#4)
by jvance on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 09:50:37 PM PST
and I didn't spot the word "teacher" anywhere in it. May I suggest that your ire is misplaced. Teachers don't set policy; they suffer under it with bugger-all for pay.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Hearty second. (none / 0) (#11)
by hauntedattics on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 08:19:11 AM PST
As the wife of a hard-working, non-policy-setting, ridiculously underpaid teacher, I second jvance's post.



 
I hate zero tolerance [n/t] (none / 0) (#10)
by Fon2d2 on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 08:00:56 AM PST



 
Weapons of the sort... (none / 0) (#14)
by Shinkansen on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 08:47:43 AM PST
Yes, bread knives are like large machetes but its got all of those little "bread cutting" grooves, too lazy to figure out how to spell the real name... All sorts of things can be considered weapons. I have had about 6 years of martial arts training.
If we are going to use this logic we should make our shools like prisons down to taking shoe strings out of all shoes. You can strangle someone with a shoe lace, a belt, straps on a back pack etc... You can stab people with pencils, pens, scissors, a broken ruler, etc... I mean, really here people... even people with out any training can figure this stuff out. You can wip someone with a mouse cord... that is pretty bad isn't it? "If you really want to look at it like this we should all go to school in straight-jackets.."

Shinkansen!!



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

Receipe For Disaster (none / 0) (#15)
by doofus on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 10:33:15 AM PST
Sir,

Your post is the very reason why the internet must be censored. Lord knows how many highly impressionable potential terrorists/grade/junior high/high schoolers will read your post and see their shoelaces and belts in an entirely new light.

As far as removing pencils and other dangerous weapons from school, well, I say that if removing metal dinnerware from First and Business Class is necessary to fight the war on terrorism in the skies, then removing pencils and pens from schools is necessary to fight the war on terrorism in our institutions of learning.

Very well.. (none / 0) (#17)
by Shinkansen on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 11:30:23 AM PST
Sir,


I doubt this is the case. Some dork, namely me, stating that shoes and belts can be used as weapons will not cause an uprising of violence in schools. My point is, virtually anything can be a weapon if you use it in the right way... On a similar note the mind can be used in ways that degrade and humiliate people into different types of pain and suffering. Also considered a weapon if you ask me. Should we ban the our minds? Me thinks not.

Most action movies since the 80s or 90s have been extra descriptive in the way deaths occur. Some "pg-13" movies and most "R" movies use all sorts of things for weapons. My posts will not corrupt the youth here, the media does it infinately more so... actions (hence media clips) speak louder than words.

Thinking about it even more, the only "safe" way to learn is: if everybody is strapped to chairs in straight jackets, all people are 3 feet away from each other, there are no foreign objects in the room other then chairs (bolted to the ground) the straight jackets and their corresponding people. All learning would be repetition via audio tapes until it was engrained into the very minds of the students.

This is not going to happen...

Shinkansen!!



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

 
Safety in school (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 12:33:14 PM PST
Next to every case of school violence is caused by the students.

I hereby propose to remove the students from the schools. I suppose the school violence will then drop to close to zero.


 
I've said it before... (none / 0) (#27)
by Akumu on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 05:12:09 PM PST
And I'll most likely say it again: post hoc ergo proctor hoc. If you can't demonstrate the mechanism by which zero tolerance reduces crime, it cannot be said that it was in fact zero tolerance that caused the drop.

This is simple logic. It is ignorant and dangerous to infer causality from correllation.

If you can show me that in every single case wherein zero tolerence was employed, crime dropped, then I might give more credence to the causation theory. However, there is still the question of the mechanism. If zero tolerance lowers crime rates by punishing the innocent and infringing on civil liberties, is it worth it? If your answer is yes, I suggest you take up residence in a totalitarian-run country, and be ready to be one of the innocents punished.

-akumu-

By Gum, he's right! (none / 0) (#29)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 05:25:24 PM PST
Fire all the statisticians immediately, they're logically fallacious!

Seriously though, will you be misspelling as well as misusing it next time you try this as well?

Amazing (none / 0) (#34)
by Akumu on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 09:54:21 AM PST
Your sarcasm is closer to the truth than your earnestness ever has been.

If statisticians use their statistics in the same way you do, that is, with no thought as to what the numbers actually mean, then yes, they are horrible statisticians and should be fired immediately.

It is pretty much common knowledge, and as such I'm surprised you haven't realized it yourself, that statistics can be made to say anything one wants them to, if the raw numerical data alone is referred to. Statistics lie.

And besides all of that, I didn't see any statistics at all in your explanation. I saw linearly comparing two data. If you'd like to elaborate on the statistics, go ahead.

I noticed that you signed one of your posts as "esq." I hope that, if you're a trial lawyer, you never just lay the evidence out on the table and say "See? It's obvious!"

-akumu-

 
Benevolent editors (none / 0) (#31)
by Akumu on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 05:40:09 PM PST
Please delete this and it's parent post, they were threaded incorrectly (through fault of mine).

-akumu-

 
Common Sense? (3.00 / 1) (#33)
by RobotSlave on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 11:38:07 PM PST
What on earth is this "common sense" that people are always insisting I and everyone else ought to have more of?

Isn't "common sense," by any definition of the word "common," stuff that most of the rabble would agree on to begin with?

Moreover, in a democracy (you know, rule by the commoners), the Law will inevitably be nothing less than "common sense," and, unfortunately, nothing more.

If what you really want is the triumph of "common sense," then I think I know just the place for you to look.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
superiority (none / 0) (#35)
by Pseudo on Fri Jun 28th, 2002 at 02:00:58 PM PST
I think the real question people are tryong to deal with here is obvious.

Just what is the best utensil to kill with?

PersonallY I vote spork.

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.