Via Instapundit, who says:
IF YOU WANT TO RAISE MEN WITHOUT CHESTS, YOU HAVE TO START EARLY... This sort of behavior by “educators” needs to be stigmatized and punished, with names named. But bear in mind that “Sir John A. Macdonald junior high school does not ‘condone heroics,’” and that its principal’s name is Michael Bester, from whom we can be fairly certain to expect nothing in the least bit heroic, ever.The school seems to hold the belief — often seen amongst strict gun control advocates — that the traditional role of self-defense and the defense of others ought to be relocated in government personnel. The police might not arrive the minute you need them, and yet it still seems best to train people to stand down and shelter in place. If only everyone were nonviolent, wouldn't that be nice?
IN THE COMMENTS: Mitchell the Bat said:
This is nothing new. When I was in grade school, anybody who got into a fight got punished. Period. That was the 1960's. Some students saw the policy as a convenient justification for pussing out. That was probably the whole idea, all along. That and the teachers and school principal didn't have to make any adjudicatory decisions that might get them criticized. That was probably the whole idea, all along, as well.Suddenly, I'm seeing this as the cause of the bullying problem. Everyone knows that the way to stop the bully is to hit him. To forbid self-defense is to empower the bully. The bully knows you pussies will keep doing what you're supposed to do.
पोस्ट्स
१४७ टिप्पण्या:
And we have recent examples that the police won't or can't come.
Submit!
Yes we should condone heroics. We should encourage and support it. Teachers and students should be trained to be proactive and think strategically not hole up and wait to die.
But, sheep are much easier for both criminals and liberal elites to control.
Wonder how this mantra is going to hold up if - or when - one of out carrier squadrons is evaporated by a nuclear missile?
The Middle East is about to go up in a general conflagration, and it is not known which lunatics have got ahold of what. In fact, we do not even know who the real crazies might be.
If you raise all kids to be cowards, then from what group will you select your police and soldiers from?
"yet it still seems best to train people to stand down and shelter in place."
Unless you're on a hijacked airplane, and this we know from experience.
The police might not arrive the minute you need them,
This happened in the UK soldier hacking, people stood around helpless waiting for the police. If an onlooker had a gun and he/she used it, what kind of protection do they have? How strong are good Samaritan laws here and there? Having a strong law on the side of citizens intervening in these situations might help. But the problem gun control advocates have is that they imagine (wildly and wrongly) everybody going around carrying a gun and shooting at everybody else.
In past eras, any civilization whose populace was that pacifistic would probably not last too long.
In a perfectly civilized world, a without violence or criminal behavior of any kind, pacifism could be a valid practice. But human beings are flawed and wicked.
Perhaps, this is designed to make it easier for the State to run over its citizens. Civility. Passivity.
I invite you again to watch "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," for a better understanding of the issue.
Oh, if I were the mother of the child being attacked...what a conversation with my lawyer in attendance we would have.
So you want my kid to be a sacrificial lamb?
Why not quote Freud? OK, I will.
"Conflicts of interest between man and man are resolved, in principle, by the recourse to
violence."
@pm317/
IIRC in GB one is also not allowed to even carry mace or a taser in self defense. Possession of either being a criminal offense. Needless to say if bystanders had been in possession of either of those implements--let alone a gun--the murder of that defenseless soldier might have been averted by civilians on the scene had any of them been so armed..
Isn't "progressive" politics wonderful?
This is nothing new. When I was in grade school, anybody who got into a fight got punished. Period.
That was the 1960's.
Some students saw the policy as a convenient justification for pussing out.
That was probably the whole idea, all along.
That and the teachers and school principal didn't have to make any adjudicatory decisions that might get them criticized.
That was probably the whole idea, all along, as well.
Why is this stuff happening more and more in places like Canada and Britain? It's contagious and sooner or later we catch the same disease. WTF is wrong with their societies? Is their a strain of this philosophy going around in academic journals they read? There are a lot of conflations and false causes to name, but it seems time for some actual answers.
"With a whimper or a bang"
Given the flow of events that "progressive" politics had brought us the past few years I think we have our answer..
Those who punish heroes should, when they are in peril, find that no one will rescue them.
And no, I am not joking.
If you raise all kids to be cowards, then from what group will you select your police and soldiers from?"
Well said. Indeed if all kids are raised to be cowards where will the Left Overlords get their enforcers from?
But Mitchel the Bat puts his finger on another aspect of this: the bureaucratic imperative to cya and avoid making tough judgmental decisions of any kind. Hence the proliferation of mindless "zero tolerance" policies behind which school administrators can hide. ("Our hands are tied.")
We don't condone heroics? Condone heroics? Those two words don't really go together, do they?
No, the school seems to believe that 13 year old children aren't sufficiently mature to handle such a situation.
If you (and Instaidiot) can't see the difference between a 13 year old and an adult, I feel sorry for both of you.
Indeed if all kids are raised to be cowards where will the Left Overlords get their enforcers from?
the bully. so long as his IQ isn't too high.
" where will the Left Overlords get their enforcers from? "
the bullies
No, the school seems to believe that 13 year old children aren't sufficiently mature to handle such a situation.
If you (and Instaidiot) can't see the difference between a 13 year old and an adult, I feel sorry for both of you.
Aghast. At one point in our history, this kid might have been honored by the school, the mayor, etc.
It's almost like we're not allowed to be those people because other bad shit was going on at the same time. An all-or-nothing view of history without a hint of nuance awareness.
In the US, the motivation for this kind of acton by a school is often the fear of liability -- we don't "condone" either heroics or bullying, so don't sue us no matter what happens. I don't know if Canada has that kind of trial-lawyer-infected culture.
I favor imposing liability on any person or agency that prevents either self-defense or defense of others. If you make a "wait for the police/teacher/or whoever" rule, and while waiting a victim is killed or injured, but such death or injury would likely have been avoided if someone had been able to act in defense, then you are liable.
The situation with Drummer Lee Rigby is even more absurd because it happened near an army barracks AND police were nearby but they weren't armed.
A random guy on the street the other day (we were passing the courthouse on the day one of the guys was to be charged) said he couldn't believe the police, when they did arrive, didn't even shoot to kill.
Freder Frederson said...
No, the school seems to believe that 13 year old children aren't sufficiently mature to handle such a situation
Uh:
A seventh grader from Calgary who stopped a bully from stabbing a classmate was reprimanded by the school for his act of bravery and sent home.
You are a complete and utter fucking idiot.
No, the school seems to believe that 13 year old children aren't sufficiently mature to handle such a situation.
If the events in the article are accurate, said 13 year old was mature enough to see the imminent danger and to do something about it.
The adult in the room wasn't paying close enough attention (ie, doing his job) to do anything about it.
As you noted, the gun-grabbers like to imply that government accepts the obligation of everyone's safety.
One of these days, I'd like to see one of our gun-freedom advocates in Congress put this to a vote, with an amendment to a gun-grabbing bill. For example, the recent attempt to ban categories of scary guns. How about an amendment such as this:
Should any citizen suffer injury after this comes into effect, if the citizen can show that a banned weapon would have been efficacious in mitigating or preventing the injury, the citizen has a legal cause of action against the government and can obtain damages through civil process.
After all, what do the gun grabbers keep saying? No one needs those scary guns!
If that be the case, then damages paid out will be minimal.
If you are expected to not be a hero- that being a hero is bad- after a while how much can you even be bothered to care when something bad is happening to someone nearby?
You end up like the woman with the shopping trolley pushing past the murderer wielding an axe with blood soaked hands. He's just another guy wasting your time by blocking your way .
Freder, translated:
Well, who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?
I hope the other parents notice the school was fine with sacrificing the almost-victim.
When seconds count, the teacher is minutes away.
What happened to the justification "If it can save just one life...?"
I guess freder thinks a bunch of 13 year olds would've handled seeing a classmate stabbed or cut better?
Once a situation occurs, there is no not handling it. Getting the teacher is one way of handling the situation at hand, running away is one way, and tackling the armed bully is one way. The school is punishing the kid for handling the situation *this*way, the heroic way, instead of their preferred way, even though the heroic way didn't do any harm.
You are a complete and utter fucking idiot.
Where in the article does it say that the bully was about to stab someone. You are reading a lot into the situation.
And anyway the kid was reprimanded, not punished. If he had been suspended, I could see where you could say it was an overreaction. But read the article closely, he was called into the principal's office and "reprimanded", not punished.
Freder Frederson said...
And anyway the kid was reprimanded, not punished.
Hilarious.
Being yelled at by the principal and sent home does not equal punishment.
If the events in the article are accurate, said 13 year old was mature enough to see the imminent danger and to do something about it
You are simply reading facts into the article that are simply not there.
Freder Frederson said...
Where in the article does it say that the bully was about to stab someone
In the first fucking paragraph, you dumbass.
Being yelled at by the principal and sent home does not equal punishment.
No it doesn't. Being suspended or receiving a detention is a punishment.
Freder Frederson said...
You are simply reading facts into the article that are simply not there.
You've reached full blown parody level.
I guess the kid pulled out a knife because he didn't want to stab anyone.
It was for shits and giggles.
virgil xenophon said...
@pm317/
IIRC in GB one is also not allowed to even carry mace or a taser in self defense.
As I understand it, there is no Castle Doctrine, quite the reverse. Folks in the UK are charged if they assault burglars inside their homes. I'm not talking about a homeowner that shoots a criminal, but rather one that does not retreat.
Who would you trust to better handle a dicey situation? A 13 year-old boy or an education major?
Once again, I am confused. I thought we were all supposed to lean in cos an individual didn't build that?
I thought society was supposed to protect each other?
When milliseconds count, teachers are seconds or minutes away.
Freder Frederson said...
No it doesn't
You're a fucking idiot.
Calgary Police Service confirmed there was an incident at Sir John A. Macdonald junior high school Tuesday: a third student intervened in a fight between two others and a knife was involved.
You're really, really fucking stupid.
What is being sent home?
A time out?
When you've been reduced to saying this:
Briar McLean, 13, was given a stern lecture and sent home
Isn't "punishment" you're a fucking dope.
I guess the kid pulled out a knife because he didn't want to stab anyone.
I have reached parody level? Isn't the argument frequently given by gun advocates that merely drawing or showing a gun is enough to deter crime.
Silly non-empiricists!
Until the knife actually stabs the victim, no one can say the one weilding a knife, even after opening it, even after subduing the alleged "victim," was going to "stab" anyone!
Talk about jumping to conclusions!
You're so cynical--why, it's equally as probable, on the facts, that the so-called "bully" was actually trying to be helpful. He saw the so-called "victim" had a store tag on his shirt, and to spare him embarrassment, he was going to remove the tag for him.
So, naturally, the other student--who had no business interfering--was reprimanded.
But saying he was going to stab someone? Really a quite unfair leap!
This is comedy gold.
First:
Freder Frederson said...
No, the school seems to believe that 13 year old children aren't sufficiently mature to handle such a situation
Then:
Freder Frederson said...
You are simply reading facts into the article that are simply not there.
Again, if stupid shits like you didn't exist, the right would have to invent them.
Freder Frederson said...
I have reached parody level? Isn't the argument frequently given by gun advocates that merely drawing or showing a gun is enough to deter crime.
Yes, and you're so fucking stupid you don't see how idiotic your comment is.
You couldn't possibly be any more ignorant of the event you're commenting on, yet you won't shut up.
Or, perhaps the fellow with the knife saw that the so-called "victim" had a leech on his back, and he was going to remove it. As this is all rather upsetting, of course he first subdued the beneficiary.
For his safety.
Umm, Freder?
What's the difference between a 13 y.o & a 14 y.o to consent to sex if they drop the age of consent?
15 year olds can get sterilized under Obamacare without telling parents & schools put kids on hormones to stop pregnancy - in NYC under the age of 14.
So where's this "can't see the difference between a 13 y.o and an adult" come in?
I found Freder's use of the sobriquet "instaidiot" quite charming. Liberals of course adore "civility" Well done Freder.
It's the progressive one stab rule.
You get one free stab before anyone intervenes.
Make it a good one.
Freder Frederson said...
Isn't the argument frequently given by gun advocates that merely drawing or showing a gun is enough to deter crime.
Hey stupid shit, please explain how a classroom bully having a kid in a headlock, then the same bully pulling out a knife is at all analogous to whatever the fuck it is you're talking about?
This is, of course, Canada we're talking about. Look at their history.
Not a lot of individualism or personal bravery there (I know, they have a good military, but very small).
They've always counted on people being nice to each other and that the Mounties would get there in time.
We've known otherwise ever since Deerfield.
El Pollo Raylan said...
Why is this stuff happening more and more in places like Canada and Britain? It's contagious and sooner or later we catch the same disease.
They've let the animals run wild and taken away the means of defense from the people.
We will only "catch" the disease if we listen to people like Lurch who think the Euros have a better way.
They don't.
They never have, really.
Freder Frederson said...
No, the school seems to believe that 13 year old children aren't sufficiently mature to handle such a situation.
And the school also shows it isn't mature enough to handle it, so the 13 year old stepped into the breach.
If you (and Instaidiot) can't see the difference between a 13 year old and an adult, I feel sorry for both of you.
Depends on the "adult". there are some very mature 13 year olds and there are some very immature adults.
Like Freder.
And anyway the kid was reprimanded, not punished. If he had been suspended, I could see where you could say it was an overreaction. But read the article closely, he was called into the principal's office and "reprimanded", not punished.
A reprimand is a punishment, genius.
Don't be a hero. The religion of progressive asshole prohibits it. Especially at age 13.
Freder Frederson said...
I have reached parody level?
You're beyond parody.
I'm wondering how you tie your shoes, you're so stupid.
Freder Frederson said...
You are simply reading facts into the article that are simply not there.
the police said a knife was involved, the kids in the class said there was a knife, and the kid who tackled the bully said he heard the unmistakable "flick" of a pocket knife.
Total misreading!!!!!
Idiot.
Or, perhaps the youth with the knife is simply an unappreciated gourmand. In the rush to judgment, no one considered that he had, in his backpack, some fresh salmon spread and crackers--thus the knife.
And in a burst of over-enthusiasm, if perhaps a slight error of judgment (quite understandable for 13 year olds), he playfully tackled his classmate so as to surprise him with the honor of being the first to taste his snacks.
Really, all blown out of proportion.
Meanwhile, no one seems to care at all for the crushed hopes of the one now stigmatized a "bully."
So sad, what jumping to conclusions can lead to!
...Suddenly, I'm seeing this as the cause of the bullying problem. Everyone knows that the way to stop the bully is to hit him. To forbid self-defense is to empower the bully. The bully knows you pussies will keep doing what you're supposed to do. ....
You're just figuring this out now?
Wow... Canada goes over the deep end. Here in Texas that kid would be given a medal and a seat of honor.
One day countries that suppress bravery and honor will reap the whirlwind of war and subjugation.
If you (and Instaidiot) can't see the difference between a 13 year old and an adult, I feel sorry for both of you.
I think you underestimate 13 year olds in general, and this particular 14 year old. When kids stand up for someone weaker, that is a good thing.
13 year old.
You probably don't overestimate my typing skills.
Fr sez: " if the citizen can show that a banned weapon would have been efficacious in mitigating or preventing the injury, the citizen has a legal cause of action against the government and can obtain damages through civil process."
Counterfactual claims like that one are impossible to prove. Too many variables: How can you prove a banned weapon would have been efficacious unless you could replay the entire scenario over again? And could find some actual bystanders who knew how to use said weapons and would have been willing to carry said weapons?
I, for one, am quite content that the fate of my grand-children are to be totally in the hands of our administrative overlords--after a couple of fifths of Barbancourt, that is..
Freder is either a total buffoon or a total drunk to utter such nonsense--or both--take your pick.
As for whether 13 year olds are sufficiently mature, I have always believed that different human beings mature at different rates.
I've seen some immature 20 year olds.
OTOH, Tutankhamun became pharaoh of Egypt at the age of ten.
And the age of consent for sexual relations was a lot lower in the past than it is today too.
Sinz:
Fair point. It would be fun, however, to see if someone could find suitable wording.
When does a Jewish boy say, "Today I am a man"?
13.
And American history is replete with stories of 13 year olds doing as much or more than Briar MacLean (Hell of a name, BTW; prickly sort).
I think sexism against males might be a component of this. I always stood up to bullies when I was an elementary aged child, often physically, and I was never once reprimanded for it. Is that because I was a little girl rather than a little boy?
No, the school seems to believe that 13 year old children aren't sufficiently mature to handle such a situation.
If you (and Instaidiot) can't see the difference between a 13 year old and an adult, I feel sorry for both of you."
My nephew was 5'8 when he was 13 but thankfully he wasn't a bully. When I was 13 more than 40 years ago a dark complected 13 year old showed me the handle of his gun when politely asking me for $5.00. Not all 13 year olds are as sweet as Trayvon Martin was.
Freeman, women are always allowed to attack or damage men at will, talk about it, suggest it, or plot it. Men are not even allowed to imply it toward women, and if it was possible we would be arrested for thinking it. That's just the way it is.
Jay calls out Freder: You've reached full blown parody level.
Bingo. Freder must think he's playing some kind of devil's advocate here--preventing unanimous condemnation of stupidity. In reality, he's just an advocate for nuisance litigation.
I say that as a spectator of what passes for performance art.
Standard teachning practice is to not break up a fight because the teacher might get hurt or injure a student, leading to a lawsuit. Instead, the school punishes the aggressor and victim alike. That allows them to appear to be addressing the violent act without having to actually gather information and make an informed decision. God forbid anyone make a decision!
A few thoughts:
1) Bullies are bullies because they like it. For all the hue and cry about loneliness or acting out their problems or really just wanting a friend (aka, the psychology of animated cartoons), bullies tend to like exerting power over others. The best way to address that is to make it unpleasant to do so. Make it harder for them to get their jollies, and they tend to do less of it. Make it easier, and you get more of it.
2) Stated another way: it takes two to make a fight, but only one to make a beating.
3) My grandfather had a drunk for a dad when the Depression hit. He had to take care of himself and look out for his mother and the rest of the kids in the Ozarks woods. He was 11. My other grandfather had to do pretty much the same thing at the same time in the Texas panhandle. He was around 10 or 11 as well. To state categorically that one's age is an absolute indicator of one's maturity is poor, sloppy thinking. Thus, to say that today's 13-year-olds are incapable of such mature thinking and action is not an indictment of 13-year-olds but rather an indictment of the adults who aren't very good to getting kids to grow up.
Indeed if all kids are raised to be cowards where will the Left Overlords get their enforcers from?
the bully. so long as his IQ isn't too high."
X you assume to much. What guarantee does the Overlord have that the low IQ bully will understand his place on the totem pole?
A reprimand is a punishment, genius.
So if you get caught for speeding and the cop lets you off with a warning, you consider that punishment?
Like M the Bat, when I was in school more often than not both kids were punished (70s and 80s). BUT...there was this sort of underlying assumption among parents and teachers that this was just the cost of doing business. "Yes, Johnny, you may get detention for hitting that asshole back, but you are going to get worse than that when you get home if you don't fight back." It was detention or swats - a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, and damn the consequences. Now it is politicized and criminalized, and the parents are acquiescing. They are branding kindergateners with a scarlet A for aggressive. Don't let them do this to your kids, America.
They hadn't gotten around to the history of the holocaust yet, when they would teach the wisdom of Gandhi's suggestion to the Jews to not resist the Germans.
He wasn't given a warning, he was sent home as a message to the other students.
A warning would have let him stay in school.
Age is relative to the situation. Just like most things. No rules.
When everything is morally relative no rule applies. The same thirteen year old who can declare him/herself transgender or demand a sex change or consent to gay sex with an 18 year old is incompetent to defend him/herself or others.
It for the children
Whoever in hell the children are today in this special circumstance that the administrators get to arbitrarily choose.
Suddenly, I'm seeing this as the cause of the bullying problem. Everyone knows that the way to stop the bully is to hit him.
Yes. In grade school I finally got tired of being bullied by an older guy. I fought back. I got a few good punches in. Even though I lost the fight, he stopped bullying me (decided it was too much trouble I guess) so in the long run, I won. The trouble I got into was worth it.
One helluva confidence booster, by the way.
Freder Frederson said...
A reprimand is a punishment, genius.
So if you get caught for speeding and the cop lets you off with a warning, you consider that punishment?
You consider it a punishment and you go away changed by the experience at least for a little while. Otherwise why do it at all.
Bingo. Freder must think he's playing some kind of devil's advocate here--preventing unanimous condemnation of stupidity. In reality, he's just an advocate for nuisance litigation. "
Pollo stop dissing the Devil. The Devil has many attributes but stupid isn't one of them. You give Freder too much credit. He isn't advocating on behalf of nuisance litigation. He's advocating on behalf of the marching morons. But then again every group needs an advocate. Somebody has to do it. Might as well be him. Besides he is well suited for the role.
Freder Frederson:
Do we really need to get into a discussion of whether a reprimand is or isn't punishment?
How about this: Most of us here, if we were the principal, would have wanted to call that kid in and say, "Well done, kid. You've got more guts and moral sense than most people ever will." And if doing so were against the rules, then those are some stupid damn rules.
I realize the Kitty Genovese story was misreported, but did you look at the urban-myth version and think, "Well done, guys. Glad no hothead decided to play the hero"?
In order to comply with the multicultural demand to include everyone, some people are overlooking and throwing out a lot of things we need, like good rules and good judgment and a more realistic understanding of why people do things.
Well.....if you are those like Freder who do not want or won't condone "heroics" I would like for you to wear a badge or some other identifying mark so that, when you are in a dire situation that requires immediate and possibly heroic effort to save your life, we will know to spare you the agony and annoyance of our heroic efforts and instead make a 911 call (if that isn't too much). We can then all stand around and watch you get stabbed, bleed to death in your rolled over vehicle or just go along and not get involved. Not to worry....we won't interfere with the authorities. Sorry that it takes 30 minutes or longer for them to show up. I'll just be on my way and not interfere. Good luck.
The other day, we were driving home on one of our mountainous windy roads. There had just been a bad roll over accident in front of us. Guy ran head on into a tree and flipped his truck. Traffic was stopped both ways. There were people trying to roll the truck over from its upside down position and prop it up with some rocks so that the cab wasn't laying on top of the arm of the guy. Others were bringing blankets for the person who had been thrown out and attempting to stop the bleeding. We stopped and asked if there was something we could do, but they had it handled. Going up the road we stopped and flagged traffic to slow down so that everyone wouldn't be run over by a loaded cattle truck or logging truck. Later in the paper the credit for saving the lives of the victims was actually given to the bystanders, good Samaritans. It took over 45 minutes for the ambulance and sheriffs to arrive.
I guess. We all just should have just ignored the whole thing and let the authorities take care of it? Right?
Freder Frederson said...
A reprimand is a punishment, genius.
So if you get caught for speeding and the cop lets you off with a warning, you consider that punishment?
Does the warning go in your record back at the precinct so that, if you do it again within 6 months, the cop doesn't give you another warning, he gives you a ticket?
In some cases, it do.
And a reprimand isn't a warning. A reprimand does go in your file, so that follows the kid around (although, in this case, it ought to be a badge of honor).
A reprimand can kill a military career, for example.
Freder:
If a police officer pulls me aside, after doing something noble and worthwhile for my fellow citizen and...
Asks questions in order to do his job, and sends me on his way?
Then I'm happy. Makes perfect sense.
Or, if the officer "warns" me that I oughtn't to have done that, but otherwise doesn't interfere with me going about my business?
Then I'm irritated and frustrated. But maybe not a "punishment."
But, if the officer "warns" me, tells me not to do such things, and then tells me I must go home, and not go about my day as planned...
Yeah, that's a "punishment"; and in that case, I'm asking the officer to show where he got the authority to order me to house arrest.
Oops, maybe the police offer pulling you over wasn't such a great analogy?
When I was in HS (early 70's) I started to come to the aid of a "pussy" (a mild mannered FB teammate of mine) when a "bully" turned his desk over in class. Just as I stood up, the "wimp" straightened up his desk and laid the tough guy out with a one-two that sounded like slapping two by fours together. The bully collapsed in a pool of blood, literally. The teacher then entered the room and sent the victim to the office, where he was suspended for "fighting". But no one ever looked at him as a mark again.
"Standard teachning practice is to not break up a fight because the teacher might get hurt or injure a student, leading to a lawsuit."
I broke up numerous fights while student teaching in an urban district. The difference may be that I come from a rural background where fighting among boys was considered normal.
Fr Martin Fox said...
Silly non-empiricists!
Until the knife actually stabs the victim, no one can say the one weilding a knife, even after opening it, even after subduing the alleged "victim," was going to "stab" anyone!
a knife, correct, but if it were a gun, just in a holster, all kinds of evil intentions can be deduced
We should become a nation of government enforced pussydom like Great Britain.
To forbid self-defense is to empower the bully.
Of course. Why do you think liberals are so adament about gun control? The idea of self reliance over dependence on the state even for self defense is a core leftwing principle.
If a few people die waiting on the government mandated protection force to arrive, that's, as the school aptly stated, not the point.
So if you get caught for speeding and the cop lets you off with a warning, you consider that punishment
When you've been reduced to trying to compare adults driving and their interactions with police officers, with 13 year olds who are not adults, not able to drive, and principals, you really, really have no argument and are pathetically trying to distract from the indefensible.
No, the school seems to believe that 13 year old children aren't sufficiently mature to handle such a situation. If you (and Instaidiot) can't see the difference between a 13 year old and an adult, I feel sorry for both of you.
This has to be one of the top 5 most stupid comments in the history of internet commenting.
Could that kid's throat have been slit? If the answer is yes, then YES, Freder, the kid handled it properly.
What a complete moron.
My dad taught in a juvenile hall until recently. One student blind sided the other with a quick punch, knocked him down, picked up a desk, was about to crash it down on him. The student holding the desk was about 6'3". My dad, 5'7", takes the kid down, pins him down until the guards come into the room, probably saving the other kid's life or at least saving him from serious injury.
My dad is suspended for a week from teaching, has to go through all sorts of rigamarole, even though the incident is on video, all the juvenile hall staff support him. He was accused, by the principal and the aggressor student, of using racist language. Every other student backed up my dad.
"I broke up numerous fights while student teaching in an urban district."
All that to say, everything has changed in the last 5-10 years. My dad was trained to restrain students in those situations, but policies moved to any intervention is cause for suspension or firing.
So if you get caught for speeding and the cop lets you off with a warning, you consider that punishment
The proper analogy would be if the cop stopped you, reprimanded you, noted it in your record, and then made you drive directly home.
That would be punishment, however you want to slice it.
Suddenly, I'm seeing this as the cause of the bullying problem. Everyone knows that the way to stop the bully is to hit him. To forbid self-defense is to empower the bully. The bully knows you pussies will keep
Seriously, this is an epiphany?
They'll have to kill the sense of shame in those who won't "shelter in place"...or is it the sense of humiliation, in a creature raised to be free, that naturally arises on hearing that ignominious command?
If you (and Instaidiot) can't see the difference between a 13 year old and an adult, I feel sorry for both of you.
Two weeks ago a whole bunch of adults watched to Islamic fanatics butcher an off duty British.soldier in broad daylight and did nothing other than take pictures.
I'll take this 13 year old kid over your vaunted 'adults' any day.
To forbid self-defense is to empower the bully. The bully knows you pussies will keep doing what you're supposed to do.
Thank you for this clarity of thinking regarding the Second Amendment. Please forward it to Mayor Rham Emanuel of Chicago, Illinois.
It occurs to me, after reading what Paddy O says at 10:36 AM that had the kid not tackled the bully, but notified the teacher...that the teacher would have done nothing.
That is our new world if we accept it.
Do we?
Here is a hypothetical for Freder. Say you are at the park and see a women being assaulted. Do you A) physically intervene and subdue the attacker or B) call 911 and hope the woman doesn't suffer too much before the police arrive.
The School Administrators are a version of the Quakers. Not a finger is raised to fight for any reason, which gives the a perverted pride that they have set up a system that kills and injures nearly everybody but themselves. Wheee!
Couple of months ago, two hefty girls in Nephew's 8th grade class got into a knock-down-drag-out fight. Male teacher was unsuccessfully trying to stop it, and in fact looking a bit scared, when Nephew grabbed the girl who was his friend and another student grabbed the other and pulled them apart. They quickly tore into each other again and this time Nephew got between them, picked up his friend, laughingly told her to hug him, hug him, hug him, and walked her away from the fight.
while proud that his instinct was to stop the fight and use humor to calm down the situation, I fear for his future safety amongst those who would see his behavior as sexually aggressive.
Suddenly, I'm seeing this as the cause of the bullying problem. Everyone knows that the way to stop the bully is to hit him. To forbid self-defense is to empower the bully. The bully knows you pussies will keep
Seriously, this is an epiphany?
Society is replete with really 'smart' people who have never experienced life outside their gated bubbles.
"we 'don’t condone heroics in this school.'" We would rather have a few kids' throats slit.
Wonder if she would condone heroics if it was her own kid's throat that was about to get slit.
Wonder if she would condone heroics if it was her own throat that was about to get slit.
"Here is a hypothetical for Freder. Say you are at the park and see a women being assaulted. Do you A) physically intervene and subdue the attacker or B) call 911 and hope the woman doesn't suffer too much before the police arrive."
You are in the Penn State locker room and you see Sandusky raping a boy...
"Do we?"
Had I been suspended like Paddy's Dad and accused of racism to boot, I would have been in the Principals office the next am bright and early with my attny and a freshly filed civil lawsuit with copious damages naming the Principal personally as well as the schools governing board both jointly and severally and with a request for discovery to incl the vid and statements from all the students, existing school "policy" or no..
You are in the Penn State locker room and you see Sandusky raping a boy...
Exactly which is why that assistant coach, an adult, who witnessed it and did nothing is a reprehensible human being.
And I used the term human being reservedly.
Suddenly, I'm seeing this as the cause of the bullying problem.
Suddenly?
Society is replete with really 'smart' people who have never experienced life outside their gated bubbles.
True although in fairness girl bullying tends to take different forms. And maybe Ann was the bully herself. But the principle of standing up for yourself still works.
As to whether or not 13 is an adult - isn't 13 the age for HIPPA?
Colonel Angus said...
"Society is replete with really 'smart' people who have never experienced life outside their gated bubbles."
True, especially among our lefty academics. They just don't understand the real world cuz their approach to life is based on dogma (i.e. memorization of lefty catechism) rather than considered experience. This means they don't learn from experience which means that dogmatic lefties (is there any other kind?) suffer from a learning disability.
Like law profs never bully anyone in class..
True although in fairness girl bullying tends to take different forms. And maybe Ann was the bully herself. But the principle of standing up for yourself still works.
Indeed. Bullying whether physical or emotional works on those unwilling or unable to defend themselves. Althouse's evident epiphany that passivity only empowers the bully makes me question whether she understands even the most basic tenents of human nature.
I figured out by 4th grade that bullies stopped hitting you when you hit them back.
Does this topic start wandering into giving up liberty for safety/security and deserve (and get) neither?
They're Canadians, they're subjects, they don't get it.
Plus, it could partially be because of their location?
To forbid self-defense is to empower the bully.
And which administration brought Chicago-style hard-knuckles politics to the White House. C'mon, Althouse, you're almost there.
But they are mature enough to decide to have sex and abortions.
Ann Althouse said...
You are in the Penn State locker room and you see Sandusky raping a boy...
What is your point? Any man with an ounce of moral courage would have intervened immediately, physically, fucked Sandusky up, and reported later. Period.
That didn't happen and that is what this school is saying is correct behavior...do nothing.
Is that where we are today...defenseless without authority figures to step in?
Or do I misunderstand your point in citing Sandusky?
It is possible, my bias against Sandusky, Penn State Athletics, and everyone ever involved with it over the past 20 years is rather pronounced.
They're Canadians, they're subjects, they don't get it.
Let's not dogpile on our northern cousins. I don't doubt that had this taken place in Boston or San Francisco the outcome would not have been similar. My kids school have a 'no tolerance' policy for fighting and all involved get an automatic three day suspension.
Whether it is Canada, Britain or USA, leftists who monopolize academia are bent on creating dependency which includes abdicating the right of self defense. Sheep are easier to herd.
I suspect that the same people who applaud the vice principal in this case are the people who used to advocate that women being raped should not fight back. We now know that this is was dead wrong, that on average fighting back is correlated with driving off the attacker or reducing the risk of being killed by the rapist.
Americans fight back. Now Erdogan is discovering that Turks do, too. This is good.
Submission is a virtue? That's not an American principle. Who are the people advocating for progressive victimization?
This is reminiscent of the pro-slavery/choice movement preceding the civil war. Some people just don't respect individual dignity or will passively tolerate its violation.
"The boy's mother, Leah O'Donnell, was called and told that her son had been involved in an incident and was trying to "play hero.""
He wasn't "playing" hero.
Meh. This is SOP for Canada. Have you ever heard of the École Polytechnique massacre?
(Here's Mark Steyn's take on it.)
Stamp out masculinity anywhere it rears it's ugly head. Especially in schools. Those are just seething cauldrons of potential heroics waiting to happen. Can't have that. Every single administrator involved in this incident needs to be fired and replaced with actual human beings. This kid should be given a medal. He saved the lives of his fellow classmates and this is his reward? When is this going to stop. How much longer are we going to allow our children and ourselves to be cowed by these bureaucrats?
Poor old Sir John is probably spinning in his grave. Scottish immigrant, one of the faters of conferacy and the first Prime Minister of Canada.
Poor old Sir John is probably spinning in his grave. Scottish immigrant, one of the faters of conferacy and the first Prime Minister of Canada.
Everyone knows that the way to stop the bully is to hit him.
Modern school administrators don't. They think running to teacher is the way to stop bullies.
The world needs more people like this boy, and less like the passive pussified leftist sheep like Fredo.
Seriously, I hope that you get stabbed and that no one around acts heroically to save your worthless ass.
You are a pathetic disgusting piece of shit.
An episode of The Chris Rock sitcom "Everybody Hates Chris" demonstrated a great way to deal with bullies.
The character (middle school age) recounts how, at his old inner city school, if you wanted to get into a fight with another student - you had to fight the school's principal - and WIN - before you could beat up any of your classmates.
Anne Frank could not be reached for comment.
It's my understanding that in some school districts in Texas, students are taught to throw books at intruders in the class room. America is not doomed as long as Texas stands.
Long live Texas.
Texas, by God! And if you meet us in our natural habitat, we are likely to return fire.
WHERE OH WHER are you Freder? Althouse asked you a question at 11:09am. It is now 2:48pm.
Cat got your tongue?
What a pussy you are!!!
The bully knows you pussies will keep doing what you're supposed to do.
I was bullied non-stop for years and the school did nothing. Until the day I defended myself, of course, and they suspended BOTH of us. It's been over 30 years and it still pisses my mother off. On the plus side, fighting back was a sign to the bullies that I was no longer easy prey and they left me alone. I count it as a win.
The way to stop a bully is to stand your ground. It is the same action necessary to prevent activists or government agents of various stripes from stepping on your feet, sitting on your head, redistributing your earned wealth, etc.
"Althouse's evident epiphany that passivity only empowers the bully makes me question whether she understands even the most basic tenents of human nature."
No. That's extremely well known and not the point that I was making.
"The bully knows you pussies will keep doing what you're supposed to do."
The armed criminal knows you pussies will leave your guns at home like you're supposed to do.
"If you raise all kids to be cowards, then from what group will you select your police and soldiers from?"
Your police will come from people who are cowardly enough to hide behind a badge and their orders and will ignore criminals and oppress law-abiding citizens. And the liberals don't want soldiers anyway.
sinz, Fr. Martin:
It's easy: the burden of proof should be on those who would use the awesome and dreadful power of the state to deprive people of the means of self-defense? Something goes wrong because you demanded people in your venue disarm? Too bad, you're on the hook.
The phrase "men without chests" is from C.S. Lewis's book, The Abolition of Man. "We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."
"Suddenly, I'm seeing this as the cause of the bullying problem. Everyone knows that the way to stop the bully is to hit him. To forbid self-defense is to empower the bully. The bully knows you pussies will keep doing what you're supposed to do"
Even Ralphie from A Christmas Story learned this lesson. How did help arm this, and yet the adults didn't?
"Althouse's evident epiphany that passivity only empowers the bully makes me question whether she understands even the most basic tenents of human nature."
No. That's extremely well known and not the point that I was making.
Could you rephrase the point you were trying to make?
"To forbid self-defense is to empower the bully" seems pretty clear to me and doesn't need rephrasing.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा