XPost: alt.education, alt.true-crime, pdx.general   
   XPost: or.politics   
   From: lojbab@lojban.org   
      
   "nimue"  wrote:   
   >>>> Kids had far less privacy, and far fewer rights, a century ago;   
   >>>> still they managed.   
   >>>   
   >>> So?  Women couldn't vote, then.   
   >>   
   >> Most places.   
   >>   
   >>> The slave trade was legal.   
   >>   
   >> Not in the US.  Slavery was outlawed a lot more than a century ago.   
   >   
   >Whoops.  My bad -- I guess I misread "century" as "centuries."  Who knows.   
   >Still -- 13th amendment, 1865 -- I know when slavery was outlawed.   
   >>   
   >>> What is your point?   
   >>   
   >> The American concept of privacy rights is based on our Constitution   
   >> (and even then only as penumbrally implied).  The constitution has not   
   >> been changed with regard to privacy (whereas it has with respect to   
   >> women voting and slavery).   
   >   
   >Okay -- so?   
      
   Meaning that there are explicit constitutional changes to explain why   
   women now vote and there are no slaves.  There have not been any such   
   changes with respect to privacy, so there is no reason why a kid   
   should expect to have more rights than he had a hundred or even two   
   hundred years ago.   
      
   >>>>> One of my biggest   
   >>>>> complaints about  many schools is that they prepare students to   
   >>>>> "succeed" in prison.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I doubt it.   
   >>>   
   >>> I work in one such school.  Trust me.   
   >>   
   >> And your expertise in what is necessary to train kids to succeed in   
   >> prison derives from ...?   
   >   
   >Are you stupid?  Do you think a person would have had to have been   
   >incarcerated to know what the environment in a prison is like?   
      
   To really know, yes.   
      
   >Our schools are becoming more and more like mini-prisons.   
      
   Over-the-top rhetoric unsupported by any facts.   
      
   > When I see how   
   >they are treated, the disgusting verbal disrespect that they have to put up   
   >with,   
      
   If you mean the teachers, I agree with you.   
      
   How are these MORE like mini-prisons that what kids had to put up with   
   a hundred years ago?   
      
   And if you want real abuse, how about the way the nuns in those days   
   treated Catholic school kids?  And it was perfectly acceptable to   
   parents (most of whom had experienced it themselves).   
      
   >all I can think is that they will never learn the communication skills   
   >they will need to succeed in the real world.  They won't learn how to solve   
   >problems calmly and rationally.   
      
   The first step in solving problems is to do what you are told.   
   Sometimes that is inappropriate or won't work, and you have to go to   
   plan B.  But learning how to follow Plan A would help a lot of kids.   
      
   >When they are yelled at by SSAs all day   
   >long, they come to accept that as appropriate and right.   
      
   They are probably yelled at even more harshly by their parents.   
   Especially if they are so disobedient that they have to be yelled at   
   all day long at school.   
      
   >> Of course you do.  Parents have to sign permission forms.  Doctors   
   >> have to sign medical forms saying it is OK.  Parents may have to sign   
   >> drug testing consent forms.  The kid has to meet any academic   
   >> constraints.  All these are qualifications must be met in order to   
   >> have license to play.   
   >   
   >There is no license and you know it.  My parents may give me permission to   
   >drive a car, but that is not a license recognized by the state.   
      
   Correct.  A kid better have a state license (as well as parental   
   license),  But they won't get that state license without parental   
   permission.   
      
   >> "License" is merely legal permission.  The state is authorized to set   
   >> requirements before granting license.   
   >   
   >The state does not grant students permission to play soccer.   
      
   The state, in the form of the school, gives permission to the students   
   to play soccer on the school team.   
      
   >>> Yeah -- let's further alienate kids who are doing drugs.  That ought   
   >>> to help!   
   >>   
   >> They are choosing to alienate themselves.   
   >   
   >Aren't the schools supposed to help these kids?   
      
   If they refuse to follow the rules?  No.   
      
   >To provide options?   
      
   The option is to follow the rules.  OR ELSE!   
      
   >No, we are creating a system that punishes those who most need our support.   
      
   If they think that they need support, then they will follow the rules.   
      
   >>>> It isn't "going".  It never was.  Fifty years ago a kid who cussed   
   >>>> at a teacher would have been paddled, with possibly greater   
   >>>> repercussions for repeat offense, like expulsion.  Now they just   
   >>>> get a detention, or possibly a suspension for a couple of days.   
   >>>   
   >>> If a teacher paddles a student, that teacher loses his job, and   
   >>> rightly so, imo.   
   >>   
   >> That wasn't the case when I was a kid.   
   >   
   >I know.   
      
   So you should not be saying that things are getting worse, when in   
   fact society has gotten far more permissive.   
      
   >>>>> So?  What does that have to do with a liability lawsuit?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If he fails a drug test, he is by definition impaired while on the   
   >>>> job.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, he's not.  What definition?   
   >>   
   >> Whoever required the testing.   
   >>   
   >>> If the drug is no longer affecting him,   
   >>   
   >> ... then it won't be detectible.   
   >   
   >Where do you get THAT from?  If you smoke marijuana, the drug could show up   
   >in your urine a month later.   
      
   Then it is still affecting him.   
      
   >Do you honestly think a person who smokes a joint is impaired a month later?   
      
   If the law defines it such that he is, then yes.   
      
   >>>> But if she falls and breaks her wrist because she is impaired, then   
   >>>> she will require reimbursement for sick leave, and for medical costs   
   >>>> if she is covered.  She may sue over these benefits.   
   >>>   
   >>> Shows what you know -- that secretary is suing whether she is   
   >>> impaired or not if she falls and breaks her wrist.  It's the   
   >>> company's slippery floor, or bad carpet, or bad lighting -- don't   
   >>> you know anything?   
   >>   
   >> If she is more likely to have an accident because she is using drugs,   
   >> then the drugs are part of the cause.  The studies show that accidents   
   >> drop significantly when there is drug testing.  This suggests that   
   >> drugs are involved in many accidents.   
   >   
   >So?  How does that prove your wacky idea that the secretary will sue the   
   >company for not drug testing her and thus preventing her fall?   
      
   The secretary will sue the company because she had an accident, not   
   because of the lack of drug testing.  The drug testing apparently   
   significantly cuts the number of accidents, and thus makes it less   
   likely that the secretary will have the accident and thus the excuse   
   to sue.  This allows the company to MAKE MONEY FASTER, both from her   
   increased productivity, the reduced losses of her services from fewer   
   accidents, and the smaller legal and insurance costs to pay for the   
   lawsuits.   
      
   >>>> Per the cites, companies apparently have observed increases in   
   >>>> productivity, reductions in sick time and accidents.   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't know who did those studies.   
   >>   
   >> If you won't read my cites, I can't help you.   
   >>   
   >>>> Then vote against its proponents.  But expect to get outvoted.   
   >>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)