| Zero tolerance in schls-Zero at home Results from rigid enforcement

On 02 Dec 2003 13:00:46 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_d...?article_id=71

Anyone who suspects that their child is an unwitting victim of rigid
zero
tolerance policies in schools should contact the Rutherford
Institute.

So, you want to untangle that [subject] line you fabricated?


Anyone who doubts that the no-punishment crowd is also of that ilk
should fight
to keep Supreme Courts holdings still in existence.

Your attempt to foist an alignment of over zealous PC'rs to those that
don't believe in punishment parenting is rather lame, don't you think?

In fact wouldn't logic tell you that they'd be precisely against the
punishing aspect of rigid zero tolerance policies?

You are nothing if not stupid and illogocal, Isopyrum hallii

Ingraham v Wright. Holding of Supreme Court in 1970's. Spanking
legal in all
these United States.

That was not the question they were considering. Here is, from the
opening paragraph of the opinion:

"MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court. This case
presents questions concerning the use of corporal punishment in public
schools:

Kane Oh, "schools."

First, whether the paddling of students as a means of maintaining
school discipline constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment;

Kane Oh, "schools."

and, second, to the extent that paddling is constitutionally permissible, whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Kane Seems this also was about whether or not the schools could be
sued or otherwise legally constrained, wouldn't you say?

The fact it rains on some days and not on others, makes it facetious
to claim that it always rains.

No, paddling or spanking is NOT universally legal in all circumstance
because of this opinion. Still, in some circumstances it clearly is
NOT.

And we still haven't solved the problem: what IS "spanking"
definitively?

That is one of my reasons for being a no punishment avocate for child
rearing. It is extremely difficult to guage the point where
"discipline" passes into abuse.

So tell us, Gymnocarpium disjuncta, is this what you think is now
legal, and that it is good?

"Ingraham was subjected to more than 20 licks with a paddle while
being held over a table in the principal's office. The paddling was so
severe that he suffered a hematoma requiring medical attention and
keeping him out of school for several days. Andrews was paddled
several times for minor infractions. On two occasions he was struck on
his arms, once depriving him of the full use of his arm for a week. "

A not uncommon occurance in "disciplining" activity. It doesn't work,
so do it harder, until the point of injury. So what IS "spanking"
dimbulb?

And for the fuller understanding of just what the issues were and the
thinking of THOSE times so one can compared to THESE times one should
read the opinion for themselves.

And finally, given that it's "legal" what might be the reason for 24
states to ban it outright by law from their schools?

Kane

On 4 Dec 2003 17:15:28 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

LaVonne: You and your ilk keep trying to impose
your morality onto other people.

Posting to USENET is an imposition "onto other people?"

Yah gotta be kiddin'..no wait, you aren't.

You actually have such a damaged and flabby ego and poor strength of
character that she DOES get through to you. Well fancy that.

No WONDER you feel like a victim. YOU ARE ONE, of yourself.

There ARE cultural and belief differences between people.

I'm gonna bet she knows that. She has posted many a comment that so
indicates.

The imposition

"imposition?" Posting to USENET?

you represent is a stepping stone
to a society where government runs people, not vice versa.
Orwell, Kafka, Goebbels, have a read!

Posting liberal multiculturalism (what ever that is) to usenet is a
"stepping stone?"

Could you clarify this for those of us without your political science
training and acumen? I just can't find a way to link the two...I mean
USENET?

Now if LaVonne was one of those liberal hollywood stars I might be
able to, but LaVonne, posting too USENET? Come on!

Is LaPlant letting you suck on It's LaSap, or It's bottle of Liquid
LaFertilizer again?

For all of your liberalism, multiculturaalism, you are
trying to take us down a road of totalitarianism.

And you better be scared if it's true. SHE has access to young minds.
You only managed a short run at one kid in the shower.

I'm starting to believe your post about the child being very bright.
You have a terrible time with your intellectual betters and you
invariably underestimate them in your frantic attempt at ego
preservation.

I'll bet the little kid used her brain and engineered her way out of
there. You've got a lot to worry about with LaVonne.

Kids will lie to escape some horrors, and lie wiht not a whit of the
truth in the lie as is more common, because the truth of what is being
done to them is so overwhelming they can't let themselves speak it.

Please make a distinction between what you propose
and SOCIALISM, or USSR COMMUNISM....

Please don't snip what she proposed and then make demands about it. I
don't upthread on you any more.

Why? Because when I do I so often find you have lied about what anyone
said and expanded on what the meant to the point it is unreconizable
as their original claim or question.

- if you can.

Little schoolyard bully talk.

You probably think you are for free thought, also,
but I have seen ultraliberals be the FIRST to try
using censorship.

You are so kind. You have promoted her to "ultra."

I have never seen a government or a political discipline NOT try to
use censorship.

Do you always say such stupid.....oh wait.

You probably aren't a NAZI, but you forget that it
meant National Socialism.

Let me see now, she a liberal, an ultra liberal, and also a Nazi.

Boy what a heavy burden.

Can you varify any of this, or are we being treated to the valuable
opinions of a couch creaser?

It was a slippery slope for the Germans.
It made perfect sense to them.
Look up NAZI Judge Roland Friesler.
He was an impeccable legal mind.
Learn from the past, don't repeat it.

Yah know, I don't think she'll look him up. Can't say as to why I
think that. Probably in disrespect of you.

She will likely victimize you terribly.

Why don't you write a motion?

In fact, why don't you just resend your original message to her with a
new subject [Greeg Has a Movemen...scuse`...a Motion]?

How can you possibly justify government second
guessing parents?

Where, where?

I never saw her say a single thing like that. What did I miss. Please
quote her accurately. She is in for a real drubbing from me if guilty.

Hurry. I can hardly wait to join you in harrassing her for her
liberal, ultra liberal, Nazi sentiments.

Government has proven to be
so inept itself that government has no "high ground"
whatsoever to dictate such things.

YOU dummy, have never ever lived where the government is NOT inept,
but in fact close to perfect in bureaucratic function.

It's hell. You would be early out the cell door in the morning the
testing of the Swords. The Japanese shoganate had close to a perfect
government system. Little pricks such as you were used to both temper
swords...blood and other human juices make a great tempering fluid, or
testing the edge by seeing how far down the spreadeagled standing
human body the blade would slice before stopping.

Then there was the perfect Italian government of the Thirties and
Forties. Ever see the pic of the former Dictator and his mistress
hanging from a balcony, upside down, with their throats slit?

Me I love inept, partially crippled govenments. So did the founders.

Government has proven that even imperfect parents
are far superior to what GOVERNMENT can do.

Yep. They have that.

Why should parents take advice from a government
that has proven to be INFERIOR at parenting?

The government doesn't give parenting advice. They hire professionals
that specialize and THEY do that.

I hear that there was a volunteer trainer one time that offered to
teach a class in how to spank properly to child abuse offenders.

I have never figured out why they turned down this expert.

Really, LaVonne, most bureaucrats know how STUPID
bureaucracy really is, and would shudder at the
thought of bureaucracy lording over parents about
how to DO IT RIGHT, since the agencies have proven
their own COMPLETE INCOMPETENCE at it.

Is it more true of it's shouted?

Oddly, I hear in legislative sessions of human services oversight
committees people saying the same thing about government. All
government appointees or hires. Weird huh?

They AGREE with you, Greegor. I've heard it from workers and their
bosses even more than from you, that the state is a lousy parent and
yah know what makes them right?

It's not the mandate.

The mandate is to protect children from abusers, thugs, the
dangerously mentally ill, the leeches that might move in on them and
their family's, molesters, and various and sundry other lowlifes.

When their job is to parent I'll find it out before you and I'll get
back to you so you'll have at least SOME credibility.

If you didn't disgust me so much I'd feel sorry for the obscene
exhibition you make of yourself.

Kane