 |
WAYCROSS, GA — It’s the type of news you don’t expect to hear coming out of an elementary school. Nine third grade students suspended at Center Elementary in Waycross for an alleged plot to attack their teacher. “This plot was uncovered at the point that something dangerous was brought to the school,” says Lt. Dwayne Caswell with Waycross Police. Police say the students were hatching a plan to harm their teacher Friday morning. They even brought items from home to carry out the plan. “They had a broken steak knife, a crystal paper weight, toy handcuffs, several items and tape and stuff,” says Lt. Caswell. Ware County School officials say a classmate told the principal about one of the students bringing a weapon to school. The discovery was later made that more students were in on the plot. The school says it’s a matter they are not taking lightly.
“Some might say ‘They were young and in the third grade and how serious could it be?’, but anytime our students’ safety or our teachers’ safety is compromised we obviously have to take that very seriously,” says Theresa Martin with Ware County Schools. Police say no criminal charges will be brought forth against the students. The District Attorney is handling the case and students will most likely face juvenile charges of Unruly Child. One of the teacher’s relatives said each child at Center Elementary School in Waycross had a job to do, including one assigned to wipe up the blood.
Unholy smokes!
#61–If you agree in any part (which you have) that the teacher is in anyway responsible or at fault for this then you are INSANE. What about the teenagers in Florida who decided to get together and almost beat another student to death. Follow the link below for full story.
http://www.local6.com/news/15807662/detail.html?rss=orlpn&psp=news
These girls have been told that they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Florida law. I bet they aren’t scared now, but when the Florida Judicial system finishes with them they will be. Georgia’s judicial system may be full of wussies, but Florida is not. We take these kinds of CRIMES seriously, adult or child.
That is how these 3rd graders should feel. Afraid, scared, and remorseful; but they don’t because there is no TRUE consequences to their actions.
Karma, however, is a bitch and these third graders and their parents will get what they deserve in the end. I just hope for their sakes that they are all God fearing people because if it was up to me, that would be the ONLY person that could save them if I were that Georgia teacher.
#61, bobbo,
I’d also give them an F- in History. They forgot that the last conspiracy against me failed as well.
#60, Shay,
You make several fundamental errors.
In our system of Justice, people are given a fair trial by an impartial court. The Judge is to manage the trial fairly and within the law. A jury, if one, will also be impartial. If someone close to me were to be killed, or even the victim, HELL YES I would want vengeance. Which is why I would not be the Judge or on the jury. Justice and vengeance are not the same thing. I believe in justice.
The question I raised earlier was WHY did so many kids feel this was needed? I never suggested the children were angels. Several people don’t get a mass hate on at one time for no reason. That leads me to believe the kids were provoked in some manner. Most teachers are good. Some are great. And, some are horrendous and have no business being a teacher. I don’t know, but maybe this teacher falls into the last category.
If my boss gives me too much work, then I have several options. I could quit and find a new job. I could appeal to his boss. I could ask for a transfer. I could try to discuss the matter with him. I could try to start a union. Or, I could just do it and grumble or just keep my mouth shut. I would have options. I am an adult and I know killing another person is wrong. No matter how much I might dislike him or what mistakes he has made, killing is wrong.
If these eight and nine yr/o kids are being harassed by their teacher, their options are much more limited. The chances are are they can’t transfer to another class. Not all Principals are open to students and retribution for a failed appeal could be even more devastating. Yes, they could complain to their parents, yet as so many of the teachers have pointed out, the parents aren’t parenting. Don’t forget, these are young kids. They don’t have the maturity to understand all their options or how to handle the adversity …
Your vehemence shows how immature you are. No one has condoned the children’s violence. Only, the part you missed is that there was no violence. It was only a plot. We don’t even know the extent of the planning; was it a fanciful dream or wish or an actual hate. Did all the kids have an equal belief in the plot? The News so far has been mute on that.
As for your link in #62, take a look at it and then make the comparison. The eight and nine y/o didn’t hurt anyone. In your link, there was an actual assault by kids several years older. I assume they aren’t juveniles as their pictures were posted. The only comparison is to someone with an agenda of throwing every kid in jail.
You must live a sad life. I sure the hell hope that you aren’t a teacher.
Since this conversation seems to be leaning more toward teachers. The teachers I learned most from is when I became a more commited student, which was as an adult. There were good ones and bad ones. The bad ones were the ones that didn’t want to teach. I had a math teacher in high school that only wanted to teach us photography. Because a teacher is trying to gain order in a classroom does not make him a “piss poor” teacher. There is a lack of respect now everywhere. I do think it is important to show decency toward eachother, regardless of age, stature or profession. I think there was a time when we were supposed to be scared into behaving, and people abuse their “authority.” I also think this is wrong, however, if we allow ourselves to become a chaotic, anarchic society then, we are all living in fear of eachother.
The most disappointing thing about this discussion is that the majority of you even as adults you can’t relinquish the power of personal attacks. None of you know anything about the other, and it is experience that dictates opinion.
Being in the rather liminal state of college life, I find the way you, my elders, react to this situation indicative of the world I am supposedly yet to arrive in. (I also feel that though these comment discussions may be petty, they suffice for an interesting learning experience.) A bit of my background before I try to relate my own opinion: I grew up in a Southern city and attended more schools than are generally necessary. Montessori Pre-K, Public Elementary, Private Middle, Public High (with a great deal of issues yet to be resolved), and a magnet for my last two years before being accepted to Dartmouth. My years in the underfunded public schools of underfunded counties taught me a lot of about the similar behavior of adults and children in tight situations. (I now work with children in the privileged district where I live now, and they are a whole other set of joyful troubles.) As easily as you all got distracted by the debate of religion, classrooms get caught up in the question of discipline. Now, none of us know the regular interactions between this teacher and his/her class. But it is absolutely the unspoken human right of the children to give feedback about the education they are paying their LIFE for. It seems to me that it is possible these particular children were not taught or given an appropriate outlet for that feedback. Teachers, nor parents, nor especially the children are at fault here. As far as I can see, its the fact that even we can barely participate in a faceless civil dialogue, and WERE we face to face a conversation about the direction of education would probably not take place at all. Besides, all the effort we’re willing to put towards fixing something is yelling about it over the internet, right? I’m sure not dedicating my life to the mission of making sure all children are raised happily (note I didn’t use the word properly, so all you morals and values people can happily retain yours.)
As to the idea that these children be prosecuted, I find that more ridiculous than our punitive system already is (hey, I carried a weapon in high school for protection and I go to an Ivy League school. Thank whatever for white privilege I guess). Anyone who actually pays attention to the myriad children in our society know that with our media and the wonderful various faiths we are taught, no child can comprehend the permanence and consequence of death. Heck, even I can’t.
Anyway I’ve wasted my computer science lecture trying to bring understanding to one tiny corner of our bruised, beautiful country, and I would welcome with a grin constructive feedback.
#66–JStein==are you related to Ben? Rather similar==somewhat eloquent and so full of sh** as to be irrelevant.
Give us a short sentence of the point you wanted to make? Your post wanders all over the place making the subject somewhat of a guess?
I sense indeed you suffer from the new curriculum where “everything” is related to you personally?–so here is one of a few things that struck me===why list your background if your background has nothing to do with the subject being discussed?==or after the single sentence, please tell us how your background relates to that single sentence?
ps–on the teacher issue (and because at my age I can’t be totally mature):
If any of you teachers are Mrs. Alexander (or even like her illiterate and vengeful self), I would like to say that you are entirely hypocritical, I hope you get fired and find a happy job doing something your poor, mean brain can handle, and no matter how much you tried to make us feel like Hillwood High was not worth your subpar teaching methods–look where I ended up!
Again with the anger, lord.
My point is the fault is in all of us as a (too large) community, and the fact that we are incapable of actually talking about anything without telling each other we are “full of sh**.”
My background is important because it tells you where I am from, and how I am related to the public school system. How do I know you aren’t some crotchety old man in an attic somewhere who hasn’t set foot in a school in 50 years.
JStein
I grew up in the 70s in a small town in Ontario, Can. I never heard of kids carrying weapons. Yes there was lots of drug use. I heard of a kid blowing up a toilet at another high school in my town and he was permanently expelled.
I moved to the US at 22 and I realized later that I can say I grew up in the US, even though it breaks my parents hearts.
I feel that violence is so important here, bought and sold like a commodity. I feel thankful that I grew up when I did and that I never had to worry about guns, AK47s, 8 year old kids plotting to kill. I played down ravines and hide and seek in the neighborhood with everyone else. Was it idyllic, yes. My homelife was not. I wish that we could get back to a more sane time, because I do think times have changed, and I think we need to stop marketing violence. Why would these kids even think to do that. That is the deep question.
Janice, I absolutely agree. Even relative to many of my friends I had a wonderful childhood mostly removed from the culture of hate that is present in a lot of the US (and elsewhere).
If the answer to “the deep question” is that we market too much violence, then the real problem is the fact that honestly, what is going to be done about it? To a degree we are all preaching the choir–no one really wants to see anyone, especially children, affected badly by our community. Unfortunately, in our capitalist country, a good deal of that community is controlled by revenue, and hey! violence sells. (being part of human nature. Even I enjoyed Live Free, Die Hard.)
My friend here suggests the solution is in the very environment this problem is settled around. Education! “That we should be frank with our children about what violence and death really mean, and how to appropriately address an issue.” I’m sure we could all think of wonderful programs about citizenship, but our government can’t afford them.
#69–JStein==are you talking to me? Sounds like it, but I don’t want to be egotistical.
So, ok, full of shit was inaccurate about you, but pretty much right on about your father.
Anger???- – -where?
I don’t care “where you are from.” That is ad hominem in nature, an appeal to authority rather than facts or logic, stinkin thinkin some would say.
So your position is that a person must not be old, live in an attic, and have stepped foot in a schoolroom in the last 50 years before being relevant to a discussion on the appropriate response to some kiddies ploting to kill their teacher?
Correct that if I’m wrong as you are very direct, and I don’t want to put words or emotions were they are not accurate.
Well, I think your preconditions are just plain silly. Probably a function of that poor education you suffer from. But who knows. What did you do on your summer vacations?
#72-bobbo
I had no intention of implying that were you old and in an attic meant you were irrelevant to the conversation. I just meant that it would be easier to understand your position if I knew the slightest bit about you, or anyone. Do you think this is an inaccurate philosophy? Please let me know.
And I believe that your father was maybe a very wonderful man with important things to say, despite what you think of mine.
#73–JStein==well, in context, it was the natural meaning of what you said. Something more than an implication, but indeed, just short of an express statement. That can be resolved by you expressly stating just what that characterization was relevant to? Sloppy construction otherwise.
Well, I’ve said it twice already==NO, in this particular discussion, personal background is irrelevant to the ideas brought forward. Try to construct a hypothetical where anyone’s background actually informs a listener on the subject being discussed–hardly ever. “Maybe” it can inform on the “motives” of the speaker, but that is rare as well.
Your philosophy as I stated is so inaccurate that there are names for it as in “ad hominem” and “appeal to authority.” I just let you know for the third time, === and I’m still not angry, crotchity maybe, or is it just that my croch started to itch? Fine line there.
My father was average like most of us. In that, he only had a few important things to say. Unlike Ben Stein who is always pontificating, hence my disapproval.
#74 – Well said.
bobbo
Basically you are saying empirical evidence is worthless. Honestly I barely feel like replying to your witty repartees and questionable wordplay. As far as I can tell you’re mostly invested in winning a battle of words with an 18 year old rather than actually imparting anything. Frankly, none of this has anything to do with the sad condition of 8 year old would-be murderers. The only concrete thing you have said besides calling everyone else irrelevant is that one should visit their child in the classroom and encourage them to learn in spite of their teachers. (which is nonetheless good advice.)
As far as Ben Stein goes, disapprove all you want. His name bears no light on mine.
#76
Now that was well said
#76–JStein==Basically what I said was that only empirical evidence is relevant==now how can you get practically everything I clearly and expressly post exactly opposite? Just what are you liminal about? I thought it was between the theoretical and the practical, but you have me stumped.
Honestly, again, your “feelings” are irrelevant. Or maybe that is the liminal thing of it–between ego and super ego?
You came here to learn, but not if it involves witty repartees and wordplay?? Very exacting standards you have.
What battle of words? I think when you say something, and I respond, that’s called a discussion. But you say battle, and “anger.” Hmmmm. What do you want? Can you give voice to your deepest desires? Tell us about your upbringing.
I’m not interested in how old you are, nor in winning anything. I don’t even understand how a conversation is won. Again, very confrontational, emotional on your part. Now, if I were trying to win a battle of words, how could I do that without imparting something–unless as you imply, imparting requires you to accept?
I’m glad you finally realize none of your post had anything to do with the sad condition of those 8 year olds. That was the basic point I made to start with. Still very judgmental on your part though. How compassionate is it to label those kids “would be murderers.” The reason they won’t be charged with murder is they can’t form the intent, so they can’t be murderers. Killers maybe. Did that impart anything.
I won’t double check, but I doubt I called anyone, much less everyone, irrelevant. I usually save that for what people say.
Whats that feeling????? Yes, I do believe that itch in my crotch is gone. Thanks.
Bobbo,
If you truly knew the meaning of “ad hominem,” you would realize that it was incredibly ironic of you to use it in your post. But, since you are ignorant of its true use, I will appeal to Wikipedia to enlighten you:
“An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.”
JStein’s mention of his/her background in teaching students was providing a context for his/her statements about how little kids think and act. I will concede that JStein did not need to provide as much background as he/she did, and JStein perhaps could have better incorporated it into the discussion at hand (yes, some of what JStein said was digressive). However, the fact remains that experience teaching little kids is relevant to a conversation about their behavior.
I’m sure that with your vast experience in life (evident from the plethora of witticisms in your comments), you are aware that spending a lot of time with a group of people (for instance, little kids) can provide a unique insight into how this group of people thinks and reasons. Therefore, I assert, JStein’s mention of his/her experience with kids provides a lens through which to view his/her subsequent comments.
Now, you seem to be pretty practiced in web discussions, so I assume at some point you’ve come across the term, “flame.” On the off chance that you have not, I’ll briefly explain it: a flame is a personal, often irrelevant, comment directed at someone with the intention of inciting an emotional response. Note that this covers calling a comment “full of sh**.” Further examples include comparing JStein to Ben Stein (relevance?). You asked JStein to give a hypothetical where background would contribute to the discussion at hand. I ask you now: give me a hypothetical where flames contribute positively to the conversation at hand.
The two of you are now in what is known as a “flame war,” a series of personal attacks. If this were a moderated forum, such posts would be deleted without comment. Since it is not, I felt obligated to point out the fruitlessness of your conversation and hopefully move it towards something more productive. Ironically, as I read the substance of your posts and JStein’s (the little that there is), I find that you are mostly in agreement. In any case, I urge the both of you to cease personal attacks (and yes, there have been attacks on both sides) and focus on the actual issue at hand. If you have nothing productive to add to the conversation, then say nothing at all.
Most sincerely, Locke
P.S. On a moderated forum, my comment would be deleted as well, since it as just as off topic. However, since this forum is not reliably moderated, I think it serves to direct the conversation back into a more productive vein. You are welcome to disagree, but don’t expect me to respond. I’ve accomplished what I wanted to. Whether or not this conversation becomes productive again now falls to you and JStein (and anyone else who comments, of course).
P.P.S. And yes, this post is a bit inflammatory as well. I fully acknowledge my frustration with the fruitlessness of your comments.
JStein so I think I will repeat the words of bobbo, “What does your background have to do with our youth gone wild with no solid consequences?”
#79–Locke==good post==thanks. I’m glad your post wasn’t deleted.
So, what was it in my use of ad hominem was wrong? JStein was using his background to establish authority by his own appeal to his experience. Often also called “appeal to authority” not diminished by the fact the authority was himself.
Now, I love words. If my use is wrong, I’d like to know. Right now, read your definition twice, I think my use fit. Are you thinking of something else?
As I told him 3 times, and will repeat here, the discussion at hand did not require the personal context you think he was providing. It was a COMPLETE digression. I won’t belabor.
Flaming. I agree–which is why I apologized immediately. In my own mind, it was not meant to incite emotion, but rather humor. Humor that is there when thinking of Ben Stein. So, I see certain folks, will only see the scatology, others the humor. I never on purpose wish to incite emotions in others==move them off a dime?–Yes. I hope there is a difference there.
Hypothetically, a flame could be positive if indeed it jolted someone out of their complacency. “Everyone must agree with me!==what!!!! bobbo doesn’t? What a jerk.—but maybe he has a point. “Maybe” I’ll think about it.” Now–a “pure flame” probably wouldn’t do that.
Any difference between flaming and humor? I am shocked/flamed at the amount of vulgarity every night by Jon Stewart==as well as many other comics. Not everyones cup of tea.
I am not in a flame war. I am not in a battle of words. Maybe JStein is, maybe YOU would be with the same exchange, but I am not. Thick skin, sharp elbows, purposefully challenging, flippant, sarcastic, always willing to change course. To the degree that is true, is that flaming as well?
So, yes, it takes two to tango and sometimes it takes a few songs to find the right tempo. Hard to do when flaming, irrelevant, self absorbed, dismissive, or conclusionary?
Fruit is, as fruit does. I’m always looking for ambrosia.
Honestly, I’m not that bothered since I think we had a relatively similar opinion anyway. How about this: disregard my background! I’m sorry to everyone who I have offended!
(ps, the correct pronoun is she.)
#82–JStein==I don’t think we ever got to our opinions. I was too busy arguing about the shape of the table. I actually am taken aback abit about you being 18. So, I would have and will make an ad hominem adjustment for your youth. But now you are FEMALE as well?????
I’m speechless, can only type.
PS–and this is why I don’t like personal information==18 year old female, now I think I know why you made your personal information too much (for me) part of your posting.
If I were you, I would find another “more friendly” blog site, or post under a new name and never mention my age, sex, education, experience, job, family again. Not relevant even though some of the hoi-paloi are on your side.
If you want an argument, come to me. I learn more from such exchanges.
If we ever do get the the facts/opinions of the Original Topic==I can tell you now it looks like the same as 95% of everything else ever posted here and elsewhere. If we are really honest with ourselves———who knows?
Very interesting that it makes you uncomfortable to debate with an 18 year old female.
The original issues are very relevent and worthy of debate.
Babbo
I’m still not sure why my age or gender are such a big deal. (I mentioned the pronoun only because it is disconcerting to be referred to as “he.”)
As far as “more friendly” goes, its not like I can’t take the heat. Flame wars are a product of a vast majority of my generation.
What IS your opinion then?
#85–JStein, not a big deal, but not a “no deal” either. Should not be disconcerting to “be called” anything if you want to discuss an idea.
The whole point, Mr Lock (Ms?/It?) notwithstanding is what heat??? What flame war?
Opinion on what??? Let me go check what I think the OT actually was.
– – – – – –
OK–no crime should be charged, but could be leveraged to force counselling. Kids and families should be required to go thru psychiatric screening for home problems and get help for any revealed issues. Teacher too. The teacher/child relationship is two-way as with the parents.
That’s my first blush anyway.
xxxx
I don’t avoid questions or issues “on purpose.” Every relationship, at school, on line, in person should be adapted to the participants==otherwise, those engaged are there only for themselves. The very young, the very old, the brain damaged, all need special consideration. Specifics still need to be tailored to the individuals involved.
#84–J==you snuck in there.
Uncomfortable? I’m going to say “NO”–but think about it.
When I made the statement, it was in recognition that what I did not like about the conversation from the start was the inclusion of irrelevant personal information. Could be my prejudice, but I believe old people do that to bully, and young people do it for emotional support. Either way, its not a debate.
Bobo,
Actually I posted before under Janice. Being new to this, I didn’t realize that it is better to leave gender out.
My opinion is that some personal info gives context. A gang member at 40 can have a lot to say about gang members at 8 years old, just getting into a gang.
Too much personal info is narcisstic, as my post could also have been too much info.
I think your opinion as far as the OT goes it right on.
As far as age and gender goes, debate is debate, it should not matter what age or gender. Change happens when people debate and really get into the nuts and bolts of a problem. Hang ups on the age, gender, race, you name it -can be devisive.
So in a sense, leaving it out, makes sense, because most everyone has hang-ups about something.
#88–J==its not “better.” Just what “I” prefer for myself. I’ve even read it on a blog somewhere–the benefit of bodyless intellects communicating in cyberspace. Restrictions/assumptions/stereotypes done away with and ideas freely exchanged. I’ve even seen it work.
But yes, conversations are like knife-fights==no rules. If I thought my age, sex, religion, education, ethnicity etc were actually relevant to anything, provided context to anything, provided an insight into the subject being discussed, a lens by which to view a position==then I would use it. The only time I do is sometimes with flying issues==but its emotional when I do having “reached out and touched the face of God” as I did.
I challenge you to explicitly state the context you think those details add to a discussion BESIDES sharing a bit of yourself in the process? You can even make it an hypothetical.
Take my position on this topic. How does what I say change meaning if I was or was not an elementary teacher? How about if as a child I killed a teacher for criticizing me?==No, I don’t agree with the context position at all. It confuses emotional personal elements with factual discussion—in my opinion, but I have never heard a debate where anyone gives personal information for context==again its always seen as a very weak appeal to authority.
Your example is a good one. The gang member can offer FACTS about how to jump into a gang. Further Personal details confused as Context is irrelevant.
Well, if you are agreeing with me, I have to change my mind then. I think the students should be charged or left alone. Court ordered psychiatrict services are notoriously incompetent and could easily cause more harm than good and in any case would be a gross invation of the family unit. I myself was ordered thru court counseling, and I can tell you when its not voluntary, it is totally gamed. So–counseling at the most should be offered, but not mandated. The teacher of course is beyond reproach. My mother was a teacher and she never did anything wrong, same as with this teacher.
Age and gender always matter when age and gender are put on the table. If it doesn’t matter, don’t put it on the table.
Are you saying that being devisive doesn’t matter or did you change horses midstream without announcement==were you liminal between the way things should/could be and the way they in fact are?
Strike “most.” If you don’t have a hang up or two, you are dead or lying. And==most of us lie too. So, you could be right.
#88, J,
Good post. Made me think a little more than most.
Personal information is usually more of a distraction, most of the time. It is my opinion that if someone needs to use their personal history to prove a point, they are bullshitting. An example would be:
“Well I’m an ex-marine and I bled for this country, therefore only my opinion of Americans in Iraq is relevant”.
JStein stressed his academics and attendance at a “prestigious” university. That suggests he is trying to use his background to prove that he knows what he is talking about and diminish other’s arguments.
*
I too grew up in rural Ontario. Only now it has been paved over by the urban sprawl. But I probably have a few years on you.
#88
That is kind of Twilight Zone like, but alas, I digress.