scumble on 20/6/2007 at 07:55
brushing up against the arse of a girl
Spaztick on 20/6/2007 at 08:01
BrUsHiNg...this is taking too long.
ASS GRAB!!!
demagogue on 20/6/2007 at 08:06
This thread reminds me a lot of (
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/opinion/17goldfarb.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin) this opinion piece (I think it's public access.)
Antioch college famously had a policy that a guy had to get explicit permission for each stage of making-out: may I kiss? May I take off your shirt? Your bra? And if it wasn't express, a clear, spoken "yes", he couldn't.
Year after year, the college just getting fewer and fewer students enrolling -- not just because of this policy, but it was thematic of a kind of college-left perspective that just kept slipping more and more out of touch with the world around it -- until this month they are finally closing down.
The school in this thread seems sort of similar ... it's just a sort of commitment it's making on principle without thinking it all the way through practically. I think it's less liberal vs. conservative as it is people who are trying to keep the spirit of the 60's alive (left and right) versus everybody else that has moved on and managed to reconcile both strains -- "freedom
and responsibility. Its a very groovy time" -- where the old extremes just look increasingly irrelevant.
Marecki on 20/6/2007 at 10:17
The Demolition Man, anyone? Next thing we know we'll start using three shells in the bathroom, too...
Also, I kind of have a feeling that a/ psychologists will thoroughly trash the idea, b/ no students are going to take this seriously.
DaveW on 20/6/2007 at 10:46
Oh come on, this has nothing to do with "conservatives/liberals". This kind of rubbish is happening everywhere (as in making rules to force people potentially causing offense). It's simply because everyone's too worried about being sued/hated/losing their jobs or whatever, not politics.
Stuff like this is getting ridiculous though. There's too many rules trying to house everyone in an environment where everyone is 'safe from harm', but they end up just being plain stupid and annoying. For example, at my school they wanted to put in non-breakable (or at least much harder to break) windows, but they couldn't because if a rock rebounded and smashed the kid in the face, he could sue the school.
mopgoblin on 20/6/2007 at 11:06
Quote Posted by Thief13x
well it sure as hell aint the conservatives so I guess that kinda narrows it down a bit doesn't it?
That's one of the more ridiculous false dichotomies I've ever heard. Liberalism and conservatism are not opposites. Conservatives want to keep things the same (or, in some cases, revert to older ways of doing things), liberals want to preserve, protect, or expand personal freedoms. Both ideologies would generally oppose this fucked-up rule, liberalism more so. The rule would only make sense in ideologies that can include a strong authoritarian aspect and remain coherent. Furthermore, the rule itself could well be driven by something other than ideology (at least from the school's perspective) - perhaps something like "If we don't have this retarded rule, and situation X occurs, someone might sue us".
scumble on 20/6/2007 at 11:41
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
Conservatives want to keep things the same (or, in some cases, revert to older ways of doing things), liberals want to preserve, protect, or expand personal freedoms. Both ideologies would generally oppose this fucked-up rule, liberalism more so.
That's not entirely correct either. Many conservatives advocate personal freedom, and many Liberals would support authoritarian "nanny-state" intervention. Let's face it, the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" are incredibly limiting in political discourse, if not purposely misleading in some contexts.
Quote:
Hernandez said the no-touching rule is meant to ensure that all students are comfortable and crowded hallways and lunchrooms stay safe.
The motivation may be benign but I think most people will see there isn't much logic involved here. The underlying problem is an overcrowded school. I suspect a lot of this zero tolerance stuff can be traced back to overcrowding and poor resources.
Vivian on 20/6/2007 at 12:29
Could someone please explain for the benefit of a poor foreigner like myself: Liberals are basically pussies and conservatives are basically idiots, is this correct?
Marecki on 20/6/2007 at 13:12
Quote Posted by Vivian
Could someone please explain for the benefit of a poor foreigner like myself: Liberals are basically pussies and conservatives are basically idiots, is this correct?
You could optionally replace pussies with gay hippies and idiots with gun-toting hicks, but as far as the general idea is concerned you've got it more-or-less right.
Uncia on 20/6/2007 at 13:16
Not really.
Liberalism, political: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Conservatism, political: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
