Safe school czar says killing for calling names in not aberrant behavior, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 06:27 PM by idle_rocker
reply to post by willow1d



OMW Oh my word. I guess the next thing we know guns won't be banned from school, they'll be encouraged.


reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 06:38 PM by mikerussellus
reply to post by willow1d


I don't even know how to reply to something like that. Humour is not appropriate here. Insults? I'd say he did a great job of insulting himself and anyone who supports him.

Shock.


reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 08:12 PM by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by willow1d



WOW. I would be surprised, if it were any other administration this happened under. With the current one, this is par for the course.



reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 08:56 AM by willow1d
Originally posted by drwizardphd
When I read what he actually said, it makes a lot of sense.

Both Kevin Jennings and Suzanne Pharr bring up good points. We do raise our children in a culture of violence.


So, just cause you called me "bias", allows your murder by me to be the "proper and expected course"? If that's the case, then I should not be punished for it, because it would then be the norm and accepted since it was expected.

How many parents do you know that teach their children it's okay to kill someone for that reason?


If we continue to lie to ourselves and say it isn't happening, we're only going to make the situation worse. Kids in America are shooting up schools at unprecedented rates, clearly there is a problem somewhere.


Absolutely 100% agreed! What has happened in the recent years that might have caused this? The simplest answer is we've taken away "right AND wrong" and proper punishment for the wrong. And to add another one that I agree with...desensitizing.


Oh, and when I read this in the article, I couldn't help but laugh:


In a 1998 article(pdf), President Obama's safe school czar Kevin Jennings seems to be condoning murder by students subjected to homophobic harassment.


In all seriousness, he obviously isn't condoning murder. He's pointing out the faults in the way we raise our children to react to adversity. Anyone who thinks he is condoning school shootings needs to seriously re-evaluate their predisposition to bias.


Maybe. If he had just used a wrong word, "aberrant" here, I would totally agree with you. However, it doesn't seem to be just this once. He says at the end of that quote, "They're doing what we've taught them to do."

Who? Who has taught them to kill for name calling? Except him, that is. Is this another case of choosing the wrong words in the same article?

And it's an "article", not something off the cuff, something he should have, and you know he most definitely did, go back and make sure his context was clear. He purposedly chose the word "aberrant" for killing someone for name calling. He purposedly chose to say "we've taught them to do [that]". If he didn't know what he was alluding to with his words, then should he really be the one writing rules and regulations for our schools' safety?

I'm thinking he's not necessarily "condoning" murder, as stated in the commentary, thus the reason I didn't include that in the quote. I didn't want to bias anyone by suggestion, therefore I quoted what he said, and only what he said. And you see that everyone, including you, read it as I did.

I can't preclude you because you followed the link. And I'm assuming that since you followed that link, you followed the source link on that site as I did, wanting to make sure that it was his actual quote. Therefore, you initially read it the same way as I and everyone else.

However, you then accepted what the last source said about what they felt was what Jenkins meant as your own interpretation. Which I had tried to do also, but I reread what he said and I just can't see anyway around it.

So, I did the post to see if I was reading it correctly and have summarized from the post.....every one reading Jenkins directly without pre-suggestion, take it to mean that he was indeed saying that murdering for name calling was not out of the accepted norm, was not a deviation from the expected. It just seems to me that he's saying that those who kill because they were called a name should not be held totally responsible for it.

Again, not necessarily condoning murder, but saying to go easy on the perp 'cause they ain't responsible for their own actions.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 17 hours ago, 123 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 13 hours ago, 68 replies
I saw a cat turn into a bag..
  The Gray Area, Posted 17 hours ago, 44 replies