Naked maniacal giggling!
Actually, my gut reaction to the Dilemma is to kill my self to save both, unfortunately that isn't one of the allowed choices when it comes to the dilemma.
Well given the fat man situation and the fact that I'm a gamer, that means I am most likely ...
Agreed, but if we're constructing ridiculously narrow circumstances for the experiment, I feel justified in doing the impossible and taking a third option. :)
If I were to play by the rules, to remain morally righteous, I would not act in both situations. I am not the one who set up the choice, therefore I am not morally obligated to commit murder.
To save the most people, I would obviously sacrifice the one in order to save the many. That would in turn make me guilty of murder.
I didn't construct it. It is a thought experiment, and one of the things you do when your setting up any experiment is that you eliminate variables other than those your testing.
Complaining about impossibly narrow criteria has the whiff of avoiding facing the dilemma. It certainly doesn't contribute anything useful.
As for your statement about not acting. It's a fine justification for not acting, and one that your not alone in coming too. How every, personally, I consider you to be involved regardless, and consider your omission of action to be tantamount to the murder of five people.
Actually, my gut reaction to the Dilemma is to kill my self to save both, unfortunately that isn't one of the allowed choices when it comes to the dilemma.Well given the fat man situation and the fact that I'm a gamer, that means I am most likely ...
Yeah, know the feeling :(
|
I didn't construct it.
I am well aware, but it must still be constructed.
As for your statement about not acting. It's a fine justification for not acting, and one that your not alone in coming too. How every, personally, I consider you to be involved regardless, and consider your omission of action to be tantamount to the murder of five people.
You can consider me involved, but that does not mean I am. The only murderer in the first response is the mad philosopher. :)
I didn't construct it.I am well aware, but it must still be constructed.
As for your statement about not acting. It's a fine justification for not acting, and one that your not alone in coming too. How every, personally, I consider you to be involved regardless, and consider your omission of action to be tantamount to the murder of five people.You can consider me involved, but that does not mean I am. The only murderer in the first response is the mad philosopher. :)
So if a person is murdered, and it is within your power to change that and you don't, you bare no responsibly?
Clearly next time I see a woman being kicked on the ground by her drunk other half I can walk on buy, save my self a broken nose and be safe in the knowledge that the only responsible party is the partner. Or when I see dangerously repaired equipment, I'll feel guilt free about not reporting it as a health and safety risk, after all, I am not the one who repaired it wrong.|
|
So if a person is murdered, and it is within your power to change that and you don't, you bare no responsibly?
If the person is already murdered, how is it within my power to change it? :P
Yes, if I do not stop the murder I bear the responsibility for my actions. However, I am not involved in the murder, thus cannot be a murderer.
Is this not changing the goalposts from our previous thought experiment, however?
So if a person is murdered, and it is within your power to change that and you don't, you bare no responsibly?If the person is already murdered, how is it within my power to change it? :P
Ha, ha, bloody ha. You know precisely what was meant in the statement. Come on, have a little class.
Yes, if I do not stop the murder I bear the responsibility for my actions. However, I am not involved in the murder, thus cannot be a murderer.
If you accept that inaction can be the cause of partial responsibility for a death, the your inaction in the case of the five deaths makes you responsible for them, just as surely my walking on by the woman would make me partially responsible for the harm she suffers. Tell me, if your partially responsible for the murder of those five men on the tracks, how you are not involved with their murder?
Anyone that TOZ feels like not murdering he can slide over to me.
kill! Kill! KILL!
|
|
If you accept that inaction can be the cause of partial responsibility for a death, the your inaction in the case of the five deaths makes you responsible for them, just as surely my walking on by the woman would make me partially responsible for the harm she suffers. Tell me, if your partially responsible for the murder of those five men on the tracks, how you are not involved with their murder?
I never said I was partially responsible for the murder of those five men. I said I was responsible for my own actions.
But again, the woman being beaten has many more variables. I can call the police, I can call other bystanders, I can take a picture of the assailant. Am I responsible for murder because I do one of these things instead of physically stopping the man?
If in the case of the train you choose to do nothing and allow the train to kill the five people, that someone else tied to the track, you are at most partially responsible, and while I'm not an expert at law I would imagine that legally the blame would lay almost completely on the Mad Philosopher.
However if you chose to flip the switch and divert the train at the single person, then you are one hundred percent responsible for that person's death. Moral and, I imagine, legally.
The single person was by the nature of the experiment never in any danger of death until you chose to interfer. Thus if you divert the train, you have willingfully comitted murder. It is no different to me then the 'Fat Man' experiment.
By the logic of the experiment it would acceptable for hosipitals to kill perfectly health people for their organs because one person can supply replacement organs for many other people, saving their lives, and thus it is for the great good. Yet how many people would consider that acceptable?
The scales of life are for no man to balance.
Let's return to the original topic, please. Thanks!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would they suspend him? That is like a free lunch, not having to go to school,.
I think they should have made him wear those high-heels everyday for a month.
The blisters alone will teach him a lesson.
|
Saurs has been suspended before for wearing makeup and hats to class.
To me, sounds as if this kid a) has trouble with authority, b) likes to wear women's clothing, and/or c) wants to make a political statement.
However: Not all facts are known.
Some truth to that, but it also breeds a herd mentality.I always found public schools intense hostility to critical thinking and individuality disturbing.It's a crucible. The best of us get out mostly unscathed. ;)
Moo.
Zombieneighbours: Exactly.
I'm not arguing, but life breeds a herd mentality. Look around at stuff that's popular. Look at housing subdivisions where all the little boxes spread as far as the eye can see. Look at the proliferation of chain restaurants and big box stores. Popular pays, apparently. People get nervous when the boat rocks, but nothing spectacular has ever come from keeping the boat on even keel. I dunno. I guess the world needs all types.Some truth to that, but it also breeds a herd mentality.I always found public schools intense hostility to critical thinking and individuality disturbing.It's a crucible. The best of us get out mostly unscathed. ;)
There's a poem about boxes on the hillside, too.
There are certainly fights worth fighting and there are those that aren't. The key is to realize what a situation falls into.
According to a previous poster, the kid was told to change and/or go home for the day, but refused. If that is true, then I have little sympathy for him. Making a statement is one thing, getting yourself suspended for not complying is another.
In the real world, acting like this kid did is going to get you fired in a heart beat or worse arrested (see link). We can all feel those are wrong, but that is how the world is. Acting otherwise is like arguing that the world is flat. Learn to adapt to your environment.
Then the suspension was probably for insubordination.
I've NEVER gotten the insubordination rules at schools. Most teachers are good, but some feel they have to lay down the law. When teachers are questioned about favouritism or incompetence (big problems with at least two teachers at my school), kids could, theoretically, wind up with punishment. And if the Dept. of Corrections guy (hyperbole; they have some pussyfooting name) thinks that you're a bad kid (perhaps staring at him, in the interest of oversight, when he's trying to intimidate an actual troublemaker), you could get in trouble. Even if you are found innocent by the Triumvirate (teacher, disciplinarian-type, and an administrative-type, possibly with parents if things advance), you'll be first removed from class. Insubordination is not an offence in the rest of civilian life (can I see your warrant, please?) (not with the law, at least; power-drunk bosses are different).
Semi-related: In my Gov class, my teacher remarked that an intern who was pursuing a law degree had been shocked by all the unconstitutionalities in my school's rules. She talked to the principal, who basically said "You're right, but it's unlikely that we'll get challenged, so it's worth it."
Now if this article is true, then everyone who said that sending him home was appropriate but not suspending him, will I hope recognize that he wasn't suspended for his clothing choice, but for his insubordinate behavior.
Yay!
I don't see where I said public education should be done away with. I think we should make it suck less. The US leads the world in education spending, but our public education system is simply a failure it is already broken.
Oregon is dissatisfied with results of spending, but most of our budget is spent on education.
Btw, School is Hell (also, childhood and life).
I would be interested in what types of changes people would like to see to increase "expression, creativity, and critical thinking". It is easy to criticize. It is much harder to actually suggest a meaningful change.
Me! Me!
Stop taking seniority into account so much when determining who gets cut. Bad teachers need to go. (Also, new teachers are cheaper.)
Reduce class size (the Holy Grail of education).
Allow free time. Stop over-supervising kids.
Stop cutting art and music. Seriously.
Stop with the "No Child Left Behind" s$$*. IT DOESN'T WORK. Testing rarely improves learning - kids are forced to memorise stuff that just leaves their minds anyway over breaks.
I can probably make more of these. But in interest of finishing this thread, I won't.
So:
1) small class sizes.
2) ignore anything but the most dramatic fashion choices.
3) closely monitor student interactions.
For me: smaller class sizes, ignore all fashion choices, and only monitor for bullying.
I would be interested in what types of changes people would like to see to increase "expression, creativity, and critical thinking". It is easy to criticize. It is much harder to actually suggest a meaningful change.Bulldoze what we do now -- teaching by rote, teaching to the test, "no child left behind," and enforced mediocrity. Instead offer meaningful choices and opportunities -- things like auto shop and electronics (hell, wilderness survival would be a good addition), not just history and math -- and let kids who are excelling in an area pursue it further, rather than being kept with the herd. If some kid has a 160 IQ and wants to be the next Stephen Hawking, let him do more than just take general Physics with the remedial kids and then tell him to read on his own. And, finally, require teachers to have more than a pulse. Require them to be very good in their subject matter, pay them accordingly, and treat them like actual professionals -- no "lab science" classes of 38 kids in a room meant for 24 (which was my situation).
To all of the above: YES. I wasn't really interested in what we called "electives" (in middle school - I don't know what they called them in HS) and just wanted mathematics, science, literature, and social studies (government, politics, history).
generally the gifted students aren't the ones being neglected, in my experience.
Kids being neglected are at both extremes. TAG (not taig) kids usually get more attention because parents tend to be more active. But teachers often teach to one or the other, which was frustrating for me (having experience with both disabilities and suprabilities).
In the district where I taught, the claim that "tracking is bad" was integral to how things worked. The philosophy was that smart kids will learn even if no one bothers to teach to their level, but slower kids need a lot of help to reach par, and therefore ALL efforts and resources should be devoted to the slower kids, without exception. For brighter kids, it meant boredom, insane levels of frustration, and a feeling of being ignored and/or discriminated against.
And any latent ADD, ADHD, anxiety, or depression being exacerbated . . .
LOL! Well, you're allowed to talk about bulldozing the current system more readily than I. If I say that it's just more crazy anti government talk from me. I don't think they can call you an anarchist. ;)I really fail to understand why someone would teach at the middle or high school level if they have a low tolerance for socially inept teens.Amen.
I'm not sure the public education system can be fixed if we won't question the basic structure that is in place, but that seems highly unlikely.Obviously, I agree -- but you put it more succinctly than I did.
ANACHRY!!!
So many things in this country seem like they can't be fixed without drastic change. But as one letter-to-the-editor-writer to the Smithsonian said, Americans like "war." And we're pretty far on our way to having fixed . . . well, never mind. I was going to say racism, but one could say that was kicked off by the Civil War.
I'm just sayin', if you want to wear a dress then go to a culture where they wear dresses!I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't read to much of what Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin had to say about the "tyranny of the majority" and the need to guard against it. "If a man believes in one god, or a hundred, or none at all, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The same could be said if a man wears pants or wears a dress.
I'm just sayin', if you want to ignore the Founding Fathers than go to a country they didn't found!
I almost laughed out loud before I realised it was way too inflammatory.
DanQnA's Australian? Well, that's me embarrassed.
There is much more to it than that, but I'd like to think being thinking organisms matters.
Pah! Silly little dwarf.
Anyone that TOZ feels like not murdering he can slide over to me.
kill! Kill! KILL!
Eat! Eat! EAT!
|
|
Children, like all human beings, crave freedom.
Anyway, while I get that school is a prison in some cases, it wasn't for me (also, you could say the same thing about the military or the workplace). As long as I knew I could ask my liberal parents to stop having me go to school, it didn't feel like a prison. I always went to school because I loved learning, not because I was forced to (well, except for isolated cases deriving from laziness, not feeling restricted). I get that laziness could come from schooling, but it's currently a bit too late for much introspection.
One case where home-schooling and unschooling don't work so well: when the kid plays video games.
Interesting....
A girl can dressed in boys' clothing and the worst thing that could happen is that she is called a tomboy.
When it is the other way around....
I guess being a man or a boy is not all it crack up to be.
Which is the more "oppressed" gender, ultimately?
NO student should be allowed in high heels, or foot binding, stilts, or anything else likely to break an ankle.
According to a previous poster, the kid was told to change and/or go home for the day, but refused. If that is true, then I have little sympathy for him. Making a statement is one thing, getting yourself suspended for not complying is another.
So you have the right to make any statement you want... as long as the school says not to say it?
School is prison.
That certainly explains the need for a shiv...
Hm, necro-ing a 3-year-old thread just to say "I'm more oppressed than you!"
Alrighty.
Sorry, I didn't look at the date and I was looking up what is up with the LGBT board and THIS little thread popped up.
Which is the more "oppressed" gender, ultimately?
It doesn't matter one bit. Oppression is bad regardless of the degree.
Hm, necro-ing a 3-year-old thread just to say "I'm more oppressed than you!"
Alrighty.
Eh. At least it's a fun battle to fight.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll never understand how we have no problem with women wearing pants but people totally lose their &^%$ over a guy in a dress. Or even a kilt (mens clothing beyond any doubt)
It's a power issue. It's considered acceptable, and even good for those with less power (women I'm this instance), to aspire to be like their betters (men in this instance), so society can understand why they would seek to display traditionally male clothing choices (and also why there was such a resistance to the idea historically). It's a visual and symbolic step in the women gaining power.
The inverse situation is seen as someone intentionally taking on the trappings of weakness, which is an idea so alien to society that people react with fear and disgust.
Kilts, much like the dress like robes that many male religious officials wear, are excepted from being female clothing by being costumes associated with a male role.
Because women fought for decades for that to be accepted. Men haven't done that yet.
If you want to change it, go out in public wearing women's clothing. Not because you're transitioning or for sexual thrills or to pass as a woman. Just as a bloke in a dress.
You'll be harassed. You might be fired or kicked out of school or beaten up. But you might make it a little easier for the next one.
That's essentially what women did. Over generations.
Y'know, granted I was working in San francisco at the time, but there was a dude (like, obviously a dude, with a beard and everything, long hair hippy type) who would come in for breakfast wearing a denim skirt every morning. I really think he just found it more comfortable; he wasn't transitioning, or trying to look feminine. Hell, he showed up with the same woman (clothed gender-appropriately) and they always brought the same kids along. I really think it was cis-normative family.
My point here? Bloke in a dress won't get harassed in the right kind of town. (No, I don't think that counts for much in the grand scheme of things, but there you are.)
Let me take a wild guess...
Texas?
As a former teacher, I'd rather someone like that kid dressing outlandishly, but not in a racist/harmful versus others way (no neo-Nazis and other goofiness), than a kid bullying others.
Now that said...
As a social construct of a society, a school is always going to have standards. That is, it cannot exist in an ideal vacuum: such a thing does not exist.
Some of these standards are pretty important. Say, a kid mouthing off during class is also distracting to the other students, and to the lesson, so there are reasons for good behavior standards.
In others, these existing standards, such as expressed by this school, reflect ongoing social changes we see in society. Remember, schools are not vacuums.
Perhaps then, it is our perception of what society should allow that needs adjusted. If society changes, then schools (as part of that society) would largely follow.
Also, on a broader topic...an education is a grand thing. Individualism must have its expression, but there is a price to pay when you have the high school-only kid who never learned the full consequences of slavery in the US, but who was "smart in other ways." True story, there.
Luckily, there are many ways to get an education, and different types of school systems. An education, the fact of an education, opens our minds in ways a lack of one cannot, even with as much "free spirit" added onto it.
To put it another way: We humans live buy 60, 70 years. If knowledge is accumulated, but not passed on in that fragile number of years, it is lost. Imagine more like the kid I mentioned above, and realize just how fragile knowledge in general, is.
Therefore, if we are upset at how this kid was treated, or if we think of our education system as "slavery," work to improve it, instead.
As Moondragon said: "The LUNACY you called EDUCATION."
Gah...quoting from a fictional character...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting....
A girl can dressed in boys' clothing and the worst thing that could happen is that she is called a tomboy.
When it is the other way around....
I guess being a man or a boy is not all it crack up to be.
Which is the more "oppressed" gender, ultimately?
*Adjusts fedora*
*Bashes gnome's head in with Kobolds' Rights sign*
School still sucks.
Interesting....
A girl can dressed in boys' clothing and the worst thing that could happen is that she is called a tomboy.
When it is the other way around....
I guess being a man or a boy is not all it crack up to be.
Which is the more "oppressed" gender, ultimately?
*Adjusts fedora*
*Bashes gnome's head in with Kobolds' Rights sign*
Nice to see Trisifal is still following my comments..LOL.
I guess we are still a long way when men don't need to resort to transgenderism in order to wear a dress.
I guess we are still a long way when men don't need to resort to transgenderism in order to wear a dress.
Oh? Go ahead, put one on. See who'll stop you. If you want to wear a dress, wear one. There are dresses I would love to wear, I just can't afford them. (Sorry, my tastes are a little too refined, that's my problem. Also, my wife can't stop staring at me longingly when I'm in slacks, no reason to change what I'm already rocking.) And no, I'm a bog-standard cisgendered heterosexual man. I just know that I could wear it. Would I get stares? Would I make people uncomfortable? Yes, unfortunately.
But you know what? I grew up with alopecia. Half my hair fallen out in random patterns. I'm used to getting stares and making people uncomfortable just by existing. It wouldn't stop me.
I suppose it would be harder for most people. Most others can just be themselves and blend in and never get extra notice unless they seek it. Growing up able to hide your differences from strangers on the street has its value. But really, what does it take? Not much. Just put on the dress. That's all. Really, that's all.
So wear the dress, Abyssal Lord. Smash the stereotype. It's right there. It's in your power. Nothing stopping you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I might point out that women don't typically wear men's clothing. They wear a women's version of the clothing. Women's slacks, women's jeans, etc. They are not rocking the men's outfits. So if men wanted to wear dresses, they wouldn't put on women's dresses, they would need men's dresses designed for men.
Nice to see Trisifal is still following my comments..LOL.
Who?
EDIT: Ah, Tirisfal.
I might point out that women don't typically wear men's clothing. They wear a women's version of the clothing. Women's slacks, women's jeans, etc. They are not rocking the men's outfits. So if men wanted to wear dresses, they wouldn't put on women's dresses, they would need men's dresses designed for men.
If you can tell the difference....
Scythias right. Its quite simple. If society was patriarchal, one of the main signifiers would be that feminine is seen as bad and masculine good, to uphold man>woman. Another would be that breaking the gender roles are bad, to uphold man!=woman.
if this was the case, whatwe would see is that those that break the gender assumptions will geet harrassed, but especially those that break it by takig on feminine attributes.
there are of course other factors too, but those are the main ones and incidentally match the exact happening in this case.