Texas high school shooting

[Geeto67]

So in gillbot's case he did his job because he was able to move his child into another school district? What about the kids that can't move districts? They must have bad parents then right?

 

haven't you heard? all poor people have bad parents, that's what makes them poor. vote republican so we don't have to waste money on their schools!!!!!

[o0n8]

haven't you heard? all poor people have bad parents, that's what makes them poor. vote republican so we don't have to waste money on their schools!!!!!

 

Forgive me. I forgot. It all starts at home.

[CRed05]

Well if you don't have money to afford children...don't fucking have children.

[o0n8]

Well if you don't have money to afford children...don't fucking have children.

 

I didn't know being able to pick up and move no matter the economy, housing market, etc. was qualifications for having kids. Thanks for that life lesson.

[CRed05]

I didn't know being able to pick up and move no matter the economy, housing market, etc. was qualifications for having kids. Thanks for that life lesson.

 

It's not. But if you're 30 years old and you've been working poverty level jobs your whole life, that should be a pretty clear sign. Fit and responsible parents will find a way to get by and get out of hard times. After all, they worked their way up in the first place, they can do it again.

 

Typical "everything bad that happened to me is everybody else's fault" response, btw.

[wagner]

So you won life's participation trophy and you think you're special because of it. Ironic.

 

Well, I just want to be as smart and all-knowing as you. Clearly, you have everything figured out and we are all beneath your incredible abilities.

 

I will continue to remain in awe of the beacon of all things intelligent you cast on those of us below you....

[Geeto67]

Well if you don't have money to afford children...don't fucking have children.

 

here is the problem...because of systematic and ongoing racism and sexism that has been baked into the system for 200+ years the majority of the poor are also racial, ethnic, gender, or religious minorities. So, it's very hard to read the above statement without hearing "if you are not white, a religious weirdo, or a woman, don't have fucking children", even if YOU aren't thinking about it that way.

 

Also, plenty of poor people have good parents - the positive of good parenting isn't going to make up for the negative of a bad school. You kinda need both, or at least some of each.

 

It's not. But if you're 30 years old and you've been working poverty level jobs your whole life, that should be a pretty clear sign.

Pretty clear sign of what? that you are going to be a bad parent? hardly. Again, just because you are poor doesn't automatically mean you are a bad person or are going to be a bad parent.

 

Fit and responsible parents will find a way to get by and get out of hard times. After all, they worked their way up in the first place, they can do it again.

I said it as sarcasm, but you are saying it in serious. If you really believe that only "not poors" are fit to be parents - then you are broken in ways I can't fathom.

 

Typical "everything bad that happened to me is everybody else's fault" response, btw.

 

Bullshit. You do understand that school funding isn't in the control of the parents. And that school funding in poor neighborhoods is a national epidemic, not just isolated to a few incidents. This isn't a "everything bad that happened to me is someone else's fault" situation - this is a "yeah, the government is responsible for educational funding at the local, state, and federal level and the system needs more resources to be more effective". I mean, it's not even a question - when the government poured money into the educational system in this country the country prospered on all fronts, and yet it's somehow the parent's fault the system is broken because Ronald Reagan and every conservative politician have cut more out of educational spending than any democrat has been able to put back in. be serious.

[greg1647545532]

Well, I just want to be as smart and all-knowing as you. Clearly, you have everything figured out and we are all beneath your incredible abilities.

 

I will continue to remain in awe of the beacon of all things intelligent you cast on those of us below you....

 

You pop into these threads every few weeks with some blanket proclamation about how worthless the general public is, and the moment I turn the mirror on you I'm a know-it-all.

 

You can dish it but you can't take it apparently.

[greg1647545532]

It's not. But if you're 30 years old and you've been working poverty level jobs your whole life, that should be a pretty clear sign. Fit and responsible parents will find a way to get by and get out of hard times. After all, they worked their way up in the first place, they can do it again.

 

Typical "everything bad that happened to me is everybody else's fault" response, btw.

 

So, what you're saying is, in order to stop school shootings people need to stop having children they can't afford.

 

Simple. Let's get right on that.

[o0n8]

It's not. Fit and responsible parents will find a way to get by

This is all that really needs to be said for good parents. Money does not equal good parents. If it did, we would be talking about inner city school mass shootings, not conservative white boys in the suburbs.

 

Typical "everything bad that happened to me is everybody else's fault" response, btw.

 

Considering the current housing market (out of an individual's control), and low wage increases (Yes, some of that can be in the individual's control but is situational dependent) that's not blaming everybody else, that's just life. Moving isn't always an option.

[CRed05]

here is the problem...because of systematic and ongoing racism and sexism that has been baked into the system for 200+ years the majority of the poor are also racial, ethnic, gender, or religious minorities. So, it's very hard to read the above statement without hearing "if you are not white, a religious weirdo, or a woman, don't have fucking children", even if YOU aren't thinking about it that way.

 

Yeah...you seem to be the only one that's always bringing up race. Honestly, the picture painted in my head was some white guy, not much unlike the intro to Idiocracy. I'll probably be labelled a racist now because I didn't include a minority in my visualizations.

 

Also, plenty of poor people have good parents - the positive of good parenting isn't going to make up for the negative of a bad school. You kinda need both, or at least some of each.

 

True, but will good parents not make sure that a child receives good schooling? Then there's the whole nature vs nurture thing.

 

 

Pretty clear sign of what? that you are going to be a bad parent? hardly. Again, just because you are poor doesn't automatically mean you are a bad person or are going to be a bad parent.

 

I said it as sarcasm, but you are saying it in serious. If you really believe that only "not poors" are fit to be parents - then you are broken in ways I can't fathom.

 

Clear sign that you're not in a position financially to raise a child properly.

 

 

 

Bullshit. You do understand that school funding isn't in the control of the parents. And that school funding in poor neighborhoods is a national epidemic, not just isolated to a few incidents. This isn't a "everything bad that happened to me is someone else's fault" situation - this is a "yeah, the government is responsible for educational funding at the local, state, and federal level and the system needs more resources to be more effective". I mean, it's not even a question - when the government poured money into the educational system in this country the country prospered on all fronts, and yet it's somehow the parent's fault the system is broken because Ronald Reagan and every conservative politician have cut more out of educational spending than any democrat has been able to put back in. be serious.

 

You just went from saying if you grow up poor, you'll be fine, to, if you grow up poor you're pretty much fucked.

 

So I'll say it again...if you can't afford kids, don't have them. You cant afford to send them to a good school, so they'll have a shit education, have a shit job and probably raise more shit children. Then all our tax money won't have to be spent on feeding and raising other people's kids. Treat the cause, not the symptoms.

[CRed05]

So, what you're saying is, in order to stop school shootings people need to stop having children they can't afford.

 

Simple. Let's get right on that.

 

Seems simple to me. I've managed to have sex with chicks and not get them pregnant for over 20 years...especially during most of my 20s where I sure as hell couldn't afford to have one. Yet there are dipshits having kids who had far less of an income than I did.

[greg1647545532]

Now tell us about your plan to stop drunk driving deaths by getting people to just stop drinking and driving.

[CRed05]

This is all that really needs to be said for good parents. Money does not equal good parents. If it did, we would be talking about inner city school mass shootings, not conservative white boys in the suburbs.

 

Well...let's compare the total number of shootings by inner city children vs shootings committed by middle class, suburban children. Perhaps inner city kids would shoot up schools if they spent as much time inside one as suburban kids.

 

 

Considering the current housing market (out of an individual's control), and low wage increases (Yes, some of that can be in the individual's control but is situational dependent) that's not blaming everybody else, that's just life. Moving isn't always an option.

 

No you're right, but I'm talking about moving out of a piss poor area, with piss poor schools to something better. I'm not talking about moving from Westerville to Olentangy. It's easy to get a job that pays better than working at McD's 4 days a week.

[CRed05]

Now tell us about your plan to stop drunk driving deaths by getting people to just stop drinking and driving.

 

:dumb:

 

It's literally that easy.

[Geeto67]

Yeah...you seem to be the only one that's always bringing up race. Honestly, the picture painted in my head was some white guy, not much unlike the intro to Idiocracy. I'll probably be labelled a racist now because I didn't include a minority in my visualizations.

 

I bring it up because it is a factor. Part of the problem is that it gets forgotten in these discussions. Sure there are poor whites and they are swept up too, but a big part of the race relations discussion in this country involves access to education. Ignoring it doesn't mean the problem goes away.

 

If you said you are going to punch in the face everyone who owns a Chevrolet, and 80% of the Chevrolets in the world are brown, are you really going to be all that dumbfounded when the owners of brown cars are pissed at you? probably not, so why be confused and dumbfounded when you make a statement about education and people point out that it has major racial implications?

 

True, but will good parents not make sure that a child receives good schooling? Then there's the whole nature vs nurture thing.

 

That all depends on your definition of "good parents". You can be a good person and a good parent instilling good values in your kid and not know anything about the education, the education system, etc...heck you don't even have to be poor for that to be a problem.

 

Clear sign that you're not in a position financially to raise a child properly.

 

Ok, what's the standard financial position? if you say it's clear that you can't afford it what's the number? Is it situational dependent? or one number for everyone?

 

You just went from saying if you grow up poor, you'll be fine, to, if you grow up poor you're pretty much fucked.

 

No I said that if you grow up poor you can still be raised in a loving environment and have good values. That is not the same thing as education, opportunity, reputation and and financial stability. They are different things.

 

So I'll say it again...if you can't afford kids, don't have them. You cant afford to send them to a good school, so they'll have a shit education, have a shit job and probably raise more shit children. Then all our tax money won't have to be spent on feeding and raising other people's kids. Treat the cause, not the symptoms.

 

Except for people who don't have a choice as to whether they have kids (rape victims, religious restrictions, people in abusive marriages, etc), right? Say it as many times as you want, it isn't going to magically sound smarter through repetition. Forgetting the implication that you basically are saying "fuck the racial concerns" or that it is fundamentally classicist in that creepy old world imperialist way, or that a person's right to choose to reproduce is a fundemental protected right under the constitution, how would you even enforce this? Seriously, how would you make sure that only those who can "afford it" can only have kids without it sounding Orwellian in the first sentence? you can't, because it's not a solution - it's a moral judgement that just shits on the poor.

 

That's a nice ivory tower you have there.

 

 

The basic disagreement we seem to have here is whether it is the responsibility of government to provide education to it's citizens, and further the same quality of education to all classes and races of people. I think it does, and you don't seem to agree. So tell me, why do you think the government shouldn't provide education to it's citizens?

 

I should add here that there is no requirement that parent's have to send their children to public school, but many states have minimum education requirements and student competency requirement for home schooling and alternative education. Parent's have choices, but parents aren't always in the best position to provide education or even know what good education vs bad education is, or even have the situational fluidity to move away from bad education to good.

[o0n8]

Well...let's compare the total number of shootings by inner city children vs shootings committed by middle class, suburban children. Perhaps inner city kids would shoot up schools if they spent as much time inside one as suburban kids.

 

So inner city mass shootings don't happen because the kids don't go to school? LOL.

 

 

No you're right, but I'm talking about moving out of a piss poor area, with piss poor schools to something better. I'm not talking about moving from Westerville to Olentangy. It's easy to get a job that pays better than working at McD's 4 days a week.

 

Westerville to Olentangy is less of jump than Columbus to Westerville so you've proved my point. And working at McD's wouldn't even pay rent in worst areas.

[Geeto67]

Well...let's compare the total number of shootings by inner city children vs shootings committed by middle class, suburban children. Perhaps inner city kids would shoot up schools if they spent as much time inside one as suburban kids.

 

ok, you want to hear something really fucked up? There is this thing called the school to prison pipeline:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline

 

basically, over-policing of schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods leads to higher rates of incarceration for disadvantaged youths. This isn't speculative, this is fact, and one that gets a lot of airtime in criminal justice legal circles but few places else.

 

Because of this, fewer school shootings happen. Why? sheer numbers. Stricter enforcement means that you pick up some of the bad kids in addition to a whole lot of kids that don't need to be picked up but are anyway.

 

generally you don't have this in suburban schools. policy enforcement is much more lax, penalties are less harmful, it's a different environment. If you started applying the same zero tolerance polices and over-enforcement to the suburbs - school shootings would go down but a heck of a lot more middle class and affluent white kids would be going to jail. And no, just because they are middle class doesn't mean they commit less crime - the increased rate in disadvantaged youth crime is directly linked to over-policing and how the system treats poor people different from middle class and wealthy people.

 

fucked up right? so a racially biased policy that nobody knows how to fix, is actually preventing more school shootings in disadvantaged neighborhoods at the cost of future opportunity. Talk about a Sophie's choice.

[CRed05]

Ok, what's the standard financial position? if you say it's clear that you can't afford it what's the number? Is it situational dependent? or one number for everyone?

 

I believe on average it costs ~$10k a year to raise a child? Minimum wage is what? $15k a year? So lets start bidding at $25k to be able to support you and a child.

 

 

Except for people who don't have a choice as to whether they have kids (rape victims, religious restrictions, people in abusive marriages, etc), right?

 

I knew this will be brought up. Government financial aid will still be there for those who need it.

 

Say it as many times as you want, it isn't going to magically sound smarter through repetition. Forgetting the implication that you basically are saying "fuck the racial concerns" or that it is fundamentally classicist in that creepy old world imperialist way, or that a person's right to choose to reproduce is a fundemental protected right under the constitution, how would you even enforce this? Seriously, how would you make sure that only those who can "afford it" can only have kids without it sounding Orwellian in the first sentence? you can't, because it's not a solution - it's a moral judgement that just shits on the poor.

 

That's a nice ivory tower you have there.

 

I don't see color (:dumb:), but I do see the lazy, those looking for handouts, those who blame race on everything. I'm not saying we need to impose laws to prevent people from having children, because I think it's immoral. I also think it's immoral for people to put stress on society by reproducing when they cannot afford to do so.

 

 

The basic disagreement we seem to have here is whether it is the responsibility of government to provide education to it's citizens, and further the same quality of education to all classes and races of people. I think it does, and you don't seem to agree. So tell me, why do you think the government shouldn't provide education to it's citizens?

 

I should add here that there is no requirement that parent's have to send their children to public school, but many states have minimum education requirements and student competency requirement for home schooling and alternative education. Parent's have choices, but parents aren't always in the best position to provide education or even know what good education vs bad education is, or even have the situational fluidity to move away from bad education to good.

 

I believe it is the government's responsibility to provide education to it's citizens. Education is the most important thing a person needs next to food and water. I also believe that waste is one of the worst things to do, whether it's food, water or other resources. When you waste tax money on those who don't truly need or deserve it, the ones who do get shafted...those are the rape victims, etc.

 

There's no law that says you can't be a douche, but god dammit, just don't be a douche.

[CRed05]

fucked up right?

 

The way the prison system works in most western, English speaking countries is so outdated. The scandinavian systems is so much better. I forget where I watched the documentary on it, but it's pretty amazing. I think Thoughty2 on YouTube did an episode on it once too...worth checking out.

 

edit:

[gillbot]

There is no spin. I meant the school faculty. Its as simple as that. Saying "teachers" as a singulatiry is like saying its the service writers fault when your oil drain plug backs out and your motor locks up. Neither makes sense.

 

Its still crazy that you are cursing the same people that ended up helping you. Again, you said you put a lot of time info finding a solution for your problem child. You did your job. Your proving my point that it starts at home.

 

Some other parents may have written him of, and the kid may have reverted to a darker place where these "shooters" come from. Im not saying your kid would shoot up a school, Im just saying if you let it go, this is where it starts. But, you did your job.

 

And my point was, you claim faculty can and are trained to spot this. Yes, they should be. What would have happened if we didn’t move? How many other kids are in our old school struggling and going unrecognized.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Now tell us about your plan to stop drunk driving deaths by getting people to just stop drinking and driving.

 

{Puts on his wizard robe and Liberal hat}: Simple. Ban Bud Light.

[gillbot]

[o0n8]

{Puts on his wizard robe and Liberal hat}: Simple. Ban Bud Light.

 

{Puts on his confederate flag and MAGA hat}: Simple. The only way to stop a bad guy with a beer is a good guy with a beer.

[Geeto67]

I believe on average it costs ~$10k a year to raise a child? Minimum wage is what? $15k a year? So lets start bidding at $25k to be able to support you and a child.

 

:dumb:

 

What about earning potential? what about credit rating. $10K is an average, so that is not a minimum. What about risk of life interruption (health, prison, etc), how do you account for those. This is a dumb conversation because a) right to reproduce is constitutionally protected so you couldn't implement anyway, b) it would take a lot of diversity out of our population. Seriously, when you hear black people talk about a "Black Genocide" these are the kind of stupid ideas they are talking about.

 

 

 

I knew this will be brought up. Government financial aid will still be there for those who need it.

 

Seems our definition of "those who need it" are different. I think Children born into poverty need it and you don't.

 

I don't see color (:dumb:), but I do see the lazy, those looking for handouts, those who blame race on everything. I'm not saying we need to impose laws to prevent people from having children, because I think it's immoral. I also think it's immoral for people to put stress on society by reproducing when they cannot afford to do so.

 

Poor people are not lazy. You honestly should feel ashamed for thinking that. The only public assistance programs that don't have job reauirements are the ones that benefit children, the disabled, the sick (including addiction), and short term ones like unemployment. So who is lazy? Stricter requirements on a vulnerable population usually harm the most in need, and in this case it is often single mothers and their children (and before you say something dumb about having kids out of wedlock, it is quite common for married women with children to be abandoned by their husbands or to be widowers who are not receiving death benefits).

 

Your moral/immoral judgements are irrelevant to the conversation because it doesn't discuss a solution. So fucking what you think it's immoral, that ain't going to fix the here and now, and it isn't a path forward. Its as useless as tits on a bull.

 

 

I believe it is the government's responsibility to provide education to it's citizens. Education is the most important thing a person needs next to food and water. I also believe that waste is one of the worst things to do, whether it's food, water or other resources. When you waste tax money on those who don't truly need or deserve it, the ones who do get shafted...those are the rape victims, etc.

 

Ok, lack of funding creates more waste through substandard education than social welfare programs, and the effects are far more longstanding. Why aren't you angry about the government investing more in education than about people getting government assistance? I think your priorities are misplaced.

 

 

There's no law that says you can't be a douche, but god dammit, just don't be a douche.

Why? because you say so? who the hell are you to tell me not to be a douche? You have every right to be a douche, but don't expect the world to respond positively to it. It isn't my place to tell you not to be a douche, but I don't have to interact with you either because that's within my control. You want to talk about social pressure - that's the crux of it, work on what you can control and try to be part of the solution, not just another dipshit judging performance from the sidelines. People respond to deterrents and incentives, laws are part of that structure, and are used within reason and have pretty serious limits. Just telling someone to be something or do something vague without providing the how isn't a plan, it isn't a solution, it's barely identifying a root cause.