What. The. F**k.

IronHide · Post by **IronHide** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:21 am

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19293872/?GT1=10056

For a high-five!!! What is our world coming to.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:28 am

Not the world. Just the United States.

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:02 am

Since when could you get high or pregnant by holding hands?

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:37 am

Hot Shot wrote:Since when could you get high or pregnant by holding hands?

1994?

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:20 am

Professor Smooth wrote:
Hot Shot wrote:Since when could you get high or pregnant by holding hands?
1994?

The year my younger sister was born? It all makes sense now...

IronHide · Post by **IronHide** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:06 am

Professor Smooth wrote:Not the world. Just the United States.

No, its the world.

The Last Autobot · Post by **The Last Autobot** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:04 am

Just the United States.

Not just, SPECIALLY

its the world

World has been *** up since forever.

Its just because of internet that we know it now in the exact moment it happens.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:32 am

Professor Smooth wrote:
Hot Shot wrote:Since when could you get high or pregnant by holding hands?
1994?

Nono - you're getting confused. You can catch AIDS by holding hands, ever since 1988.

To get pregnant, one or t'other person needs to lick their finger and put it in the other's belly button.

I thought everybody knew this?

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:12 pm

Brendocon wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:
Hot Shot wrote:Since when could you get high or pregnant by holding hands?
1994?
Nono - you're getting confused. You can catch AIDS by holding hands, ever since 1988.

To get pregnant, one or t'other person needs to lick their finger and put it in the other's belly button.

I thought everybody knew this?

My bad. I just kinda zonked in that class. That was the same week that we were taught that marijuana causes cancer, the world is 6,000 years old, and the word "condom" is as bad a word as [composite word including 'f*ck'] and ****, right?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:46 pm

say goodbye to common sense...

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:38 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:say goodbye to common sense...

Common sense is for sissies.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:36 pm

Sigh.

I'm going to have to say I agree with some of this.

The public displays of affection part, I mean.

School should not be the place for such things.

The high five thing is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, however. High fives promote violence?

I suppose if you miss and slap somone in the face, it's possible.

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:01 pm

Yaya wrote:Sigh.

I'm going to have to say I agree with some of this.

The public displays of affection part, I mean.

Why shouldn't people be allowed to hug or kiss?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:32 pm

It can spread AIDS in the school yard.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:41 pm

Obfleur wrote:
Yaya wrote:Sigh.

I'm going to have to say I agree with some of this.

The public displays of affection part, I mean.
Why shouldn't people be allowed to hug or kiss?

Not in school. It's a distraction from the very purpose of educational institutions. And nothing distracts the young teenager with raging hormones more than a member of the opposite sex.

I mean, where do you draw the line then. If they can kiss, can they tongue? Can they frisk each others bodies?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:46 pm

common sense applies - they can hold hands, they can peck if they are discreet. u dont need rules about this kind of thing, just common bloody sense.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:37 am

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:common sense applies - they can hold hands, they can peck if they are discreet. u dont need rules about this kind of thing, just common bloody sense.

Would that be the same common sense that suggests that education about safe sex will lead to increased promiscuity?

Honestly, I don't care is students are ****ing in the bathrooms.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:34 am

Common sense that human beings have raging hormones in their teens, they need sex education. well the UK needs **** loads of sex education....

Post by **Best First** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:06 am

Yaya wrote:
Obfleur wrote:
Yaya wrote:Sigh.

I'm going to have to say I agree with some of this.

The public displays of affection part, I mean.
Why shouldn't people be allowed to hug or kiss?

Not in school. It's a distraction from the very purpose of educational institutions.

like... to learn stuff?

like... interacting with the opposite sex?

i'm intrigued that you have decided, all on your own it would seem, to define exactly what schools are for. People spend a huge portion of their formative years at 'educational institutions' and the notion that the only purpose they serve is to teach people about Maths etc. strikes me as ill thought out at best.

No one is suggesting they do it in class rooms while the teacher is talking are they?

Like impy says, instead of coming up with alarmist scenarios, apply some common sense.

better to have such things in a supervised environment and coupled with education on teh very subject one would have thought...

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:34 pm

Best First wrote:
Yaya wrote:
Obfleur wrote: Why shouldn't people be allowed to hug or kiss?

Not in school. It's a distraction from the very purpose of educational institutions.
like... to learn stuff?

like... interacting with the opposite sex?

i'm intrigued that you have decided, all on your own it would seem, to define exactly what schools are for. People spend a huge portion of their formative years at 'educational institutions' and the notion that the only purpose they serve is to teach people about Maths etc. strikes me as ill thought out at best.

No one is suggesting they do it in class rooms while the teacher is talking are they?

Like impy says, instead of coming up with alarmist scenarios, apply some common sense.

better to have such things in a supervised environment and coupled with education on teh very subject one would have thought...

Again, where do you draw the line then?

I would say having sex for the first time is the biggest learning experience of any young adolescent. If schools are for learning, why is this not permitted within the confines of such educational institutions?

And one could extrapolate further. If you want to widen the scope of what a "school" is for, how about learning how to use guns or weapons? They can be used for good, like hunting, so why not permit the carrying of guns in school as well?

I think this would also fall under the category of "like....learning stuff", as you put it.

Post by **Best First** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:42 pm

hmm, where i come from having sex and kissing are actually considered quite a few steps apart.

maybe you are doing it wrong?

"oh! and if i throw in some silly exagerations i think i am dead clever and stuff"

yawn.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:48 pm

It's all a matter of doing what's practical really.

Schools aren't there to bring your children up and teach them morals/relationship dynamics etc. that is for a parent to do, however schools are there to give guidance on such matters as well as they can imo. I don't think it will guide young adults very well to make them abstain from touching each other, that's unnatural and confusing imo. Obviously for the smooth running of the school it would be great if they weren't clambering all over each other also.

It's not practical to have a situation where anything goes and equally it's impractical (and counter productive I feel) to ban everything that's not an academic discipline (and even they are not mutually exclusive- performing arts may require actors to touch one another as would physical education) such as physical contact.

How far one draws the line is pretty much down to what seems sensible and realistic I think, there is no obvious big black line between acceptable and unacceptable imo, it's a gradient based on personal opinion and circumstance. Isn't that true of most of our rules though- it's that way because we mostly agree it is?

Murder is wrong normally except in war. Why? Most people agree that is how it should be. There are lots of arguments for exceptions tho (war is wrong, euthenasia is permissable in some circumstances etc.)
All kids (in the UK) need to attend school until 16. Why? Most people agree that's how it should be etc. etc.

Basically I'm running with the common sense approach. It can't be proven to the nth degree but very little can

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:48 pm

Back to common sense, if im a teacher and I see two kids having sex, then yes im going to tell them to stop.

If i see kids playing tag, im going to let that go, but If i see kids playing tag with someones face, guess what? ill stop them.

If I see two kids across the 'yard' having a snog ill let it go, aslong as no one is chucking money down or somthing, and it seems a private affair.
but
If its in my class, at the back, when they should be learning, ill say "NO, this is not a class room for learning about the birds and the bees, this History 101, now GO, get off to see the head, and dont touch her front bottom clive, i have my eye on you...."

It simple, use some common sense, the world gets along just fine, rules just screw thing up untill legislation destroys any sense of logic.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:50 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote: It simple, use some common sense, the world gets along just fine, rules just screw thing up untill legislation destroys any sense of logic.

I agree, you can't legislate for absolutely everything- some stuff has to come down to just what you think is right at that circumstance at that time imo.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:53 pm

To think of the stuff we used to get up too at the back of science, im not sure what they would have said...

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:07 pm

I don't get the big deal some people make about public displays of affection... can't you just look the other way?

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:44 pm

Well, I'm of the opinion that making out does not add anything constructive to a schools curriculum.

I'd rather go with the tried and true, that schools have functioned for years by disallowing such displays of affection, and students who apply themselves in such a setting with such restrictions turn out juuuuust fine.

The Last Autobot · Post by **The Last Autobot** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:48 pm

I dont have any issues with a couple of students kissing in the hall or holding hands (As long as they are not performing the kamasutra leaned over a locker -or If they do make it as secret as possible)

If they start kissing in the math exam is another thing.

I think is really simple isnt it?

KingMob · Post by **KingMob** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:12 am

The Last Autobot wrote:I think is really simple isnt it?

You would think.

Unfortunately the world contains uptight people who make silly rules and end up creating more negativity than they perceived in the first place.

All daft ruling does is create drama that interferes with the institution it was supposed to safeguard. Application of common sense appears to increasingly take a back seat to the need to legislate everything and apply these rules above and beyond any need. Wasn't there a toddler fined with littering recently that went all the way to court? What kind of ******* idiot applies - and follows through on - littering laws to a child that can't even pronounce the word?

Let's flip-reverse it. Tangent: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6229098.stm

Girl had bother with her high school as they told her to take her chastity ring off or be excluded. Foolish move on the behalf of the school IMHO, regardless of one's views on the abstinence movement.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:42 am

Agree on the abstinence ring case (although the girl sounds like a pious bint imo) it's a very small piece of jewellery, there are already exceptions made for other religious trinkets, why make such a big deal out of it? Let her wear the damn thing so I can stop hearing her being interviewed 20 times a day on News 24 (we have it on at work) chanting how she's going to strike a blow for Christians blah blah blah and that her parents had absolutely no influence on her in this matter (AHAHAHAHAHAHAA, that's a good 'un! 16 year olds take their schools to the High Court single-handedly every day. Keep up the comedy...)