Zero tolerance policies

[Smasharoo]

Eh, using the brain is overrated.

Flowchart justice. [censored] the accused, he's a criminal anyway.


Apparently any sense of reality and lack of ludicrous hyperbole is overrated too. Oh wait, I see you addressed that already with the brain comment, I hadn't realized immediately it was a qualifier for the rest of your post.

[Meech]

You gotta be and administrator, a stakeholder in this process or a chinese national.

Homelife must be very fun in your household. "I don't care that your mother bumped into you, _you_ spilled the milk. You are grounded for a week"

You can ridicule all your want. You are the lone voice arguing for a brainless process.

[haarley]

[ QUOTE ]
So you like to ride unicorns in the cornfield?

[/ QUOTE ] Another very compelling argument? or you are trying to prove some people can't think rationally?

[Smasharoo]

Another very compelling argument? or you are trying to prove some people can't think rationally?

I was demonstrating how pointless it is to create an imaginary argument someone isn't making and then argue against it because, I can only assume, actually making a case against a reasoned argument is too difficult. Hand waving is much more satisfying I'm sure.


You gotta be and administrator, a stakeholder in this process or a chinese national.

Homelife must be very fun in your household. "I don't care that your mother bumped into you, _you_ spilled the milk. You are grounded for a week"

You can ridicule all your want. You are the lone voice arguing for a brainless process.


It's not a brainless process. It's a process that can be implemented in stupid ways, just as any other process can.

I'm really not sure what's so confusing about this. Just as "Terrorism" as a methodology isn't inherently "bad", a consistently enforced policy not randomly enforced or not enforced isn't inherently unfair or any more likely to result in bad results than any other decision making process.

Now, I've made this point four or five times and the only response seems to be "You don't think it's bad that unfair things happen under zero tolerance policies in a small minority of cases?????"

Of course I think it's bad. I think if forced to choose between consistently enforced policies and policies where the effectiveness of the rhetorical skill of the accused plays a role in punishment that I'll take the consistently enforced variety.

There will never be a situation where "mitigating circumstances" don't exist, and if there is they will certainly be created if it results in less punishment.

Zero tolerance policies avoid all of that, and avoid blatant favoritism and subjective clearly unfair decision making process influenced by race, gender, sexual orientation, and dozens of other factors that resulted in so many miserable failures that anyone even considered moving to a clearly defined policy in the first place.

If allowing discretionary decision making had been effective it wouldn't have been replaced.

[Meech]

Discretionary practices were not replaced because they were ineffective. They were replaced because politicians and administrators want to appear as though they are doing something.

Knee-jerk reactionary policies look good on paper to the sheeple.

Some idiot causes a crash because he was on the cell phone? Zero tolerance for cell=phones.

Some idiot tries to bring liquid explosives on a plane? Zero tolerance for liquids on a plane.

Some idiots smash planes into a couple of buildings? Zero tolerance for nail clippers on a plane.

Take 1 idiot doing something stupid, plus 1 politician whoring for the camera and you get zero tolerance. The sheeple lap this [censored] up.

[Smasharoo]

Discretionary practices were not replaced because they were ineffective. They were replaced because politicians and administrators want to appear as though they are doing something.

You have evidence of this, naturally?


Knee-jerk reactionary policies look good on paper to the sheeple.

Some idiot causes a crash because he was on the cell phone? Zero tolerance for cell=phones.

Some idiot tries to bring liquid explosives on a plane? Zero tolerance for liquids on a plane.

Some idiots smash planes into a couple of buildings? Zero tolerance for nail clippers on a plane.

Take 1 idiot doing something stupid, plus 1 politician whoring for the camera and you get zero tolerance. The sheeple lap this [censored] up.

So your theory is that in a democracy the people shouldn't be able to set the standards as a society, but should instead be forced to listen to your particular view of what's effective or not? Tyranny, pretty much by definition.

Interesting.

I wouldn't have thought you so radically right wing.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

You seem to believe that a system that has no error correction mechanism is superior to one that does. Very strange.

Quote:


"There will never be a situation where "mitigating circumstances" don't exist, and if there is they will certainly be created if it results in less punishment.

Zero tolerance policies avoid all of that, and avoid blatant favoritism and subjective clearly unfair decision making process influenced by race, gender, sexual orientation, and dozens of other factors that resulted in so many miserable failures that anyone even considered moving to a clearly defined policy in the first place."

End quote.


They avoid none of that, since they allow these same people to make judgements concerning what facts are known and/or applicable. So the same favoritism still exists. In fact what you claim "avoids all that" actually happened in this case due to the father's close relationship with the principle.

You also seem to have a touching naivety with regard to one side's depiction of the so-called facts, taking at face value one side's claim that there is certain "classified" information which, they so deeply regret, can't be mentioned (in the kid's interest, of course). This is a celebrated technique of officials (government or otherwise) who wish to hide bad behavior on their part. This might apply to the 15-minutes as well; I don't know if it is disputed by the kid's side or not.

I think your overall attitude is truly sad, and will surely lead 21st century societies to a "Brazil"-like world of bureaucratic stupidity if it continues to gain a foothold.

But it is surely loved by the insurance claims divisions of various school districts...

[Smasharoo]

I think your overall attitude is truly sad, and will surely lead 21st century societies to a "Brazil"-like world of bureaucratic stupidity if it continues to gain a foothold.

Only if we can all manage to somehow dodge the falling pieces of sky.


You also seem to have a touching naivety with regard to one side's depiction of the so-called facts, taking at face value one side's claim that there is certain "classified" information which, they so deeply regret, can't be mentioned (in the kid's interest, of course). This is a celebrated technique of officials (government or otherwise) who wish to hide bad behavior on their part. This might apply to the 15-minutes as well; I don't know if it is disputed by the kid's side or not.


Interesting that saying "we have no idea since we don't know the facts" is somehow more naive than "This is a celebrated technique of officials (government or otherwise) who wish to hide bad behavior on their part." True skepticism goes both ways, true naivety is fitting circumstances, whatever they may be, into the hole of your specific agenda regardless of what information you have.

Touchingly, if there was a follow up story showing that the kid admitted to planning to keep the gun, you'd still shove that into the appropriate space and say it didn't matter.

Charming. I'm a little fuzzy why you bother to debate something you clearly believe with religious fervor to the point of not even considering an opposing point of view. Is it for the reenforcement of like minded people with identical predictable agendas agreeing with you?

I'm genuinely curious. I'd try again, to make the simple point that you're indicting a methodology because you find it's implementation flawed, but I find arguing matters of faith rather tedious.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
So your theory is that in a democracy the people shouldn't be able to set the standards as a society, but should instead be forced to listen to your particular view of what's effective or not? Tyranny, pretty much by definition.

Interesting.

I wouldn't have thought you so radically right wing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice spin. Radically Right Wing? haha

If anything I want to lesson the power of our overlords.

[Smasharoo]

Nice spin. Radically Right Wing? haha

If anything I want to lesson the power of our overlords.

No, you clearly don't. You don't want the "sheeple" to decide, you want a small group of people who share your views to decide.

Unless I completely misunderstood your post. Your point was that the easily led people aren't qualified to decide what they want, and that they need to have decisions made for them by more aware people like yourself, for their own good.

No?