If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Supreme Court will decide if it's okay for the school principal to look in your underwear for aspirin   (latimes.com) divider line 259
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

7825 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Apr 2009 at 1:29 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



259 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-04-19 03:31:54 PM
The fact that this was done over some farking ibuprofen literally makes me want to stab somebody. Does is strike anyone else as utterly psychotic that we allow school admin to act like farking Gestapo for no better excuse than that some teenager might have OTC painkillers on them? I thought we were supposed to have rights in this country.
 
2009-04-19 03:33:36 PM
Weaver95 : Sad commentary on our times that the court system and the war on drugs has farked up the public school system so badly that you can't trust them to do their jobs anymore.

It depresses the shiat out of me. But the more crap like this that goes on, the more I start to think that home school is the only real chance I have of him getting an education as opposed to cultural conditioning. So basically it will end up meaning that we will lose at least partial income so either my husband or I can stay home and teach him, while still paying taxes to support the school system, even though we will be doing their job.

Double penetration FTW
 
2009-04-19 03:33:51 PM
jeff95350: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox "possibly 8-1, if Thomas wants to be a dick"

Can you refer to another similar case relating to the 4th amendment, parental rights, school rights, or drug abuse cases where Thomas cast a vote that would make you think he will vote for the school in this case?

The question above is legitimate, don't take it as an argument. It did catch me off guard though, because Thomas voted for Raich in Gonzales v Raich, and voted for Kelo in Kelo v New London.

Thomas is a conservative justice before he's a conservative politician (in contrast, O'Connor was a conservative politician first, and a conservative justice second). And he's also an originalist, which indicates to me that he will vote based on the language of the 4th, which is pretty clear if you ask me.


Please see Thomas' dissent: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf
 
2009-04-19 03:34:33 PM
tbyte: I wonder how often the teachers get strip-searched for their pack of Rolaids.

well. i'm not trying to belabour the point or be a contrarian, but most teachers are over the age of 18 and do not need parental consent to take medication. teachers and admins are expected (again, in Canada, it culd be different in the US) to act in loco parentis. Most prudent parents (i hope) would not want their little Billy taking meds that they got on the playground from little Sally.
 
2009-04-19 03:36:32 PM
Bucky Katt: You know he was in his office pleasuring himself while the search happened. He's a sicko.

i like to hope not. but i have faith in the school system. i am reminded every single day by fark.com that it's not nearly as farked up here as it is in the U.S. not by a country mile.
 
2009-04-19 03:37:27 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: well. i'm not trying to belabour the point or be a contrarian, but most teachers are over the age of 18 and do not need parental consent to take medication.

People under 18 don't need parental consent to take ibuprofen either, unless there are brand new laws on the books.
 
2009-04-19 03:37:50 PM
Weaver95: Sad commentary on our times that the court system and the war on drugs has farked up the public school system so badly that you can't trust them to do their jobs anymore.

You don't seem to understand the public school system's job. It's not to educate the next generation of leaders--that's what we have private and parochial schools for.

Public schools are here to indoctrinate the masses into conformity, unquestioning obedience, and a worker-consumer lifestyle that will benefit business. Their prison-like atmosphere is engineered to help prepare people for the time they will be spending in jail (or in the office), and their zero-tolerance policies prepare them for a life of obeying arbitrary laws and arbitrarily appointed authority figures.

If public schools are successful, your kids will come out with a healthy craving for Pepsi, distrust of free thinkers, and a cooperative, servant-like attitude toward employers and the police.

The court system has not farked anything up. The system is operating as designed.
 
2009-04-19 03:38:26 PM
Weaver95: If the supreme court decides that this sort of thing is ok, then i'm going to demand strip searches of elected officials and mandatory drug testing for everyone holding any public office.

*golf clap*
 
2009-04-19 03:39:54 PM
Weaver95: xpennyroyaltyx: FWIW, The VP is quoted as saying in TFA that the suspected pills were only available by prescription.

And he knew this how, exactly? I think he made that bullshiat up after the fact.


What's really moronic is that even if he's right and they really are only available with a prescription in that strength, it's the exact same thing as taking 400mg worth of the ibuprofen you can buy in any gas station or grocery store. There's no functional difference whatsoever except that one requires swallowing fewer pills.

Even if they just watched her shove a balloon of heroin up her ass the school officials have no business strip searching anyone. If it really requires that sort of crap go call the cops, people seem to want to call them for every other thing anyway.
 
2009-04-19 03:40:10 PM
tbyte: People under 18 don't need parental consent to take ibuprofen either, unless there are brand new laws on the books.

no, you're right. but i think you're ignoring the most important part of that last thing i wrote for what i wrote first.
 
2009-04-19 03:40:48 PM
Dictatorial_Flair: What's really moronic is that even if he's right and they really are only available with a prescription in that strength, it's the exact same thing as taking 400mg worth of the ibuprofen you can buy in any gas station or grocery store. There's no functional difference whatsoever except that one requires swallowing fewer pills.

Yeah, the main difference is that one is paid for by insurance, no difference in the drug itself.
 
2009-04-19 03:41:32 PM
jeff95350: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox "possibly 8-1, if Thomas wants to be a dick"

Can you refer to another similar case relating to the 4th amendment, parental rights, school rights, or drug abuse cases where Thomas cast a vote that would make you think he will vote for the school in this case?

The question above is legitimate, don't take it as an argument. It did catch me off guard though, because Thomas voted for Raich in Gonzales v Raich, and voted for Kelo in Kelo v New London.

Thomas is a conservative justice before he's a conservative politician (in contrast, O'Connor was a conservative politician first, and a conservative justice second). And he's also an originalist, which indicates to me that he will vote based on the language of the 4th, which is pretty clear if you ask me.


I guess I'm basing it mostly on his majority opinion in Board of Education vs. Earls, in which the Court said that blanket drug testing of students who participate in extracurricular activities was okay, because they aren't adults, they're in the custody of the school, drug abuse is a serious health risk, etc. It touches on some of the same issues as this case. I think the facts of this case would be sufficiently bad that the majority justices, including Thomas, would consider this unreasonable. But if there were going to be a lone dissent, it would probably be him. I like Thomas on a number of issues, in fact in Grutter he wrote perhaps the best dissent I have ever read, but every once in a while he has some whacko dissent, like in Hamdan where he argued for a practically unrestricted unitary executive theory, which is why I qualified my 9-0 prediction.
 
2009-04-19 03:42:55 PM
blog.wired.com
 
2009-04-19 03:44:10 PM
stiletto_the_wise: Weaver95: Sad commentary on our times that the court system and the war on drugs has farked up the public school system so badly that you can't trust them to do their jobs anymore.

You don't seem to understand the public school system's job. It's not to educate the next generation of leaders--that's what we have private and parochial schools for.

Public schools are here to indoctrinate the masses into conformity, unquestioning obedience, and a worker-consumer lifestyle that will benefit business. Their prison-like atmosphere is engineered to help prepare people for the time they will be spending in jail (or in the office), and their zero-tolerance policies prepare them for a life of obeying arbitrary laws and arbitrarily appointed authority figures.

If public schools are successful, your kids will come out with a healthy craving for Pepsi, distrust of free thinkers, and a cooperative, servant-like attitude toward employers and the police.

The court system has not farked anything up. The system is operating as designed.


What irks me the most is that many equate indoctrination with education, and can't see the difference. But they are smarter than everyone, and you are stupid if you try to tell them otherwise.

/according to them anyways.
//Also, being indoctrinated=intellectualism to many of them.
 
2009-04-19 03:44:51 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: I guess I'm basing it mostly on his majority opinion in Board of Education vs. Earls, in which the Court said that blanket drug testing of students who participate in extracurricular activities was okay, because they aren't adults, they're in the custody of the school, drug abuse is a serious health risk, etc. It touches on some of the same issues as this case. I think the facts of this case would be sufficiently bad that the majority justices, including Thomas, would consider this unreasonable. But if there were going to be a lone dissent, it would probably be him. I like Thomas on a number of issues, in fact in Grutter he wrote perhaps the best dissent I have ever read, but every once in a while he has some whacko dissent, like in Hamdan where he argued for a practically unrestricted unitary executive theory, which is why I qualified my 9-0 prediction.

I would guess the important distinction though is that they are testing for illegal drugs in that case, am I right? Ibuprofen isn't any more illegal than bubblegum, at least in my state.
 
2009-04-19 03:45:04 PM
a lot of people sue for stupid things nowadays, but a highschool girl having to remove her clothing in front of anyone she doesnt want to under threat of anything, and for ibuprofin?!!!
as a general rule, if anyone sees your pussylips, it should be because you wanted them to, or youre paris/lindsey/britney.

theres no excuse for making a teenage girl show a teacher/school employee your farking pussy.

oh wait, theres one, but you get jailtime for that...
 
2009-04-19 03:45:46 PM
stiletto_the_wise: Weaver95: Sad commentary on our times that the court system and the war on drugs has farked up the public school system so badly that you can't trust them to do their jobs anymore.

You don't seem to understand the public school system's job. It's not to educate the next generation of leaders--that's what we have private and parochial schools for.

Public schools are here to indoctrinate the masses into conformity, unquestioning obedience, and a worker-consumer lifestyle that will benefit business. Their prison-like atmosphere is engineered to help prepare people for the time they will be spending in jail (or in the office), and their zero-tolerance policies prepare them for a life of obeying arbitrary laws and arbitrarily appointed authority figures.

If public schools are successful, your kids will come out with a healthy craving for Pepsi, distrust of free thinkers, and a cooperative, servant-like attitude toward employers and the police.

The court system has not farked anything up. The system is operating as designed.


You got that prison system feeling out of being in public school too, eh? I always kind of wondered if the conditions and practices in public school were just the pettiness of human nature shining through or an intentional, systematic attack on individuality and sanity.
 
2009-04-19 03:46:26 PM
muck4doo: What irks me the most is that many equate indoctrination with education

No doubt they themselves were indoctrinated into having such an attitude.

..It's the cirrrrrrrrrcle of life!
 
2009-04-19 03:50:52 PM
Dictatorial_Flair: You got that prison system feeling out of being in public school too, eh?

Hell, I got that feeling in the nineties. Apparently it's even worse now. Armed guards, metal detectors, arbitrary rules, arbitrary punishments, zero tolerance, random searches, strip searches, random drug tests, drug-sniffing dogs, reduced/nonexistent civil rights, assault and threats of assault from others, "lock down" policies, increasingly unaccountable and legally guarded administration...

What do you call it, if not "prison"?
 
2009-04-19 03:58:31 PM
Zero tolerance policies make me want to run for office.

No one understands the insanity of the criminal justice system until they or someone they know is victimized by it. Zero tolerance HAS never worked to prevent any type of crime and it's victimized thousands of students. It was a political move by a politician who wanted to look tough on crime and public safety so they could secure votes and no one has the balls to retract it because, like I said... no one understands the system until they see it in practice.
 
2009-04-19 04:00:32 PM
stiletto_the_wise: Dictatorial_Flair: You got that prison system feeling out of being in public school too, eh?

Hell, I got that feeling in the nineties. Apparently it's even worse now. Armed guards, metal detectors, arbitrary rules, arbitrary punishments, zero tolerance, random searches, strip searches, random drug tests, drug-sniffing dogs, reduced/nonexistent civil rights, assault and threats of assault from others, "lock down" policies, increasingly unaccountable and legally guarded administration...

What do you call it, if not "prison"?


Oh yeah, I'm really glad I finished when I did. I graduated in 2001, so I was around for the beginnings of all this Nazi style zero-tolerance/thought slave conditioning that schools have become, and it seems to have gotten exponentially worse since then. I don't know that I could calmly deal with the sort of BS that goes on in public schools these days if I had a kid going through them.
 
2009-04-19 04:01:07 PM
So my question for xpennyroyaltyx: Since you think strip searching a 13 yo girl is ok at least some of the time, what if the kid doesn't consent and cooperate? Can some school administrator throw her over a desk and rip her clothes off? If your answer is no, call the cops, then why not just call the cops in the first farking place? If your answer is yes then I must assume you are one twisted individual.
 
2009-04-19 04:01:54 PM
stiletto_the_wise: What do you call it, if not "prison"?

um...tuesday afternoon?
 
2009-04-19 04:02:05 PM
An adult forcing an 8th grade girl to strip for you under the threat of your authority (and without consent from parents!) when you are not a member of the police following due process... that sounds like sexual assault to me.

The principle needs to be charged and register as a sex offender.
 
2009-04-19 04:02:38 PM
tbyte: I would guess the important distinction though is that they are testing for illegal drugs in that case, am I right? Ibuprofen isn't any more illegal than bubblegum, at least in my state.

I believe a prescription was required for it in the state in which this occurred, making it technically an illegal substance. Also, the school had a policy against it, which would most likely be within their discretion under state law.

I'm not big on technicalities, and I think the drug war is a crock, but I could definitely see a number of Court members considering Ibuprofen without a prescription on the same level as marijuana or something of that nature, which they have been consistently hostile towards. Again, that doesn't mean strip searching to find it is okay in their view, I doubt it is, but I don't think they'll decide this case based solely on the relatively benign nature of the substance itself. We all know marijuana, for example, is pretty harmless, and that doesn't stop them from giving the government wide discretion to crack down on that.
 
2009-04-19 04:04:38 PM
Xetal: The principle needs to be charged and register as a sex offender.

No, he really doesn't. He just exercised bad judgment as to what was justified under current case law in performing his administrative duty to keep the children under his care safe. Also, it's "principal."
 
2009-04-19 04:08:01 PM
jcsturgeon: Zero tolerance policies make me want to run for office.

No one understands the insanity of the criminal justice system until they or someone they know is victimized by it. Zero tolerance HAS never worked to prevent any type of crime and it's victimized thousands of students. It was a political move by a politician who wanted to look tough on crime and public safety so they could secure votes and no one has the balls to retract it because, like I said... no one understands the system until they see it in practice.


Anyone who runs for office on a mindless "tough on crime" platform needs to be farking shot. That mentality has made our legal system into a nightmare for anyone that has to deal with it even incidentally. From what I can tell, all the heartless lust for superpunishment and eternal prison sentences really doesn't help anything and essentially dooms anyone who gets convicted to a life of being a second class citizen with no legitimate means to lead a normal life.

It's no wonder out recidivism rates are so high, you get convicted once and you're screwed for life from every side.
 
2009-04-19 04:11:05 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Xetal: The principle needs to be charged and register as a sex offender.

No, he really doesn't. He just exercised bad judgment as to what was justified under current case law in performing his administrative duty to keep the children under his care safe. Also, it's "principal."


Sex offenders frequently exercise awful judgment. If people can get slapped on the list for public urination and statutory rape of their teenage girlfriend a few months younger than them, I don't see any reason an idiot school admin can't get put on there for his forced ibuprofen-related peepshow.
 
2009-04-19 04:12:35 PM
bogey: So my question for xpennyroyaltyx: Since you think strip searching a 13 yo girl is ok at least some of the time. . .

it has been established that the working definition of "strip search" in our district is not the same as it is in the U.S. the child has a right to refuse, but there are further consequences (i assume) for refusing. try and keep up, darling.

and by the way, if you honestly think the admin's next step would be to "throw her over a desk and rip her clothes off" then that reveals some sexually twisted and dark part of you mind, not mine.
 
2009-04-19 04:14:11 PM
The VP sounds like he was on an in loco parentis power trip.

I really don't care if SCOTUS rules for the school. The fact of the matter is that if you are an educator and/or administrator and you decide to order a strip search on a student, you are taking your life into your own hands.

Call the parent, a police officer, a social worker, whatever. But don't EVER be foolish enough to think that having the authority to do something, means that you have the right to do something.

There may eventually be an outright law allowing strip searches of students. But no law will ever protect the teacher/administrator from a furious parent that has an instinct to protect their child.

The mother in this case was very calm. This should be considered an exception to the rule. Try going to the woods and searching a bear cub in front of the mother bear if you are looking for a more accurate idea of what a furious parent is capable of doing to you.
 
2009-04-19 04:14:20 PM
Dictatorial_Flair: It's no wonder out recidivism rates are so high, you get convicted once and you're screwed for life from every side.

Don't forget - our society considers prison rape to be a bonus. so if you end up in a bad place, you get to deal with rape trauma and any STDs on your own dime with zero support. Oh, and this is on top of the social stigma of having been to prison.
 
2009-04-19 04:17:53 PM
I know I wasn't alone in considering our school a prison, because many of us referred to ourselves as inmates. Spending the formative years in prison surely must warp things.

How much trouble was there with young people, before we started throwing kids into prison, back before the school system was imposed?
 
2009-04-19 04:18:07 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: I believe a prescription was required for it in the state in which this occurred, making it technically an illegal substance. Also, the school had a policy against it, which would most likely be within their discretion under state law.

Sounds like they have an unusual law there if ibuprofen is illegal. Generally, just because a doctor can prescribe something doesn't make it illegal to have.

As for the second point, if the administration was executing the strip-search in accordance with policy then this situation is even more farked up, not less.
 
2009-04-19 04:19:38 PM
anoise: How much trouble was there with young people, before we started throwing kids into prison, back before the school system was imposed?before parents stopped raising them properly?

FTFY.
 
2009-04-19 04:21:55 PM
Dictatorial_Flair: Sex offenders frequently exercise awful judgment. If people can get slapped on the list for public urination and statutory rape of their teenage girlfriend a few months younger than them, I don't see any reason an idiot school admin can't get put on there for his forced ibuprofen-related peepshow.

I don't agree with making those activities "sex crimes" either or requiring them to register as "sex offenders," but that's the point. We should reserve that kind of treatment and sentencing for the really terrible criminals, not some administrator who made a bad call for the stated purpose of ensuring student safety. He probably just isn't the brightest bulb, or is the kind of person who gives in to hysteria. I seriously doubt he's a child molester based on the facts of this case alone.

There should be a different standard based upon the fact that he is an administrator in charge of the safety of children. What he did was outside of permissible discretion, but we can't have schoolteachers and administrators afraid of being sued in federal court on 4th Amendment violations or thrown in jail every time they send a kid to timeout or confiscate something dangerous. We have to keep some perspective, what he did was bad, but it's not like he raped her. As far as we know, he did a limited visual search for the drugs and that was it. I'd be livid as a parent as well, but having this guy thrown in jail as a sex offender would be asinine.
 
2009-04-19 04:22:12 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: it has been established that the working definition of "strip search" in our district is not the same as it is in the U.S.

That's a cop out. TFA clearly stated what was involved in this strip search.

xpennyroyaltyx: if you honestly think the admin's next step would be to "throw her over a desk and rip her clothes off" then that reveals some sexually twisted and dark part of you mind, not mine.

What is the next step? That was the question. And I'm not the one making excuses for school officials stripping children under questionable circumstances.
 
2009-04-19 04:22:18 PM
Dictatorial_Flair: It's no wonder out recidivism rates are so high, you get convicted once and you're screwed for life from every side.

You don't even have to be convicted to have your life ruined, merely accused. When was the last time you heard of someone accused of a heinous crime getting to keep their job, reputation, friends, etc, while they ground their way through the legal system?

By the time you're out the other end and found not guilty, you've lost your job, your friends, and any hope for the future (many employers now ask if you were ever merely "accused" of a crime, rather than asking whether you've been convicted), and are in debt for years to pay your legal bills.
 
2009-04-19 04:24:55 PM
tbyte: As for the second point, if the administration was executing the strip-search in accordance with policy then this situation is even more farked up, not less.

I don't think the strip search was within their policy, and I agree with you that that wouldn't make it right even if it was. What I meant was that they had a school policy against having drugs on school grounds, and that's probably within their discretion to reasonably enforce.
 
2009-04-19 04:26:06 PM
stiletto_the_wise: many employers now ask if you were ever merely "accused" of a crime, rather than asking whether you've been convicted

Name one.
 
2009-04-19 04:27:01 PM
I'd be the one in jail if someone strip-searched my daughter.
 
2009-04-19 04:28:29 PM
Why is it that our constitutional guarantees must be applied to terrorists, but they shouldn't be applied to students in public schools?
 
2009-04-19 04:29:11 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: tbyte: As for the second point, if the administration was executing the strip-search in accordance with policy then this situation is even more farked up, not less.

I don't think the strip search was within their policy, and I agree with you that that wouldn't make it right even if it was. What I meant was that they had a school policy against having drugs on school grounds, and that's probably within their discretion to reasonably enforce.


Which comes full-circle back to my previous point that teachers probably don't get searched for Rolaids. Sure they can twist the policy around to CYA, doesn't make it right.
 
2009-04-19 04:29:20 PM
bogey: That's a cop out. TFA clearly stated what was involved in this strip search.

i have said from the beginning that what happened in this case was a bad call. i have also said that strip searches should be allowed in schools based on the definition of what constitutes a strip search in our district, which does not necessarily mean that a student has to remove clothing in the nature described in the article.

What is the next step? That was the question. And I'm not the one making excuses for school officials stripping children under questionable circumstances.

i have clearly stated what i thought should have been done in the situation FTFA. twice. maybe thrice. i am not 'making excuses' for anything. I stated that i believe that schools should be allowed to 'strip search' students based on my district's definition that a 'strip search' is a reasonable search of a student's person when reasonable circumstances permit said search.


i don't think any sane, rational human would advocate throwing thirteen year old girls across a desk and ripping their clothing off. that might be your sick fantasy, but it's also very much against the law.
 
2009-04-19 04:31:43 PM
I would, in no uncertain terms, shoot the farking school administrator in the head if they strip searched my kid.
 
2009-04-19 04:33:28 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Name one.

Every job application I've filled out during the past year or so, I remember such a question. Bank of America asked this, for example. Every retail sales job my wife's applied for has asked to list any arrests, regardless of conviction.
 
2009-04-19 04:34:34 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Dictatorial_Flair: Sex offenders frequently exercise awful judgment. If people can get slapped on the list for public urination and statutory rape of their teenage girlfriend a few months younger than them, I don't see any reason an idiot school admin can't get put on there for his forced ibuprofen-related peepshow.

I don't agree with making those activities "sex crimes" either or requiring them to register as "sex offenders," but that's the point. We should reserve that kind of treatment and sentencing for the really terrible criminals, not some administrator who made a bad call for the stated purpose of ensuring student safety. He probably just isn't the brightest bulb, or is the kind of person who gives in to hysteria. I seriously doubt he's a child molester based on the facts of this case alone.

There should be a different standard based upon the fact that he is an administrator in charge of the safety of children. What he did was outside of permissible discretion, but we can't have schoolteachers and administrators afraid of being sued in federal court on 4th Amendment violations or thrown in jail every time they send a kid to timeout or confiscate something dangerous. We have to keep some perspective, what he did was bad, but it's not like he raped her. As far as we know, he did a limited visual search for the drugs and that was it. I'd be livid as a parent as well, but having this guy thrown in jail as a sex offender would be asinine.


I don't think they should be sex offender list crimes either, but they are. If they start enforcing things like the sex offender lists uniformly, maybe something will get done about the insanity once enough semi-important people get caught up in it.
 
2009-04-19 04:36:55 PM
Cheops: Why is it that our constitutional guarantees must be applied to terrorists, but they shouldn't be applied to students in public schools?

They're supposed to apply to everyone, but it seems like they mostly only apply to people with enough power or money to have access to serious legal defense, and sometimes not even then.
 
2009-04-19 04:37:09 PM
Jeffrey.Rodriguez: I would, in no uncertain terms, shoot the farking school administrator in the head if they strip searched my kid.

just a thought: (and i'm not trolling here, lord knows i'm thread#433737'd out) how would you feel if a strip search of another kid led to the confiscation of something meant to harm your daughter? would you still, in no uncertain terms, shoot the farking school administrator in the head?
 
2009-04-19 04:37:31 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: i have also said that strip searches should be allowed in schools based on the definition of what constitutes a strip search in our district, which does not necessarily mean that a student has to remove clothing in the nature described in the article.

So your whole reason for being in this thread and making all of those posts was to inform us that in Canada a teacher can look at a kids farking socks?
 
2009-04-19 04:38:18 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: anoise: How much trouble was there with young people, before we started throwing kids into prison, back before the school system was imposed?before parents stopped raising them properly?

FTFY.


I wonder if that might be when they stopped raising them. The school/prison system has had control of our formative years for quite a few generations now.
 
Displayed 50 of 259 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report