Sturmgeist Press Release/ Finnish shootings

[V.V.V.V.V.]

You make a good point that we have not attempted much to delve into the problem. It is probably a cop-out by me, but it's just that I am now sick of the argument and feel like you haven't even made an attempt to come to terms with my point of view. If you are going to make a point about co-understanding the problem, I would like you to at least follow through with that and to not post things like "this is idiotic" or "you have no imagination." Please explain what facets of the educational system you would change (within obvious limitations) in order to better students who have been born with problems which may be further exacerbated by the system's malfunctioning...

Edit: guess I'm not really giving this up yet...

 

[cookiecutter]

TBH the social element of the schools is part of the school just as much as are the classes.

Yeah but the social element is a completely unavoidable element of school. You can't isolate people and you can't change how cruel children can be.

formicatable, you are obviously a very intelligent individual, but your style of argumentation only hurts you. You have routinely just insulted V5 and his arguments when he has done none of that to you. You also are very condescending in your tone. It seems that you think everyone should know what you know and that if you don't you are stupid. This only makes your points seem unsupported and makes you seem like an asshole. I'm not saying this to be mean, but it is frustrating to argue with you because you never back up your points and act like a dick when people ask you to.

 

[skeptik]

You don't have to avoid the social interaction within schools in order to change the way that it occurs. One of the essential components of schools, after all, IS social interaction and dealing with other people in the world (which is why home schooling is more or less fucked up and/or retarded).

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Yes, you do have to learn how to deal with the other people in the world (in order to eventually function as a contributing member of society when you get a steady career/job). I agree that school is a major place this occurs, and I can agree that it is part of "the system" in a way, at least for the sake of this argument being civil and respectful. How do you suppose we alter the way children are societally conditioned (maybe you can think of a better term, I dunno) without infringing upon the basic rights of children as humans? This is an interesting proposition and I'd be willing to see it in action if indeed your ideas are logical enough.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

...I am now sick of the argument and feel like you haven't even made an attempt to come to terms with my point of view.

Your point of view is defeatist fails to see beyond the most basic adjustments to the status quo; I am interested in solving the problem.

Please explain what facets of the educational system you would change...

I wouldn't change a thing until extensive research had been done into the issue. I would find the factors in the system that contribute to the problem and alter them. This probably leads to large scale overhaul far beyond tweaking the curriculum: reinvented ideas of classrooms, grade advancement, education streams, etc. I'm not pretending that this issue can be solved in a few days or months or years, but I'm also not taking that to mean that it is ultimately unsolvable.

...you can't change how cruel children can be.

Why not? Better discipline and supervision could go a long way.

You have routinely just insulted V5 and his arguments when he has done none of that to you.

He has taken a less than civilized approach from the outset. Cry me a river.

...you because you never back up your points and act like a dick when people ask you to.

What do I need to back up? The existence of something called "sociology"?

 

[cookiecutter]

Why not? Better discipline and supervision could go a long way.

Good idea! No one has ever tried this ever!

He has taken a less than civilized approach from the outset. Cry me a river.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You are just wrong here.

What do I need to back up? The existence of something called "sociology"?

How about splainin to us ignant folks what from sociology supports your claim. We all know and are not arguing against the fact that social institutions such as school have a profound influence on our life. What we are debating is whether this influence is the primary one that causes school shootings. I am not very well versed in Sociology (I'm actually taking a class on it this year), but I would like a little more explanation for your argument that just stating the name of an entire field of scientific study.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Your point of view is defeatist fails to see beyond the most basic adjustments to the status quo; I am interested in solving the problem.

Uh...status quo what now? Please stop misrepresenting my points. I never said anything about a status quo; what I am talking about is having parents deal with their children who have problems more efficiently by paying more heed to the problem, seeking better counseling, and thinking twice before letting their child enter the horrible world of high school/college if it would be disorienting (and eventually catastrophic) for them.

I wouldn't change a thing until extensive research had been done into the issue.

This sounds disgustingly politician-like to me. "We will fix things when we can figure out how to fix them, and by that I mean we won't ever fix them."

Why not? Better discipline and supervision could go a long way.

It's been tried a million times, in a million ways. This problem lies at home, from the very start, and with it lies the responsibility of the parents to better care for their children rather than rationalizing away the problem like so many parents of mentally-handicapped children do. This is where the crux of the problem essentially does lie; what is the more PROMINENT cause of shootings? Having security guards patrol shit, having teachers "discipline" kids better will just cause more frustration and angst. It's a very short-term investment, one that probably will not do much good. As for the idea of altering the structure of classrooms, I'd be interested to see what specifically you are postulating for an alteration here since it sounds interesting.

He has taken a less than civilized approach from the outset. Cry me a river.

Dear lord.

 

[skeptik]

I really don't see what difference is makes which case is more prominent, number one because just because one is more prominent doesn't mean if this one element didn't exist, the other elements could not result in the same outcome, and number two, I strongly suspect that there is not a one-to-one relationship between x,y, and z problem in fixed ratios and the typical school shooter. Every element of the equation effects every person differently. There is no one single "most prominent cause," so looking for one is just a wild goose chase.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

You've been saying that same thing for the past couple of pages, yet I still fail to see any conclusive arguments for the "fix the school system" idea which have relevant ideas behind them that aren't just "well it needs to be looked into more." I am not asking for a full-fledged study, but just some postulations. I promise I won't use them against you if they're silly or ridiculous (unless they include upping discipline for kids in schools, which, I'm sorry, is just silly and never helped anything).

 

[thisisaformicatable]

Good idea! No one has ever tried this ever!

It's been tried a million times, in a million ways.

Wow, that defeatist attitude is awfully prevalent around here.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You are just wrong here.

How about splainin to us ignant folks what from sociology supports your claim. We all know and are not arguing against the fact that social institutions such as school have a profound influence on our life. What we are debating is whether this influence is the primary one that causes school shootings. I am not very well versed in Sociology (I'm actually taking a class on it this year), but I would like a little more explanation for your argument that just stating the name of an entire field of scientific study.

Hey, I gave you some books to read.

Uh...status quo what now? Please stop misrepresenting my points. I never said anything about a status quo;

If you want to prevent future actions like this school shooting, you're going to want to approach it from multiple angles, including reinventing a school system less conducive to driving unstable people over the edge.

I disagree and think that by doing that you can open up a whole new can of worms (making stable people perhaps more unstable?), but whatever.

= status quo.

what I am talking about is having parents deal with their children who have problems more efficiently by paying more heed to the problem, seeking better counseling, and thinking twice before letting their child enter the horrible world of high school/college if it would be disorienting (and eventually catastrophic) for them.

So you suggest that rather than reinventing the system so that it has a positive impact on all participants we take the individuals it fails and recondition and/or remove them? Fix the individuals to fit the system, rather than fix the system to better serve the individuals - do you not see how one can get a bit of a pro status quo vibe from your position?

This sounds disgustingly politician-like to me. "We will fix things when we can figure out how to fix them, and by that I mean we won't ever fix them."

I am suggesting we find out the factors that cause the problems before we make radical alterations to the system, rather than pull some ideas out of our collective asses and hope they work. It's called basing our conclusions on evidence. Science.

This problem lies at home, from the very start, and with it lies the responsibility of the parents to better care for their children rather than rationalizing away the problem like so many parents of mentally-handicapped children do. This is where the crux of the problem essentially does lie; what is the more PROMINENT cause of shootings? Having security guards patrol shit, having teachers "discipline" kids better will just cause more frustration and angst. It's a very short-term investment, one that probably will not do much good

Um, "mentally-handicapped", "security guards", "having teachers "discipline" kids better", "very short-term investment", you're kind of all over the place here. Also restating your premise every post isn't necessary, I get it.

As for the idea of altering the structure of classrooms, I'd be interested to see what specifically you are postulating for an alteration here since it sounds interesting.

I'm not suggesting anything specific, any alterations would be based on research, evidence, experiments - not pulled out of my ass.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Wow, that defeatist attitude is awfully prevalent around here.

Defeatism (as you apparently are calling what many know simply as "reality") can be nice if it is relevant, proven, and, well...fucking correct based on a ton of evidence all over the place. Here is an example of why upping discipline fucks things up for everyone:

http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/case-seal.morgan.htm

So you suggest that rather than reinventing the system so that it has a positive impact on all participants we take the individuals it fails and recondition and/or remove them? Fix the individuals to fit the system, rather than fix the system to better serve the individuals - do you not see how one can get a bit of a pro status quo vibe from your position?

Only I'm not suggesting that at all, and I seriously refuse you the right to misrepresent my posts anymore as it is getting rather ludicrous by now. "Removing" implies that the person is still not fit for dealing with the school system after arriving there and experiencing it firsthand. I am suggesting that parents take more responsibility for their children, including but not limited to working with counseling to assist the child who has a disability. This would be done before school even comes into the picture (high school, really, since those are the first years when anything of consequence, socially and academically, comes into play...but I suppose it could be done before then even if it had to).

I am suggesting we find out the factors that cause the problems before we make radical alterations to the system, rather than pull some ideas out of our collective asses and hope they work. It's called basing our conclusions on evidence. Science.

So in other words you are rephrasing what you just said and making it sound a little better. No wonder kids nowadays are so easily swayed by political talk . Please give some accurate, specific, concise ideas as to what you would change if given the power to alter how schools function. I have listed my ideas multiple times, but just in case you forgot them:

1. Parents should take a more responsible role in caring for their child.
2. Parents should seek counseling opportunities early in the life of the child so as to circumvent any future problems he/she may have when entering any large societal institution which could shape who he/she becomes as a person (that is to say, "a place he/she would spend a lot of their time").
3. Parents should see to it that their child has improved due to said counseling, and make conclusions from such improvements.

(of course these are pretty much unenforceable given how we work as a country now but they are theories which are open to alteration)

Now please share yours. Failure to even posit some little theories will result in me assuming you have given up your point; in addition, attacking my theories before presenting relevant ideas of your own will cause me to assume you give up.

Um, "mentally-handicapped", "security guards", "having teachers "discipline" kids better", "very short-term investment", you're kind of all over the place here.

You seem to have no problem misconstruing what I say usually, so why don't you take a crack at boiling it down? I won't take offense if you, after thinking, find it hard to extract a point from that (admittedly confusing) bunch of various topics.

Also restating your premise every post isn't necessary, I get it.

You know, it's funny because I don't actually think you do, given all of the silly things you're throwing around as well as throwing your point on the backburner.

I'm not suggesting anything specific, any alterations would be based on research, evidence, experiments - not pulled out of my ass.

That really is too bad, because I presented three specific and relevant examples of things I would change (albeit in a perfect world).

As for my own point here...a quaint idea to bring up that could tie-in both sides of this argument would be to have more conversation and active interaction between teachers and parents (of all children or just problem children who the parents have told to the teachers "my son has been diagnosed with so-and-so, would you mind giving me some updates as to how they are doing both academically and socially [within the classroom, since a teacher shouldn't be following kids around in any case] every so often?"). I believe this could be a very real (not to mention very helpful) step in finally uniting the two arguments in play here.

 

[skeptik]

You've been saying that same thing for the past couple of pages, yet I still fail to see any conclusive arguments for the "fix the school system" idea which have relevant ideas behind them that aren't just "well it needs to be looked into more." I am not asking for a full-fledged study, but just some postulations. I promise I won't use them against you if they're silly or ridiculous (unless they include upping discipline for kids in schools, which, I'm sorry, is just silly and never helped anything).

If this was in response to me, I don't think you read my post very well. All I was saying there is that there is no such thing as a most prominent cause because it varies from person to person and because prominent does not mean necessitating or essential.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Thank you for clarifying. Perhaps what I should be saying instead of prevalent, prominent, or any other number of P words meaning almost the same thing is that the idea I am presenting is the one that appears earlier in life and thus has more time to be remedied (and also more time to develop if left unattended).

 

[thisisaformicatable]

Defeatism (as you apparently are calling what many know simply as "reality") can be nice if it is relevant, proven, and, well...fucking correct based on a ton of evidence all over the place. Here is an example of why upping discipline fucks things up for everyone:

http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/case-seal.morgan.htm

Neat. Are you now going to list the other 999,999 ways in which different ideas of applying discipline have failed?

high school, really, since those are the first years when anything of consequence, socially and academically, comes into play...but I suppose it could be done before then even if it had to).

This is just occurring to you now? Wow.

So in other words you are rephrasing what you just said and making it sound a little better. No wonder kids nowadays are so easily swayed by political talk. Please give some accurate, specific, concise ideas as to what you would change if given the power to alter how schools function. I have listed my ideas multiple times, but just in case you forgot them:

1. Parents should take a more responsible role in caring for their child.
2. Parents should seek counseling opportunities early in the life of the child so as to circumvent any future problems he/she may have when entering any large societal institution which could shape who he/she becomes as a person (that is to say, "a place he/she would spend a lot of their time").
3. Parents should see to it that their child has improved due to said counseling, and make conclusions from such improvements.

(of course these are pretty much unenforceable given how we work as a country now but they are theories which are open to alteration)

Now please share yours. Failure to even posit some little theories will result in me assuming you have given up your point; in addition, attacking my theories before presenting relevant ideas of your own will cause me to assume you give up.

"Political talk"? Putting forth ideas not backed by research and evidence, that's the mark of the politician. I am not so ignorant or arrogant to assume that I, an individual with only a basic understanding of the educational system, can figure out the solutions to these problems through idle musings. If you equate science with "political talk" you are hopeless. Maybe you should run for office, since you value ideas that sound good over ideas backed by study and experimentation.

You seem to have no problem misconstruing what I say usually, so why don't you take a crack at boiling it down? I won't take offense if you, after thinking, find it hard to extract a point from that (admittedly confusing) bunch of various topics.

I don't even know where they're coming from. Security guards? You've lost me.

 

[MasterOLightning]

It would make for a worthwhile project if someone was to do some sociological analysis on high schools where shootings occurred to see if there was some common ground there versus a control. Of course, since student populations and school policies/administrations can vary so much from year to year, this would be difficult. Still, one can easily imagine that there was something about the particular schools involved that enabled a shooting to happen. I would wager that you could find schools that showed a lot of risk factors, and others where there would be no threat at all. This would support VVVVV's idea that you could do quite a bit through mere attentiveness and awareness, and also formicatable's emphasis on knowledge of the situation. Someone probably needs to do a few thousand interviews and do some analysis.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

Someone probably needs to do a few thousand interviews and do some analysis.

Yes, this is what it comes down to. We need profiles of the individuals who do these things, we need to identify the environmental factors that set them off. We have to find patterns, things the shooters had in common, things they didn't, experiences they shared, psychological profiles, medication they took, books they read, self image, etc. We need to compare this to other individuals that are treated poorly by the system - thousands of surveys of kids who fit the newly discovered school shooter profile, and find out what keeps them from doing it and what it would take to push them over the edge. And there's so much more. This is the kind of research that can be put to work in a system overhaul that not only eliminates the problem but actually works towards avoidance of the situations that produce the marginal individuals in the first place.

 

[Valerie]

rather than fix the system to better serve the individuals

In case you've failed to notice, there are 300 million individuals in this country, around 75 million of which are enrolled in school. There is no way you're going to change an entire system to fit the needs of each of those people.

 

[CAIRATH]

@CAIRATH: I didn't see you for 5 pages anywhere, so it's odd that you would even complain; I do understand that not everyone is privileged enough to sit around on UMGMD forever erk, so apologies if that is the case...anyway, it seemed like we rather reached a nice conclusion (a multitude of factors causes these things and it can never be conclusively known what causes them and how to prevent them because it depends on individual circumstances) half a page ago, so excuse me for attempting to end on a decent note instead of the conversation (d)evolving into petty ad hominems which it likely will do eventually. As long as the discussion continues in a (rather) forward motion and is not just circular argumentation, it will stay open.

As you can tell from my post count and registration date I spend way more time reading these forums than I do posting on them. I didn't really reply beyond that one post because I don't known enough about sociological aspects of this problem and I am much more interested in a debate focusing on what is wrong with educational systems and how to fix them, rather than whether or not it causes school shootings (which obviously is more the focus of this thread). So beyond my opinion that the educational systems in most countries that pride themselves on having a social systems are well and truly fucked I have very little constructive to add to this discussion. I don't really see what that has to do with my comment though. I was just making a general observation about the moderation strategy (and I've done that before in other debate threads) and curious why you have that tendency to close threads like these.

I just prefer a more laissez-faire approach to forum moderation. I guess you do not.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I already said I wouldn't close it until the discussion is done. Sorry for embittering you as I did.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Neat. Are you now going to list the other 999,999 ways in which different ideas of applying discipline have failed?

No. I'm going to let you take that for what it is and hopefully come out of it with a new idea regarding the situation.

This is just occurring to you now? Wow.

Not at all. It has only recently become relevant. Before this it has not needed to be said. I merely said it as an aside to my true point, which I find funny because now you're dodging everything I throw at you and relying on attacking my passing mentions and non-points to nail your argument down, which isn't a very good way of doing things, in case you didn't notice.

"Political talk"? Putting forth ideas not backed by research and evidence, that's the mark of the politician. I am not so ignorant or arrogant to assume that I, an individual with only a basic understanding of the educational system, can figure out the solutions to these problems through idle musings. If you equate science with "political talk" you are hopeless. Maybe you should run for office, since you value ideas that sound good over ideas backed by study and experimentation.

I am going to say it once again; Please list 3 ways in which you would change the US educational system so that it may better assist children who may eventually go insane due to pressure by the system. I have no time to listen to you rationalize your own ridiculous ideas and shoot down mine if you cannot even answer a simple question or talk within the formalities I have set up for this section of the argument. Saying one thing and never doing anything about said thing is a pedestrian politician way of dancing around presented arguments and speculations. You are doing just this; please present your ideas sans embroiling rhetoric.

I don't even know where they're coming from. Security guards? You've lost me.

Security guards enforce the rules at schools. When you are caught doing something wrong, you are disciplined accordingly. Interestingly, you seem to feign ignorance to this despite claiming that better discipline would be a good idea to institute in schools. Even more furthering the absurdity, you claim to have knowledge of sociology, yet you seem to not understand that there's an inverse relationship between discipline and the well-being of those in a system; when discipline increases, tensions undeniably arise further than before. I've provided evidence as to why it is not, but your futility in attacking points not directly relevant to this portion of the argument is reigning supreme. I won't be distracted by your ridiculous attempts to get me to come off my main points. I know what I'm saying; either you legitimately do not know, or you are purposely misunderstanding me because you have no further points or elucidations to add to this. Either case must be remedied immediately.

Upon your next post, I hope to read about your three theories. This is rather silly as I've been asking for them for two pages now and still no one has presented them to me. Mine are merely drafts. Now please present yours.