General Trelane (Retired) wrote:
You're joking. . .right?
During my hormone-addled pubescence, I cannot recall ever being turned on by the clouds. The hot girl in the class, however. . .
The presence of attractive girls prevents you from focusing on the lesson/text/whatever?
If you don't care about paying attention you can waste time even without looking at girls.
You're an idiot, aren't you?
It isn't too much of an exaggeration to say that the average teenage boy is a bucket of hormones with ADD. I've once accidently walked directly into lockers because someone I thought was pretty wore a pair of skin tight vinyl pants to school.
In the midst of sexual maturation, things that are considered sexy will naturally be the most distracting and focused-upon things in a teenagers mindset. If given the choice between dedication all your attention to the lesson at hand, or sneaking a good glance at Melissa's perfectly positioned cleavage two seats over, which choice do you think the average male will take?
But of course you're an idiot, you apparently think that 'distracted' is synonymous with 'incapable of paying attention at all and destined to fail because of a pair of boobs'. I don't know where the hell you went to school, but my own high school wasn't so difficult that if I occasionally allowed my attention to drift to the exposed thighs of some attractive girl wearing a pair of short-shorts, I would suddenly fail the class.
Gaian Paradigm: Because not all fantasy has to be childish crap. Ephemeral Pie: Because not all role-playing has to be shallow. My art: Because not all DA users are talentless emo twits. "Phant, quit abusing the He-Wench before he turns you into a caged bitch at a Ren Fair and lets the tourists toss half munched turkey legs at your backside." -Mr. Coffee
Oni Koneko Damien wrote:I don't know where the hell you went to school, but my own high school wasn't so difficult that if I occasionally allowed my attention to drift to the exposed thighs of some attractive girl wearing a pair of short-shorts, I would suddenly fail the class.
Obviously that is not the case. I referred, perhaps not very clearly, to actually harmful levels of distraction.
My High School was probably rather more difficult than an average American one, but that is not very relevant to the point.
General Trelane (Retired) wrote:
And if I'm distracted by a pretty girl, I don't care about paying attention? Please.
Are you able to parse hypothetical period?
Obviously, anyway, the degree of distraction is important: if you learning suffers because you look at girls all the time, you can't argue that you care, don't you?
General Trelane (Retired) wrote:
And if I'm distracted by a pretty girl, I don't care about paying attention? Please.
Are you able to parse hypothetical period?
Obviously, anyway, the degree of distraction is important: if you learning suffers because you look at girls all the time, you can't argue that you care, don't you?
Care to try again without moving the goalposts?
Time makes more converts than reason. -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
General Trelane (Retired) wrote:
Care to try again without moving the goalposts?
I'm sure that accusing someone of dishonesty when one is unable to correctly understand the logical implications of a simple hypothetical period is sound debating etiquette.
To clarify my position is that it is extremely doubtful that regulations on revealing clothing (that usually go along PDA bans) are actually useful in improving academic performance, since someone whose academic performance is impaired by the time he spends staring at girls is a lost cause anyway. I can't see how it can be constructed as affirming that people bright enough to do well anyway are not responsible if they are not always focused on lessons that are not indispensable for them.
General Trelane (Retired) wrote:
Care to try again without moving the goalposts?
I'm sure that accusing someone of dishonesty when one is unable to correctly understand the logical implications of a simple hypothetical period is sound debating etiquette.
To clarify my position is that it is extremely doubtful that regulations on revealing clothing (that usually go along PDA bans) are actually useful in improving academic performance, since someone whose academic performance is impaired by the time he spends staring at girls is a lost cause anyway. I can't see how it can be constructed as affirming that people bright enough to do well anyway are not responsible if they are not always focused on lessons that are not indispensable for them.
Now that is what you should have posted the first time instead of that inanity about how adolescents are irresponsible idiots if scantily clad girls distract them in class.
Time makes more converts than reason. -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
Devil's advocate question: why allow PDAs in high school when they would not be allowed at work? School isn't home, school isn't a recreational event, school is a kid's closest equivalent of a job. An average school day's only about seven hours, there's plenty of time to make out afterwards as well. What's the problem?
(For the record, I've been to three high schools, one same sex and two coed. For the coed ones, one had a strict hands off policy - no touching whatsoever, the other didn't care. Academically they were all roughly the same, so I personally don't see this being a big issue, whether kids allowed to make out or not.)
Also, Molyneux, I call bullshit on your assertion that close physical contact is necessary for physical mental health. With the exception of ex-girlfriends, I don't think I've physically touched anybody unless absolutely required (eg handshake at business meeting with client) since Primary school. That includes family. Asians in general just aren't that touchy feely. Yet I still have close friends and acquaintances...touching is just not that big a deal. Especially when it's only a ban for seven or so hours a day, it's not the freaking end of the bloody world here.
I know there is a method, but all I see is the madness.
Dendrobius wrote:Devil's advocate question: why allow PDAs in high school when they would not be allowed at work? School isn't home, school isn't a recreational event, school is a kid's closest equivalent of a job. An average school day's only about seven hours, there's plenty of time to make out afterwards as well. What's the problem?
(For the record, I've been to three high schools, one same sex and two coed. For the coed ones, one had a strict hands off policy - no touching whatsoever, the other didn't care. Academically they were all roughly the same, so I personally don't see this being a big issue, whether kids allowed to make out or not.)
If it has no academic effect, why ban it? Furthermore, how many workplaces actually have strictures against PDAs, as opposed to simply generic rules against "inappropriate behaviour"? I'm guessing it would depend on the type of workplace.
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society - Karl Marx Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Nova Mundi, my laughable attempt at an original worldbuilding/gameplay project
Dendrobius wrote:Also, Molyneux, I call bullshit on your assertion that close physical contact is necessary for physical mental health. With the exception of ex-girlfriends, I don't think I've physically touched anybody unless absolutely required (eg handshake at business meeting with client) since Primary school. That includes family. Asians in general just aren't that touchy feely. Yet I still have close friends and acquaintances...touching is just not that big a deal. Especially when it's only a ban for seven or so hours a day, it's not the freaking end of the bloody world here.
Sorry if I was unclear; first, I meant to type "physical and mental health", and secondly, I was trying to say that tight social bonds are required for the wellbeing of an individual. Physical contact in the form of hugging, handshakes, etc. is one of the easiest and most effective ways of reenforcing those bonds.
There was a study awhile back (Grewen KM, Anderson BJ, Girdler SS, Light KC. Warm partner contact is related to lower cardiovascular reactivity. Behavioral Med.) looking at the effects of hugging, or even just holding hands; they found that it significantly lowered blood pressure and reduced overall signs of stress compared with a control group. You may be able to be a healthy individual without hugging anyone, but it is an activity with proven beneficial effects.
All of which goes to further the point that that school have their heads so far up their asses that they've probably gone Ouroboros.
Fair enough, if you put it that way. Still, is banning this activity for the seven hours that the kids are in school for really that bloody important? Would you agree that lack of physical contact isn't going to cause a massive breakdown in the social structure of the student population? If so, then isn't it just like those "no cell phones/MP3 player/PSP at school please" rules that schools put in?
I guess I just don't see the big fuss. It's like the school uniform debate. Some schools have it, some don't, it also has no real academic effect, yet it's implemented in many schools. Nobody exactly goes ballistic over that, do they? I'm basically thinking that this is making a mountain out of a molehill.
As for workplaces, I don't know of a single workplace larger than 10 people where you'd be allowed to make out like you see teenagers do, even if the employees are officially on lunch
I know there is a method, but all I see is the madness.
Fair enough, if you put it that way. Still, is banning this activity for the seven hours that the kids are in school for really that bloody important? Would you agree that lack of physical contact isn't going to cause a massive breakdown in the social structure of the student population? If so, then isn't it just like those "no cell phones/MP3 player/PSP at school please" rules that schools put in?
I guess I just don't see the big fuss. It's like the school uniform debate. Some schools have it, some don't, it also has no real academic effect, yet it's implemented in many schools. Nobody exactly goes ballistic over that, do they? I'm basically thinking that this is making a mountain out of a molehill.
As for workplaces, I don't know of a single workplace larger than 10 people where you'd be allowed to make out like you see teenagers do, even if the employees are officially on lunch
The OP article wrote:Branham said she got detention this week for hugging her friend after school.
The rule applies to on school grounds, not just during the normal school day. Do you know how many students stay after school for clubs and the like?
Yes, this is that bloody important. It's not a rule against making out in the middle of class, it's a rule doling out punishment for any hug longer than two fucking seconds at any time while on school grounds. I can't think of any way you can defend that rule.
Molyneux wrote:The rule applies to on school grounds, not just during the normal school day. Do you know how many students stay after school for clubs and the like?
Yes, this is that bloody important. It's not a rule against making out in the middle of class, it's a rule doling out punishment for any hug longer than two fucking seconds at any time while on school grounds. I can't think of any way you can defend that rule.
(just a reminder that I'm not personally behind this policy)
OK, let's say that the school puts in a policy of "no PDAs allowed at school". Would you still find that to be too restrictive or would that be OK for you?
Seeing as the school's goal is most likely trying to prevent make out sessions from happening on school grounds at any time, this was probably the best "legalistic" approach they could take. Putting in a rule called "no PDAs allowed on school grounds" gives too much wriggle room for wannabe kid lawyers to try and weasel out of, so they probably thought "2 seconds should be fine for all interactions bar PDAs, done".
I know there is a method, but all I see is the madness.
Molyneux wrote:The rule applies to on school grounds, not just during the normal school day. Do you know how many students stay after school for clubs and the like?
Yes, this is that bloody important. It's not a rule against making out in the middle of class, it's a rule doling out punishment for any hug longer than two fucking seconds at any time while on school grounds. I can't think of any way you can defend that rule.
(just a reminder that I'm not personally behind this policy)
OK, let's say that the school puts in a policy of "no PDAs allowed at school". Would you still find that to be too restrictive or would that be OK for you?
Seeing as the school's goal is most likely trying to prevent make out sessions from happening on school grounds at any time, this was probably the best "legalistic" approach they could take. Putting in a rule called "no PDAs allowed on school grounds" gives too much wriggle room for wannabe kid lawyers to try and weasel out of, so they probably thought "2 seconds should be fine for all interactions bar PDAs, done".
I would think something like "No kissing with tongue" would be more appropriate, then.
