Detention for Hugging

Off Topic
82

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Mick28 wrote:

Again…there is no black and white with this matter. It’s really a very gray area.

That sounds like a damn good argument for not laying down a blanket law/rule in the first place.

As a kid attending the school I understand why you wouldn’t want this particular rule. And if you had the opportunity and the power to review and pick and choose which rules you’d want you would probably throw out a few more.

That’s why the kids don’t make the rules, adults do.

Go figure…[/quote]

One of the primary reasons for the tension between youth and their sources of external regulation is that they are granted limited powers of participation in the regulation process. Youth are not considered to be fully qualified, knowledgeable enough, or experienced in the ways of the world, to possess full autonomy. They have minimal participation in the policy-making process that governs their regulation.

This is due to the concept of “futurity”, in which youth are only seen as “citizens in the making” and valued for their future economic contribution to society.

Part of the regulation process, in association with the concept of governmentality, is the fact that there has been an emphasis on the school as being a training ground for future workers for the economy. This is largely an economic rationalist, or instrumentalist, approach.

However, there are arguments against the instrumentalist type of approach to the regulation of education, which promote for social cohesion and the transformation of existing social relationships in terms of enhancing the human experience by development of a wide range of knowledge, skills and emotional sensitivities.

In these changing times, the rules and regulations may need to be more in touch with youths’ lives, and not out of step with them.

Policies should address the issues that are relevant to them as young people today, instead of being based upon the assumptions that framed the paradigms of a previous era.

83

I decided to come back in here and clear up a few things with you, Dick.

Normally I view each of your posts as a steaming pile of poop in the forum, but sometimes you show that you are capable of reason.

First, you saying [quote]“One example is your “sexual tension” theory. These poor teens will have to walk the hallways full of sexual tension…and that will lead to terrible things happening.”[/quote] is incorrect.

The only thing I mentioned about sexual tension was that stopping teens from touching each other will not allow their feelings to be expressed or vented, and this will most probably increase the sexual tension. This may have the paradoxical effect of increasing the amount of sex that happens either in hidden areas of the school, or outside of school. That was all I said, and it was a speculation because of the idea that forbidden fruit is more desirable for being forbidden.

The REAL theory I was talking about, which you got mixed up with the above statement, was that of repression and it is a well-accepted psychological theory.

In the Primary Repression phase, an infant learns that some aspects of reality are pleasant, and others are unpleasant; that some are controllable, and others not. In order to define the “self”, the infant must repress the natural assumption that all things are equal. Primary Repression then is the process of determining what is self, what is other; what is good, and what is bad. At the end of this phase, the child can now distinguish between desires, fears, self, and others.

Secondary Repression begins once the child realizes that acting on some desires may bring anxiety. This anxiety leads to repression of the desire. The threat of punishment related to this form of anxiety, when internalized becomes the “superego”, which intercedes against the desires of the “ego” without the need for any identifiable external threat.

Abnormal repression, or complex neurotic behavior involving repression and the superego, occurs when repression develops and/or continues to develop, due to the internalized feelings of anxiety, in ways leading to behavior that is illogical, self-destructive, or anti-social.

I was saying that long term repression of vital human expressions, such as showing affection, could lead to abnormal repression.

Next, you saying these words I stated as being Ad Hominem attacks, are incorrect. [quote]
"You’re acting like a wanker Mick. Your arguments are so full of straw men that they don’t hold any water at all. "

“I elaborated on it with the priest example, but obviously you were too dumb to comprehend it.”

“You can’t grasp it because you have no intellectual capacity to do so. Here’s my theory - you think in terms of straw men, so since my comparison was NOT a straw man argument, you were unable to understand it.”

“You sure do like to get into lengthy flame wars. It’s just paragraph after paragraph of your silly incoherent shit.”[/quote]

These do not fit the category of Ad Hominem. I was not making an irrelevant claim about you in order to reject your arguments - I was making straight out insults to you, relevant to your posting behaviour, in and of themselves.

This is an example of an Ad Hominem you said to me:

No wonder you have been called a logical midget in other threads.

I do suggest, constructively, that you brush up on your logic skills and reduce your negative haterism.