News Firebomb Attack on German School

[Moonwalker]

I'd say that kids at those ranges are unusually serious and concentrated.

That even might be true. Some of those who are in clubs, not only gun clubs (but also archery for example) are indeed unusually concentrated.

But on the other hand, it is noticeable that the majority of the German spree killing kids (and partly their parents as well) were members of gun clubs...

 

[T.Neo]

Regarding gender segregation: My sister was on a grammar school for girls. The differences were significantly, at least for that certain school. She also definately favours gender segregation still (and for her son in future) which I can quite understand. I wich I had that too. Just like an old friend who was on a boys' boarding school and does not regret it at all as well.

Just because you like it, does not mean that it is good. Or that it is even morally acceptable.

If you believe that a person should be free to do anything he or she wants since stopping wearing a diaper, don't complain if you get ambushed by a gang of young thugs... one night.

That behavior has little to do with childhood freedom, rather social and class upbringing. The "adolescent thug" stereotype isn't accurate for 100% of the planet, btw.

But, yes. I do believe that children should be totally free, within reason.

On other hand, uncontrollable watching a TV MAY damage a kid's mentality.

I think you underestimate the mental durability of children. They are human beings, just with less experience.

Then again, freedom within reason- I definitely don't think that kids should be watching horror movies or suchlike.

My solution would be a school reform and media control -

Yes. Censor everything and remove the individuality of children. That is anything but a solution.

as much as possible and replace it by science and education.

And prevent free speech and expression of creativity?

Btw, replace TV with "science" and "education" programming, and TV will become extinct- pretty fast. I actually enjoy scientific and/or educational programming, when it isn't totally unentertaining.

I'm talking about loss of respect and discipline.

Respect is something that must be mutual and earned, btw. And discipline is totally uneeded when people learn how to treat others.

And I'm talking about wrong "control" by media. Media is controling peoples life style, thinking, opinion and much more like never before.

Wrong. People choose to view media. There is no control. Except the freedom of a person to flip the channel via a remote control.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'd start with banning guns. There's absolutely no evidence that violent games cause such events. There are plenty of countries that don't ban violent games, yet don't have kids shooting up their schools.

Guns also don't cause the problem. The most gun crazy country in the world is actually Switzerland and it has, aside of the usual number of domestic violence, only one significant spree killing in it's recent history.

The key question is: What is your relation to violence?

I know from my past, that we had been violent as kids. Really. We brawled, kicked, recreated the moves of our favorite Bruce Lee movie. But we have never been brutal. We didn't kick people who are already on the ground, we had been aiming at having our opponent either just unable to fight (which is achieved usually by giving him a real bear hug) or when he decides to retreat. And we often fought just out of sportive reasons. Not for solving conflicts, but rather for the fun of it. The most extreme location for a fight was the deck of a ferry from England to France.

Nobody has become a spree killer of us, and nobody was even close of it.

The real problem kids had drugs, thought a pistol makes them cool and always tried to be on the top of the wave of violence. Impress their minions by being more extreme and "crazy" than they are. These people kick you, when you are already on the ground, for showing their friends, that they can add one level of brutality. And I think this is the case as often today, as it was in the past, we just look closer at it.

I remember reading about spree killings in the 80s as well as today. The news they stirred had been less extreme. If you kill 4 people with your Katana, you had been ill and get a short note in news outside your region. Today, if you attempt to kill somebody at a school (important), all large news outlets will ask you which computer games you play.

Revenge only makes sense, if all people which you want to punish learn of it. And if your opponent is the whole world, TV news will help you.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Siberian Tiger...
I am not complaining...
...but only against those who would take freedom away for the sake of (perceived) security...

Note that I only spoke about kids in the most perceptive age. Fortunately or not, but they are a bit different from adults. And much of what's an adult is, have been rooted in that age.

At the same time, people should not be treated with overly care above a certain age of responsibility. This is where they should be granted the full freedom they may have, and this age is individual.

A nice example what overly caring does to adults were the people of late (in all meanings) Soviet Union. No disturbing news were allowed on TV or newspapers. Every news on a disaster had been getting immediately hushed. No firearms are allowed. Travel abroad restricted. No sex, no drugs, no rock'n'roll. Endless preaching of peacefulness, kindness and friendship and thousand other good things in public media. Result: people were becoming alcoholic or at least grew initiative-less blubbers.

So the fine feeling of the edge is quite important.

But this is quickly turning into a subject of a mommy's forum.

 

[Ghostrider]

I like the idea of the school uniforms, however. I would have liked them in my day in high school - although it would have meant no more New Romantic stuff.

As long as the high school male uniform is this:

And the female looks like this:

Then there's room for negotiation.

 

[Urwumpe]

Can we have a Judge Dredd add-on in orbiter? For tutoring the newbies? :lol:

 

[Moonwalker]

Just because you like it, does not mean that it is good. Or that it is even morally acceptable.

It is morally acceptable for a lot of humans and pupils all over the world.

I do believe that children should be totally free, within reason.

What means "totally free"?

I think you underestimate the mental durability of children. They are human beings, just with less experience.

And they are way more mentally sensitive than humans with experience. Although it's an extreme example: I would not tell a mother of an abused child that she underestimates the mental durability of children and that kids just have less experience.

Biologically and psychologically there are huge differences between a childs and adults brain. Puberty is not just a joke. If something goes wrong prior or during this phase, something can happen like we've seen once more today...

Censor everything and remove the individuality of children. That is anything but a solution.

And prevent free speech and expression of creativity?

If television is everything and individuality of children, then I'm sorry for those poor people who depend on television that much. As a child I was allowed to watch TV not more than one hour a day, and not even each day. Today I even live without a TV at home.

Media control does not mean censorship. Censorship basically has become a catchphrase of people who overlook or disregard responsibility. If you don't want "censorship", allow porn on public TV just like blood and thunder is allowed. The current moral is no moral. It's a schizophrenic misconception of freedom.

Television is no medium of expression of creativity and free speech. The internet is such a thing. Television is a medium of public control -> knowledge (and half-truths as well) and opinion/propaganda. People can flip the channels as much as they want. Todays TV remains kinky by about 90% especially commercial TV. Those TV stations look at each other, partly are under the same ruler. They look how they can get the numbers of other programs too to make as much money as possible at all costs. They even sell one's own grandmother...

The German Chancellor-Duel a few days ago was one good example of control, not by politicians but by journalists. The journalists asked certain questions and interruptet the candidates at certain points to not give it a chance to let it look like a real duel. Merkel and Steinmeier was presented like an old married couple. I'm afraid that politicians are that easy influenceable by journalists, who make opinion/propaganda and hugely influence election campaigns, consciously. In my opinion journalists and those who make TV programs have way too much freedom. Peter Scholl-Latour says that the western freedom of press, although it is better than elsewhere, just is the freedom of about 200 rich people to make public opinion. He sadly is right.

I did the right thing: not only turning TV off, but take it away, make my home a non-TV zone. Instead, I have a bookshelf with aviation and space flight Literature in it, at that place where you can usually find a TV in most homes. But it bothers me that stupid TV program is available anyway whenever people try to tell me nonsense they have seen on TV.

Btw, replace TV with "science" and "education" programming, and TV will become extinct- pretty fast.

Which shows that Einstein is right about human stupidity.

Be sure I would celebrate the extinction of the TV. A society that does not depend on TV. Great. That would be quite a progress

 

[Ghostrider]

Which shows that Einstein is right about human stupidity.

Be sure I would celebrate the extinction of the TV. A society that does not depend on TV. Great. That would be quite a progress

We'll celebrate a world without you way before.:rofl:

Why is it that everyone who has access to teh interweb believes himself so much smarter and better than anyone else, then proceeds to prove to the whole world he isn't?

 

[Moonwalker]

Why is it that everyone who has access to teh interweb believes himself so much smarter and better than anyone else, then proceeds to prove to the whole world he isn't?

The internet also is a medium of spreading stupidity. But compared to the TV it is a free one.

In my case, the only reason I'm using the internet is my interest in manned space flight & aviation. Otherwise I don't really need the internet. I don't even own a mobile phone, beside not owning a TV either. My real live does not hugely happen in front of a TV, or within the internet. I don't need endlessly irrigation and communication at any place and time. Give me a small log cabin at a lake in Canada, a small waterplane (Cessna) and I'm happy (well, together with a nice decent girl...)

PS: I've never met a person who thinks to be smarter because using the internet. I've met a lot of persons who proceed to prove the whole world to be as stupid enough to hudely depend on the internet while TV is running in the background at the same time. The full thunder

 

[T.Neo]

It is morally acceptable for a lot of humans and pupils all over the world.

So is issuing the death penalty to "convicted" homosexuals...

Biologically and psychologically there are huge differences between a childs and adults brain.

Of course. There are also huge differences between the brain of a male and female human. But that doesn't mean that women are less mentally capable then men.

And they are way more mentally sensitive than humans with experience.

Yes. But that doesn't mean that upon seeing a plane crash, they'll turn into psycho school shooters.

Today I even live without a TV at home.

Wow. So because you don't own a TV, means that other people shouldn't either?

Television is no medium of expression of creativity and free speech. The internet is such a thing. Television is a medium of public control -> knowledge (and half-truths as well) and opinion/propaganda.

No offense intended, really, but saying that makes you sound like an anticapitalist crackpot.

TV remains kinky by about 90% especially commercial TV.

90% is not. Out of the numerous cooking and sports channels on SA TV, I can safely say that only about 25% of TV is "kinky".

I did the right thing: not only turning TV off, but take it away, make my home a non-TV zone. Instead, I have a bookshelf with aviation and space flight Literature in it, at that place where you can usually find a TV in most homes. But it bothers me that stupid TV program is available anyway whenever people try to tell me nonsense they have seen on TV.

Oh, wow. So your bookshelf-where-the-TV-was lifestyle should be a model for millions? Nope. I know many people who own (and often watch) TV, yet still have a shelf of "Literature" that they read.

 

[Urwumpe]

Stupidity happens inside the brain.

 

[Ark]

My solution would be a school reform and media control - an ethical commission especially looking at sexual and criminal descriptions as well as avoiding stupid-tv (make commercial television 100% pay-tv) as much as possible and replace it by science and education.

Uh...huh. Ethical Commissions? So you're basically advocating the government putting a system in place to force what you consider ethical on other people.

 

[Hielor]

I can see no legitimate reason as to why genders should be segregated in schools. That's utterly backward and, IMO, sexist.

Forcing children to wear school uniforms is utter nonsense, IMO. What good can come of depersonalising and demeaning a child by removing their choice of clothing?

This isn't the armed forces, we're not turning children into soulless fighting machines. We're (attempting) turning them into responsible, moral citizens.

Just because you like it, does not mean that it is good. Or that it is even morally acceptable.

Studies and usage have shown that both genders perform better in school in single-gender environments. Boys are less apt to be showing off to impress the girls; girls no longer need to deal with the often-aggressive boys.

Uniforms also get rid of the boundaries between students, because you no longer can tell as easily "oh, this girl is rich, she's wearing Nike and Abercrombie."

In both gender segregation and uniforms, it's not a sexist thing about keeping women separate or destroying individuality. It's about making the schooling environment entirely about schooling, rather than the numerous social interactions which can often put some students at a major disadvantage. Note also that it's not about removing all social interactions--students are still free to be friends with each other, and I've heard of two schools (an all-male school and an all-female school) having dances involving both schools.

The purpose is to make the learning environment about learning, and make it easier for everyone to succeed in school without unnecessary distractions..

 

[Ark]

Studies and usage have shown that both genders perform better in school in single-gender environments. Boys are less apt to be showing off to impress the girls; girls no longer need to deal with the often-aggressive boys.

Uniforms also get rid of the boundaries between students, because you no longer can tell as easily "oh, this girl is rich, she's wearing Nike and Abercrombie."

In both gender segregation and uniforms, it's not a sexist thing about keeping women separate or destroying individuality. It's about making the schooling environment entirely about schooling, rather than the numerous social interactions which can often put some students at a major disadvantage. Note also that it's not about removing all social interactions--students are still free to be friends with each other, and I've heard of two schools (an all-male school and an all-female school) having dances involving both schools.

The purpose is to make the learning environment about learning, and make it easier for everyone to succeed in school without unnecessary distractions..

All of those "distractions" exist in the outside world. How are we preparing children for our society if we keep them from learning anything about it until they're out of school?

Men and women ARE mixed in the rest of the world. There ARE rich and poor people in the rest of the world. People DO wear whatever they want in the rest of the world.

There's a reason the only institutions that still segregate are backwards Catholic schools: they cut students off from the rest of the world so they can indoctrinate them with religious values heavily enough that most of them won't leave the Church later in life.

 

[T.Neo]

Strike that- Ark's post illustrates the point beautifully.

 

[RisingFury]

I'd start with taking kids to a shooting school. Teach them some responsability. We allow kids from 10+ to our shooting ranges, and they don't shoot up their schools. I'd say that kids at those ranges are unusually serious and concentrated.

I think it's a good idea to release stress like that, however, I still think it's a bad idea to allow people to carry guns outside of the shooting range...

 

[Urwumpe]

In both gender segregation and uniforms, it's not a sexist thing about keeping women separate or destroying individuality. It's about making the schooling environment entirely about schooling, rather than the numerous social interactions which can often put some students at a major disadvantage. Note also that it's not about removing all social interactions--students are still free to be friends with each other, and I've heard of two schools (an all-male school and an all-female school) having dances involving both schools.

But if you would take the schooling aspect really serious, a mixed gender school should have no problems. Gender segregation only creates the same problems in concentrated form outside school. It is a matter of discipline. I would even go so far to claim, that gender segregation makes it impossible for teaching "proper" gender specific behavior and gender interaction.

School is a social event, you should NEVER forget this. You learn in school social behaviors, which you can't learn at home. And dealing with the other sex is part of this lesson.

 

[Ark]

I think it's a good idea to release stress like that, however, I still think it's a bad idea to allow people to carry guns outside of the shooting range...

The people that carry legal, licensed and concealed guns generally aren't the problem. Banning people from legally carrying guns doesn't really change anything, except that the moron that tries can look forward to a real short career in politics.

---------- Post added at 03:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ----------

School is a social event, you should NEVER forget this. You learn in school social behaviors, which you can't learn at home. And dealing with the other sex is part of this lesson.

Learning how to behave around and deal with the opposite sex is a class you don't see in the course listing, but it's there.

 

[Moonwalker]

In both gender segregation and uniforms, it's not a sexist thing about keeping women separate or destroying individuality. It's about making the schooling environment entirely about schooling, rather than the numerous social interactions which can often put some students at a major disadvantage.

I could not explain it any better.

So is issuing the death penalty to "convicted" homosexuals...

Death penalty does not have anything to do with school uniforms.

I'm glad that you at least did not introduce the famous Hitler/Nazi-comparisons. This time it "only" was the homosexual comparison.

There are also huge differences between the brain of a male and female human. But that doesn't mean that women are less mentally capable then men.

It does mean that both are different. Just like children and adults are different and have to be treated different and appropriate each.

But that doesn't mean that upon seeing a plane crash, they'll turn into psycho school shooters.

They get an overstimulation by blood and thunder and by computer games. Studies have quite exactly shown how behaviour and aggression levels do change when playing violent but even non-violent computer games, and that even for humans who usually are not aggressive/irritable at all. And to avoid the usual confusion: computer games are not the cause, but they do have an influence.

So because you don't own a TV, means that other people shouldn't either?

No.

No offense intended, really, but saying that makes you sound like an anticapitalist crackpot.

Control of the public opinion and behaviour by TV has nothing to do with the form of government. It happens in Communism, Socialism, Capitalism etc. It's not a news that journailsm is called the "Fourth Estate".

90% is not. Out of the numerous cooking and sports channels on SA TV, I can safely say that only about 25% of TV is "kinky".

The German television is worse But it gets even more worse when I have a look at foreign programs via satellite when I meet friends. Just terrible like a nightmare. I hope aliens do not receive it. I would feel feel embarrassed for humankind. Luckily there is a small red power button. That's the one great thing of the remote control.

So your bookshelf-where-the-TV-was lifestyle should be a model for millions?

It already is a model for millions, even within modern societies

But the lower you get (social classes), the more TV and the more bad TV you'll see...

 

[Urwumpe]

But the lower you get (social classes), the more TV and the more bad TV you'll see...

And you really think this theory holds against reality? Sorry, but what you call a role model, is being a arrogant book reading misanthropist.

Books are media. Just like radio. Just like TV. Just like computer games.

There is no good or bad kind of media, how you use it makes it bad. You can have the library of Alexandria of aviation books and still not get smarter from it.