Oh, aye, it’s a suburban school alright. In a nice area too, but borders on bedsitland for the students. The result of which is that there’s baby-faced inebriants everywhere high on terrible drugs.
To be fair, the Stuperintendent is probably a pina colada addict and is compelled to immediately quaff something like Hawaiian Tropic… Banning stuff is usually always about projection.
Did you even watch the video? They told parents to apply sunscreen before they leave. BUT THIS IS STUPID. You have to reapply sunscreen every hour or so if you’re in direct sunlight. How are you not aware of this? smh
“Let the dumb kids extinct”
What the hell? The kids didn’t ask to be taught by dumbass school teachers making dumbass rules. And kids are KIDS; they are supposed to be stupid. That’s why we have parents, and adults, guiding the way. Why are you placing the blame on the kids when this is all the adults’ doing? ADULTS ARE THE ONE THAT RUN THIS WORLD, not kids, and to call these kids “stupid” is, well, fucking stupid and missing the point entirely… This entire line of thinking is stupid. You’re not using your critical thinking hat at all. Maybe you should go extinct, because, seriously, dude? Try harder. Think critically.
Your analogy doesn’t even make sense. It’s not a direct correlation at all. It’s like you thought, “herp derp, kids are being stupid, let me bring out the first stupid kid story I can think of, even if it doesn’t relate at all! Haha, kids are stupid, they should go extinct!” It doesn’t … even … make … sense.
The kids aren’t able to bring sunscreen because it’s banned. You better believe that if they bring it in, they will get suspended or even expelled, because POISON! Yet you’re blaming the kids? How stupid is that?!
Kids are KIDS and we should NOT expect them to be wise to the world, because they are kids. That’s why we have these things called “parents”. When the adults are also idiots, that’s when the problem begins.
I feel dumber having read your comment. I just can’t. You’re just as bad as these idiot school officials, and part of the larger problem. For Fuck’s sake, dude. Think.
Oh, and edited to add: This is not “natural selection”. You have no understanding of what actual “natural selection” is. I suggest doing some actual research on the subject before spewing your b.s.
3 Likes
If you think there aren’t drugs in the countryside, you are one naive person. Meth can be made in any trailer in the countryside.
You seem to be under the impression that drugs only exist in bigger towns and cities. As someone who grew up in a small town, and in the “countryside” (more like middle of the desert): HAHAHAHAHA. No.
The problem with the “countryside” is there is even LESS to do, and therefore more reason to party and do drugs.
3 Likes
1 Like
Texas officials prefer indoctrination to education. Education is dangerous.
1 Like
off topic also…
There are coupons for EVERYTHING.
This is what I came here to say. We sunscreen our kids in the morning during the warm months before they go to school/daycare, but the sunscreen still needs to be re-applied during the course of the day. Should parents drive to school to sunscreen their kids every couple of hours?
I was waiting for this too. Or this:
Second degree burn: http://youtu.be/1h01jm9XAgs
Yep,
Texas bans sunscreen, but everybody gets a gun.
Will these morons please secede already?
2 Likes
I love when people pretend that their country doesn’t have crazy people in it. Crazy is everywhere.
1 Like
Believe me, I know about drugs, their procurement, sale and abuse. Intimately. No-one really does meth here (we prefer MDMA generally), but I’m fully aware there’s drugs for sale everywhere. Put me anywhere in the UK, and I’ll score you some drugs without knowing a soul there. Any drug you like. Most of the time in under an hour, I reckon. I’ve lived all over England, and there’s places I would much rather bring up my kid, were I able to do it all over, is all
Yes, crazy is everywhere. But not to the same extent.
First of all: sarcasm. “Kids” will not extinct from trying to drink lotion (did that myself - it was shampoo actually - once when was younger - wasn’t fun after, never did that again.) And when you are 7 years old you are supposed to understand basic stuff, this includes “do not drink that, because it is not for drinking an you will get sick after drinking that.” Simple. If you try to hurt yourself repeatedly, maybe there is not exactly everything ok with you. If you see others hurt and still do the same thing as they did… there is something wrong with you.
The story, the analogy, is actually true. You may call it stupid, but you did not argument why it is stupid, and it is story, as it was. Nothing really there, just description.
Does it relate? Yes, I think it does. Why? Because it is example (which you can think that I made up - this is the Internet, so your right to think so) to show that if you are not able to convince someone with good argumentation, that the action is going to hurt him/her, he/she is going insist on being right and end up getting hurt. You have no influence on that anymore. (Cinnamon challenge is kind of example, youtube is full of examples.)
That is why I am against that ban. The kids are going to drink that at home if they want. If they do that at school? They will fill sick and other will see what happens and will not do that. If they do that again or others do that, then probably this lotion is drinkable or there is something wrong with them.[quote=“marilove, post:64, topic:34045”]
“herp derp, kids are being stupid, let me bring out the first stupid kid story I can think of, even if it doesn’t relate at all! Haha, kids are stupid, they should go extinct!”
[/quote] … is that your critical thinking or frustration?
Critical thinking you write? Have you though why the rule is there? It is not about kids getting really hurt. Is it? The kids have access lot’s of stuff, including that lotion, at home, where they might drink it.
Think again, do something you accused me of not doing. The rule is supposed to protect teachers from getting blamed if something happens. Your kid drinks lotion, the kid that brought it is going to be blamed, because he/she has broken the rule. Have you even thought that it might be this way?
The easiest way is to place there a rule that will redirect blame to someone else.
In other post I have written that I do not believe that lotion might be poisonous, but did not take into account that someone may have some medical condition that together with chemistry in lotion may end up in serious poisoning. Still, banning is stupid, because due to small possibility of accident (or stupidity) serious health problems (e.g. burns, skin cancer) are being risked here among greater percentage of kids.
I have not used “natural selection” in the comment.
Hm… Fox Mulder is not doing his job lately…
As a ginger, I’m gonna go ahead and call this discrimination.
9 Likes
Fair point. I was thinking of ‘limited’ in the sense that the local prices tend to be higher in areas of tight enforcement, not that there has been much success in the elimination of any particular good from the market.
If you are motivational enough, it’s amazing what somebody will shove into an orifice and bring into a prison for you; but you’ll be paying well above street value. In the case of something like alcohol, people of legal buying age, de-facto plausible fake ID age, or enough-friends-of-legal-age, can get booze of controlled quality at relatively low cost and all over the place. This markedly reduces the incentive to try something disgusting like hand sanitizer or sterno. If you aren’t in that category, access to booze is likely to be more irregular, or at above-market rates, which makes lousy alternatives much more attractive.
