What do you guys think

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 24 Feb 2005 18:05

I got a one-day suspension today for calling a teacher of mine a bitch. Now I know you guys are thinking that it was probably just me being immature and not seeing things from my teachers point of view, but, without going into detail, she was truly being rude beyond reason.

So I was thinking, if the same teacher had heard me calling someone else in the class a bitch, or had someone called me a bitch, no one would've gotten punished as severely as a suspension; so is it fair that the only reason I got suspended was because I said it to a person who is in some "posistion of respect" above me? Don't get me wrong, I hold the occupation of teaching far more in reverence than say someone serving in the military, but if the teacher is acting immature, do I have the right to call them on it?

I really wanted to get this off my chest, but I'm curious as to what some of you have to say.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 24 Feb 2005 19:23

i think i agree with you, dan. a suspension for that seems excessive to begin with, but its especially oppresive since, as you point out, the punishment was only handed out because the teacher is considered 'above' select other people...

Posi-Cole · Post by **Posi-Cole** » 24 Feb 2005 21:35

It's important to treat people above you with respect.

I don't think it's at all unfair that you got suspended, considering there are probably many more tactful ways you could have expressed what you were feeling, without using a word that is innappropriate in that situation.

sidekick · Post by **sidekick** » 25 Feb 2005 18:51

I think things like that are absolulty wrong. Being suspended for that was unfair, even if it was a person of "higher authority". If a teacher is cussed at then the punishment might be detention or such, but a suspension is utterly stupid. I am thinking of becoming a teacher, and if one of my students said I was being bitchy or being a bitch, I'd think about it and if I was truly being a bitch than I'd sit down, but other wise I'd give them a detention or something less harsh.

footbinc · Post by **footbinc** » 02 Mar 2005 13:08

Shouldnt do stuff like that. Try that when you work for someone. If someone under me at work tried that and meant it, there would be a much more serious consequence. Plus, 1 day suspension = 1 day of net

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 03 Mar 2005 01:12

Excessive, perhaps.

It's an authority thing. She can't let you run over her like that without some punishment. How could she maintain any control of the class (or any class for that matter) in the future, or any class.

We didn't have metal detectors or guns( that I knew about) in my high school. But we would carry knives most of the time.

----------------------------------------------
I didnt like Bainbridge's back handed slap at military folks , when compared to teachers.
Without the military folks, your teacher would be teaching you in German, or how to climb into a boxcar.

-n

-n

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 03 Mar 2005 05:54

1 day of suspension = 1 day of shred

Asmus · Post by **Asmus** » 04 Mar 2005 10:41

A bit like you got bigger punishment for shooting an Policeman then shooting an Civilian..

Dat · Post by **Dat** » 04 Mar 2005 11:35

If you want to insult her you tell her she's a bitch.

If you want to communicate that she was truly being rude beyond reason you simply tell her she was truly being rude beyond reason.

Using profanity doesn't get you anywhere, especially if you're trying to speak to an adult or authority figure. It just gets people riled up and makes you come off as uncivilized. Take the time and effort to find the right words instead of just blurting out obscenities.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 05 Mar 2005 12:57

I didnt like Bainbridge's back handed slap at military folks , when compared to teachers.
Without the military folks, your teacher would be teaching you in German, or how to climb into a boxcar.

Your notion that the US military actually defends us is moronic and childish. The US military is a tool used by the government to protect vital economic interests oversea's.

The only reason I used people in the military as an example is because people like you tend to hold them in some sort of superhero image; which is all a faux when you see the things coming out of Iraq.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 05 Mar 2005 17:29

i agree with nathan on this one...the us military is hugely important (as is proved in history...was the military being just a 'tool to protect overseas interests' when they fought back against Japan and Germany in WW2? granted, hawaii technically has oceans between it and the mainland, but that doesnt make it an overseas interest

while the military can be over-glorified, it is also EXTREMELY under-appreciated. as sick of hearing people like me and nathan 'holding the military in a superhero image' im sick of hearing people like you trash the military, the leadership that is behind the military, and any military combat that it engages in.

dazza · Post by **dazza** » 05 Mar 2005 22:46

Yo Pete !
So what was the Us doing in ww 2, other than that ?
Of course there were and still are noble and idealistic people
in the millitary, no question, but its very naive to assume that
humanism was the drive behind these massive efforts to set things
straight...just look at the middle east situation nowadays and you get
the picture...i mean why did it take ages to stop the butchering in kosovo,
for instance ? Are Albanians of lesser worth, or was the casualty ratio not high enuff ? No, but they only have beansoup to control over there and no oil !
Its funny how people who live on land, that was stolen from others, fight for justice ;
and its even funnier, how people like Dan, who are plain ojective observers
can make strong, healthy americans sick and tired the same time, and
i also like your compassion for the Hawaiians .
They shouldnt have any hard feelings towards america, their way of life
got fucked over, but only in a "middle-seas" way

Yo Dan ! Sorry for abusing your thread like that !
Mainly i agree with Dat on the matter, i can only add, that everybody involved played according to the rules, but you have the chance not
to take yourself too serious and move on, while she's evidently not
able to do so !
In short : turning the other cheek means a red face and burnt pride sometimes, but it dont mean, that you get your ass kicked .

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 06 Mar 2005 07:43

actually, hawaii was already part of the us when pearl harbor was attacked by the japanese. thats why the us had the undeniable right to take part in WW2, almost moreso than many other nations involved.
Also in WW2, the US eventually dismantled dozens of concentration camps. obviously. would you say the us was wrong to get involved in that case too? im sure you would say somehow their motives were selfish...like they thought there was hidden oil derriks (sp) underneath gas chambers or something....

dazza · Post by **dazza** » 09 Mar 2005 15:25

grrr. war rule number one : fighting is always selfish

Of course all concentration camps' prisoners were released after
the germans controlling the area were defeated ( by russian, french
british and us forces and their other allies ).
But neither of those armies came to germany especially for that,
if helping the jews was a genuine interest for any of the countries'
engagement, ( which it wasnt, since nationalism,facism and antisemitism
were part of the whole of the western worlds zeitgeist ), they'd took
action way earlier

Its not too hot to ask stuff like " was the us wrong too, to get themselves
involved in ww2"...i'm grateful they did, naturally .
But that doesnt mean i have to be immune to disgust, regarding some
of the US'political and millitary actions, past and PRESENT,
and it cant mean that i shouldnt question the motives behind these actiions.
Funny you say, that the usa had the "right" to take part in ww2,
after the pearl harbour disaster...call it a "right" that you need for
war waging, but what about a reason ?
Massive ecconomy problems maby ? The wish to get even more powerful?
World domonation ? ooops, i lost me place

I'm glad about the many good things that happened for europe after
world war 2, and of course the millitary of the allies made this possible.
But i doubt the reasoning behind the sudden and fierce engagement
of the us army was anywhere near humanistic..
at last allowing pearl harbour to be attacked wasnt,for the war
mongers amongst the US millitary and goverment knew of the
attack before it happened.
I#m also not impressed with the massive onslaught of civillians in
europe and japan...no one has to be condemmed or made holy here
for crying out loud, we know, that war is always terrible !
And since everybody seems to agree to that, one would do good
in generally mistrusting those who send their own out to kill other people.
Comprende ?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 10 Mar 2005 22:58

I thought this was a thread about bitch teachers.

For every lunatic soldier and pervert priest in the world, there are probably 2 or 3 demented school teachers out there.

(Not counting those who were made crazy by lunatic students)

-n

delakong · Post by **delakong** » 11 Mar 2005 09:20

First off, you shouldn't have called your teacher a bitch no matter how right you are, it's not gonna get you anything but in trouble. If a teacher says something to you, no matter how rude, and you reply in any negative way, you lose. Just take it. That's the way it goes.

Secondly, how dare you talk down about the military. They're just doing their jobs. It's not like the military says "lets go attack Iraq!" If you're gonna hate on someone about the military hate on Bush. Friends of mine have been and still are in Iraq and Afganistan right now. A friend of mine, Trulain Whiting, came back from Afganistan with chemical burns over 25% of his body, and you talk bad about our military. The majority of casualties in war zones are under the age of 25. Trulain was only 19. Not old enough to leagally have a beer with us after he was well enough to leave the hospital. He knew the risks of joining the military and he did so when he was old enough to fight for our country. Will you have the balls to say the same?

I'm not for our military being in Iraq, but I whole heartedly support our troops. They risk there lives every single minute of every single day and most of their friends won't be able to buy their own beer to drink away the loss of a good friend if the unthinkable happens.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 11 Mar 2005 11:27

today, just for fun, i told my chemistry teacher to shut up, and that i was sick of his shit. im now the hero of the class.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 12 Mar 2005 19:18

Okay, since this thread has pretty much died down, I don't think anyone will mind if I continue on this off-topic tangent.

delakong wrote: Secondly, how dare you talk down about the military. They're just doing their jobs. It's not like the military says "lets go attack Iraq!" If you're gonna hate on someone about the military hate on Bush. Friends of mine have been and still are in Iraq and Afganistan right now.

I've had a problem with this attitude for quite awhile. I can't bring myself to grant infallibility to someone just because they willingly gave someone else "complete control" over them. Granted, I don't agree with Bush's foreign policy, but I also disagree with anyone who will carry it out. I don't consider people free from any sort of personal responsibility because they joined the military.

delakong wrote: A friend of mine, Trulain Whiting, came back from Afganistan with chemical burns over 25% of his body, and you talk bad about our military. The majority of casualties in war zones are under the age of 25. Trulain was only 19. Not old enough to leagally have a beer with us after he was well enough to leave the hospital. He knew the risks of joining the military and he did so when he was old enough to fight for our country. Will you have the balls to say the same?

I'm sorry to hear that. I would personally rather have it so that no one has to go through that. Then again, he put himself in that situation. I don't find his injury any more honorable than say a BMX rider who would happen to crash.

I can't really indentify with this whole "fighting for our country" thing. They are't fighting for me; I don't want them there. I don't place added value on a person's life because of the longitude and latitude where they happened to be born. I find nationalism and its invisible borders a very strange notion.

delakong wrote: I'm not for our military being in Iraq, but I whole heartedly support our troops. They risk there lives every single minute of every single day and most of their friends won't be able to buy their own beer to drink away the loss of a good friend if the unthinkable happens.

I would not wish it upon anyone to drink away anything -- what a ridiculous way to go about life. But, like I said, when it comes down to it, the troops are the ones who are choosing to be in Iraq.