Then they both shot each other and their kinds in error. FoxNews we know your bullshit games. Can all Fox News stories have a warning that it is Nazi propaganda.
I feel like the problem with bail is that you have to actually come up with the money. Can’t they get the same effect with just the promise of a fine?
So like you say… “Ok… You’re released pending trial, but if you skip out and run, you’re going to have a fine added that’s equal to $10,000 or 50% of your net wealth, whichever is cheaper”…
That’s all bail is really doing. Bail just forces people to come up with the money in advance and this creates an inequity. If it’s just a fine for if you don’t show up at trial or something, you no longer have that problem.
If they skip town, you can make the fine as big as you want, you’re still not going to be able to collect it. They’re already gone. That’s why bail is money up front.
It’s very easy. A room full of nitrogen gas does it painlessly. But people suck ass and don’t want a painless, easy execution. They want hangings, injections that cause incredible pain, electrocution, etc.
I used to be a proponent of the death penalty. Someone shoots up a school or is a serial rapist, they forfeit their right to live and are beyond rehabilitation
But the book “The Chamber” by John Grisham completely changed my mind. One of the only books to ever make me cry, I realized what an awful responsibility the state has when deciding what to do with the worst of the worst. It’s so easy to lean into retribution but I decided that day I don’t want to support legally sanctioned murder. I’d rather my tax dollars go into keeping prisoners alive than for them to be spent on taking lives for no other reason than blood lust.
Then of course you start digging into all the problems with criminal justice; innocent prisoners, corruption, racism… it’s wildly irresponsible to trust any justice system to be so infallible as to decide who lives and dies.
The legislative branch determines court jurisdiction. They could say that the DC Circuit will be the court of final appeal for any rules involving the supreme court
That’s an opinion about the death penalty in general. Fact is the state does have that power, so when faced with difficulty carrying out execution, why not the firing squad?
It’s considered unreliable and inhumane, I think. Yes, I am aware that apparently the current methods are also not reliable.
Personally, I’m against executions on principle, but if we are to have executions, I think I’d prefer mine to be by firing squad first, guillotine second. I would not like to have a lethal injection or electric chair.
“Write a short one paragraph summary about the evils of ChatGPT”
“ChatGPT, the impressive AI language model, presents potential evils that demand careful attention. These include the spread of misinformation, amplification of biases, privacy concerns, risk of malicious exploitation, and undermining critical thinking through overreliance. As we utilize this technology, it becomes crucial to acknowledge and address these challenges responsibly to ensure a more ethical and secure AI landscape.”
And the non-awful parents are probably already going to know something is up anyway, or have the sort of relationship where the kid is comfortable telling them.
So this law is specifically designed to help awful parents be more awful to their trans kids.
Oh no no no, it's to HELP them you see. They're just MISGUIDED! /s
Yeah, any time someone says "for the children" or "because of terrorists / criminals" I immediately think "what fuckery are you trying to fob off on us now?"
You do understand that there are parents who would make their children homeless (or worse) over issues of sexuality and gender right?
Is it that important to be able to snoop on every facet of your child's life that you support turning what should've been a safespace for children who find themselves in the above scenario into yet another place they're forced to hide.
Also, if you're at the point where you're resorting to using the law to force secrets out of your children, rather than having them trust you enough to just tell you, you should probably question your relationship with your children.
You do understand that there are parents who would make their children homeless (or worse) over issues of sexuality and gender right?
And there should be programs for these youths to help them out.
Is it that important to be able to snoop on every facet of your child’s life that you support turning what should’ve been a safespace for children who find themselves in the above scenario into yet another place they’re forced to hide.
You want government employees determining whats okay for the kids, but have parents take any repercussions. Either parents are responsible for their kids decisions, or teachers, can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Also, if you’re at the point where you’re resorting to using the law to force secrets out of your children
Therapists have an obligation for confidentiality, teachers are public servants, they should serve the tax payers.
Holy shit. You’re seriously arguing that children losing access to their homes and families homeless is fine because “there are programs to help them out”!
Your interpretation of my saying that we should invest in programs to help out the homeless use, as instead me saying it’s fine is a reflection on your poor reading comprehension.
I mean I'm reading the same thing they did and it's not that unfavourable an interpretation of what you said.
If anything this comment only doubles down on it. You've already assumed the kids are going to be homeless, rather than the point I was making that there are times where this law will 100% conflict with a teacher's safe-guarding duty, yet they will be forced by law to endanger the child anyway.
I am the guy you were replying when you said that "homie"
I gave you that question. It wasn't a scenario where a child is already homeless, it was that the implications of this law would drive children in that situation into homelessness.
Your reply to that there was thrte should be programs to help them, which you elaborate to mean the homeless. You've told me you're so attached to this idea that you've already discounted the option of withholding this information for the sake of a child's safety and wellbeing, which tells me enough about what you think.
You should learn to read your own words. As a direct reply to that person, you said:
Your interpretation of my saying that we should invest in programs to help out the homeless use, as instead me saying it’s fine is a reflection on your poor reading comprehension.
You literally say in this comment that what you were saying to me is that "we should invest in professional to help out the homeless".
Tell me in what universe that doesn't interprete as you having already made the decision in your head that you would rather them be homeless than let a teacher have discretion of a safeguarding agent.
I responded saying that there should be programs for that.
I used your scenario, and responded to it. That’s how conversations work.
made the decision in your head that you would rather them be homeless
You’re trolling or literally haven’t read a word I typed. If you didn’t understand that I literally wrote that there should be social programs to help homeless youth, you seriously need some reading help.
The scenario I made is that there are kids who could be made homeless via this law.
I was heavily implying that it is a dangerous downstream ramification of that law, and is a reason to not have a law like that which forces universal non-discretion.
Rather than say something like "oh right, you might be onto something there, maybe we shouldn't enact laws that will potentially render children homeless"
You basically said "whelp, they're going to be homeless, we should invest in programs that help the homeless"
You and you alone are the one who advanced that to them already being homeless.
This is why I said you were so attached to that idea that you'd already discounted the idea of safeguarding and discretion to prevent them from being homeless, because you did, possibly without even realising it.
It isn't me reading too deep or not enough, it's literally the first thing you said.
Again, read your own words, or at the very least read mine FFS.
Rather than say something like “oh right, you might be onto something there, maybe we shouldn’t enact laws that will potentially render children homeless”
I responded that we should improve programs to help the youth.
I understand the problem you’re presenting, because I have empathy. You not understanding that it’s severely encroaching the the relationship between teachers and parents is because you don’t have empathy. I understand your side and have a different way of wanting to deal with it that avoids the problems I see with government employees having side secrets with my 8 year old.
You and you alone are the one who advanced that to them already being homeless.
You said kids might be homeless. I responded with a way to deal with it. Once again, that’s how conversations go.
You not understanding that it’s severely encroaching the the relationship between teachers and parents is because you don’t have empathy.
Well that's certainly an accusation.
Are you sure about that, as you don't seem to empathise with the idea that most children do not cope well with losing their home, and that not losing their home is the ideal solution.
I understand your side and have a different way of wanting to deal with it that avoids the problems I see with government employees having side secrets with my 8 year old.
It's not about just having a "side secret". It's about rendering a safe space where children don't feel afraid of being who they are, when they don't have that option at home.
Bare in mind that this isn't even about direct disclosures. Every teacher would be obligated to report, so the child even acknowledging that fact anywhere in the school could be enough.
It makes it much easier for the teachers/school to offer resources to that child when that child isn't actively afraid of disclosing that information.
Even in the majority of situations where the parents aren't potentially abusive, it could even just allow the child to not be forcibly ousted until they're ready or more certain of their mindset.
You said kids might be homeless. I responded with a way to deal with it. Once again, that’s how conversations go.
Key word in that was might.
In your world you dealt with it by rendering them homeless then picking up the pieces afterwards. That's the worst outcome, at least in my mind.
most children do not cope well with losing their home,
Once again, you have a presumption of parental evilness in every scenario. I showed in my last message how to tackle this problem without involving teachers and going outside their scope.
It’s not about just having a “side secret”.
It literally is. If your child became religious and had meetings every day with a pastor for a few hours and the pastor wouldn’t tell you what they talked about, are you comfortable with that?
Key word in that was might.
So you don’t trust organizations set up to deal with youth homelessness, you also think that should be a burden on the teachers?
I'm the one defending + kids from being made homeless, you're defending parents spying on their kids.
If this were something criminally liable, jailable, that sort of thing, I'd see where you're coming from. But I'm certainly not comfortable with the idea of any children, even if it were only a handful being rendered homeless for the sake of their parent's identity politics.
Once again, you have a presumption of parental evilness in every scenario. I showed in my last message how to tackle this problem without involving teachers and going outside their scope.
Because the parents who would use this information for abuse are the ones I (and many others in this thread) are worried this law will empower.
And I'm rather bothered that your solution is to throw up your hands and say "nothing we could've done" while throwing the child into the frying pan, then letting the authorities know once they've already been burnt.
It literally is. If your child became religious and had meetings every day with a pastor for a few hours and the pastor wouldn’t tell you what they talked about, are you comfortable with that?
Considering the general reputation of priests for child molestation, I wouldn't be comfortable with my child meeting everyday with them anyway.
But that aside, you understand it wouldn't just be the teacher(s) involved, there are other steps to safeguarding resources if the child needed them, teachers are just the first step.
Again, you're acting as though the child and teacher are having constant secret 1 on 1 sessions, where the teacher is telling your child what to do. The reality of the matter is that teachers are the first step in safeguarding, and if they find this information out, it would be their job to refer the child to relevant resources, or even to a school therapist.
You're the one who wants to burden teachers by forcing them have to reveal sensitive information that they know could lead to abuse. No teacher wants to be up at night thinking they could be directly responsible for introducing a child into an abusive situation.
So you don’t trust organizations set up to deal with youth homelessness, you also think that should be a burden on the teachers?
That's such a disingenuous question.
Of course I trust there are good organisations to help with homelessness, but that's not the point.
If there's an option to not let it get to the point of needing to rely on those organisations, then we should do just that. If that means giving a teacher (and their school) the right not to disclose sensitive information to parents they suspect may abuse it, I'm comfortable with that.
Come on man, what the hell are you even saying.
I'm saying your approach is callous. Willing to put children into abusive situations for the sake of satisfying helicopter parents who think surveillance is a better solution than building up a trusting home environment.
Exactly how are these kids meant to find out about these programs to help them if there’s literally nobody they know that they’re allowed to disclose this information to without their parents immediately finding out about it?
Posters, like we have in a lot of government buildings, saying ‘if you’re experiencing home insecurity, use this resource’
Fucking easy, dude. Once again, you make it seem so special that it’s the + community experiencing homelessness. It doesn’t matter, they’re people too. Straight kids experiencing homelessness and + community need the same thing - a roof over their head.
You say “government employee” like as though it’s a tax collector you’re putting in charge of these kids.
Are they not government employees?
They’re supposed to protect your child’s safety, even from you if required.
I agree with this and it’s the same in the U.S. Once again - it’s to defend against abuse by parents, whether it’s a straight cis male or a trans woman. We don’t need special rules - abuse is abuse.
Yes, because children (without the aid of parents) can afford a therapist. That’s your worst take so far.
Schools have therapists and counselors.
Also, you missed the second part there where you can bypass all of this by simply fostering an environment where your child feels safe to tell you this in the first place. If your child isn’t telling you something that fundemental about themselves, it’s because they don’t feel safe to do so.
I agree. I don’t think it’s up to government agents to self determine this situation in the family, though. If teachers suspect abuse, they’re obligated to report it.
Posters, like we have in a lot of government buildings, saying ‘if you’re experiencing home insecurity, use this resource’
Fucking easy, dude. Once again, you make it seem so special that it’s the + community experiencing homelessness. It doesn’t matter, they’re people too. Straight kids experiencing homelessness and + community need the same thing - a roof over their head.
Firstly, I made that comment before you elaborated on the idea that your "programs" referred to programs to help the homeless. Of course that kind of generalised "hone insecurity" helpline is going to be available, but why do we have to start from the idea of them getting kicked out in the first place.
As I've said in other comments, you are so committed to the idea that all parents must know all to such an extent that you don't even consider the possibility that many children could be saved from homelessness simply by discretion offered by a teacher as a safeguarding agent.
You're right that LGBT+ kids aren't special in regards to being homeless, but this conversation right here, right now isn't about that. You're just pulling an "All Lives Matter" on this conversation as if that's some epic comeback.
Are they not government employees?
They are government employees, bur acting like all government employees are exactly the same is again a really bloody stupid take.
Again, teachers are trained not just to teach, but to safeguard your children from all sorts of things.
I agree with this and it’s the same in the U.S. Once again - it’s to defend against abuse by parents, whether it’s a straight cis male or a trans woman. We don’t need special rules - abuse is abuse.
And yet by ousting a child like this to their parents by force of law, like you're supporting, you throw that child into a potentially abusive situation that could've been avoided.
It's like handing the school bully a stack full of blackmail on a student and expecting them not to abuse it.
Schools have therapists and counselors.
Therapists and Counselors that they have to be referred to by their teachers or parents, the exact people they won't tell because they can't trust them.
EDIT - Actually there's one other bit I didn't think about typing this. Not all disclosures are deliberate. A teacher could overhear this and now be obligated to bring hell down upon a child without them being aware of what's coming, which I'd argue is even worse. No therapists or councillors are gonna help with that.
I agree. I don’t think it’s up to government agents to self determine this situation in the family, though. If teachers suspect abuse, they’re obligated to report it.
So you'd rather it get to the point of abuse before a teacher can do something about it?
It's not even just about self-evaluation - if a child disclosed this to a teacher under the belief they would be safeguarded, the teacher would be legally obligated to say it to the parents even if that child told the teacher the exact nature of their family dynamics and the potential abuse this information could lead to.
Tell you what, it must be great living in your world of black and white where you never have to consider the downstream ramifications your broad generalisations produce.
but why do we have to start from the idea of them getting kicked out in the first place.
Because y’alls argument is always ‘these kids will instantly get abused then kicked out!’ and making that some sort of gotcha, like I’m pro-homeless youth.
As I’ve said in other comments, you are so committed to the idea that all parents must know all to such an extent that you don’t even consider the possibility that many children could be saved from homelessness simply by discretion offered by a teacher as a safeguarding agent.
And, as I’ve said, that’s outside the scope of teaching. Teachers are required by law to report abuse, outside of that they should be expected to tell parents about the behavior of their kids.
but this conversation right here, right now isn’t about that. You’re just pulling an “All Lives Matter” on this conversation as if that’s some epic comeback.
As I’ve said and you apparently can’t grasp - we have these protections for EVERYONE, why are you trying to carve out special cases for the + community? reporting suspected abuse of a gay kid is the same as reporting it for a straight kid. They’re on the same form, what do you think, the gay kid has a pink abuse form?
bur acting like all government employees are exactly the same is again a really bloody stupid take.
It doesn’t matter if they’re the same. They’re government employees, which are inherently supposed to serve the tax payers, not take their kids and have secret meetings with them.
Again, teachers are trained not just to teach, but to safeguard your children from all sorts of things.
If my kid breaks his leg biking, is it on the teachers to safeguard my kids? If my kid gets cancer, is it on the teachers to provide medical support?
Teachers have a job, and they’re pushing to be outside that scope. Teachers aren’t there to keep secrets from parents.
Therapists and Counselors that they have to be referred to by their teachers or parents, the exact people they won’t tell because they can’t trust them.
“I want a therapist” - see, don’t need to say anything about wanting to be called LaQuanda instead of Jimmy. This is really fucking basic stuff, dude. You just want an excuses to have teachers take on the role of parenting for these kids, without having the actual responsibility for them. That’s worse for educators, and parents.
So you’d rather it get to the point of abuse before a teacher can do something about it?
You can literally say that about any abuse situation. I can’t file a domestic abuse charge on my partner because I missed a bill payment and I think one day she may slap me because of it.
Tell you what, it must be great living in your world of black and white where you never have to consider the downstream ramifications your broad generalisations produce.
That’s what you’re doing. You just think anytime there’s a kid who doesn’t tell his parent something, it must be abusive. Teachers aren’t responsible for their students lives, parents are. Stop trying to make it so these government agents don’t respond to the taxpayers wants and actively fight against the people they’re supposed to serve.
Because y’alls argument is always ‘these kids will instantly get abused then kicked out!’ and making that some sort of gotcha, like I’m pro-homeless youth.
You act like that's a purely hypotherical situation I'm popping out if my ass. There are children in this situation, where this will happen, and your solution is to render them homeless. At least in this situation, you are pro-homeless youth.
And, as I’ve said, that’s outside the scope of teaching. Teachers are required by law to report abuse, outside of that they should be expected to tell parents about the behavior of their kids.
And that's because teachers do have a lot of duties outside the scope of teaching, including safeguarding.
And I think that's where things differ between us. I think the school (not just the teacher) should be allowed to withhold that information if they believe it would endanger that child.
As I’ve said and you apparently can’t grasp - we have these protections for EVERYONE, why are you trying to carve out special cases for the + community? reporting suspected abuse of a gay kid is the same as reporting it for a straight kid. They’re on the same form, what do you think, the gay kid has a pink abuse form?
I'm not trying to carve out a special case for LGBT+, this law that has brought on this discussion is entirely about a law the affects specifically the T part of that community, so of course the conversation will drift that way, because that's how conversations work.
You seem to think I'm happy letting it get to the point of abuse, when the option to not do so is there. That you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's not there.
Also, in the event there was a piece of information in the same vein that potentially could introduce abuse to a straight child in the same way, I would also want the school to practice discretion about it.
It doesn’t matter if they’re the same. They’re government employees, which are inherently supposed to serve the tax payers, not take their kids and have secret meetings with them.
The safeguarding duty is serving the tax-payer. It is preventing abuse where there is reason to suspect that the disclosure of certain information could create an abusive situation.
You say "secret meetings" as though the teachers are going out shopping with them to buy opposite gendered clothes and putting them on HRT. There are much better resources than than what a teacher can and should offer, but that's not possible if you don't render an environment where the child has a chance to ask for them.
If my kid breaks his leg biking, is it on the teachers to safeguard my kids? If my kid gets cancer, is it on the teachers to provide medical support?
Teachers have a job, and they’re pushing to be outside that scope. Teachers aren’t there to keep secrets from parents.
In the event of a broken leg, yes, a first-aid qualified teacher would provide first-aid to the child, then let paramedics take over from there. In that situation, obviously discretion is not going to be required because it's not a sensitive issue.
And in the event of cancer, I'd hope the parents have an active enough involvement in their child's life that their teachers find out they've got cancer before they do. A teacher wouldn't be diagnosing such, as that is outside the scope of their job.
Again, they're their to protect your child. If that means protecting them from you, then yes, that is and should be in the scope of their job. Besides which, it isn't them alone that would do this. It would be up the school as well, as a teacher does have the duty to report it to the school so that resources can be given.
Apparently this is too long a conversation, so I'm going to have to split this in two.
“I want a therapist” - see, don’t need to say anything about wanting to be called LaQuanda instead of Jimmy. This is really fucking basic stuff, dude. You just want an excuses to have teachers take on the role of parenting for these kids, without having the actual responsibility for them. That’s worse for educators, and parents.
If you think "I want a therapist" will get the kid a therapist with nothing else said or done, I think it's you that's naive. Even if it's a school's therapist, those resources are limited in scope, and assessment of need would be carried out.
It's true that this would be more confidential, but I am surprised that you're up for this considering this is another government employee quite literally having secret meetings with your child, and would still result in you not being told anything.
You can literally say that about any abuse situation. I can’t file a domestic abuse charge on my partner because I missed a bill payment and I think one day she may slap me because of it.
I think you and I both know that's not the same, nor carries the same weight as potentially being abused and kicked out of your home due to being ousted as LGBT+.
If there is a reasonable suspicion that disclosing that information could lead to abuse, and not disclosing it wouldn't, I'd much rather those "government employees" err on the side of not waiting until they've introduced a child into an abusive situation before doing something about it.
That’s what you’re doing. You just think anytime there’s a kid who doesn’t tell his parent something, it must be abusive. Teachers aren’t responsible for their students lives, parents are. Stop trying to make it so these government agents don’t respond to the taxpayers wants and actively fight against the people they’re supposed to serve.
I don't think anytime a child doesn't want their parent to be told something it is abusive. What I don't want is a law that creates a situation where the above is true, and makes the situation worse.
I'm pinpointing on this as an example, because it's a realistic scenario that points out that a universal disclosure law isn't a good idea if you actually want to protect children, because it isn't always the just outside world that could harm them.
They aren't fighting against the people they're supposed to serve. Their ability is foster the people of the future, and that includes safeguarding them from harm, including that introduced by the child's parents.
Plus, are you forgetting that these children will one day be those very tax-payers, who may very well be thankful that their school acted in their best interest?
Even if it’s a school’s therapist, those resources are limited in scope, and assessment of need would be carried out.
So you think school therapists aren’t good enough? Yet you think the teachers know more about how it will affect the student? Which is it, are the schools competent or not?
I think you and I both know that’s not the same, nor carries the same weight as potentially being abused and kicked out of your home due to being ousted as LGBT+.
0 difference. Cops can’t arrests my spouse because they assume that she might one day abuse me.
If there is a reasonable suspicion that disclosing that information could lead to abuse, and not disclosing it wouldn’t, I’d much rather those “government employees” err on the side of not waiting until they’ve introduced a child into an abusive situation before doing something about it.
Instead of encouraging lying to parents, why not try to improve abuse and homeless programs? Why don’t you advertise them in school? Giant posters “do you think you’re being abuse? Talk to a school counselor to get information on resources”
Boom. This is fucking easy dude. You just want excuses for government employees to override the parenting of parents, without any evidence besides a teachers subjective observations and rash conclusions.
What I don’t want is a law that creates a situation where the above is true, and makes the situation worse.
What if it makes it better? A kid that’s questioning gender have much higher suicide rates, what if the teacher withholds this information, and the kid commits suicide. That’s on the teacher, is that what you want? Parents have that responsibility, not teachers. You want teachers to have the say, without any of the repercussions.
Their ability is foster the people of the future, and that includes safeguarding them from harm, including that introduced by the child’s parents.
Once again, that’s not their duty. Their duty is educate the children how the people in the state and district desire.
You have this impression that government agents should be the ones determining the culture of the future. Paired with the government forcing us to give them our children for 8 hours a day 5 days a week or else they take our children from us.That’s inherently dangerous and anti-liberal.
So you think school therapists aren’t good enough? Yet you think the teachers know more about how it will affect the student? Which is it, are the schools competent or not?
Limited in scope as in limited capacity. All public therapists are. The Queue to be put onto an NHS therapist's list is years long.
I do think the schools therapist is a good outlet, but a schools therapist can't do much to solve accidental disclosures. The moment a teacher eavesdrops on the student talking about it outside a therapy, it's still game over for them.
What are you on about??
The whole point of what I said is that I think the teachers and school system are competent enough to assess whether revealing this information could endanger a child, and should use that foresight to prevent abuse as part of their safeguarding duties.
0 difference. Cops can’t arrests my spouse because they assume that she might one day abuse me.
First off, I was never on about arresting anybody.
Secondly, if you had reasonable suspicion to think that your wife might abuse you or kick out of the house based on something about you that has almost no almost no effect on her, then I don't think you'd appreciate it if your friends went behind you back an told her, thereby endangering you, would you?
Instead of encouraging lying to parents, why not try to improve abuse and homeless programs? Why don’t you advertise them in school? Giant posters “do you think you’re being abuse? Talk to a school counselor to get information on resources”
The fundemental gap between us rears it's ugly head again. You're willing to let it get to the point of abuse before you help out, I'm not.
Improve those programs to help people who can't avoid that scenario, but there is still a responsibility to prevent that scenario from occurring. You're not a very good safeguarder if not only do you not react until the damage is already done, but you bring it about in the first place.
Boom. This is fucking easy dude. You just want excuses for government employees to override the parenting of parents, without any evidence besides a teachers subjective observations and rash conclusions.
I'll put it this way, I'd rather have false positives in the face of defending children, than assume every parent is good and turn the other cheek to the abuse that could and would cause.
Besides which, could abusive parents not make the same argument of the services meant to stop them?
What if it makes it better? A kid that’s questioning gender have much higher suicide rates, what if the teacher withholds this information, and the kid commits suicide. That’s on the teacher, is that what you want? Parents have that responsibility, not teachers. You want teachers to have the say, without any of the repercussions.
On the Venn diagram of parents who a school may view as candidates to abuse their children over this if made aware of this information, and parents that would help guide their children through this process, I suspect the overlap to be minute.
Once again, that’s not their duty. Their duty is educate the children how the people in the state and district desire.
Yet again, it is. The fact that this law undermines that safeguarding duty by potentially putting teachers into a situation where they are legally required to enable abuse is abhorrent.
It us their duty to report concerns to the school, who should then make the decision whether it is safe to tell the parents. Teachers should not be given that burden of being put into a situation where they have to potential enable abuse.
You have this impression that government agents should be the ones determining the culture of the future. Paired with the government forcing us to give them our children for 8 hours a day 5 days a week or else they take our children from us.That’s inherently dangerous and anti-liberal.
I'm not suggesting they should be determining the culture of the future. But teachers are there to encourage students to pursue their passions, and also to create a safe environment where that can be done.
If that includes allowing a student to show a part of their persona that they cannot show at home, for as long as it is not endangering others at the school, then the strong arm of the law shouldn't be striking it down.
The fact that you want the government to intervene to take that away from teachers screams far more dangerous and anti-liberal to me, just saying
Also, I'm just about done with this argument, so this will be my last reply on this topic. Feel free to slander me as you like in your next reply.
Limited in scope as in limited capacity. All public therapists are. The Queue to be put onto an NHS therapist’s list is years long.
Okay, so instead of spending 30% more per full time student than our peer countries and forcing teachers to take on the responsibilities of therapists, maybe get some more therapists?
I also know I was in a title 1 school and we had a school counselor, which would be more appropriate to discuss than with the average teacher.
The whole point of what I said is that I think the teachers and school system are competent enough to assess whether revealing this information could endanger a child
And what I’ve said is I think government employees shouldn’t keep secrets about someones kid from the parents, when the parents are hiring the teachers to educate, not raise the kids.
First off, I was never on about arresting anybody.
Okay, CPS can’t take away kids because they think one day the kid might say something that the parents may not like and CPS considers that the parent may one day dislike it enough to not deal with it how government agents see fit. Does that make the hoops easier to jump through for you? The issue is the same - teachers should be transparent with parents of the kids. If they suspect abuse, there are legal processes for that. I don’t think it’s wise to encourage teachers to unilaterally decide they will by pass all that.
You’re willing to let it get to the point of abuse before you help out, I’m not.
You’re willing to let adults hired by the government, outside of parents unilaterally decide what’s best for the other kids. I’m not.
I’ll put it this way, I’d rather have false positives in the face of defending children, than assume every parent is good and turn the other cheek to the abuse that could and would cause.
I’ll ask you a straight up question, I hope you respond to - if your kid was showing signs of gender dysphoria at school, which has an incredibly high suicide attempt rate, and a teacher withheld that information from you, and your kid commits suicide, is there any blame on the teacher?
In my eyes, the teacher shares probably the most responsibility of any adult, for seeing the signs and not reporting it.
The fact that this law undermines that safeguarding duty by potentially putting teachers into a situation
Where teachers have to be consistent and can’t unilaterally decide to withhold information from parents?
But teachers are there to encourage students to pursue their passions, and also to create a safe environment where that can be done.
No they aren’t. They are supposed to teach our youth the basics of our worlds understanding through objective studies like math, science, history, english. They are not meant to push the kids in any which way. And they are failing at their basic duties to the parents and kids. We spend 30% more per student than our peer countries, and getting terrible results. Once that happens, I’d be more willing to talk about teachers and kids having secret gender dysphoria sessions.
And there should be programs for these youths to help them out.
You want government employees determining whats okay for the kids, but have parents take any repercussions. Either parents are responsible for their kids decisions, or teachers, can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Exactly how are these kids meant to find out about these programs to help them if there's literally nobody they know that they're allowed to disclose this information to without their parents immediately finding out about it?
You say "government employee" like as though it's a tax collector you're putting in charge of these kids.
At least in the UK, teachers have to undergo a lot of safe-guarding training before they're even allowed to teach. They're supposed to protect your child's safety, even from you if required. That's serving the tax-payer, and this law jeopardises their ability to do so in that scenario.
Therapists have an obligation for confidentiality, teachers are public servants, they should serve the tax payers.
Yes, because children (without the aid of parents) can afford a therapist. That's your worst take so far.
Also, you missed the second part there where you can bypass all of this by simply fostering an environment where your child feels safe to tell you this in the first place. If your child isn't telling you something that fundemental about themselves, it's because they don't feel safe to do so.
The kinds of things that some parents bully, punish, disown and/or murder their children for should very much be hidden from them if the child chooses to hide it. It's no one else's business and, if the child has not yet told them themselves, breaking their confidence is an attempt to ruin their life and quite possibly end it.
This is stochastic terrorism from this fascist government, desperate for any distraction at all from their kleptocratic ways.
If your reading comprehension is really that bad, it might explain the low quality of your opinions. You should probably try working on it instead of embarrassing yourself in public.
Words form sentences form paragraphs. You need to be able to hold more than one thought in your head to be able to comprehend an argument. You should try it.
Parents should be aware of what is going on in their kids’ lives.
This means being a parent and actively being involved in their life. It does not mean abusing the trust that kids give to teachers, councilors, therapists and other adults they might confide in.
Perhaps therapist was the wrong word. Many schools have health officers who act as emotional support staff that work with students.
I believe all educators have a duty to the well-being of the student ovet the parents. Students are people too, not a thing that parents own until they turn 18. They should be afforded confidentiality too.
Perhaps therapist was the wrong word. Many schools have health officers who act as emotional support staff that work with students.
If their job ethically requires a non disclosure factor, than that’s more reasonable.
But even doctors, that have privacy requirements, have to share medical information with the kids guardians.
I believe all educators have a duty to the well-being of the student ovet the parents
I think this is a difference between how you see the teacher parent relationship and how I do.
I imagine you believe teachers should be nurturers of these kids and help facilitate their growth as human beings.
I see them as government agents, that are paid (and therefore should serve) by the taxpayers. The fact that taxpayers can overwhelmingly say they want/don’t want something, and schools override them is the exact opposite of what I believe the role of public school educators should be. Responsible for teaching the basics of what we think important topics are for kids - generally math, sciences, social studies and literature.
Students are people too, not a thing that parents own until they turn 18.
If my 10 YO kid throws a rock at a window and payment is needed to replace it, who’s responsible to pay for it?
Will the law go after his teacher? Go after him? No. They go after me. I’m responsible for them, and it seems that teachers want to nurture them, but take no responsibility if there’s repercussions.
They should be afforded confidentiality too.
In everything? You don’t think there’s any scenario’s which a teacher should tell the parents what their kids are doing at school?
Hey sorry, I really wasn’t looking for a long argument here, just wanted to clarify my earlier comment.
But yes, we have different viewpoints. I have kids. I would feel responsible for the window because it’s my kid and that’s reasonable and what society expects. If my kid wanted to talk to their teacher about something in private I’m ok with that.
They obviously won’t share literally everything, but if my kids have a problem trusting me then I’m failing as a parent.
Well, at least you’re honest about thinking children don’t deserve to have anyone in power looking out for their interests when they conflict with their parents’.
children don’t deserve to have anyone in power looking out for their interests when they conflict with their parents’.
As I’ve said plenty of times, I’m for an increase in investment in programs to help youth that have these problems.
I’m against having teachers unilaterally determining that they should keep secrets with their students over providing transparency with the parents. With the taxpayers. With the people they are meant to serve.
Do you think our government should give us transparency, or not?
Even if it’s not individual teachers, it’s a government ran institution that they force us to provide our kids to for education. The least they could do is let us know what’s going on in those 8 hours a day they take our kids.
You realise that means letting it get to the point of abuse right?
You're basically saying that if a child fears letting their parents know something about them could lead to their abuse, they have to hide it and live in fear and distrust until they turn 18 and can run away right?
That would unironically be more humane than a lethal injection. The injection was developed by non-doctors taking their best guess at what they thought would kill reliably and painlessly, but it’s neither. And that’s by necessity, no doctor would ever throw out their entire career by violating their oath as flagrantly as developing a substance with no purpose other than being poison.
The committee’s legislation would impose new ethics rules on the court and a process to enforce them, including new standards for transparency around recusals, gifts and potential conflicts of interest. Democrats first pushed the legislation after reports earlier this year that Justice Clarence Thomas participated in luxury vacations and a real estate deal with a top GOP donor — and after Chief Justice John Roberts declined to testify before the committee about the ethics of the court.
The fact that testifying to Congress about their ethics issues is optional is crazy to me. He should have been required and there should be consequences for not doing it.
@stopthatgirl7 The problem is people just want to get in the way of me and other Trans people from living our lives, it doesn't help they are literally trying to kill us as well as allies around us. Thank you for all the allies that do stand by our side, we are sorry you have to suffer the same pain for standing up for us being ourselves.
If we don’t stand at your side then all we do is lend legitimacy to their side. We are all brothers and sisters in the fight against hate. We fight together and we either win together or die trying because if we don’t win then this world isn’t worth being a part of anyways. ❤️
There are places with great LGBTQ laws, there are places with terrible laws, there are places that kill LGBTQ people. A gay person in a progressive city is probably having a better time than a gay person in the middle east, who has to hide to avoid death. You also probably only notice the more vocal LGBTQ people, there’s probably plenty of people you’ve met that are and you don’t know. People like you ruin it for everyone. You’re not treated differently because you’re cishet, you’re treated differently because you are an asshole.
Not sure what the person you where commenting on said but I agree there is plenty of LGBTQIA+ people that suffer in silence or vocally, I am glad to be who I am and wish to continue being myself. I do not wish upon anyone death nor do I wish them harm. I wish that people would just support people for who they are and live in a more calm peaceful world, but sadly there is hatred and we have to defend our existence to be apart of this world compared to some people.
Because of a related fiasco, two of the largest communications companies in the USA won't allow Indian subcontractors for design work at all unless directly overseen by one of their American contractors.
And the same thing is happening with AI. Friend of mine who is a programmer has a few side projects for customers. One of them got impatient trying to get him to fix a bug in their software. So instead they tried to use ChatGPT to fix the bug, and it went as well as can be expected.
Having worked with ChatGPT to program code, I've seen it literally invent fake modules, declare variables, call up this fake module and then never bother to declare the code for that special module (which supposedly does 99% of what you want it to do). And if you ask it to program the missing module, it simply declares that module and calls up a new magical module that still does 99% of the desired work. It's and endless loop that goes nowhere lol
And there will be loads of companies who insist on using AI in the future..... but not all will - because they'll learn that like everything, there are limits to it's capabilities.
Yeah, I'm not sure where this attitude of "Fuck people who did work and developed skills in fields that employers thought were necessary, but now suddenly the new hotness is believing that they're not" is coming from. Smug superiority based on the avenue through which you allow yourself to be exploited is pretty fucking dark, and says nothing good about the people espousing that mindset.
Edit: Unsurprisingly downvoted by someone who seems to have mistaken themselves as smarter than the average bear and unreplaceable. "I was interested in a thing that turned out to be more lucrative than you" isn't a good enough reason to look down on other people, folks. None of us deserve more comfort than anyone else, especially not because we liked something other people didn't. Believing otherwise is just anti-social, sociopathic bullshit.
You’re generalizing a LOT here. The attitude isn’t typically “fuck people who did work”… it’s “I don’t have sympathy for you if your job role was so piss poor that a language model could scrape up data already present in the world and slap it together better than you can.” AI is still extremely limited and the results it produces are fed from other sources, and very soon itself, as it generates more and more. A human is capable of complex, self critical, unique thoughts. If the human in that job role was doing any sort of critical thinking, a robot would not be able to replace them. AI isn’t all powerful and all knowing. It’s pretty shit. And if you can be replaced by it, you’re shit at your job.
If you don't have sympathy for people because they lost their livelihood, and the reason for that loss isn't that they were themselves rotten people making other people's lives worse, then you're a rotten person.
Full stop. End of discussion. Kindly exit society, we don't need more people like you in it.
Your opinion on necessity is a red herring. That isn’t the system we are in. We are in a market system (for better or worse) that determines what jobs exist and how much they’re worth in compensation.
Besides if it were all about bare necessity, we could pare down most jobs. I mean heck, let’s go back to being hunter-gatherers. We don’t need anything more to survive as a species. (And all this bullshit we do every day dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will guarantee our demise, most likely).
I mean to say is that this job being eliminated is market efficiency at its best, since this job not existing and being done by dumb AI is good enough. Nobody will cry about lower quality copy in email ads
I have some friends like this… It’s so frustrating. They have no idea how lucky they are to be so interested in such lucrative careers… They’d literally sit at home during the summer and work on things they found interesting. Yes they worked for it, I’ll never say they didn’t, but they didn’t have to FORCE themselves to do it, they were having fun…
Now they’re wealthy and enjoying work while I’m stuck in a literal sweatshop because everything I find interesting are just hobbies that can’t be monetized… But fuck me for not being “valuable.”
I think she has a good point at the end. Lots of us think we have skills that can’t be replicated by a machine, but companies would rather have something replicated poorly by a machine if it saves them money.
Of course they would, that's the point of the company! Companies don't align with our needs as humans. Ideally we'd have more free time due to advancements and automation, but our corporate overlords think we should just work more actually. And old people who got theirs don't think anyone should have it easy since they didn't.
True, but I meant to emphasize that the quality of the work is not as important as some people might think. For a lot of bosses the work quality from a machine only needs to be passable, not good. So while one might say “AI would suck at my job, I’m safe” they might need to be worried.
I mean, the expectation was there would never be an artificial intelligence capable of coming up with its own ideas, having it's own inspiration and be able to create based on its own experiences.
The reality is it didn't have to. All it took was mass work theft, and machine able to take the bits and pieces of those works, and shuffle them into a production that matched the user's parameters.
Honestly, I wish we were dealing with actual "artificial intelligence" that was capable of its own thoughts, inspiration, feelings, and experiences. That could paint a picture or write a story based on its own experiences, and maybe give its own perspective as a machine that would further push the boundaries of what is possible in art and story telling.
Instead, I get to realize that in reality, all art and storytelling is mixing and matching the same parts into something different, and that we have built a machine so efficient at doing it, there is no need for humans to do it.
I already kinda knew that I was never going to have a career doing anything creative, but all this "AI" boom has shown me is that no matter how "skilled" or "creative" I become, those bits and pieces can be broken down into something cheap enough that my involvement is no longer necessary.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.