6-year old boy stabbed, shouldn't have worn pink.
- Thread starter Shycte
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My response probably would have been to take a pair of pliers with a pink handle and forcibly make the antagonists balls drop, but sadly there would be a level of hypocrisy if i began violently savaging people until they promised to stop behaving like such juvenile fuckers. This is the fault of the stupid kids who were never confronted about the bullying and the stupid teachers who never confronted the-- you get the idea. What the kid wore is inconsequential, what matters is that someone was stabbed by a fucking idiot.
i think the stabber needs to removed from the school asap. to be 6 years old and already stabbing people with a knife should be setting off alarm bells in the schools head.
the teachers should all be removed or disciplined for saying that its ok to bully someone cause they wore a pink shirt. schools are meant to be safe places for people to learn etc. schools should understand bullying is going to happen but never basically give the ok to bully people wearing pink like this.
i dont know, it just seems like the victim is being made out to look like they brought it on them selves.
Like saying if you didnt want to be sexually assualted you shouldnt have worn a skirt. it makes no sense.
the teachers should all be removed or disciplined for saying that its ok to bully someone cause they wore a pink shirt. schools are meant to be safe places for people to learn etc. schools should understand bullying is going to happen but never basically give the ok to bully people wearing pink like this.
i dont know, it just seems like the victim is being made out to look like they brought it on them selves.
Like saying if you didnt want to be sexually assualted you shouldnt have worn a skirt. it makes no sense.
Thats pretty disgusting behavior. I am amazed fellow classmates even judge people at an age as young as that. Assuming that they keep mentioning the knife was blunt, it did not pierce the skin? Or did it? Either way, this is unacceptable behavior for both students and the school board.
Bizarre sounding, he wore pink, got shanked because of it and because he was in fact wearing pink, the local authorities (teachers, monitors, w/e) considered it a logical response to shank the said 6-year old.
This is so odd sounding that I can't really make a comment either way, it sounds too silly to not be a biased article or something.
Was he stabbed by a crayon? What kind of stabbing warrants ignoring?
I don't get it.
This is so odd sounding that I can't really make a comment either way, it sounds too silly to not be a biased article or something.
Was he stabbed by a crayon? What kind of stabbing warrants ignoring?
I don't get it.
It is a hot girl blowing smoke into a soap bubble then popping it with her head.InterAirplay said:
Fixed. Also, sweet avatar.Ashcrexl said:
OT: That's insane. Those bullies are caroonishly evil.
Gay bashing is one thing, beating people in general is one thing but this kid was 6 no? 6!! He's too young have an opinion on his sexual preference. Well could be worse, it can alwase be worse.
+1 Internet for Invader Zim reference.NuclearPenguin said:
OT: The... fuck? How... minor incident... stabbing... pink...
This just gives me even more of a reason to never go to Sweden. Though, I'd be arrested as soon as I set foot there but that's not the point.
Are you dickshitting kidding me? That is some fucked up news The school calling it a 'small incident' has pissed me right off to.
Note that i know the word "dickshitting" is an extreamly childish thing to say
The school calling it a 'small incident' has pissed me right off to.Note that i know the word "dickshitting" is an extreamly childish thing to say
Coming from a couple years now of experience, Japanese schools? Strict discipline? I can dream...Ashcrexl said:
Japanese preschools are no better than this Swedish one in the OP. They don't discipline kids hardly AT ALL. And that lack of discipline extends all the way up through kindergarten and elementary school. Only in junior high does the "strict discipline" from teachers and authority figures really start to kick in. Though in Japan there is a bit of a theory/cultural basis behind it. It has to do with that very loss of individuality you mention, which does start to happen from day one (but like discipline, is only truly enforced from above starting in junior high). The students are basically told the rules and for the large part left to discipline each other. In some matters the teacher MAY step in, but for the most part, students are left to fend for themselves from preschool to elementary school and are expected to basically keep each other in line. They act as a group to keep any individuals who disrupt the group under control. Further, by having more responsibility put on the group for its own welfare and education, the members of the group tend to value the group as a whole and the role they play in it more. Surprisingly, at least in Japan, this does work for the most part. However, the kids don't exactly discipline themselves too often. Boys are constantly wrestling with each other, bullying, and all those things between classes. Kids will run up and down the halls, break stuff, and generally cause a massive ruckus any time class is not in session. I have seen classes (one of which I teach now on Thursdays) for which this type of discipline has completely failed, and they utterly break down to the point of not being able to even have class, with little to nothing the teacher can do about it, because elementary teachers aren't exactly disciplinarians. But in Japan, as far as I have seen, these sorts of instances are as rare as teachers actually standing up and disciplining elementary students themselves, and the kids will be able to get themselves in line by the time class starts again with minimal disruption, and they will handle that disruption themselves with minimal teacher input.
Though with the Western emphasis on the individual over the group ingrained in our culture, that sort of thing actually working in the US or Europe would be as rare as it going out of control in Japan. You would just end up with more and more knives getting stuck into 6-year-olds' necks. I remember a band class when I was in 6th grade, I think, when the teacher showed up and just sat there looking pissed off as the band members just chatted away and goofed off among themselves for a good half-hour. Nobody did anything to actually get the band under control and ready to start, not even me, though I did notice that the instructor was not happy and that we really should be playing, and as such, did not goof off like most of the others. But even though I noticed this, I didn't bother to speak up. Eventually, the band instructor got up and chided the band for the rest of the lesson because nobody spoke up, and took control of the band himself. That would not happen in a typical Japanese classroom. At least one student would be able to get the rest of the class paying attention and doing what they should be doing. However, whether it is the kids disciplining themselves, like in the Japanese elementary school style, or the teacher taking on more control, which is more of a Western elementary style, really, classrooms don't often lose all control and get to the point of stabbings.
In short, it just depends on your culture and many other factors as to which style of discipline will work in your school.
Another common Japanese practice, even in the more "disciplined" junior high. Not only will teachers not willingly remove a kid from class, they're not allowed to, because it would be "depriving the student of their education" and the mandatory hours of class time they are required to have in the school system. And those standards are so tight that even pulling them for a short time would cause them to go under the mandated class hours. So basically, because that one disruptive jerk of a student needs his/her education, that student cannot be pulled and ends up working to deprive all the other students of their education by taking up the rest of the class' time dealing with that student rather than actually learning. Not to mention that they are really bad about mis-diagnosing kids for special needs, putting the wrong kids into the special needs class while leaving many who actually need it in the regular classroom. But I'm pretty sure many of those problems are generally universal and cannot be the fault of solely the Swedish or Japanese school systems. But as someone who works within the Japanese school system, I thought I would share some of my experiences.awesomeClaw said:
It's really, really sad that a 6 year-old has been taught/brainwashed with violence somewhere in his short life that stabbing someone was acceptable to him.
The English source is a bit too vauge, though. It doesn't tell the whole story which would br good.
The English source is a bit too vauge, though. It doesn't tell the whole story which would br good.
You might be thinking of schools, which are required by law not to propagandize their classes. (Although, there was the Scopes Trial conflicting whether or not to teach evolution in place of creationism) However, pastors and the like are very likely to teach falsehoods to children as part of their career. I've attended a Catholic mass or two, and confirmation. Some of the things they teach the community are utterly wrong. Not necessarily morally, but factually. Mainly that evolution isn't true, homosexuality is a sin, and premarital sex destroys relationships.Jonabob87 said:
Also, many people saw through the idea of a Flat Earth as told in the Bible. It described the planet as a coin-like shape surrounded by a dome of water (presumably the explanation for the sky being blue), but "Flat-Earthers" were those who interpreted the Bible in its most literal form (people I consider to be quite ignorant). The same audience that suggests that the Earth is less than 10 thousand years old, as I've outlined before. While not necessarily said as fact by the Bible, many people accepted it as fact. It wasn't until the 15th century people were presented with undeniable proof they were wrong.
I'm not thinking of sleep paralysis. I know that both sleep paralysis and shortness of breath were attributed to succubi and incubi, but Satan was said to be haunting those who were having nightmares.
And it stuck, didn't it? Christian beliefs didn't all originate from the Bible. Anyone who thinks a book written thousands of years ago by undereducated peons could have the answers to everything (I got a little condescending there, I know. I apologize).
Yeah, I'm not saying they were naive to believe it. I would. Before they discovered microorganisms, miasma was the closest to right they could have been. I also don't blame them for believing the earth is flat, since it certainly appears so. But even after it was proven to be untrue, it was taught by some very devout extremists (Like today, there is an idiotic idea called the Hovind Theory [even though a theory is an idea supported by tests and evidence, whereas this guy just made some random shit up based on the Bible] that claims that the dome of water was a dome of ice, and it melted causing the Great Flood, and killing the dinosaurs. Ironically, that man is in jail for tax fraud).
That's all Darwin was trying to prove. The reason there are so many different forms of life is due to evolution. How it originated, we haven't got a clue.
Haha yeah, especially since we can carbon date the skeletons of species that still exist back to millions of years ago.
Yeah, and one of the most powerful mental weapons is placebo. If you tell somebody a pill is going to make them feel light-headed, they'll feel light-headed, even if the tablet was nothing but a calcium supplement.
Actually, there are. The only thing is, vampires were heretics that drank the blood of animals they killed, as it's Jewish tradition to drain blood from animals before eating them.
?Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off." Leviticus 17:10-14
The more commonly-known vampires are (I believe) from Haiti, known as demonic repossessions of corpses who wander around hurting others, essentially a zombie. I'm not talking about Hollywood "I vant to suck your blood" Dracula 2000 kind of vampires
I've got a lot of problems with the story of Jesus...
#1:Why would God bother making his son, if he was just going to kill him to make himself learn a lesson?
#2:If you have the ability to resurrect yourself, then dying for the sake of being a martyr is stupid. You're not a martyr if you're just going to resurrect yourself.
#3:If God prohibits adultery, then why did he impregnate a married woman to conceive his son?
#4:If Jesus was so proud that he was willing to die at the cross than admit he isn't the son of God, wouldn't that make his bill of evil an equal to that of Lucifer's before he fell from Heaven? Simply being too headstrong?
#5:If he truly was the son of God and had all of his power, why did he only pick up 12 Apostles throughout his journey?
#6:(and this is more of a Christianity thing than a Christ thing)When people hold a crucifix to their mouth and pray, isn't that essentially the same thing as idol worship (one of the main focuses when warring with other religions, it seems)?
And I'd like some clarification on what you mean by "his slaves." I'm not sure if you mean his personal slaves or all slaves to other men.
Also, if slavery wasn't still okay in the eyes of God, why did Christian missionaries enslave, convert, and sell native Africans?
Side Note: This whole debate is text-based, so conversational nuances might be misinterpreted. If it seems like I'm being a jerk, I'm not trying to.
My cereal is getting mushy so I'll try and answer real quick, sorry if I leave anything out.Faladorian said:You might be thinking of schools, which are required by law not to propagandize their classes. (Although, there was the Scopes Trial conflicting whether or not to teach evolution in place of creationism) However, pastors and the like are very likely to teach falsehoods to children as part of their career. I've attended a Catholic mass or two, and confirmation. Some of the things they teach the community are utterly wrong. Not necessarily morally, but factually. Mainly that evolution isn't true, homosexuality is a sin, and premarital sex destroys relationships.Jonabob87 said:
Also, many people saw through the idea of a Flat Earth as told in the Bible. It described the planet as a coin-like shape surrounded by a dome of water (presumably the explanation for the sky being blue), but "Flat-Earthers" were those who interpreted the Bible in its most literal form (people I consider to be quite ignorant). The same audience that suggests that the Earth is less than 10 thousand years old, as I've outlined before. While not necessarily said as fact by the Bible, many people accepted it as fact. It wasn't until the 15th century people were presented with undeniable proof they were wrong.
I'm not thinking of sleep paralysis. I know that both sleep paralysis and shortness of breath were attributed to succubi and incubi, but Satan was said to be haunting those who were having nightmares.
And it stuck, didn't it? Christian beliefs didn't all originate from the Bible. Anyone who thinks a book written thousands of years ago by undereducated peons could have the answers to everything (I got a little condescending there, I know. I apologize).
Yeah, I'm not saying they were naive to believe it. I would. Before they discovered microorganisms, miasma was the closest to right they could have been. I also don't blame them for believing the earth is flat, since it certainly appears so. But even after it was proven to be untrue, it was taught by some very devout extremists (Like today, there is an idiotic idea called the Hovind Theory [even though a theory is an idea supported by tests and evidence, whereas this guy just made some random shit up based on the Bible] that claims that the dome of water was a dome of ice, and it melted causing the Great Flood, and killing the dinosaurs. Ironically, that man is in jail for tax fraud).
That's all Darwin was trying to prove. The reason there are so many different forms of life is due to evolution. How it originated, we haven't got a clue.
Haha yeah, especially since we can carbon date the skeletons of species that still exist back to millions of years ago.
Yeah, and one of the most powerful mental weapons is placebo. If you tell somebody a pill is going to make them feel light-headed, they'll feel light-headed, even if the tablet was nothing but a calcium supplement.
Actually, there are. The only thing is, vampires were heretics that drank the blood of animals they killed, as it's Jewish tradition to drain blood from animals before eating them.
?Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off." Leviticus 17:10-14
The more commonly-known vampires are (I believe) from Haiti, known as demonic repossessions of corpses who wander around hurting others, essentially a zombie. I'm not talking about Hollywood "I vant to suck your blood" Dracula 2000 kind of vampires
I've got a lot of problems with the story of Jesus...
#1:Why would God bother making his son, if he was just going to kill him to make himself learn a lesson?
#2:If you have the ability to resurrect yourself, then dying for the sake of being a martyr is stupid. You're not a martyr if you're just going to resurrect yourself.
#3:If God prohibits adultery, then why did he impregnate a married woman to conceive his son?
#4:If Jesus was so proud that he was willing to die at the cross than admit he isn't the son of God, wouldn't that make his bill of evil an equal to that of Lucifer's before he fell from Heaven? Simply being too headstrong?
#5:If he truly was the son of God and had all of his power, why did he only pick up 12 Apostles throughout his journey?
#6:(and this is more of a Christianity thing than a Christ thing)When people hold a crucifix to their mouth and pray, isn't that essentially the same thing as idol worship (one of the main focuses when warring with other religions, it seems)?
And I'd like some clarification on what you mean by "his slaves." I'm not sure if you mean his personal slaves or all slaves to other men.
Also, if slavery wasn't still okay in the eyes of God, why did Christian missionaries enslave, convert, and sell native Africans?
Side Note: This whole debate is text-based, so conversational nuances might be misinterpreted. If it seems like I'm being a jerk, I'm not trying to.
#1: The point of Jesus was to take the immense punishment piled up by humanity (and the future of humanity) on himself so that we don't need to suffer it. On top of physical punishment, God the father turned his back on Jesus because in that moment he had become the crux of all sin. Jesus came first to explain how people had already been told about what he was there to do, and to be a pure sacrifice. It's the same thing as when Hebrews would sacrifice an animal, it was to place their sin on it and there it was punished and they were free.
#2: The death part wasn't necessarily the scope of the punishment, one of the apostles (I can't remember which) says Jesus went to hell before he was resurrected.
3#: Adultery is to have sexual relations (or even think about them) with someone elses wife. At the time of the (immaculate) conception Mary and Joseph weren't married but what makes it not immoral is that it was a miraculous thing, as opposed to God having sex with someone. It's also a good example of the social status Jesus would've been born into, being that his existance is a stain on the family record in Hebrew moral terms.
#4: Being humble doesn't mean being down on yourself (the Bible says Love yourself as God has loved you, and as you love your neighbour). For Jesus to have said "No I'm not the son of God would've been lying (within the terms of the story at least).
#5: Jesus had hundreds of disciples, but the twelve were the ones he was closest to.
#6: I agree, that's Catholicism again though. I recently went to a few catholic services and was pretty stunned by the amount of ritualism. They shake incense over the Bible before the priest reads it...
Missionaries did that because human beings are dicks.
You're not coming along as a 'jerk' you're putting yourself across fine bro.