|
Post by HMARK Center on Nov 16, 2009 17:12:32 GMT -5
Harmless word, but if the kids were being told to stop doing it in a certain situation and told there'd be consequences, but did it anyway, then, hey kids, wise up.
That said, at my high school we used to play pranks on a lot of the teachers, and they'd play pranks back at us, so something like this would never have been an issue.
|
|
|
Post by sam_III on Nov 16, 2009 17:16:45 GMT -5
how many teenagers do you know that give a crap about anything that isn't completely self-serving? . A lot. In fact, all of them. This idea that all teenagers are self absorbed idiots is a stereotype, and I find such a statement that they are pretty hateful and condescending.
|
|
crash1984
Unicron
Scavenger Hunt All-Star
You don't need pants for the victory dance
Posts: 3,039
|
Post by crash1984 on Nov 16, 2009 17:56:10 GMT -5
Schools need to make rules and it is the students job to obey the rules and accept the consequences if they break them. However it is up to the school to use some common sense while make rules. If students are yelling meep real loud or using it during class to be annoying then yes there should be a rule against it. In fact any word should be this way. If this is indeed the case which I suspect it it is then institute rules that ban yelling real loud and using it in class. (Most schools would consider both actions disorderly conduct to begin with) However this still does not justify banning the word as a whole.
If people were using it in everyday conversation with their friends and it made a teacher nervous then maybe he should look into another profession. Student are going to use slang all the time when they talk to their friends. Either way banning it does not mean students will not use it.
When I was in high school one morning the principal got on the intercom and announced that they were cracking down on profanity and anyone sent to the office for using profanity would be suspended. Did it cut out the profanity? No. Most students who used it would do so when talking to their friends with no teachers around before they made the announcement. After the announcement most students who used it would do so around their friends with no teachers around.Then most teachers who heard it would usually say "watch your language" or something to that effect. I suspect the same thing will happen there with meep.
|
|
Grendel
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
But ... why is all the rum gone?
Posts: 17,593
|
Post by Grendel on Nov 16, 2009 17:57:35 GMT -5
I SWEAR TO GOD I'LL PISTOL WHIP THE NEXT ONE OF YOU THAT SAYS MEEP!!!
And this was the student's reaction... Well played.
|
|
|
Post by Alucard on Nov 16, 2009 18:03:26 GMT -5
Triple Kelly! Watch your meeping language, for meeps sake! Hey now, she's just meeping expressing herself. I say why the meep not, it's not like she's talking about meeping some meeps while she meeps a meepsicle filled with meepballs while belting out "Meeping in the Rain" at the top of her meeping lungs, right? Holy meep, dude! You can't meeping say that either! You're gonna get us all right the meep in meeping trouble! Meep me running!
|
|
|
Post by Bobafett on Nov 16, 2009 20:03:25 GMT -5
“The real issue here is that they were asked to do something to stop doing what they were doing and they disobeyed,“ said Linda Collinsworth, a parent. I cant adequately express how much I hate this attitude. Maybe if your school had of focused on actual teaching rather than the enforcement of asinine rules you would have learnt how to better construct a sentence, Linda. Try being a parent, then say the same thing. As asasine and worthless as that rule is, it's still a rule. And if they told them they would be suspended if they said it, then they deserve it for being stupid enough to do it. The rule should be dropped, but the students don't need to be breaking them Well there are silly rules and there are silly rules, I mean Its such a random word to even ban, so for saying a very harmless in offensive word they get punished? no Making asanine rules.. shouldn't be allowed, its not harming the kids or their education, coming upwith them and then using the reason"but rules are rules" is wrong..its baiting them, its wrong if I had a rue in a school that every kid must wear a propeller beanieat all times and one kid takes his off, whos fault is it? mine for making the stupid rule in he first place.or a kid..who just took off a silly hat for a few minutes? this is a south park episode waiting to happen and as RVD (yes RVD ) said once you ban a word you give it power if I was a kid there I'd say "F***" instead..and when asked why..simply reply "well you banned Meep" the bottom line isthe asanine rules take away from the proper rules
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Nov 16, 2009 20:06:09 GMT -5
The Acme corp. is behind this, I just know it.
|
|
|
Post by Evilution E5150 on Nov 16, 2009 20:26:10 GMT -5
If you didn't have rules, you'd have.. freakin' anarchy!
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,516
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Nov 16, 2009 20:27:21 GMT -5
They are now no longer the kids who say meep, they are the kids who say icky icky patang zooom.... Believe it or not, but my class got the word "Ni!!" banned at my school. We also got in trouble for frequently imitating the U.S. History teacher and the shop teacher, even though they themselves usually got a kick out of it. We switched to imitating them after we were banned from imitating The Church Lady (Isn't that special?? Who would have inspired us to do that? Could it be.....SATAN??!!). You think that is stupid? We actually had a few of us get a suspension that was eventually overturned for making a second class banner after the popular kids made one while refusing to hear any of our input. I wasn't one of the suspended because I wasn't one of the artists, only an intellectual contributor. They actually seized our banner from us out of one of our cars (which wasn't actually on school property, so technically it was theft). They told us that they were going to destroy it before about 20 parents raised a stink about their treatment of us. Eventually, we were allowed to post our banner in a little traveled hallway. Last I knew, multiple banners was made standard for each class.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Nov 16, 2009 20:31:51 GMT -5
And people wonder why civics education is in decline. If people are forced to follow completely ridiculous arbitrary commands then the only thing they learn from school will be to resent ALL rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2009 20:32:10 GMT -5
It's things like this that make me glad I'm not in high school anymore. MEEP! *headslap* Sorry, boss. Ya shoulda known better ya stupid meep
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan on Nov 16, 2009 20:44:39 GMT -5
Do something distracting in school, and you'll eventually be asked to stop. Keep doing it, and you'll be threatened with punishment. Continue further, and said punishment goes into effect. Seems basic enough to me.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence "Showstealer" Mason on Nov 16, 2009 21:18:39 GMT -5
It does seems like a stupid thing.
I can not be the only person who thought before clicking on the thread title this was going to be a Surfin Bird thread though?
|
|
Jay Peas 42
El Dandy
Totally flips out ALL the time.
Is looking forward to a Nation of Domination Kwannza Special.
Posts: 8,329
|
Post by Jay Peas 42 on Nov 16, 2009 21:38:04 GMT -5
I have a simple solution to this. Hire Pai Mai as a High School Teacher. That's a Mad TV Skit waiting to happen! Or SNL Digital Short.
|
|
sryans
Don Corleone
BROOKLYN, BROOKLYN
Posts: 2,001
|
Post by sryans on Nov 16, 2009 21:39:59 GMT -5
While the rule is stupid, I don't have much of a problem with it being enforced.
But seriously though, suspension? Come on.
|
|
|
Post by ♥ Bunnyslinger ♥ on Nov 16, 2009 21:42:05 GMT -5
operation extreme redundancy carries on.
|
|
|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Nov 16, 2009 21:51:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Nov 17, 2009 1:48:50 GMT -5
Do something distracting in school, and you'll eventually be asked to stop. Keep doing it, and you'll be threatened with punishment. Continue further, and said punishment goes into effect. Seems basic enough to me. You should be punishing the students for being disruptive, not banning an asinine word. If anything, banning the word will make the kids say it more. Also, I feel that meep should be the filter around here from now on.
|
|
|
Post by skiller on Nov 17, 2009 1:53:50 GMT -5
Rules should always be followed no question asked!
...Oh, with the exception that they serve some sort of useful purpose.
|
|
H-Fist
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,485
|
Post by H-Fist on Nov 17, 2009 2:49:57 GMT -5
Adolescents are not young adults. They're teenagers that act like kids, so they should be treated like kids. Young adults are adults who are young. Schools never, ever have the authority to teach right and wrong. It's always the parents' responsibility, and if the parents fail, that's their fault. Their interest is keeping order while trying to educate an ever-increasingly coddled and immature group of children. Keeping order requires one of two things: respect for the rules, which these kids didn't have, or fear of consequences. Respect only comes with understanding, and how many teenagers do you know that give a crap about anything that isn't completely self-serving? Teenagers are not mature enough to follow rules without there being fear of consequence, and parents today are too unwilling to discipline their children effectively. As a psychological term, yes, "young adult" refers to people who (in the US) can legally drink but not become a member of AARP. But "young adult" as used popularly means people age 14-21, more or less equivalent to "youth," "adolescent," or "teenager." The cutoff between adolescence and adulthood in society is an arbitrary cutoff, and such legal loopholes as emancipated minor status admit as such. Unless society were to operate wholly on a case by case basis (which, by definition, would eliminate society), there needs to be an arbitrary cutoff. Right and wrong isn't something that is taught for 40 minutes in the car between karate and piano. It is simply learned. An individual at fifteen (barring severe retardation or mental illness) is certainly capable of understanding the consequences of one's actions. Whether that capability is as strong or deep as that of an older person with, presumably, more real world experience on which to draw is debatable (again, case by case). You and I obviously come from different backgrounds. I don't wish to enter an argument based on a difference I perceive to be rooted in the conflict between respect for authority on one hand and respect for inquiry on the other. The first outlook is interested in the story, the second in the backstory; the former in the paper and ink, the latter in the author. The two outlooks aren't mutually exclusive, but rather preference one aspect more highly than the other. My junior high and high school reading lists included The Jungle, To Kill a Mockingbird, Slaughterhouse-5, Fahrenheit 451, Dandelion Wine, Alas Babylon, Frankenstein, Shelly's "Ozymandias," Of Mice and Men, Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man [not a sci-fi novel], Native Son, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Treblinka, Night, Inherit the Wind, Acts...all of those works and so many others were more than exposure to great literature. They, in retrospect, had the effect of teaching (those of) us (who read them and came from homes where critical thinking was valued) about maturity, right and wrong, and developing a macro- and micro- world view. The reason the teenagers who say "meep" lack respect for the rules of the institution is found partly at home, partly in the natural silliness humans tend to find in the mundane. First, numerous studies have shown that children whose families read, value reading, and have books in the home perform better in school than children of homes full of interactive gadgetry. Why? Because respect for learning and patience for a slow-building process are absorbed. You don't just put a pile of books in front of a toddler and get a genius by osmosis. Nor can teachers babysit the children of parents who actively see teachers as babysitters. A home that respects learning fosters a respect for the authority figures in a place of learning; a home that fosters respect for authority itself fails to provide the respect for the purpose of an education, that is rational inquiry. In regards to natural silliness, a "meep" is a social yawn. School, generally, is boring for many students: some aren't challenged by the work, others have no interest, still others have given up, and still more are tired, hungry, stressed out, or perhaps justifiably bored by a weak teacher. In isolation, a "meep" is no different than stretching one's legs, cracking one's knuckles, checking one's email, or any other momentary break of monotony. The issue comes with its overuse and development into a fad. To claim that teenagers are specifically capable of total and complete self-absorption is absurd and doesn't merit response. A newborn infant is self-absorbed, in that it has no concept of "self/other," but rather a set of biological needs. Any being that does literally anything more than eat, shit, and rest in between is not totally self absorbed. Self-discipline is necessary. Parents who coddle their children, yes, are poorly preparing them to engage in self-discipline. But parents who take the opposite route and skip teaching outright and proceed to instilling the fear of consequences of defying authority (whether or not the child knows that the action has an actual consequence, vis a vis a toddler playing with a knob on the stove knot knowing that igniting a flame, burning something, and dying is possible) are just as accountable for a society many see as deteriorating. Whatever the background of the meeping teens, it is absolutely relevant to consider the nature of the rule and consequence. A punishment that is unfair is an unfair punishment. Too bad. But a punishment that is unjust - one that does not fit the nature of the offense, is specifically against the spirit of Western (American, at least) notions of propriety.
|
|