View Full Version : They've Banned Numbers?
Okay, I see it's a three year old rule. I'm just amazed that parents, ACLU, etc. have let this go on. Like that school that wants the deaf kid to change his name because in sign language his hand represents some type of gun. You can't make this shit up! Seriously!
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/sports-nfl/20120906/20120906183824100579808/
It's obviously a ridiculous thing to see happen. But you know how gangs are, they'll kill each other, and even innocent people, over anything - colors, numbers - whatever. So if some kid wears an "18" jersey and has no idea about the gang, he's at immediate risk for being targeted by gangs that are rivaled to the "18" gang. It would be like accidentally wearing a red t-shirt in a Crip controlled neighborhood.
Gangs communicate within their own groups and with other groups in a lot of obscure ways. Tattoo's, graffiti, and other images and signs that none of us would recognize. It is absolutely conceivable that they were marking themselves with sports jerseys.
In light of the potential for innocent people to be targeted for violence based on wearing the wrong number, and the potential for gangs to be marking themselves BY wearing those numbers - I think saying "you know what, nobody can wear any of these numbers until this dumbass shit stops happening" is a pretty reasonable thing to do. Obviously the better solution is to put the entire gang behind bars or somewhere a little more permanent, but that's not easily done.
I don't know the exact circumstances around the story, but I'm willing to at least give the benefit of the doubt on this one. This is a school, remember. Schools have dress codes. If there is ever a reasonable reason to have a dress code in a school, surely this has to be it.
I'd have to think that even a person dumb enough to be in a gang would realize that Johnny Third Grader isn't in a gang, but what do I know. hehe
Let me try a little switcharoo experiment here...
In light of the potential for innocent people to be targeted for violence based on people owning a gun, and the potential for gangs to be marking themselves BY owning guns - I think saying "you know what, nobody can own a gun until this dumbass shit stops happening" is a pretty reasonable thing to do. Obviously the better solution is to get all the guns out of peoples hands or somewhere a little more permanent, but that's not easily done.
While what you wrote does sound reasonable, that isn't where it would end. That logic of being reasonable is what leads to complacency and complacency leads to conforming. Scary road that is both slippery and sloped.
And that's how we end up going down that slippery slope of "reasonable" rules, legislation, and other mandated BS. The mantra of "For the sake of a few, we will/must infringe on the rights of many", "Because it's for the children". Heard that one before. Yep, it has really protected the hell out of us. :sarcastic:
I'd have to think that even a person dumb enough to be in a gang would realize that Johnny Third Grader isn't in a gang, but what do I know. hehe
Let me try a little switcharoo experiment here...
While what you wrote does sound reasonable, that isn't where it would end. That logic of being reasonable is what leads to complacency and complacency leads to conforming. Scary road that is both slippery and sloped.
Analysis by way of analogy thought experiments like this often lead to wacky results because they are based on false equivocations.
I can justify or condemn almost any decision by substituting words but keeping the same argumentational framework.
There is clearly something fundamentally different about numbered Jerseys being part of a school's dress code and destroying the second amendment, even though substituting the words makes it seem like they're the same.
Schools have dress codes. Banning clothing that gets used to mark gangs is a clearly good use of that dress code.
And that's how we end up going down that slippery slope of "reasonable" rules, legislation, and other mandated BS. The mantra of "For the sake of a few, we will/must infringe on the rights of many", "Because it's for the children". Heard that one before. Yep, it has really protected the hell out of us. :sarcastic:
This is a school. It's an individual institution and an individual district dealing with an individual problem, not the law of the land.
Enforcing a friggen' school dress code in gang-infested territory is clearly not a slippery slope to hell, and it takes a certain kind of extremism / absolutism / failure to see the nuance of a situation to get to a state of mind where it seems like one.
I'd have to think that even a person dumb enough to be in a gang would realize that Johnny Third Grader isn't in a gang, but what do I know. hehe
You think that children as young as 3rd grade AREN'T in gangs? You don't know what you're talking about.
Then don't give the gangs the satisfaction of knowing they're affecting everyone else. Simply make it a dress code issue. Not a gang issue.
You think that children as young as 3rd grade AREN'T in gangs? You don't know what you're talking about.
You're absolutely right, and I clarified as such.
This is a school. It's an individual institution and an individual district dealing with an individual problem, not the law of the land.
Enforcing a friggen' school dress code in gang-infested territory is clearly not a slippery slope to hell, and it takes a certain kind of extremism / absolutism / failure to see the nuance of a situation to get to a state of mind where it seems like one.
It's not about them banning sports jerseys, if they want to do that as part of a dress code fine. It's the silliness of banning numbers, or colors, or hairstyles, or cellphones, or whatever else gangs use to communicate with. You just gave them(gangs) more control to dictate what everyone else should do.
Having your antagonistic approach to most threads is getting old, again. You've made it right back onto my "Ignore List" in record time!
It's not about them banning sports jerseys, if they want to do that as part of a dress code fine. It's the silliness of banning numbers, or colors, or hairstyles, or cellphones, or whatever else gangs use to communicate with. You just gave them(gangs) more control to dictate what everyone else should do.
Having your antagonistic approach to most threads is getting old, again. You've made it right back onto my "Ignore List" in record time!
They're not banning numbers. They're banning numbered-jerseys, a specific item. They're not being disallowed to be 18 years old, or say that 6X3=18, or anything else. If you think it's okay to ban ALL the jerseys in the first place, then why would it not be okay to only ban the specific jerseys that are causing a problem? Seems like it's a more measured response, less reactionary, and allows a greater level of individual freedom than banning them all. Which option gives the gang more control?
(link is dead to me so I'll just ask)
How's that going to work out for whatever peewee teams the school may have?
Or other schools that come in for home games?
AFA 3rd graders not being associated with gangs...Ever heard the term 'shorty'?
It doesn't represent a diminutive adult or adolecent, but an elementary school age child.
3rd grade puts a kid in the 8-9 year old bracket and well in the window for 'light' gang work like lookout or mule.
Why are gang members and associates in schools anyway?
All the locked in people to prey upon
Magic_Salad0892
09-07-12, 18:38
I grew up in gang infested California.
I've seen many countermeasures against gangs in action.
a0cake is correct about which ones work, or forces gangs to adopt more overt forms of contacting eachother. Which makes them easier to catch.
In fact. I've seen kids as young as 7-8 with gang tattoos.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-07-12, 21:20
In fact. I've seen kids as young as 7-8 with gang tattoos.
I'm guessing they weren't the temporary type tattoos .
I grew up in gang infested California.
I've seen many countermeasures against gangs in action.
a0cake is correct about which ones work, or forces gangs to adopt more overt forms of contacting eachother. Which makes them easier to catch.
In fact. I've seen kids as young as 7-8 with gang tattoos.
I suspect your life would have been much easier if they'd have simply banned "gangs" from school and expelled known members.
Magic_Salad0892
09-07-12, 21:33
I suspect your life would have been much easier if they'd have simply banned "gangs" from school and expelled known members.
That would've been nice. But then we'd have had like 3 students in the whole school.
And that's how we end up going down that slippery slope of "reasonable" rules, legislation, and other mandated BS. The mantra of "For the sake or prevention of the actions of a few, we will/must infringe on the rights of many", "Because it's for the children". Heard that one before. Yep, it has really protected the hell out of us. :sarcastic:
You forgot one part ^ but that was the gist of it.
I saw an article in Time magazine (I don't usually humor such childish chicken scratch, but the doctor's office waiting room was truly that
boring) about the number of mass shootings. They didn't mention that the number of gun related deaths continues to decline. Someone saw me reading the article, and "Yeah, I read that one too, who in their right mind would allow such destructive technology in private citizens' hands? Sure we aren't all crazy but think of the amount of people who are." My doc walks in just in time to hear this, suppresses laughter, and calls me into his office. We proceeded to talk carry handguns and he showed me photos of his slick new full-auto 1919 :dirol:
Why are gang members and associates in schools anyway?
Why are there gang members at all?
Moose-Knuckle
09-07-12, 23:22
Why are gang members and associates in schools anyway?
We mustn’t keep the oxygen thieves from their "education" as that would violate their civil liberties and pursuit of happiness so the sensible thing to do is limit the liberties of others all the while exposing them needlessly to the inherit dangers of gang members. This after all is progress . . . http://websmileys.com/sm/crazy/1087.gif
That would've been nice. But then we'd have had like 3 students in the whole school.
Imagine how much more you could have learned in such an environment.
:D
We mustn’t keep the oxygen thieves from their "education" as that would violate their civil liberties and pursuit of happiness so the sensible thing to do is limit the liberties of others all the while exposing them needlessly to the inherit dangers of gang members. This after all is progress . . . http://websmileys.com/sm/crazy/1087.gif
I'm all for supervised education in a state facility until they are ready for "big boy" jail. And if a few decide to get their act together they can even return to "normal people" school.
Why are there gang members at all?
I know why there "are" gang members, but I suspect you intended to ask why we tolerate them and don't just lock them up.
CarlosDJackal
09-08-12, 09:39
Why are there gang members at all?
Agreed. They should declare open season on those leeches of society.
IMHO, Hollyweird and assholes like Spike Lee are directly to blame for the popularity of gang lifestyle. They have put so much emphasis on this most destructive activity that even non-gang bangers have started to dress, act, and throw out signs to emulate their favorite movie or TV actor.
I'd have to think that even a person dumb enough to be in a gang would realize that Johnny Third Grader isn't in a gang, but what do I know. hehe
Let me try a little switcharoo experiment here...
While what you wrote does sound reasonable, that isn't where it would end. That logic of being reasonable is what leads to complacency and complacency leads to conforming. Scary road that is both slippery and sloped.
Johnny Third Grader may not be rolling with the 18th Street Gang but that isn't going to matter when a car load of Piru Street Boys roll by and take him out, just to make their bones because he is wearing the wrong shirt, on the wrong street. Yes, it happens.
I know why there "are" gang members, but I suspect you intended to ask why we tolerate them and don't just lock them up.
No, not what I intended at all! Why have traditional groups of disaffected American teenaged boys, morphed from just that, disaffected kids looking for a little adult male attention, into transnational, multi-billion dollar per year crime syndicates?
That would've been nice. But then we'd have had like 3 students in the whole school.
I can hear the bean counters crying about all the lost revenue for the district.
I understand the reason for gangs, they have been with us since people started hanging out in groups. Most likely will be with us till the roaches inherit the earth.
I can understand the need for these rules, however I believe that they are all fundamentally flawed. They are the equivalent of a dot bandaid for a sucking chest wound. May help your self esteem for trying to help, but in the end you've done bupkis.
I always find it funny (sad actually) that we incessantly accept sacrificing the rights and well being of our good and decent people for the sake of a few deuche bags who don't care and won't amount to much. Heck of a lot easier to do than to actually remove the problem kids and maybe even address the root cause of the problem.
No, not what I intended at all! Why have traditional groups of disaffected American teenaged boys, morphed from just that, disaffected kids looking for a little adult male attention, into transnational, multi-billion dollar per year crime syndicates?
Because popular mainstream made it cool.
Pimps, bangers and dealers are all rock stars now.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.