5-year old aspie voted out of kindergarten by students

Post Reply New Topic

And why don't you tell little starving, emaciated foreign children with AIDs and people who face a daily Hell in violent, war-torn countries how very unjust this situation supposedly is and see how they react?

Oh shut up. Everyone knows there are people who have been through worse. It doesn't make this situation any better.

How about you tell the mother of Alex that there are children that have had it worse and to just take all the crap handed to her child and her and be a little humble servant that allows her child to be treated like this.

Bill O'Reilly was your Civics teacher?



Let me ask you this.... how effective were those programs? Judging by the rate of underage smoking, drinking, pot smoking, gang bangers, and violence still in schools, not very. Since GWBush took over, they've been preaching against the peer pressure to have sex as well... how is that working out? Sure, levels fluctuate, but any significant drop offs? Not really. All smoke and mirrors, highly ineffective programs to make it look like they are fighting problems the establishment has created... problems that serve their interests. Think I'm a wide-eyed conspiracy theorist now, do you? I'll go through them:

1) smoking: lots of noise has been made about smoking in the past fifteen years. Multi-billion dollar lawsuits, but who got the money? Tobacco company's forced to do PSA's and quit smoking assistance programs. How are those working out? I'm still addicted... tried to quit last week and lasted three days. Laws against selling to minors, yet suddenly teen smoking goes up... hmmm, could that be because prohibition always backfires and they know this? Big tobacco is doing better than ever. More and more draconian local laws being passed where you can't smoke on public property, in bars, at work, in your own car, and unbelievably in some places your own home. Could this be the real agenda? It isn't about smoking, it's about conditioning people to accept more and more draconian government micromanagement of our private lives.

2) drinking: well, they tried prohibition back in the 1920's. Led to the rise of the Mafia and gangsters like Al Capone. Now you can buy it, and drink it (in most counties... a few in the backwoods area I live in still live in the 1920's). But get caught in public after drinking and they can burn you for Public Intoxication. Get into the driver's seat of a car, even one parked on private property such as in your driveway... let's say you were just going to listen to the radio... they can burn you for DUI. Cops in my town have been known to hide out next to bars, and arrest people leaving them to get in their cars. In Dallas last year they went around inside bars arresting people for Public intoxication. Drive around and let your passengers drink (they aren't driving, what's the harm?) - they bust you for having an open container. Have a party and someone drives home drunk and has an accident... you can be sued for millions. Are you supposed to babysit every one of your guests? It goes on and on. Drinking hasn't slowed down one bit, and won't. But they have one more way to micromanage your private life.

3)pot smoking: Unlike tobacco and alcohol, there is not one single documented case of a person ever dying directly due to marijuna smoking. Not one. You'd think there would be at least one, and as much as the Federal government harasses medical marijuana patients in states that made it legal, if there was a case where anyone died you know they would hype it to the hilt. Can they say that about many of these high priced prescription drugs they are pushing? No deaths? Ever? So why is it illegal? Because it is a plant, big pharma can't get a patent on a naturally growing plant. Also stoners tend to be lazy, anti-establishment and buck the system. Not in the government's best interest. So, they created a mass hysteria against it with asinine propaganda films like Reefer Madness. And then they banned it by passing laws. Keep in mind back in the 20's they had to have a Constitutional Amendment to police people's private habits. Guess what, they still do. The Constitution hasn't changed, only the people running the government. The so-called war on drugs has been a dismal failure in stopping drug use. But when it comes to encroaching on our freedoms, it was second to none (until the so-called war on terror anyway). The drug ban allows them to fly over your land to spy on you, run sensor sweeps on your house to spy on you (looking for hydroponic setups), monitor your bank account and transactions, search your lockers at school, etc. How's this for asinine? Get caught with an ounce of Marijuana -- misdemeanor. Used bong -- Felony! Joint -- misdemeanor. Rolling papers + Marijuana -- Felony! And then there are the asset forfeiture laws allow them to take your house, your car, your land... anything they can claim was used in the selling of drugs. Oh, you're a renter? Well, then they can take it from your landlord. How American is this? Two facts I bet you didn't know:
(a)George Washington made his living as a hemp farmer
(b)The Constitution is written on hemp paper
Oh yeah, and like alcohol prohibition, it has enabled the rise of organized crime.

4)gangs: Police and politicians piss and moan about them, but what do they actually do to stop them? Not much. Gangs are like the Mafia... they have enough people on the inside that they never get taken down. And even if that weren't the case, they are a necessary boogie man to keep drugs in circulation, so they can keep their war on drugs (freedom). Doesn't it seem odd to you how they never have the manpower to raid a gang headquarters, but you let a church group start stockpiling guns, or a group of tax protesters get together... they go in with tanks and don't give a damn how many women and children die as a result?

5)violence: have you ever noticed how it seems like they only step in to break up a fight when the underdog starts winning? Otherwise, they often turn a blind eye to bullying because it keeps the gadflies and independent thinkers from getting too uppity.

5)sex: No real conspiracy there... our hormones keep that going. But, lots of multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations keep their coffers overflowing marketing to our sex drives.

In short, we know NT's often say one thing when they mean another. They seem to be able to decipher this code very easily while we have trouble with it. Well, as I've touched upon in the examples above, the society they run does this times ten... it's just ironic how many of them are more clueless about how they are being manipulated than we are about non-verbal communication.

For those that have been wondering, Alex did not get a vote. Which means that there were 2 students that voted to keep him.

I live down here in S. Florida, so the mother did a local radio interview.

No, I've noticed that authority figures usually step in to break up a fight whenever word happens to reach their ears that there even is a fight. And fights are not a matter of an underdog rebelling against a big bad monster. That seems to be your opinion, which is the kind of thinking that caused the civil war: because the southerners saw themselves as underdogs who the big mean government wouldn't allow to keep slaves. People use the "underdog" argument to justify a lot of crap. That was the kind of thinking that caused the Germans to support Hitler, and that led to World War II.
On a smaller scale, that victim mentality was also the kind of petty, disgusting attitude that led to the Columbine shootings, and it needs to be discouraged to prevent similar incidents.
And how is the war on drugs a war on freedom? While I don't think pot should necessarily be illegal, most illegal drugs are illegal because they need to be illegal. Society can't function effectively if our workplaces are all filled with cokeheads and meth addicts, can it? It's not so much a war on freedom as it is a war on potential chaos.
And while my Civics teacher did take an O'Reillyesque approach, his opinions were pretty much the polar opposite.
Also, NTs do not have a "code" of communication. It's just that sometimes most people don't say one thing and mean another so much as that they aren't as careful as they could be with their words and hints of what they are really thinking slip through in the way they phrase them, sometimes causing others offense or concern (i.e. when someone offends an FTM transexual who prefers to be referred to as "he" as "she"), except in the not-so-rare instance where other persons in question are completely oblivious to the implications of this statement.

It may not have had the same level of coverage if he were not autistic, but, if I had heard about it, I would still be as outraged as I am now. Even if he was a danger and a disruptive influence, the teacher should not have acted as she did. She should have removed him from the class herself, without needing the backing of a bunch of 5-year-olds (which is rather pathetic: adults should not need the support of small children to make decisions) and publicly humiliating him.

Actually I agree with you. It's hysteria about smoking, as they don't focus enough on other more dangerous ills in society.



It's a common myth that Prohibition led to the mafia. There were mafia organizations BEFORE prohibition. Prohibition just helped provide a big source of money for mafia orgs. The Irish mafia came into being BEFORE that. Regarding just entering bars, they need a warrant for that per the 4th Amendment or atleast to prove probable cause in a court of law. As for you being sued because someone else gets drunk, welcome to why many people have called for "loser pays" and tort reform. I don't think that this is a means of micromanaging people's lives as most of what you mentioned is out in public and involved in public behavior. The same really applied to the smoking restrictions.



1)Organized crime emerged independent of prohibition and yes, of drugs being banned. They may be involved in protection rackets or bullying union leaders. 2)Marijauna in fact does detrimentally affect the brain and that's partly why they are lazy and often just plain stupid. As for George Washington being a hemp farmer and the Constitution written on hemp paper, I want a source on that. I don't believe it as I never heard it anywhere.



There have always been gangs and the police have always had problems dealing with them. We are talking about 100s if not 1000s of people involved. None of this really is new at all.

Frankly I think that you're being rather paranoid as often events and things come into society from many different self-interest groups seeking to get things done rather than a giant conspiracy behind the scenes. In terms of my rights being taken away what about anti-discrimination laws, where you can't ask people certain things or engage in certain types of discussions at work.You can't tell certain kinds of joke, make wise-cracks, etc.

Not when they prohibit you from smoking in your own car or home, or arrest you for being behind the wheel in your own driveway listening to the radio. All of these have happened.



I said they led to the rise of the mafia/organized crime. Not the creation. Here is one source of reference for both Washington and the Constitution and many other things most people don't know about the history of hemp.
http://www.hempmuseum.org/SUBROOMS/HEMP%20HISTORY%20EARLY%20U.S..htm



Kind of like the Branch Davidians? Or Gordon Kahl's tax protest movement? Or the Montana Freemen? If the federal government considers a group a genuine threat to their power, they will take them out. If all they are hurting is the general populace, they'll let the locals worry about 'em. Or not.



It doesn't require a giant conspiracy. A tiny group of wealthy individuals pulling the strings of a giant number of corrupt idiots can do wonders. However, the source or motivation can be debated all day, but it is the end result that is important. And in every case, the end result is less freedom. However, the alternative to conspiracy theory is coincidence theory. And if it is all coincidence, then you would think, just due to the law of statistical averages, that we would at least gain a few freedoms to make up for the ones we have lost. But year after year, law after law, our freedoms get squeezed more and more. You just have to ask yourself, if it were a conspiracy, who might benefit from that? Then follow the money trail and see if it leads to them.



On this, I absolutely agree. Political correction is perhaps the single greatest threat to our freedom in the history of this country.

Depends on the school and the area you live in I expect. It wasn't like that when I was coming up. Or my dad for that matter - he frequently had the exact scenario I described happen to him.



Sure, much better to let your oppressors run all over you. Turn the other cheek. And when they take your lunch money, offer them your new tennis shoes also. Any argument can be abused, but that can never be used as excuse to turn a blind eye to oppression. Someone hit me, I'mma hit em back. I may not be able to win, but by golly I'll inflict enough pain they won't wanna f*** with me again.



I hate to break it to you, but where I live the work places are filled with cokeheads and meth addicts. And no it doesn't function well. But that isn't the point. The point is drug use would go down if it were decriminalized for three reasons.
1) You remove the forbidden fruit appeal
2) You remove the incentive to sell it (no more through the roof street prices)
3) Now you can treat addiction as the medical condition it is, and offer them the help they need to get off of them, rather than throw them in prison where they get hardened by contact with real criminals
Besides, just because it is no longer illegal to possess or use drugs doesn't mean employers are obligated to hire or keep drug users. Alcohol is legal, but they can fire an alcoholic if it interferes with his ability to do his job.



I was being metaphorical by using the word code. It is a fact that 90+% of their communication is non-verbal. Most of us have difficulty reading this, while they pick it up instinctually for the most part. That is what I meant.

And as for say one thing and mean another... oh yes they do. Let me give you a few (humorous) examples of how NT women say one thing when they mean another:

take it to the local media, take it to the education department, take it to the local politicians

When I first heard about this story I though for argument sake to look at it from a different angle.

Like in all things I was sure there was a second side to the story that was more understandable, but as more details are released I realize that this was nothing more then the kind of prejudice and hate that keeps any two groups of people from accepting each other. The idea that a teacher would put an innocent child through this kind of abuse is disgusting.

LoveableNerd:

It's been fairly well-established that legalizing drugs leads to an increase in drug use. This is because all of the people willing to use drugs while it was illegal are still willing to do so when it is legal, plus everyone who was stopped by the law is no longer constrained by that particular artifice.

The real question is whether all of the problems associated with drugs at this time would persist if they were legalized. Alcohol and cigarettes, for instance, still lead to massive health problems, and drunk driving still kills a lot of people. On the other hand, you don't have many of the stereotyped drug activities surrounding them because obtaining them is as simple as walking into a convenience store.

According to current stats, the laws aren't stopping that many people from at least trying them. And sure, more people will experiment if the law wasn't in place. But hardly everyone. Not everyone smokes or abuses alcohol, although they are legal. Those that do endanger their health, true. However, we have laws in place to prevent them from endangering others (DUI laws, etc.) Decriminalizing the possession and use of drugs does not mean allowing them to be used while driving, or doing anything else that would endanger others.

They haven't always been illegal... most of them were classified back in the Nixon administration. Was their chaos and mass addiction before then? No, just a hippie movement that the government was afraid of because they were on the verge of bringing about real change.



I'd say the real question is whether it is the responsibility of government to monitor our habits to protect us from ourselves? And if that can be argued to be the case in a "free country", then whether it gives them the right to invade my privacy and restrict my freedom in order to protect other people from themselves?

Anyway, this should be a separate topic. We've gotten way off course from the original topic lol.

Poor little kid! This teacher's actions are completely disgusting and she should be sacked right away!

She should indeed. It when I hear / read things like this that I'm wel aware again of how f****d up this world can be ...
Just how do you come op with the idea to completely humiliate a child in such a way, let alone actually doing it.
The boy propably should have been addressed because of his behaviour, but this definatly was a wrong and horrid way

It's amazing what kind of evil pricks can get teaching degrees