• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Despicable state of kids today - Video

Sam Cogley said:
Not the oldest, but I have the curmudgeon routine down to a science. I grew up on a steady diet of Leonard McCoy and Hawkeye Pierce. :smoke:
Click to expand...

a207918129a808163974f1_m.jpg
 
robgmn said:
Yes, perhaps they chose 1960 as their basis because it was the lowest crime rate in recorded history, and they wanted to be able to show that the rate is historically increasing (it was low, but not the lowest ever).

Maybe you'd consider stats dating back to 1900 to be acceptable?
Based on homicde rates (which RARELY go unreported or unnoticed, so they are a good indicator of violent crime):
1900= 1.2 per 100K people, rising to highs of almost 10 per 100K people in ~1930, ~1970, 1980, and 1995.
Now at 5.8 per 100K.

So, with a 110 year span of info. the homicide rate is now 300% higher than it was in the base year of 1900.
Is this a result of non-reported homicides in the "old days", using the wrong base year, using falsified records, or is it an an actual trending increase over time?

(The argument of shortening the data period is not valid as this would make the statistical results even less accurate. It's a common ploy in making stats look better if needed. i.e. "Our business has grown 200% in the last year!" means "We went from one customer to two!").
Click to expand...

Could I get a source on that data? I'd like to take a look at it.
 
That is really disturbing. I couldn't even watch the whole thing. What I don't get is why she sits there taking the abuse. Ignoring bullies is not the way to stop them. It just encourages them to escalate, as you can see by how they start talking about stabbing her at one point.
 
robgmn said:
Yes, perhaps they chose 1960 as their basis because it was the lowest crime rate in recorded history, and they wanted to be able to show that the rate is historically increasing (it was low, but not the lowest ever).

Maybe you'd consider stats dating back to 1900 to be acceptable?
Based on homicde rates (which RARELY go unreported or unnoticed, so they are a good indicator of violent crime):
1900= 1.2 per 100K people, rising to highs of almost 10 per 100K people in ~1930, ~1970, 1980, and 1995.
Now at 5.8 per 100K.

So, with a 110 year span of info. the homicide rate is now 300% higher than it was in the base year of 1900.
Is this a result of non-reported homicides in the "old days", using the wrong base year, using falsified records, or is it an an actual trending increase over time?

(The argument of shortening the data period is not valid as this would make the statistical results even less accurate. It's a common ploy in making stats look better if needed. i.e. "Our business has grown 200% in the last year!" means "We went from one customer to two!").
Click to expand...

Actually...
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/06/long-term-trend-in-homicide-rates.html
http://thepublicintellectual.org/2011/05/02/a-crime-puzzle/
Violence-Stylized-2.png

Homicides-1900-2010-2.jpg
 
robgmn said:
The whole basis of the "per 100K" statistics is that is takes into account that your primary numbers are changing (thus, 200 crimes per 100K people is an INCREASE over 80 crimes per 100K people, no matter what the population is).
I know basic math well enough NOT to think that a doubling of crime with a five-fold increase in population would be an "increase in crime".
Click to expand...

I misread something you said, then. My apologies. :thmbsp:


Taowolf51:
As I said, there are highs and lows along the way, but like the markets I mentioned, the trend is INCREASING on a per-100K basis.
It is (based on the stats) a mathematical fact.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't.
 
BrianLW said:
Vacation/Retirement fund currently at $317,338 :yikes:
Click to expand...

that is a lot of money for getting insulted for 10 minutes... still don't make it right but she is going to make out pretty good on the deal financially


figure the hourly rate on that $1.8 million/hr (figuring $31,200 a minute so far :scratch2:)
 
While I find the acts horrid (and I am certainly not defending the little brats in the video), is she not failing at her duty by allowing the abuse to continue? Is not part of her job to maintain discipline rather than take abuse from children? Is there not something wrong with her to allow herself to be bullied by school children?

I didn't read the entire thread, so please excuse me if this has already been cited. I saw a few brief references, but nothing much.
 
If I were the power of that school district those kids would have their bus transportation privilege yanked from them indefinitely. My district has the discretion of banning kids from riding a school bus for any infraction they deem serious enough and I would imagine this is true of many school districts across the country.

Bullying is nothing new within certain age groups and against each other. However, this type of bullying from young, spoiled punk kids against this woman is despicable. This is not to say that any form of bullying can or should be condoned but these punks would have felt my wrath if I had been on that bus. As a teacher of 33 years I have seen this type of behavior on very few occasions in my class room but I do not and will not tolerate it. If I had done that at that age I probably would not be here commenting on this thread as I am now. My dad and/or my mom would have seen to that without question and my parents loved us to death but to disrespect anyone, especially an elder, would have had dire consequences.
 
PickyEars81 said:
While I find the acts horrid (and I am certainly not defending the little brats in the video), is she not failing at her duty by allowing the abuse to continue? Is not part of her job to maintain discipline rather than take abuse from children? Is there not something wrong with her to allow herself to be bullied by school children?

I didn't read the entire thread, so please excuse me if this has already been cited. I saw a few brief references, but nothing much.
Click to expand...

According to the morning paper, she was trying to ignore them, and because she is hearing impaired, she stated she did not hear all that they were saying. It was only when she was shown the video that she was aware of all that was said.

Now I have to wonder how the school system expected a hearing impaired employee to monitor a busload of noisy kids.
 
BrianLW said:
According to the morning paper, she was trying to ignore them, and because she is hearing impaired, she stated she did not hear all that they were saying. It was only when she was shown the video that she was aware of all that was said.

Now I have to wonder how the school system expected a hearing impaired employee to monitor a busload of noisy kids.
Click to expand...

Ah, that makes a bit more sense, but she was crying, after all.

Probably not the most qualified for the job. That said, if I had to ride on a bus full of noisy little snots on a daily basis, I'd probably be hearing impaired, too. If not by choice. :D

Those kids need a beating, but of course, that would be abuse :rolleyes:
 
PickyEars81 said:
Those kids need a beating, but of course, that would be abuse :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It seems like what society needs, is a good surrogate ass-whipping service. Modern parents don't want to do their job, wether out of a misdirected love, or fear of abuse accusations, or (fill in the blank). Surely, there's a middle ground, between letting these kids run amok, & police brutality, that everyone would find suitable? I definitely don't mean a pervert, who's "into" hurting people, I mean a well-screened and well-monitored person who is emotionally and mentally mature enough to understand the situation, & administer "fair" punishments. :scratch2: EDIT: Actually, here's a good use for robots. That would totally eliminate the chance of perves or abusers.
 
She was prolly afraid-And rightly so-If she defended herself or, perish the thought, fought back against the little monsters, she'd been sued within an inch of her life. And yes, I realise there was TERRIBLE discrimination back in good ol' antebellum 1960, but that was in the past, I was 3, I couldn't have done anything about it, even if I HAD been aware of it...I can ONLY be responsible for ME, & what I do/how I act on a go-forward basis..So DON'T try to make me feel guilty for the manifold sins of the past....I still maintain that OVERALL, kids acted "better" back then, instantaneous media, the internet, & all the other Happy HorseShyte we have today notwithstanding.
 
spaceman said:
...
Actually, here's a good use for robots. That would totally eliminate the chance of perves or abusers.
Click to expand...

When I was in elementary school, there was a rumor that the principal had a "spanking machine" in his office. Fear of that kept a lot of us in line.
 
BrianLW said:
When I was in elementary school, there was a rumor that the principal had a "spanking machine" in his office. Fear of that kept a lot of us in line.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah...OUR Principal sposedly had a Paddle w/HOLES drilled in it to lessen the Wind Resistance, so's he could whack yr Heiney all that much harder & faster...The "Board of Education", they called it...
 
One of my schools did have a paddle with holes in it. I saw it myself, but I always thought the holes were there just to make it hurt more...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom