In what world do you live where keeping teachers and students from being friends on Facebook is considered "punishment?"
What else is it, then? If you want to be pedantic, fine. But it doesn't matter: you're still essentially taking the freedom to do something away from an entire group of people.
Furthermore, explain to me what is appropriate about child students and adult teachers engaging in social relationships.
What's inappropriate about it? You're the one advocating for these pointless restrictions. The burden of proof is on you. But "appropriate" is a subjective word to begin with.
Namely, blurring the boundary of the student-teacher relationship undermines the teacher's authority, and therefore the student's education.
I've never seen such a thing happen before. You seem to be obsessed with appearance and authority, not actual education. Authority is not education. You can both be friends with them (or at least not act like they're just robots under your command) and still have authority; after all, you do not lose your position of authority.
Furthermore, I'd like to see a citation.
These are things you will understand much better when you're a grownup.
So, I disagree with you, and you resort to personal attacks and assumptions, despite not knowing me at all? You are a sociopath. I know nothing about you, but I'll just throw that out there even if it will just make you less likely to listen to me. What's especially ironic is that some would even consider this type of attack to be "childish" in and of itself.
But most employers don't have control over impressionable young children for 5 or 6 hours per day.
And most people aren't child molesters... And I happen to disagree with collective punishment.
"For the children! For the children! Anyone who disagrees with me is underage/is a pedophile/doesn't have kids! There are pedophiles behind every corner, and since I claim to be a parent, that means I'm always 100% correct!"
I hope you're trolling with those nonsensical assumptions.
Wait till 2629837 seems like a low number here on Slash Dot and you have a 14 year old daughter of your own. I suspect your view will change radically.
You seem to be assuming I don't already have a kid. I do. Frankly, I'm insulted that you'd insinuate that people become retarded once they have children.
Hopefully you're not one of those people who think there are child molesters hiding behind every corner. And if you're afraid of unlikely catastrophic consequences, don't ride in cars, planes, or do much of anything, as you're putting yourself and others at risk by doing so.
I tend to be as socially libertarian as you can get
You say I'm wrong, but then you proceed to state exactly what I just spoke out against. You're just punishing an entire group of people for what a few of them could do. Then you label it as "setting boundaries" as if that will change what it truly is.
It is generally inappropriate for students and teachers to have social relationships. Ethics 101.
It's appropriate. Ethics 101. There. My argument is complete, and you are defeated!
- possibility of mixing work and personal lives of teachers - there are many things that teachers are expected to not do in and around students in school, including students into their private social media could create problems
- inability of schools to monitor relationships between students and teachers, hoping to detect, if not prevent them from happening
So basically, an entire group of people should be banned from doing something merely because some people in that group may do things that some people do not agree with? You only speak of possibilities here. This is a perfect example of a collective punishment mentality.
Why do teachers need to 'friend' under-age students of theirs?
Why do you need to get on Facebook? Why do you need entertainment? How about, "Why not?" You just waive off all of their opinions just like that. There are few things that people "need." I'd prefer to not live in fear that teachers will abuse their power. I'd prefer to not punish all of them merely because some of them could do so.
i'm sorry, i understand that the people governed and people who govern can tell the difference between right and wrong
North Korea, China, Nazi Germany,...
What were you saying, again? That corrupt governments don't exist? I"m beginning to think you're trolling. And I really hope you are. You're denying history and basic human nature here.
if you give a cop a gun, he can shoot an innocent man, but that is not a reason not to give him a gun
I've already replied to something similar. You're simply repeating your points ad nauseam.
good day, fear-addled hypocrite
You said that, for you, it wasn't about fear. But then you assume that for me, it is? And I certainly hope you're not resorting to the tu quoque fallacy there.
it's like saying if we let gay people marry, then people will marry animals and dead people: slippery slope. or we can't legalize marijuana because then meth and crack will be legal: slippery slope. the slippery slope argument based on irrationality and fear
Way to fail to tell the difference between a fallacious slippery slope and a genuine slippery slope.
Do I need to explain such a simple concept to you? When I say, "Letting the government imprison citizens on a whim with no oversight if they believe them to be criminals is a slippery slope," it should be obvious as to why that is indeed a slippery slope. Humans in power (and humans in general) are extremely susceptible to corruption. All I'm say is: this power will be used for other purposes and eventually abused. My evidence? Human nature and history.
There is a difference between a slippery slope and the slippery slope fallacy. One is generally accompanied by no evidence or reason to believe that (like your examples). I thought you'd be a bit more informed than this.
the idea of a slippery slope assumes that the people governed and the people power have no brains and can't tell different things apart.
That is a very real possibility.
only someone who wishes to appeal to fear believes in slippery slope.
Only someone who denies the existence of corrupt governments (China, USSR, Nazi Germany, etc) would say that. Few expect or want their government to become corrupt, but it happens anyway. Giving too much power to a government is a slippery slope indeed.
the government is not an alien entity out to abuse you just for lulz. it's made of people
It's made of people. That is exactly the problem. That is why we must be ever vigilant. People can be corrupt, ignorant, and can make mistakes. The chance of the first increases the more power someone has.
where and when they screw up and abuse their powers, we reveal them and punish them
Difficult when there's no oversight. Difficult when the population at large is ignorant ("Nothing to hide, nothing to fear").
here's another useless retarded argument for you: you're more likely to die in a car crash than get abused by the police, so you don't have to worry about getting abused by the police
That wasn't the original argument to begin with. You seem to be fond of straw men. The point was this: why are people so hysterically afraid of terrorists and criminals when other tragic events are more likely to happen to them?
Though I fear I'm just wasting my time. The fact that I had to explain the concept of a slippery slope indicates this.
yes, power can be abused. power can be abused at a traffic stop too. so we should let people speed. power can be abused by the TSA. so let people bring anything on airplanes. power can be abused by any government entity with any authority. so we should have no government at all
That's a very interesting set of straw men there. Government is a necessary evil, but its power must be limited in scope (and what powers it does have must be subject to checks and balances). Lying, warrantless wiretapping, random searches, random seizures, and other such nonsense are not things that it should be given the ability to do.
"Well, we let the government do X, so it should be able to do Y, too! What, you don't trust the government with the power to do Y? But you trust it to do X! Why not Y!?" It's a slippery slope.
so we should let people speed. power can be abused by the TSA. so let people bring anything on airplanes.
The TSA really is a piece of garbage that shouldn't exist in any form (unlike your example about how the government shouldn't exist). I certainly hope you're not defending it.
i'm asking you to see that discipline and rooting out bad apples is a separate issue that doesn't have any impact on the rationale for honeypots
It's not a separate issue, and I already explained why. Rooting out bad apples is extremely difficult when there is an absence of checks and balances (as there would be in a situation where law enforcement and government has the ability to lie to its targets on a whim). You can say you expect honeypots to work in a certain why, just like communism is often said to look good on paper, but in general, such powers will be abused.
a honeypot operation, where your own intent is the only thing that gets you involved
Or an innocent person. A honeypot is deception. We are giving law enforcement the ability to lie as they please. They can do whatever they want to catch these supposed criminals, and since there is no real oversight here, they can deceive and threaten as much as they please. There are very few people on this planet that would not submit to authority if they were under pressure (especially if they were threatened and lied to).
plus, there is always an abuse of authority.
Right. That's why authority figures must be limited in power.
This is like saying, "We'll give the government the ability to execute people on a whim without any oversight, and if they execute innocents, we'll just crack down on the rotten apples!"
that's the only way you will ever get wrapped up in this sort of thing.
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" comes to mind. Same attitude used to justify the Patriot Act and the TSA. "Why would the government ever be investigating you for wrongdoing if you aren't a criminal?"
If law enforcement is given the ability to lie without repercussion, it will inevitably be done to innocent civilians. We've seen this countless times, and in countless forms of government all throughout history. The scope of this is smaller, but the potential for abuse of authority (typical human nature) is all the same.
you're not convincing anyone of anything on this topic except how clueless you are
Clueless of what? I haven't enough energy to play insulting matches for extended periods of time. So you, who apparently understands these issues, please enlighten me.
But, okay, I'll just state something: I don't care how likely it is that I'll die in a terrorist attack; I don't want to allow law enforcement or the government to law and entrap people to "catch the criminals" or "catch the terrorist" (same retarded mentality that allows for the TSA, Patriot Act, etc).
Don't worry, citizen. Everything the government does is to keep you safe. Lying, molesting people at airports, warrantless wiretapping... it's all for you! You should feel honored that we're keeping you safe!
you do realize saying this only reveals uncritical and simpleminded your thought processes are?
No, but I can see how much of a coward you are. You're so scared of terrorists and criminals that you're prepared to think it's acceptable for law enforcement to lie just to solve a case or catch a criminal.
I speak of how likely it is that you'll die in a terrorist attack; that should have been obvious.
who do you think puts a bomb in their underwear or in their shoes? who flies airplanes into buildings?
A minuscule portion of the human race. Nothing to be afraid of; you're more likely to die in a car crash. Certainly not worth allowing law enforcement to lie over.
Yeah, like the TSA, the Patriot Act, free speech zones, NDAA...
The ability of law enforcement to law on a whim will inevitably be abused. In fact, it already has been. Innocent people have been hurt by this, but all you people care about is catching the "terrists!"
but I'm all for jailing and killing people who want to destroy the U.S.
When a young-looking woman poses as an underage girl online and 40-year old men get arrested for trying to have sex with her, it's catching predators. But when the FBI pretends to be terrorists selling explosives, Stinger missiles or other such things, it's wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
In what world do you live where keeping teachers and students from being friends on Facebook is considered "punishment?"
What else is it, then? If you want to be pedantic, fine. But it doesn't matter: you're still essentially taking the freedom to do something away from an entire group of people.
Furthermore, explain to me what is appropriate about child students and adult teachers engaging in social relationships.
What's inappropriate about it? You're the one advocating for these pointless restrictions. The burden of proof is on you. But "appropriate" is a subjective word to begin with.
Namely, blurring the boundary of the student-teacher relationship undermines the teacher's authority, and therefore the student's education.
I've never seen such a thing happen before. You seem to be obsessed with appearance and authority, not actual education. Authority is not education. You can both be friends with them (or at least not act like they're just robots under your command) and still have authority; after all, you do not lose your position of authority.
Furthermore, I'd like to see a citation.
These are things you will understand much better when you're a grownup.
So, I disagree with you, and you resort to personal attacks and assumptions, despite not knowing me at all? You are a sociopath. I know nothing about you, but I'll just throw that out there even if it will just make you less likely to listen to me. What's especially ironic is that some would even consider this type of attack to be "childish" in and of itself.
It won't turn them into murderers (just like TV and video games won't).
Ever heard of the saying "with great power comes great responsibility"?
I usually use that when talking about actual threats (like the government). Generally not about teachers friending people on Facebook.
Have you looked at what teenagers are posting on Facebook?
I really don't care. All of those seem small-time, common, and irrelevant. They're nothing big, or even surprising.
Should a teacher do something about that?
In most cases, there isn't much point. But in a truly serious case, should anyone do something about it?
then it's difficult not to see how that extends down to children.
It's not difficult for me at all. I don't care what so-called "professional companies" think.
But most employers don't have control over impressionable young children for 5 or 6 hours per day.
And most people aren't child molesters... And I happen to disagree with collective punishment.
"For the children! For the children! Anyone who disagrees with me is underage/is a pedophile/doesn't have kids! There are pedophiles behind every corner, and since I claim to be a parent, that means I'm always 100% correct!"
I hope you're trolling with those nonsensical assumptions.
Everyone is a pedophile. Especially if they looked into a child's eyes, physically touched a child, talked to a child, or even had a child!
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. If you disagree with me, that also means you're a pedophile!
Wait till 2629837 seems like a low number here on Slash Dot and you have a 14 year old daughter of your own. I suspect your view will change radically.
You seem to be assuming I don't already have a kid. I do. Frankly, I'm insulted that you'd insinuate that people become retarded once they have children.
is a high risk behavior.
Explain further.
Hopefully you're not one of those people who think there are child molesters hiding behind every corner. And if you're afraid of unlikely catastrophic consequences, don't ride in cars, planes, or do much of anything, as you're putting yourself and others at risk by doing so.
I tend to be as socially libertarian as you can get
How fickle.
Wrong.
You say I'm wrong, but then you proceed to state exactly what I just spoke out against. You're just punishing an entire group of people for what a few of them could do. Then you label it as "setting boundaries" as if that will change what it truly is.
It is generally inappropriate for students and teachers to have social relationships. Ethics 101.
It's appropriate. Ethics 101. There. My argument is complete, and you are defeated!
You're paranoid of the statistically unlikely. There aren't pedophiles and evil teachers hiding behind every corner.
- possibility of mixing work and personal lives of teachers - there are many things that teachers are expected to not do in and around students in school, including students into their private social media could create problems
- inability of schools to monitor relationships between students and teachers, hoping to detect, if not prevent them from happening
So basically, an entire group of people should be banned from doing something merely because some people in that group may do things that some people do not agree with? You only speak of possibilities here. This is a perfect example of a collective punishment mentality.
Why do teachers need to 'friend' under-age students of theirs?
Why do you need to get on Facebook? Why do you need entertainment? How about, "Why not?" You just waive off all of their opinions just like that. There are few things that people "need." I'd prefer to not live in fear that teachers will abuse their power. I'd prefer to not punish all of them merely because some of them could do so.
This collective punishment mentality is great.
i'm sorry, i understand that the people governed and people who govern can tell the difference between right and wrong
North Korea, China, Nazi Germany, ...
What were you saying, again? That corrupt governments don't exist? I"m beginning to think you're trolling. And I really hope you are. You're denying history and basic human nature here.
if you give a cop a gun, he can shoot an innocent man, but that is not a reason not to give him a gun
I've already replied to something similar. You're simply repeating your points ad nauseam.
good day, fear-addled hypocrite
You said that, for you, it wasn't about fear. But then you assume that for me, it is? And I certainly hope you're not resorting to the tu quoque fallacy there.
it's like saying if we let gay people marry, then people will marry animals and dead people: slippery slope. or we can't legalize marijuana because then meth and crack will be legal: slippery slope. the slippery slope argument based on irrationality and fear
Way to fail to tell the difference between a fallacious slippery slope and a genuine slippery slope.
Do I need to explain such a simple concept to you? When I say, "Letting the government imprison citizens on a whim with no oversight if they believe them to be criminals is a slippery slope," it should be obvious as to why that is indeed a slippery slope. Humans in power (and humans in general) are extremely susceptible to corruption. All I'm say is: this power will be used for other purposes and eventually abused. My evidence? Human nature and history.
There is a difference between a slippery slope and the slippery slope fallacy. One is generally accompanied by no evidence or reason to believe that (like your examples). I thought you'd be a bit more informed than this.
the idea of a slippery slope assumes that the people governed and the people power have no brains and can't tell different things apart.
That is a very real possibility.
only someone who wishes to appeal to fear believes in slippery slope.
Only someone who denies the existence of corrupt governments (China, USSR, Nazi Germany, etc) would say that. Few expect or want their government to become corrupt, but it happens anyway. Giving too much power to a government is a slippery slope indeed.
the government is not an alien entity out to abuse you just for lulz. it's made of people
It's made of people. That is exactly the problem. That is why we must be ever vigilant. People can be corrupt, ignorant, and can make mistakes. The chance of the first increases the more power someone has.
where and when they screw up and abuse their powers, we reveal them and punish them
Difficult when there's no oversight. Difficult when the population at large is ignorant ("Nothing to hide, nothing to fear").
here's another useless retarded argument for you: you're more likely to die in a car crash than get abused by the police, so you don't have to worry about getting abused by the police
That wasn't the original argument to begin with. You seem to be fond of straw men. The point was this: why are people so hysterically afraid of terrorists and criminals when other tragic events are more likely to happen to them?
Though I fear I'm just wasting my time. The fact that I had to explain the concept of a slippery slope indicates this.
yes, power can be abused. power can be abused at a traffic stop too. so we should let people speed. power can be abused by the TSA. so let people bring anything on airplanes. power can be abused by any government entity with any authority. so we should have no government at all
That's a very interesting set of straw men there. Government is a necessary evil, but its power must be limited in scope (and what powers it does have must be subject to checks and balances). Lying, warrantless wiretapping, random searches, random seizures, and other such nonsense are not things that it should be given the ability to do.
"Well, we let the government do X, so it should be able to do Y, too! What, you don't trust the government with the power to do Y? But you trust it to do X! Why not Y!?" It's a slippery slope.
so we should let people speed. power can be abused by the TSA. so let people bring anything on airplanes.
The TSA really is a piece of garbage that shouldn't exist in any form (unlike your example about how the government shouldn't exist). I certainly hope you're not defending it.
i'm asking you to see that discipline and rooting out bad apples is a separate issue that doesn't have any impact on the rationale for honeypots
It's not a separate issue, and I already explained why. Rooting out bad apples is extremely difficult when there is an absence of checks and balances (as there would be in a situation where law enforcement and government has the ability to lie to its targets on a whim). You can say you expect honeypots to work in a certain why, just like communism is often said to look good on paper, but in general, such powers will be abused.
a honeypot operation, where your own intent is the only thing that gets you involved
Or an innocent person. A honeypot is deception. We are giving law enforcement the ability to lie as they please. They can do whatever they want to catch these supposed criminals, and since there is no real oversight here, they can deceive and threaten as much as they please. There are very few people on this planet that would not submit to authority if they were under pressure (especially if they were threatened and lied to).
plus, there is always an abuse of authority.
Right. That's why authority figures must be limited in power.
This is like saying, "We'll give the government the ability to execute people on a whim without any oversight, and if they execute innocents, we'll just crack down on the rotten apples!"
that's the only way you will ever get wrapped up in this sort of thing.
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" comes to mind. Same attitude used to justify the Patriot Act and the TSA. "Why would the government ever be investigating you for wrongdoing if you aren't a criminal?"
If law enforcement is given the ability to lie without repercussion, it will inevitably be done to innocent civilians. We've seen this countless times, and in countless forms of government all throughout history. The scope of this is smaller, but the potential for abuse of authority (typical human nature) is all the same.
to law
Again? lie*
you're not convincing anyone of anything on this topic except how clueless you are
Clueless of what? I haven't enough energy to play insulting matches for extended periods of time. So you, who apparently understands these issues, please enlighten me.
But, okay, I'll just state something: I don't care how likely it is that I'll die in a terrorist attack; I don't want to allow law enforcement or the government to law and entrap people to "catch the criminals" or "catch the terrorist" (same retarded mentality that allows for the TSA, Patriot Act, etc).
Don't worry, citizen. Everything the government does is to keep you safe. Lying, molesting people at airports, warrantless wiretapping... it's all for you! You should feel honored that we're keeping you safe!
I'd say a distrust of the government is far more beneficial than blindly trusting them.
you do realize saying this only reveals uncritical and simpleminded your thought processes are?
No, but I can see how much of a coward you are. You're so scared of terrorists and criminals that you're prepared to think it's acceptable for law enforcement to lie just to solve a case or catch a criminal.
I speak of how likely it is that you'll die in a terrorist attack; that should have been obvious.
who do you think puts a bomb in their underwear or in their shoes? who flies airplanes into buildings?
A minuscule portion of the human race. Nothing to be afraid of; you're more likely to die in a car crash. Certainly not worth allowing law enforcement to lie over.
It helps keep us safe
Yeah, like the TSA, the Patriot Act, free speech zones, NDAA...
The ability of law enforcement to law on a whim will inevitably be abused. In fact, it already has been. Innocent people have been hurt by this, but all you people care about is catching the "terrists!"
but I'm all for jailing and killing people who want to destroy the U.S.
I love thought crimes.
Law enforcement lying is a bad thing, yes. Innocent people inevitably get caught in the crossfire. Can't believe people are defending this nonsense.
When a young-looking woman poses as an underage girl online and 40-year old men get arrested for trying to have sex with her, it's catching predators. But when the FBI pretends to be terrorists selling explosives, Stinger missiles or other such things, it's wrong.
They're both wrong.