If she only expressed her beliefs, then I'm still in the free speech zone of things, and you fight what you believe are wrong ideas with the expression of your right ideas.

Are middle-schoolers considered capable of the same type of reasoning that adults are?

That's a serious question.

I would never expect a 10- to 13-year-old to have reasoned out her beliefs on human rights to the same degree that an adult has. If, in fact, the child -- and that's what they are: children -- has reasoned out her beliefs on human rights AT ALL. Some 10-year-olds are still fucking up math; I can't imagine how they could rationally argue for the rights of women to walk down a street unassaulted.

How was she endangering the students? If she only expressed her beliefs, then I'm still in the free speech zone of things, and you fight what you believe are wrong ideas with the expression of your right ideas.

I honestly think that teaching girls that anyone who gets raped was "asking for it" endangers students. It prevents girls from reporting rape, thus risking health and mental health issues, not to mention leaving a rapist out there to hurt other girls. It also gives boys an "out", by allowing them to justify their actions when they rape a girl.

But then, I suppose that you could argue that my telling girls to use protection endangers their mortal soul, so I guess you have a point. But, it's still wrong of her.

woo! 9999!

and 10000! WHO WANTS TO TOUCH ME!!

Nines?

eta Nope - illegal pallindrome. Huh.

Guess you don't feel so chatty any more, do ya', punk? Okay, no really, natter continues: "Natter 45: Smooth as Billy Dee Williams." Jun 1, 2006 1:27:42 pm PDT