• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

#IStandWithAhmed (or Inventing While Muslim is a thing?)

Exactly. There have been thousands of kids who have been subjected to the idiocy of the zero tolerance policies. The media is having a feeding frenzy over this one because he was Muslim and it was Texas.

It is the zero tolerance policies that should be the subject that everyone is upset over.

The difference here is that he was arrested, cuffed, and taken to the police station. How many times has that happened in other zero-tolerance cases?
Quite a few. I even linked one case where the mother of a special needs child was arrested and charged with criminal trespass. After receiving a frantic call from her kid's teacher, she rushed to the school and was buzzed in by security. Her crime, she didn't fill out all the paperwork before checking on her kid.

In this case that has the media in such a feeding frenzy, there were no charges made that I have been able to find.
 
Last edited:
It still gets back to the fact that this kid is a moslem, had he not been, it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.
Exactly. There have been thousands of kids who have been subjected to the idiocy of the zero tolerance policies. The media is having a feeding frenzy over this one because he was Muslim and it was Texas.

It is the zero tolerance policies that should be the subject that everyone is upset over.
Perhaps, but zero tolerance does not require zero judgment or zero intelligence. The egregious examples make headlines. The instances where rational judgment prevails (i.e. nothing happens) are not reported.
 
Exactly. There have been thousands of kids who have been subjected to the idiocy of the zero tolerance policies. The media is having a feeding frenzy over this one because he was Muslim and it was Texas.

It is the zero tolerance policies that should be the subject that everyone is upset over.
Perhaps, but zero tolerance does not require zero judgment or zero intelligence. The egregious examples make headlines. The instances where rational judgment prevails (i.e. nothing happens) are not reported.

You are wrong. Judgement is explicitly not allowed. That is the meaning of "zero tolerance".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance_(schools)

A zero-tolerance policy in schools is a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances.
 
Exactly. There have been thousands of kids who have been subjected to the idiocy of the zero tolerance policies. The media is having a feeding frenzy over this one because he was Muslim and it was Texas.

It is the zero tolerance policies that should be the subject that everyone is upset over.

The difference here is that he was arrested, cuffed, and taken to the police station. How many times has that happened in other zero-tolerance cases?
I don't know, but having police involved in trivial bullshit does take place occasionally.

https://www.copblock.org/140900/stupid-reasons-police-arrested-kids-school/

#1 At one public school down in Texas, a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Bustamantes was arrested for spraying herself with perfume.

#8 One student down in Texas was reportedly arrested by police for throwing paper airplanes in class.

#9 A 17-year-old honor student in North Carolina named Ashley Smithwick accidentally took her father’s lunch with her to school. It contained a small paring knife which he would use to slice up apples. So what happened to this standout student when the school discovered this? The school suspended her for the rest of the year and the police charged her with a misdemeanor.

#11 Down in Florida, an 11-year-old student was arrested, thrown in jail and charged with a third-degree felony for bringing a plastic butter knife to school.

#20 A 13-year-old boy was arrested for kissing his classmate on a dare. Now, he faces second-degree assault charges.
and my favourite:
#12 An 8-year-old boy in Massachusetts was sent home from school and was forced to undergo a psychological evaluation because he drew a picture of Jesus on the cross.

Anyway, in Ahmed's case, there was no permanent damage done. He got an exciting trip to police station (he said himself in an interview that it was pretty cool), lots of swag from tech companies and the like, and 15 minutes of fame. If there was a civil rights violation, it was a rather minor one.
 
Perhaps, but zero tolerance does not require zero judgment or zero intelligence. The egregious examples make headlines. The instances where rational judgment prevails (i.e. nothing happens) are not reported.

You are wrong. Judgement is explicitly not allowed. That is the meaning of "zero tolerance".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance_(schools)

A zero-tolerance policy in schools is a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances.

I agree; Zero Tolerance, like Mandatory Sentencing, is an attempt to eliminate judgement, intelligence or reasoning by the people who are actually dealing with a situation, in favour of replacing it with the judgement and reasoning of people who made up their minds long before the situation even arose.

It is a monumentally stupid way of doing things; but it happens because the people who set up such rules are insane control freaks, who believe that the world is such a simple and ordered place that their judgement before the event is far better than anybody else's judgement could possibly be after the event.

This insanity leads to major problems in edge-cases, which are unlikely to have been considered by the all-powerful pre-judging authority. It also tends to create sub-optimal outcomes even in mainstream cases. But at least it stops people from thinking for themselves, which seems to be the main objective.
 
You are wrong. Judgement is explicitly not allowed. That is the meaning of "zero tolerance".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance_(schools)

A zero-tolerance policy in schools is a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances.

I agree; Zero Tolerance, like Mandatory Sentencing, is an attempt to eliminate judgement, intelligence or reasoning by the people who are actually dealing with a situation, in favour of replacing it with the judgement and reasoning of people who made up their minds long before the situation even arose.

It is a monumentally stupid way of doing things; but it happens because the people who set up such rules are insane control freaks, who believe that the world is such a simple and ordered place that their judgement before the event is far better than anybody else's judgement could possibly be after the event.

This insanity leads to major problems in edge-cases, which are unlikely to have been considered by the all-powerful pre-judging authority. It also tends to create sub-optimal outcomes even in mainstream cases. But at least it stops people from thinking for themselves, which seems to be the main objective.
Yup, Mandatory Sentencing is an asinine idea. It allows for no weighing of the severity of the crime or any possible extenuating circumstances that should be taken into consideration when passing sentence. However, it at least only comes in after a supposedly fair trial and finding of guilt. I see Zero Tolerance as worse, if that is possible. It allows for no judgement of the severity of circumstances in either finding guilt or in levying punishment. A little plastic picnic knife in a lunch box to spread the kid's Vegemite on a slice of bread can be treated the same as if the kid had a Bowie knife - the kid had a knife so is guilty.
 
Exactly. There have been thousands of kids who have been subjected to the idiocy of the zero tolerance policies. The media is having a feeding frenzy over this one because he was Muslim and it was Texas.

It is the zero tolerance policies that should be the subject that everyone is upset over.

The difference here is that he was arrested, cuffed, and taken to the police station. How many times has that happened in other zero-tolerance cases?
As I've said before: better careful than sorry.
 
The difference here is that he was arrested, cuffed, and taken to the police station. How many times has that happened in other zero-tolerance cases?
As I've said before: better careful than sorry.

Yes, you made that point before. And I responded:

Caution is better than being blown up by some nut job!

Caution is fine. Caution is not the problem.

No one is arguing the school administration and teachers shouldn't be cautious. If a student has an item that looks like it might be a danger to themselves, the staff, or other students, then it should be investigated.

No one is saying the cops shouldn't be cautious. If they get a call about a student bringing an item to school that might be a danger to themselves, the staff, or other students, the cops should treat the matter seriously.

But once the school authorities and police saw the gadget was just a clock, and it was learned that the student had never implied it was anything but a clock, then the authorities knew that all they were dealing with was a kid with a clock. There was no reason to arrest him. There might have been a reason to suspend him, if it was found that bringing digital clocks to school is against the rules; but in the absence of such a rule, there is no reason to suspend him. There was no reason not to simply confiscate the clock until the end of the day, and send the kid back to his classes.

The problem here was not caution, it was the overreaction of the Principal and the police, and the made up bullshit about a hoax bomb used to justify it.

To this I will add another problem that is apparent here: blatant racism and religious bigotry, neither of which is currently allowed to determine how students are treated by school administrators and the police in the US.
 
Last edited:
Do you think Obama should have weighed in on ZT policies sooner? Or are you criticizing him for reacting at all?
 
Perhaps, but zero tolerance does not require zero judgment or zero intelligence. The egregious examples make headlines. The instances where rational judgment prevails (i.e. nothing happens) are not reported.

You are wrong. Judgement is explicitly not allowed. That is the meaning of "zero tolerance".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance_(schools)

A zero-tolerance policy in schools is a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances.
You are wrong. Judgment can be exercised whether a rule has been broken.
 
You do realize that Obama is as much white as he is black, right?
That's irrelevant to his behavior. He was silent when truly ridiculous over reactions of zero tolerance like the pop tart gun happened. Yet when a Muslim attention whore gets in trouble he jumped to his defense. Kids that drew pictures, wrote essays or ate pop-tarts that ran afoul with zero tolerance were more deserving of support than clock boy.
 
You do realize that Obama is as much white as he is black, right?
That's irrelevant to his behavior. He was silent when truly ridiculous over reactions of zero tolerance like the pop tart gun happened. Yet when a Muslim attention whore gets in trouble he jumped to his defense. Kids that drew pictures, wrote essays or ate pop-tarts that ran afoul with zero tolerance were more deserving of support than clock boy.
To be fair, it was the media and leftists over-reaction which prompted Obama to respond to this imagined "islamophobia". In case of white kids there was no reason to react other than to ZT.
Obama should have waited and talked to the police first.
 
You do realize that Obama is as much white as he is black, right?
That's irrelevant to his behavior. He was silent when truly ridiculous over reactions of zero tolerance like the pop tart gun happened. Yet when a Muslim attention whore gets in trouble he jumped to his defense. Kids that drew pictures, wrote essays or ate pop-tarts that ran afoul with zero tolerance were more deserving of support than clock boy.

So you believe Obama should have weighed in on Zero Tolerance policies sooner. I agree. I think every government official from the President of the United States of America to the president of the local school board should have said "these rules are stupid, harmful, and senseless", and done away with them.

But I'm happy that the President has finally taken a stand.

BTW, you have less reason to think Ahmed Mohamed is an attention whore than I have to think you're one, so give it a rest.
 
You do realize that Obama is as much white as he is black, right?
That's irrelevant to his behavior. He was silent when truly ridiculous over reactions of zero tolerance like the pop tart gun happened. Yet when a Muslim attention whore gets in trouble he jumped to his defense. Kids that drew pictures, wrote essays or ate pop-tarts that ran afoul with zero tolerance were more deserving of support than clock boy.

When these other ZT injustices happened, was there an accompanying social media campaign?
 
Last edited:
That's irrelevant to his behavior. He was silent when truly ridiculous over reactions of zero tolerance like the pop tart gun happened. Yet when a Muslim attention whore gets in trouble he jumped to his defense. Kids that drew pictures, wrote essays or ate pop-tarts that ran afoul with zero tolerance were more deserving of support than clock boy.

So you believe Obama should have weighed in on Zero Tolerance policies sooner. I agree. I think every government official from the President of the United States of America to the president of the local school board should have said "these rules are stupid, harmful, and senseless", and done away with them.

But I'm happy that the President has finally taken a stand.

BTW, you have less reason to think Ahmed Mohamed is an attention whore than I have to think you're one, so give it a rest.
Did I miss something? Did the President take a stand against ZT policies? The little I have heard is that he was pretty much going along with the media feeding frenzy, treating this as a specific, isolated case of abuse of Ahmed. Certainly he has access to the thousands of such cases showing that this wasn't special but was fairly normal practice of schools under ZT programs. It would have offered him a great opportunity to take a stand against abusive official programs in our schools. I haven't heard either the mass media or Obama even criticize ZT programs as the reason this happened.

If the President has railed against ZT programs then good for him. But I don't listen to network news programming so I didn't hear it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom