Keep Your Hands To Yourself

Do Not TouchYes, it’s another example of the stupidity of liberals.  Personally, I think the whole “no touching” thing in schools is absurd at higher grades, the idea that nobody ought to ever come into any sort of physical contact with anyone else, for fear that someone might declare it sexual harassment, is idiotic.

However, this is even worse.  Coghlan Fundamental Elementary School in Aldergrove, British Columbia, Canada has declared that any touching of any kind, be it playing tag or holding hands, will be dealt with harshly and children found guilty would be sent to the office and even suspended.  The class level of this heinous crime? Kindergarten!  According to the school, touching has caused injuries that have “impacted the safety of all of the children outside.”  Principal Barb Dayco defended the policy saying, “The hand-holding it can be positive and it can be negative. We wanted to teach them how to make contact in a positive way. Not to grab someone’s hand and drag them along, but to hold their hand in a positive way.”

Yeah, but under your policy, they cannot hold hands in a positive way.  They can’t touch at all!  Did this never occur to you?  Here’s something else that clearly hasn’t occurred to these liberal fucks, the fact that for children that age, touching, holding hands and physical play is part of their natural socialization and is something they *NEED* to advance!  It’s how children learn to play and get along!  It’s a natural part of human development!  Here these idiots are telling kids not to be kids and not to engage in the behaviors that make them better people when they grow up! Are they insane?

People wonder why I get upset at the liberal mindset.  I wonder what they’re thinking and it becomes painfully obvious that they’re not.  There’s nothing going on in that big liberal head of theirs.  It’s a bloody vacuum where common sense and any vague semblance of education is supposed to be.  These people aren’t interested in what’s best for the kids, what helps them to grow up to be solid citizens and responsible adults, they just care about pushing their political agenda.

Come on, at least pretend that any of you people actually know anything about the kids you’re supposed to be educating because from this story, it’s clear that nobody has a clue.

21 thoughts on “Keep Your Hands To Yourself”

  1. Why assume that principal is a Liberal? Do your homework. That part of BC is the most Conservative in the province and their federal MP is a long time serving member in Stephen Harper's government and Harper is a fundamentalist Christian. But we haven't heard the end of this and there are reports of outraged parents reacting to this nonsense.

  2. For a person who seems to pride himself on his use of critical thinking, you have displayed a serious critical thinking error here to (1) assume that this principal is a liberal, and (2) extrapolate that this is part of a liberal mindset. You wrongly assume all liberals think alike and that therefore this boneheaded policy is derived from that liberal mindset. Seems to me that this policy comes from the misguided notions of a single individual and not from a political ideology or political mindset. But I can see how you would arrive at your wrong-headed conclusion. It is obvious you draw pleasure from creating strawman characterizations of liberals and then beating them with your dribble.

    1. Nowhere did I say that all liberals thought that way, in fact, I've written extensively on the use of labels and the downfalls thereof. There are plenty of liberals who, while they use the "liberal" label, follow mostly conservative positions. There are plenty of "conservatives", especially in the Republican Party, who haven't got a conservative bone in their body. Just because you use a label for yourself doesn't mean that you have all of the same beliefs as anyone else who uses that label.

      However, this is not the only story of this kind by a long shot, I've done plenty of articles about people who self-identify as liberals in education, who don't want anyone touching anyone else ever for any reason. Physical contact in school is a horrible idea to these people. This story seems to fit into the exact same mindset. If you don't agree with what this principal did, good for you, it shows you're rational. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't have been criticized for their stupidity, regardless of the label they choose to use.

      1. Then I suggest you start using some qualifier whenever you choose to use a label to criticize persons who self-identify with that label. Your original post didn't say some liberals. You wrote: "Yes, it's another example of the stuipidy of liberals." Without a qualifier in front of the word liberals, it is reasonable to conclude that you are referring to all liberals.

        However my criticism still stands for labeling this principal as a liberal without first determining this to be a fact. If these political labels are incorrectly applied by their users as you indicate they often are, then you need to stop using them in labeling others until you have conclusively determined that the label applies. How do you know the principal at that school is a liberal? Could just as easily be a conservative or a person of some other political persuasion. Also, you have not established that this person adopted the no contact policy as a result of their political beliefs. Could be that some aspect of this person's educational training and philosophy led to this policy. Could be some other motivation entirely. You have not established that the policy flows from a particular political mindset. Just because you've written about other self-identified liberals in the past who "don't want anyone touching anyone else ever for any reason" is insufficient evidence or reason to assume this to be true in this particular case. You need to actually speak to the person in question or speak to someone who knows that person. Ask questions to determine the person's political persuasion. Did you do this?

        Finally, I did not say the person should not be criticized for the policy. I think the policy is misguided and an overreaction. I don't think, though, that I would describe it as an example of stupidity. The policy is an attempt to deal with a problem. It is, I agree, an overreach. I dont' think the administrators in this case thought very deeply or reflectively about the best solution to employ. But that doesn't mean they were behaving in a stupid fashion in choosing the policy they did. This policy does not measure up to your description of it as an example of liberal stupidity. That descriptor is nothing more than a display of your dislike of liberals in general. An irrational display in my opinion.

        1. Seriously, I think you're taking labels far too personally. If it doesn't apply to you, don't worry about it. Do you think I freak out every time someone calls the neo-cons conservative? Certainly not. It's unrealistic to expect people to say "liberals, with the exception of Randy Pelton". Deal with the things that actually apply, not things that simply use a word you favor. Labels largely don't matter, they're just imprecise ideological shorthand.

          1. Of course you don't "freak out" when someone calls neo-cons conservative. I am not freaking out about your misuse of the world liberal. But this is not what we are arguing about. It is not about freaking out or getting upset. It is about precision in communication and about establishing the truth of a claim with evidence. You are painting liberals as some monolithic entity in the way in which you use the label in your posts. Furthermore, I did not say you have to say something as silly as "liberals, with the exception of Randy Pelton." And you damn-wll know I didn't I said you should say "some liberals", or "many liberals", or something of this sort rather than just "liberals." You are adding one word to your comment. But it makes it clear that you aren't accusing or describing all liberals. Now I can't imagine what is so objectionable about doing this. When you use a label as you do without any kind of qualifier it is reasonable to conclude that you are referring to all members of that category. I say this not because I am a liberal, but because before I became a science teacher, I was a journalist. I earned a living from writing. Use of language in a way the communicates effectively and precisely is important to me. Conveying meaning as precisely and accurately as possible is important to me. And I think it should be important to anyone who choses to communicate with any portion of the public. That includes you.

            I notice also that you have twice now failed to address my other main point. You said the policy in question was based on liberalism. But you did not provide evidence to support this. You essentially assumed that the principal at the school is a liberal and was acting on liberal impulses. But you provided no evidence that this was true. If labels, as you have now said twice, are so unimportant then why was it even necessary to describe this policy as being motivated by liberal principles and associate it with liberals? Why not just criticize the policy without attaching it to any particular political ideology, especially in this case since you have not yet established that this policy has anything to do with liberalism or liberals.

          2. I read your post about labels. I agree for the most part with the inadequacy of labels. But the post to which you directed me does not address my comments nor my questions, though you seem to think it does. And again you failed to address my questions about why you assumed the principal of the school to be a liberal, why you assume the policy to have been derived from a liberal political mindset as opposed to other possibilities (one of which I mentioned in my original reply), and what is so objectionable to adding one single-word modifier when you choose to use the world liberal. Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, you are lumping all liberals together every time you refer to "liberals" rather than "some liberals" in one of your posts criticizing some action or policy that you assume (without evidence) is derived from a liberal political mindset. But I I will now drop this particular line of criticism since you seem incapable of seeing the error in your thinking and I apparently am having no success at illuminating it for you.

          3. No, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, you are assuming that I'm lumping all liberals into the same group. Clearly, I've said that if it doesn't apply to you, you should not take offense. I've said that over and over again, yet you are still insisting that I modify my posts because you think I'm calling *YOU* a name when clearly I'm not. I had no idea you'd even read the posts in question. You are taking offense where none was intended, simply because you choose to share a label with the people I criticize.

            There's a problem there, but it's not on my side.

          4. You are wrong to characterize my comments as being motivated by some sense of offense. I have written nothing because I felt offended. I have written everything because your use of the label liberal without a modifier is a factual misrepresentation. Whether you intend to lump all liberals into the same group or not is the not the question. You're phrasing does in fact do this. I have not asked you to make some monumental change in your posts. One word. One easily typed word. What can possibly be so objectionable to this given that it will, I believe, bring greater accuracy to your statements. It is does not matter that what you say does not apply to me. Any reader reading your comment would very likely assume that you are in fact referring to all liberals. They will do this, regardless of their individual political persuasion, because you do not qualify your remark.

            And once again you have ignored the questions I asked. Do you not respond to these questions because you have no adequate response? You made an assumption that the principal at the school was a liberal. You made an assumption that the policy was born out of a liberal political mindset? Again, how the hell do you know this? You provided not one iota of evidence that this is or was the case. Now it may well be that the principal is a liberal. But no one, including yourself, knows this to be the case from your unsupported declaration that it is the case. It may be that the policy is in someway associated with a liberal mindset. But again nothing you said provides a compelling reason to accept your claim that it does. You simply found the policy objectionable. As do I. But in your case you assumed that because it was stupid, irrational and objectionable, it must be due to a liberal mindset. I conclude this because you offer no evidence nor any compelling or convincing argument that it is associated with a liberal mindset. You simply declare it to be so and think your readers should assume so because you said so.

            The policy certainly is misguided. But until you can establish with evidence and convincing argument that the principal and other administrators responsible for the policy were motivated by some liberal political mindset, it was factually incorrect for you claim that it was. So yes the problem here is on your side.

    1. Perhaps you could elaborate on this set of liberal ideas that are "depriving children."? Until you provide this elaboration your remarks are just so much bullshit. The policy adopted in this case is, I agree, wrong. But an example of some liberal mindset that is ruining education or depriving children? You certainly have not established your claim in your comment. What ideas do you think educators should be employing that would not deprive children? And, by the way, what are children being deprived of?

        1. Exactly. Children need to learn realistic expectations of the world around them. Younger kids may have it softened a little, but by the time you're in middle or high school, you ought to get the full reality of what they're going to walk into when they become legal adults. Far too many people, and I'm not going to put a label on those people because some seem to be rather touchy of labels, want everyone to live in a fantasy world where the facts don't matter and the agenda and ideology are all-important. Actually, that describes both ends of the spectrum, doesn't it?

        2. I agree. Such a policy would be a bad policy. But you seem to think that this policy is universally used and approved by liberals. This is utter horseshit. I was a high school teacher for 21 years. Not one of my colleagues nor teachers with whom I am personally acquainted in other districts used or employed this policy. This policy is a strawman. There may be some individual teachers, even individual schools that employ such an idea. But this is not a ubiquitous practice. Or at the very least you have not provided evidence that it is. You are inventing things as reasons to display your dislike for liberals.

          1. No, I pointed out where this one person used it, although there are plenty of other places where self-identified liberals have advocated a policy of non-contact that don't go this far. This is a story about a principal who has gone over the edge. You're just getting mad because someone is using a label that you happen to identify with instead of getting mad at the stupidity in the actual story.

          2. I'm an equal opportunity critic. I go after the stupidity of everyone, regardless of the labels they apply to themselves. I've been as critical of atheists as I have been of theists. I've been as critical of "conservatives" as I have been of "liberals". I go after everyone that acts stupidly, simply because they are stupid and certain groups tend to be more stupid in some areas than in others. The goal is to try to make improvements to people's positions where I see people having problems. If someone disagrees with me, by all means, present a well-thought-out, reasonable, evidence-based, logical argument that explains where I am actually wrong in my assessment. I'm open to having my mind changed, but just as with the religious, I won't change my mind if someone presents a wholly emotional or irrational argument, nor should I.

            So yes, I agree that going after the stupid, regardless of the label, is the way to go. People should be more concerned with being rational and intelligent than in what labels they apply to themselves anyhow.

          3. I don't object to you criticizing liberals, conservatives, atheists, theists, or any other's. If a policy is flawed criticize it. If a person's thinking is flawed, criticize it. But before you criticize a policy or act be sure that your characterization of it is factually correct. I agreed that the policy of no physical contact is a poor policy. And this policy should be critically scrutinized. This has not been the point of disagreement between you and I here. The argument is over your characterization of the policy as having been born out of some liberal political mindset and characterizing the principal as liberal without providing a single scrap of evidence that this is the case. You demand that others provide you with "evidence-based" arguments. I agree this is a good requirement. So how about holding yourself to that standard in this particular case. Where is the evidence that this policy has anything to do with liberal political principles or ideology? Where is the evidence that the principal at the school is a liberal, as you implied he was?

Leave a Reply to peltonrandy Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)