4 -year-old Accused of Improperly Touching Teacher

[Osborn F Enready]

Now, we have the law turning rational people against kids.....

Yet people still don't want to see the laws as the problems......

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: another day OH PLEASE!!! You are being damn foolish! A four year old has absolutly NO SEXUALITY. Take your goddamn head out of the sand.

Check this out.

[another day]

Yes, exactly, your acting like the child is PURPOSELY behaving inappropriatly. But all kids do stuff like that. He's not "predisposed" to inappropriate contact. RIDICULOUS.

The teacher here should be in a mental institution, no exagerration. She belongs in hospital.

[Kamehameha34]

If all kids act like that, a mark on his record for it wouldn't do much harm to him, would it?

[macnpat]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If all kids act like that, a mark on his record for it wouldn't do much harm to him, would it?

The problem with your arguement Honorable Kamehameha is that if all kids act like that, why would we call this particular childs' actions whether negative or favorable, distinquishable enough to deserve a special notation?

[Occam]

I believe that in most cases of reported inappropriate behavior by children seven or younger, it's a case of the adult projecting his or her own ideas onto the child.
====
However, let's carry the argument to it's (ridiculous) conclusion. If small children have the intellectual skill and motivation to behave in a sexual manner with others including adults (albeit inappropriate when observed) then it would seem that they have the capability of making an independent decision to participate in sexual activities with an adult. And legal restrictions should only exist under the present rape laws. Consensual pedophiliac activities should be made legal.

By now I would assume that many of you are steaming. However, go back and read more carefully. I'm not advocating this. I'm pointing out that the argument that a four year old is capable of knowingly behaving in a sexually inappropriate way is dumb and logically leads to stupid conclusions such as the above.

Occam

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: macnpat The problem with your arguement Honorable Kamehameha is that if all kids act like that, why would we call this particular childs' actions whether negative or favorable, distinquishable enough to deserve a special notation?

Hey, aunty :)

I was referring to a child's societally uninhibited nature. If, under this lack of impulse control, he is inclined to act a certain way, that is at least worth a note.

I said before, though, that it depends entirely on the nature of the incident. I'm not assuming that the child's actions were sexual in nature, and anything that reads "sexual" on the report, in any way would be completely unfounded. I just know that when I was 4 ten years ago, I attached certain stigmas to the body.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Occam I believe that in most cases of reported inappropriate behavior by children seven or younger, it's a case of the adult projecting his or her own ideas onto the child. ==== However, let's carry the argument to it's (ridiculous) conclusion. If small children have the intellectual skill and motivation to behave in a sexual manner with others including adults (albeit inappropriate when observed) then it would seem that they have the capability of making an independent decision to participate in sexual activities with an adult. And legal restrictions should only exist under the present rape laws. Consensual pedophiliac activities should be made legal. By now I would assume that many of you are steaming. However, go back and read more carefully. I'm not advocating this. I'm pointing out that the argument that a four year old is capable of knowingly behaving in a sexually inappropriate way is dumb and logically leads to stupid conclusions such as the above. Occam

While I agree that the child was not acting in a sexual manner, there is a flaw with your argument:

People understand the concept of sexuality long before they are mature enough to cope with it.

[macnpat]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Hey, aunty :) I was referring to a child's societally uninhibited nature. If, under this lack of impulse control, he is inclined to act a certain way, that is at least worth a note. I said before, though, that it depends entirely on the nature of the incident. I'm not assuming that the child's actions were sexual in nature, and anything that reads "sexual" on the report, in any way would be completely unfounded. I just know that when I was 4 ten years ago, I attached certain stigmas to the body.

Hey yerself Neph!!!

I think if anyone needs a mark on their record. The mark should be given to the day worker for assuming a four-year-old was thinking on the same level as an adult regardless of the 4 year olds actions.

[Kamehameha34]

I'm not assuming that the four year old was acting in a sexual nature, nor am I advocating a permanent or negative mark.

If the situation was fitting (Raspberry vs. Accident thing, here), the student should be documented as .. stigmatically challenged? :confused:

Just a way to systematically remove the possibility of it happening again, when he can be held accountable for unconsented sexual acts.

[macnpat]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'm not assuming that the four year old was acting in a sexual nature, nor am I advocating a permanent or negative mark. If the situation was fitting (Raspberry vs. Accident thing, here), the student should be documented as .. stigmatically challenged? :confused:

But, no situation is fitting when it is a four year old. Only the adult can be held responsible for a child's actions. Four years on this planet simply does not give a member of our species time to formulate behavior that is appropriate under any circumstances.

Just a way to systematically remove the possibility of it happening again, when he can be held accountable for unconsented sexual acts.

I have a better idea. Let's simply keep adults of that mentality away from children and the problem will resolve itself.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: macnpat But, no situation is fitting when it is a four year old. Only the adult can be held responsible for a child's actions. Four years on this planet simply does not give a member of our species time to formulate behavior that is appropriate under any circumstances.

Which is why a notation wouldn't necessarily be negative. It would just establish early behaviors.
Once again, it completely depends on what happened, no detail of which is enclosed in the article.

I have a better idea. Let's simply keep adults of that mentality away from children and the problem will resolve itself.

Where were you when I was on the thread advocating the decriminalization of pedophilia? :confused:

[kingmea]

He's a wee kiddy, give him a break. He's experiencing withdrawal from the breastfeeding.

[Kamehameha34]

I thought you were talking about me, for a second :confused:

[Hostile55]

Sounds like the school aid is retarded to me. What is she, sexually deprived. Probably a christian. All dried up, y'know. I mean a 4 year old for fxake.

[TheColdTruth]

Did the 4 year old give the aide a motorboat? If not, who cares?

[another day]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Which is why a notation wouldn't necessarily be negative. It would just establish early behaviors. Once again, it completely depends on what happened, no detail of which is enclosed in the article.

It might not be negative but it's pointless. It's not "establishing early behavior"...Its not like he went up to her and squeezed her tits and said "honk honk". It was an accident. That's not "behavior"

[Kamehameha34]

If he didn't do that, then no notation is necessary. If he did something along those lines (like a "motorboat", mentioned above), then it is.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Isherwood Does anyone else think that this whole "treat them like little adults" line of nonsense is getting seriously out-of-hand? What next? This is the kind of collective stupidity that threatens our liberties and way of life. Gay marriage is only a potential problem. This crap is happening in real life.

Yeah, that's the problem with systematic justice. It's like giving 167 death sentences to a killer. Or like giving a death sentence to a ninety-nine-year-old man for accidentally driving his car into a grocery store and killing shoppers. Or rewarding money to patient suing a doctor for malpractice because he made the patient feel bad.

A great example is rewarding money to burglar who was stuck in a family's house for a long time because he was locked in their garage while they were on vacation because he experienced "emotional damage."

It's ridiculous, and in my opinion, systematic justice is the antithesis of real justice.

[another day]

Quote by: Epistemologist A great example is rewarding money to burglar who was stuck in a family's house for a long time because he was locked in their garage while they were on vacation because he experienced "emotional damage."

Do you have a source for that? I have heard many versions of that kind of story, including burglars falling through skylights and sueing for injuries, burglars sueing for hernias when they climb fences to get away from owners chasing them etc. It turns out they are urban myths, so I am assuming that one is too.

infact a quick snopes search proves that yes it is a fabricated myth...always take such unbelievable stories with a grain of salt - the legal system is not THAT ridiculous.

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Stella Awards