I know that this school is abusive, ive been there.I have seen other students who have been told to hurt other students who do not obey. A staff member who worked there molseted a fifteen year old boy. So you tell me is tough abusive or unsafe because of gay horny old men running a boys school.
QUOTE
Atomic, you make so much sense until you pull one of these astounding generalizations. I attended a program (state-run), I had a kid attend one (private), and I've worked at several. I think I have some experience here, but I never claim to know one absolute thing about programs in general. You've never even seen one, so how can you make such claims?
The program I attended was really tough, physically and mentally, but it was fair all the way, and no matter how much we squawked (and we did, feeling quite free to express our thoughts and feelings) no one could really call it inhumane.
So even one program out there that doesn't fit your generalization weakens all your other reasoning. Please! Get more information!!!!! You are too intelligent a person to swallow the whole ball of BS without more scrutiny!
"
[/quote]
Okay, you were sent to a state run program..........then you sent your kid to a private program..........then you worked at several, but can't claim to know one absolute thing about programs in general?
What are you a fucking moron?!!!!!
Just playing, but seriously what did you do... work in the cafeteria? No, no, no....you'd learn something about the nutrition atleast, or lack there of?!!!
Ummm........you got me! What did you do why you worked at these places? Did you work at these facilities before or after the placement of your child?"
[/quote]
The point is that I know about the programs in my experience; unlike you, I don't surmise things about the ones of which I have no experience. I know enough to know there are vast differences, even among those ostensibly run by the same people.
For example, in all the programs I've experienced in one way or another, I have seen very few people--or policies, for that matter--that could be considered abusive by any stretch. Yet I would never assume that because of that, all programs are safe and healthy places.
I'm suggesting that using generalizations can set back any attempts to address authentic concerns; a generalization such as the one Atomic used makes it impossible for anyone who has a different experience to really believe the remainder of that person's assertions. It creates a wrong premise.
I'm not nit-picking here, or playing word games. I care about the truth, which, in my experience, is that some programs are doing great work, and others need to improve or go away."
[/quote]
Everything you have to say is as generalized, vague and anonymous as yourself.
Glittering generalizations, power words and other newspeak dont cut it.
Also, reversing the burden of proof... dosent work either, well, it doesnt if anyone who knows better is around to call you on it.
WHAT program(s) is in question, WHAT are the methods used, and WHAT is the definition of abusive YOU go by? You have answered no specifics, youre simply talking about unknowns.
The budren of proof is upon the programs to show their not abusive, ARE effective, ARE helpful, and a good, safe environment for the children in them.
Furthermore, the old, tired, canned arguement of "its not abusive, its tough" and other such nonsense is getting on my nerves and Im sure the nerves of everyone else. WHY is it that whenever someone talks of abuse, someone goes "its not abusive, its just tough".
Oh, and when you draw upon the mentalities of many, tough/suffering/hardship = character building = good, so it cant be bad, can it? :roll:
Start talking about actual, specific things, and realize where the burden of proof rests, get a name to identify yourself, or go away.
The most fundamental purpose of government is defense, not empire.
--Joseph Sobran
"
[/quote]"
[/quote]
