12 year old girl arrested, charged after pinching boy's butt in school.

Schools these days....

Your "equality" at work. Isn't it wonderful?

The fact that the left wing used to be liberal doesn't mean they are or will continue being liberals. Far leftists nowadays are as authoritarian as it could get. In fact I'm surprised they haven't had someone murdered yet for having a different opinion. I guess that they haven't felt like crossing that line yet, and for now they are content with just getting anyone who disagrees with them fired.

This isn't even closely related to the things I believe and defend. Quit grasping at straws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXgxyqo2_mc

Dell Boy Slapping a lass on the ass and saying. Fancy a curry.

I know it's not related to the things you believe, because this actually is equality, as degenerate as its consequences may be. lol

Then why were you putting it in quotation marks earlier?

Dude at least try to be consistent for more than two posts straight.

Sounds like overkill

Honestly these stories aren't shocking anymore. Everyone knows zero tolerance is a load of horse crap.

Is this a joke?.. what kind of law is this?

That is how reality works.

You create a monster and then you lose control of it.

Savage

What's next arresting babies for crying in public???

American police are out of control. You want to help kids how about looking for all the missing kids first???

Really? I remember when I was 14 (in the early 2000s), two girls slapped my butt. I was heavily traumatized (sarcasm).

I feel bad for the girl who's been arrested.

This is nothing for a boy to complain about at all.

I feel like I'm missing something. Did you make him butthurt in another thread or something?

Mother is a douche.

You gotta find me to sue meeeeeee ;o

My fucking country sucks sometimes. We scream about being free and this shit happens?

Yeah right.

Schools are liberal. SJW's are liberal. Microaggressions are liberal. This is liberal.

Hey bud - next time you're sexually assaulted by an ugly chick, you'll be thankful for the precedence.

I seriously doubt that this really has anything to do with the police. The article states that the boy's mother is insisting on pressing charges, and it's almost certain that the boy's mother is also the reason for the arrest. The article is quite vague on the details, but it seems really likely that the boy mentioned to his mother what happened, his mother flipped out and went to the police, and that's what led to the arrest. I VERY seriously doubt that the police saw or heard of a butt-pinching incident and just decided to take it on themselves to arrest a little girl.

@KHAndAnime: but I'm not 12 and then that means ugly men will have the same boundaries.

You are obsessed with liberals and leftists and sjw and black lives matter. Everything is becoming a liberal conspiracy to you. Chill out before you end up in an asylum muttering about liberals.

*shrug

To address the true nature of the current liberal paradigm:

Liberty and equality in terms of "opportunity", have become to liberty and equality in terms of "outcome".

Liberty means you should be free to do something. We can all agree here. I'm socially liberal, so it only makes sense. Conservative ideology does not disagree with this basic stance either aside from the Religious Right and their book of fables that everyone should abide by. I do disagree, however that everyone is entitle to "equality" in terms of outcome. Example:

If person A exercises liberty and makes a choice and the outcome is bad for them, then they should live with those results.

If person B exercises liberty, and makes a choice with an outcome that is beneficial to them, they should live with those results.

By entitling everyone to "equal outcome" you would have to make both Person A and Person B's outcomes equivalent thereby depriving both persons from having any incentive to consciously make any decisions that are good for themselves or anyone else.

-

Now to address "zero tolerance": This is once again a liberal philosophy that is evident in regards to the "regressive liberal" paradigm. This is where "tolerance" is literally enforced (through intolerance) to a point at which if someone feels offended by something as trivial as "microaggressions", we now have on "offender" who has literally done nothing but allowed someone to take offence.

No one is being "intolerant" by denying your ability to feel emotions based on information being presented and your ability to express your opposing viewpoint. This under no circumstance justifies that when you simply feel an emotion because of what someone said, that person is by nature an "offender". There's nothing "tolerant" about that.

Offense is something that is taken and cannot be given unless by means of physical force. I can say something that some may agree with, while others have "taken" offense to it rather than exercising "tolerance". While I'm found to be "intolerant" by not making statements to which everyone can agree, the burden of "tolerance" never falls unto those who disagree and simply "feel" offended.

It's a liberal idea to ban "hate speech". Again, what even constitutes "hate speech" is subjective, because hate is an emotion therefor completely subjective.

For example: If I disagree with certain aspects of a specific culture or religion and express my opinion in regards to that culture, I'm not saying that I hate anything. I'm expressing my opinion, yet if one person subjectively interprets this as "hate speech" through disagreement, then I am banned from expressing my opinion. Again, this is the double standard to which the burden of "tolerance" denies this person the ability to express their opinion by enforcing "intolerance" to speech of which they have subjectively labelled.

I'm also wondering, to what extent, a hate speech ban would be applied? What would the punishment be? Would police be willing to shoot you for it if you continued to do so while you were detained? Would I post something on the internet and get a court summons in the mail? The idea of banning speech based on how it is interpreted is absurd, and would ultimately create a society that would discourage anyone from interacting with any other human. The fact that liberals embrace this idea only further illustrates how out of touch they are with reality and fail to ever entertain any idea through to its ultimate social consequence.

Whenever you suppress anyone from being able to express and opinion, you're being "intolerant". This is a liberal idea that is not embraced by conservatives.

Institutional intolerance, as it pertains to the topic, is something widely embraced by liberals, not conservatives. This case is one in which a liberal idea regarding what constitutes "sexual harassment" has been seen to its ultimate end to which they now want to discredit as being their own creation.

just go with Cun... Ahm, Srry ... Kant:

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative}

According to Kant, human beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in an imperative, or ultimate commandment of reason, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition declaring a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary.

Hypothetical imperatives apply to someone who wishes to attain certain ends. For example:

• if I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something;
• if I wish to acquire knowledge, I must learn.

A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.^[1]

Kantian ethics is a paradox that only works with "hypothetical human beings". When "actual human beings" are introduced it creates an anarchist society.

American liberals have become authoritative because their vision of a perfect moral society denies human nature and the necessity for moral incentives. By privilege in this example, I mean "having something that someone else doesn't".

• You can't "grant" someone privilege as a "right" without devaluing the worth of the privilege to someone who may have earned it.
• When privilege becomes a "right" and is devalued a new privilege is required to provide moral incentive which then becomes a "right".
• This creates an endless cycle of "equality" only being fully realized when everything's value is reduced to zero.
• For lack of incentive to produce or acquire something that has no value, you now require authoritative incentive for society to function.
• You now have an authoritarian society in which no one has any liberties. Everyone citizen is considered equal but has no civil liberty.

@Johnny-n-Roger:

you simply cant and will not dismiss the categorical imperative by a few thorughn in arguments about elites and previlegs

the concept of being against 'equal outcome' is only rooted in jealenousness, because your concept of being stronger only means the act of taking something that alreasy was owned by someone else ... so your justification for stealing is, because I stole it, it belongs to me because I was stronger, but in reality you only betrayed someone about what he already owned , what he achieved for himself to maximize your own profit showing clearly you are the weaker one in this constelation ... and you dont create anything you only destroy the thing that already existed and belonged to someone else

thats why capitalistic societys, fascistic societys, militaristic and opressive, socialistic societys, that seek to control the individual, are the weak societys ... made weak by the 5% on top wich are betraying the rest of the people ...

instead of showing your worth to the one that already achieved something to make him believe, sharing his achievments with you is worth it ... you steal it from them and think thats the proof you are superior ... thats the american way

I leave this here for you, its a game I spend a bit of time here and there when Images are Rendering, its one of these browser-rpg-casino games, the pocture here shows the results of an event that was taking place last few days, wich was simply about gaining points by spending cash on the game ... as you can see, the player on top has at least spend 900$ in these 4 days already ... and he will get nothing from it ... how do you call this, I find no words for this, and I really cant imagine the people who are producing these games or whats wrong with those who are spending the cash equal to a car or house into them ...

http://i.imgur.com/2psKAX3.jpg ^^

Alright, then disregard my arguments despite my attempt to pertain to the topic.

The major hole in the example you provide; how does one come to own something? Theft can only occur in a scenario in which an individual has made a claim to some material possession or idea.

hey dont confuse me ... if you find a gold nugget in the ground, or pick a berry from a plant ... its yours and you havnt stole it from another human being ... dont be so compleciated all the time ^^

What if I pick all the berries and gold nuggets and leave you with nothing?

Whatever happened to detention?

Yet you engage on every pertaining topic and/or argument. In fact, you introduced the term "liberal" into this topic and then resort to attacking my mental integrity for not simply agreeing with you.

The ideas on the left have gone from "everyone deserves civil equality" to being a belief system intent on eliminating conflict through force by depriving basic liberty to those who disagree. This is why the left deserves an "ism" and their followers are now "leftists".

"Everyone needs to be more tolerant so I don't have to tolerate any disagreement." By calling someone a "liberal" you might unintentional imply that this person believes in liberty.

I meant that a bit more light hearted than it may come across. I do think you blame all the worlds problems on leftists or whatever term you want to use a bit too much. Liberals do believe in liberty. Maybe not a hand full of nut jobs you may find searching the internet but by and large liberals are not the fascists you paint them as. Sorry if I caused offense.

This country lacks common sense.

Pinching private parts is technically sexual harassment/battery but considering they're prepubescent teens (therefore kids will do stupid things occasionally), throwing the book is too far. Suspension and/or at least have someone explain why touching another person without their permission is wrong.

Perhaps there is more to this story so who knows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_in_Luck

There's obvious intent through the actions of Democratic Progressives since the beginning of the 20th century having clear intent on creating an Authoritative Socialist nation. I'm not saying that liberals are fascists, I'm saying that they're already believing in such a thing as Democratic Socialism and are being mislead by individuals with ill intentions.

The problem is that the Republican Party is just as bad. They're all paid for by the same lobbyists. They just have to function as the guys that are against the left even though their actions never hold true.