Moderator: Community Team
Nobunaga wrote:... High school boys are sent home from school (in America) for wearing U.S. flag T-shirts and refusing to turn them inside out on the 5th of May.
Woodruff wrote:Nobunaga wrote:... High school boys are sent home from school (in America) for wearing U.S. flag T-shirts and refusing to turn them inside out on the 5th of May.
It annoys the hell out of me personally that those high school boys are wearing U.S. flag T-shirts anyway. Pisses me off when depictions of the flag are worn as clothing...it's not respectful in any way. But that's a different issue...
However, that being as it may...the boys were frankly TRYING to instigate trouble. Say what you want, but why else would they be wearing the t-shirts and bandanas on THIS PARTICULAR DAY when, per stated reports by other students, they didn't typically wear those shirts and bandanas? In my view, attempting to incite violence at school is worthy of being sent home.
Now, if it could be shown that these boys did typically wear these shirts and bandanas (by say...wearing them maybe a couple of times per month or so), then no they shouldn't be sent home because the situation is then a significantly different one.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:You're tiptoeing around the issue Woody. Whether you personally disagree with their clothing is a whole different issue. Whether they were "trying to incite violence" is not relevant. Some girls here wear clothing that could be seen as "trying to incite sexual assault"... I guess they should be forced to cover up?
Essentially they are being forced to honor a Mexican holiday, in America, by forceful repression of their disagreement. Shit like this needs to be nipped in the bud.
Woodruff wrote:I didn't tiptoe around a damn thing...did you even read my post? Go read it, please.
Woodruff wrote:I don't like when people wear the flag, even though they are allowed to. But that's not relevant...
I KNOW the boys were trying to cause trouble, even though the article says they wore American flags on another day. But I just know they wanted violence, instead of just to express their views in a legal "fashion". I just know.
I didn't read the whole article so I missed the last sentence. But these boys are guilty before proven innocent, even though they didn't break any rules. If they had done this before then it changes the WHOLE THING and makes it perfectly okay.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:I didn't tiptoe around a damn thing...did you even read my post? Go read it, please.
I did, and it went something like this:Woodruff wrote:I don't like when people wear the flag, even though they are allowed to. But that's not relevant...
I KNOW the boys were trying to cause trouble, even though the article says they wore American flags on another day. But I just know they wanted violence, instead of just to express their views in a legal "fashion". I just know.
I didn't read the whole article so I missed the last sentence. But these boys are guilty before proven innocent, even though they didn't break any rules. If they had done this before then it changes the WHOLE THING and makes it perfectly okay.
Is this how you discipline your own students Woody?
bedub1 wrote:If Mexican students wore Mexican flags on the Fourth of July, would they get sent home? No, because the 4th of July is a holiday here in the US. Whats my point? I have none. Do they have a Fourth of July in the UK? Yes, but they don't celebrate it.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:You didn't answer my last question Woody, which is what I'm really concerned about. I don't care if some random disagrees with me on the Internet, but if that random actually has the power to do these kinds of things himself... then I have a problem.
And why not point out significant differences between your post and the words I put in your mouth? I maintain that there are none.
You need to realize that there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between expressing your views and inciting violence.
bedub1 wrote:If Mexican students wore Mexican flags on the Fourth of July, would they get sent home? No, because the 4th of July is a holiday here in the US. Whats my point? I have none. Do they have a Fourth of July in the UK? Yes, but they don't celebrate it.
jonesthecurl wrote:bedub1 wrote:If Mexican students wore Mexican flags on the Fourth of July, would they get sent home? No, because the 4th of July is a holiday here in the US. Whats my point? I have none. Do they have a Fourth of July in the UK? Yes, but they don't celebrate it.
The Uk goes straight from the 3rd to the 5th July.
Woodruff wrote:You haven't made a point that is worthy of my responding to. When you want to have an honest discussion, then try again. Until then, you aren't worth the time.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:You haven't made a point that is worthy of my responding to. When you want to have an honest discussion, then try again. Until then, you aren't worth the time.
I see... not only do your whims dictate what is and isn't okay for students to wear, but they also dictate what arguments are and are not valid.
john9blue wrote:Maybe when I grow up I'll know everything there is to know in the world, like you.
john9blue wrote:Here's a question then: where do you draw the line between "inciting violence" and "expressing your views"? And whose fault is it in both cases if violence does occur?
Woodruff wrote:In the situation of a high school, the school doesn't have much choice at all but to fall under the realm of student safety. That is a fact.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
PLAYER57832 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Obama administration defies congressional subpoena on Fort Hood documentsAfter days of negotiations, the Pentagon and Justice Department informed a Senate committee that they would not comply with congressional subpoenas to share investigative records from the Nov. 5 shootings
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042703170.html
What are they trying to hide this time? No one truly believes this is a matter of national security, unless that is defined as security for corrupt national officials.
When it comes to the military, there is little that isn't national security-related.
You seem to be operating on the assumption that this guy is somehow going to get off or be shown innocent. What the government is doing is working on the entire system. That IS military business. Assessing the psycology of soldiers has absolute security import. This guy is not going to get away, but the military should reassess its psycologic evaluations and such as a result and do it without having to explain and justify it to the rest of us.
john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:In the situation of a high school, the school doesn't have much choice at all but to fall under the realm of student safety. That is a fact.
Don't you realize how flimsy this argument is?
john9blue wrote:You could ban forks and knives at lunchtime. You could ban Christian kids from wearing crosses and Muslim kids from wearing turbans. You could ban scissors. In LA, you could ban clothing that was primarily red or blue.
john9blue wrote:If the students are so unstable as to start violence over something like this (and afaik they never even HAVE, so your argument has no basis in fact) then the problems with the school run much deeper than this.
john9blue wrote:Finally, if the kids conspired to do this beforehand, don't you think they knew exactly what they were getting into?
john9blue wrote:Your argument fails once again on several levels. You can go ahead and claim like you always do that my arguments this time "aren't worthy" of you, or that I "didn't read" something, or that I "lack comprehension", because I don't think someone like you is ever going to be convinced that they're wrong. You are exactly like my parents.
Phatscotty wrote:What is the correct way to find out of a person is a legal resident?
Phatscotty wrote:What is the correct way to find out of a person is a legal resident?
muy_thaiguy wrote:Phatscotty wrote:What is the correct way to find out of a person is a legal resident?
Throw them in the water. If they sink, they are legal. If they do not sink, they are illegal.
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:What is the correct way to find out of a person is a legal resident?
In my personal view...if someone is involved in a crime, a cursory background check is done (looking for prior arrests, etc...)...this is the appropriate time to check residency, as well (I would hope this is already done at this point, but who knows). As well, if someone "blows the whistle" on an employer for hiring illegal immigrants, then when that business is confronted, that is also an appropriate time to check residency. Basically, when there is some reason to do so outside of "whim".
john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:In the situation of a high school, the school doesn't have much choice at all but to fall under the realm of student safety. That is a fact.
Don't you realize how flimsy this argument is? You could ban forks and knives at lunchtime. You could ban Christian kids from wearing crosses and Muslim kids from wearing turbans. You could ban scissors. In LA, you could ban clothing that was primarily red or blue.
john9blue wrote:If the students are so unstable as to start violence over something like this (and afaik they never even HAVE, so your argument has no basis in fact) then the problems with the school run much deeper than this.
Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:What is the correct way to find out of a person is a legal resident?
In my personal view...if someone is involved in a crime, a cursory background check is done (looking for prior arrests, etc...)...this is the appropriate time to check residency, as well (I would hope this is already done at this point, but who knows). As well, if someone "blows the whistle" on an employer for hiring illegal immigrants, then when that business is confronted, that is also an appropriate time to check residency. Basically, when there is some reason to do so outside of "whim".
Sounds good to me. May I ask where your opinion differs with Arizona law?
Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee