Court okays banning American flag in schools

[Androidpk]

His desire to start a fire is not the problem? You sure about that?

So if someone is acting like a jackass and inciting violence then telling them to turn their shirt inside out makes them want to stop acting like a jackass and inciting violence?

Again, to live in Latrin World where things are so simple. "Hey Mister Killer, we see you have a weapon there so we're just gonna...yeah take it away then you'll never kill again. Problem solved!"

So if you saw a kid trying to set a fire you wouldn't take his lighter away? You are such a brilliant person.

[Tgo01]

So if you saw a kid trying to set a fire you wouldn't take his lighter away? You are such a brilliant person.

Did I say that? Please quote for me exactly where I said this.

I guess the question I should be asking you is if you saw a kid trying to start a fire would you just take his lighter away and then go about your business as if nothing happened?

[Tgo01]

Thread: Court okays banning American flag in schools

shut up you ignorant cunt face


You really should try to control these outbursts of tourette's, pk.

[Latrinsorm]

His desire to start a fire is not the problem? You sure about that?What does their desire do to me, my property, or anyone? Nothing. That which harms no one is not the problem compared to that which does.
So if someone is acting like a jackass and inciting violence then telling them to turn their shirt inside out makes them want to stop acting like a jackass and inciting violence?Can you even see when you do this? I mean really. Can you? I've expressly told you the desire is not the issue, and you deride my solution for not solving the problem I say doesn't exist. Amazing!
Again, to live in Latrin World where things are so simple. "Hey Mister Killer, we see you have a weapon there so we're just gonna...yeah take it away then you'll never kill again. Problem solved!"If I said "Derek removes his hat", would you interpret that to mean he would never wear a hat again? Why then do you assume "removes the problem of arson" means he will never commit arson again?

[Androidpk]

Did I say that? Please quote for me exactly where I said this.

I guess the question I should be asking you is if you saw a kid trying to start a fire would you just take his lighter away and then go about your business as if nothing happened?

Of course not, and that isn't what happened at the school either.

[Androidpk]

You really should try to control these outbursts of tourette's, pk.

That was not from me.

[Methais]

His desire is not the problem, Mr. Thought Police. The problem is when he burns things.

What if he rubs 2 sticks together and starts fires that way? Do we ban trees next?

[Latrinsorm]

What if he rubs 2 sticks together and starts fires that way? Do we ban trees next?Those deciduous sons of bitches... are going down.

[Tgo01]

What does their desire do to me, my property, or anyone? Nothing. That which harms no one is not the problem compared to that which does.

You're making zero sense now Latrin. So an arsonist with matches is dangerous but an arsonist with no matches currently on him isn't dangerous? Isn't this part of the reason we have jails and rehabilitation, to separate those who want to do others harm from the people who don't cause trouble?


Can you even see when you do this? I mean really. Can you? I've expressly told you the desire is not the issue, and you deride my solution for not solving the problem I say doesn't exist. Amazing!

So what is your point then?

Student is acting like a jackass and inciting violence.
They are wearing a shirt.

How do you proceed from here? Go!


If I said "Derek removes his hat", would you interpret that to mean he would never wear a hat again? Why then do you assume "removes the problem of arson" means he will never commit arson again?

That's like exactly my point Latrin, I'm glad you're finally coming around.

Supposedly these students were inciting violence with their actions so how does telling them to remove their shirt remove the problem of them inciting violence with their actions?

[Tgo01]

Of course not, and that isn't what happened at the school either.

Wait, I thought in this analogy the matches were the shirt, the arson was the inciting violence and the arsonist was the student. Latrin said we take the matches (shirt) away from the arsonist (student) and it solves the problem of arson (inciting violence.)

I'm sorry if I somehow cut you off before you were finished Latrin, was there a followup to your analogy there? Do we take the matches away and do more?

[Tenlaar]

His desire to start a fire is not the problem? You sure about that?

So if someone is acting like a jackass and inciting violence then telling them to turn their shirt inside out makes them want to stop acting like a jackass and inciting violence?

Again, to live in Latrin World where things are so simple. "Hey Mister Killer, we see you have a weapon there so we're just gonna...yeah take it away then you'll never kill again. Problem solved!"

In order:
Wanting to do something illegal is not the same as doing something illegal.
It was a pre-emotive measure due to similair actions the previous year. They saw a repeat performance in the making and nipped it in the bud.
Stupid comparison is stupid.

[Androidpk]

Wait, I thought in this analogy the matches were the shirt, the arson was the inciting violence and the arsonist was the student. Latrin said we take the matches (shirt) away from the arsonist (student) and it solves the problem of arson (inciting violence.)

I'm sorry if I somehow cut you off before you were finished Latrin, was there a followup to your analogy there? Do we take the matches away and do more?

Do you think the students were to told to take off their shirts or turn them inside out without an explanation? Nope. Were they told to never wear flag apparel again? Nope. Is the act of taking off said apparel going to stop these kids from being jingoistic douchebags? Of course not, but it would, and did, prevent any altercations on that one particular day. It's almost incredulous that you can't grasp this simple concept of why they were told to remove their stuff. As I said before you are either an obvious troll, and a poor one at that, or you are just incredibly stupid. Jarvan level stupid. If someone were to take away your devices that connect to the internet would it stop you from being a dumbass? No. Would it stop you from using those tools to post stupid shit online? Yes.

[Tgo01]

In order:
Wanting to do something illegal is not the same as doing something illegal.
It was a pre-emotive measure due to similair actions the previous year. They saw a repeat performance in the making and nipped it in the bud.
Stupid comparison is stupid.

I'm not the one who made the comparison.


Do you think the students were to told to take off their shirts or turn them inside out without an explanation?

I'm always forgetting that you were there that day, were they?


Were they told to never wear flag apparel again? Nope.

Again since you were there that day, were they told never to wear flag apparel again on Cinco de Mayo?


It's almost incredulous that you can't grasp this simple concept of why they were told to remove their stuff.

I think the incredible thing about this is you can't grasp the simple concept that I understand perfectly the reason the school gave, what I'm saying is I think the school is full of shit and was in the wrong. Even the ACLU agrees with my position on this. But I'm sure you not only know more than everyone on this forum but you also know more than the ACLU so why am I bothering?


As I said before you are either an obvious troll, and a poor one at that, or you are just incredibly stupid. Jarvan level stupid. If someone were to take away your devices that connect to the internet would it stop you from being a dumbass? No. Would it stop you from using those tools to post stupid shit online? Yes.

You really should learn to get this anger of yours under control pk, it can't be good for you.

[Androidpk]

I'm not even mad, I'm just pointing out the obvious.

[Tgo01]

I'm not even mad, I'm just pointing out the obvious.

You have insulted me no less than a dozen times on this thread alone for really no reason whatsoever.

You apparently have a problem with me because you think I'm a racist, misogynistic, far right wing religious nut job. I wonder if people like you realize what a disservice you do for the causes you supposedly support by jumping to blatant false conclusions such as these at a drop of a hat.

I think it's pretty obvious you're mad and I hope you can overcome this anger and lead a normal life again one day.

[Androidpk]

You don't have to be mad or angry to call a spade a spade.

[~Rocktar~]

You don't have to be mad or angry to call a spade a spade.

Racist

[Tisket]

Important note: High school students don't actually have the right to free speech.

And I believe that is wrong and unconstitutional and should be protested at every instance. Let's face it, supressing kid's free speech might be easier on educators but is it really right?

Also, lol @ androidpk claiming he isn't mad. Almost every post he's made has him foaming and raging and calling names.

[Androidpk]

And I believe that is wrong and unconstitutional and should be protested at every instance.

Also, lol @ androidpk claiming he isn't mad. Almost every post he's made has him foaming and raging and calling names.

I can assure you that isn't the case. I do swear a lot though, and tend to call tigo an idiot a lot, but I'm not angry/enraged/furious/mad/upset. I only get that way when you call me unoriginal!

[Tisket]

I can assure you that isn't the case. I do swear a lot though, and tend to call tigo an idiot a lot, but I'm not angry/enraged/furious/mad/upset.

Right.

[Tisket]

All I see is Tg making a strong point and then you coming in and responding with name calling and dismissive comments but no real rebuttal.

[Latrinsorm]

You're making zero sense now Latrin. So an arsonist with matches is dangerous but an arsonist with no matches currently on him isn't dangerous? Isn't this part of the reason we have jails and rehabilitation, to separate those who want to do others harm from the people who don't cause trouble?A person without the means to consummate the desire to do harm cannot do harm. In practice we have a sliding scale: a man without a hammer CAN drive in nails but it is harder, a man without a gun CAN kill many people but it is harder, a student without a specific emblem CAN cause racial tension but it is harder, and so on.
So what is your point then?

Student is acting like a jackass and inciting violence.
They are wearing a shirt.

How do you proceed from here? Go!You describe an unrelated situation. In the actual situation at hand, I would proceed as the school has done.
Supposedly these students were inciting violence with their actions so how does telling them to remove their shirt remove the problem of them inciting violence with their actions?In the same way that a man swinging his arm is not what drives in the nail, but the fact that he had the relevant tool at the time. Take away the hammer and his actions will not be so productive.
You apparently have a problem with me because you think I'm a racist, misogynistic, far right wing religious nut job.You're way off base, Andy. Terry isn't religious at all.

[Tenlaar]

Also, lol @ androidpk claiming he isn't mad. Almost every post he's made has him foaming and raging and calling names.

You must be mad every time you post something, then. Don't like other people resorting to your patented "sandpaper is jealous of my personality" tactics?

[Latrinsorm]

And I believe that is wrong and unconstitutional and should be protested at every instance. Let's face it, supressing kid's free speech might be easier on educators but is it really right?When it provides a sufficient gain in safety, yes. These are the rules for everyone, not just students.

eta: "gain in" seems the wrong word in retrospect. Better phrasing: When it prevents a sufficient loss in safety.

[Tisket]

You must be mad every time you post something, then. Don't like other people resorting to your patented "sandpaper is jealous of my personality" tactics?

There are a few people here who I don't like and who I don't think contribute anything of worth to a conversation. You'd be one of those. Congratulations.

[Tisket]

When it provides a sufficient gain in safety, yes. These are the rules for everyone, not just students.

Different rules for different people doesn't seem like something you'd support.

[Androidpk]

All I see is Tg making a strong point and then you coming in and responding with name calling and dismissive comments but no real rebuttal.

Strong point is highly subjective, especially since all of his concerns have been addressed and yet he continues to act stupified. And as for my no real rebuttal.. I've posted facts surrounding this case, not opinion. The courts have ruled that the school, in pre-empting a potentially volatile situation, did not violate the students rights.

[Tisket]

Strong point is highly subjective, especially since all of his concerns have been addressed and yet he continues to act stupified. And as for my no real rebuttal.. I've posted facts surrounding this case, not opinion. The courts have ruled that the school, in pre-empting a potentially volatile situation, did not violate the students rights.

Sure.

[Latrinsorm]

Different rules for different people doesn't seem like something you'd support.It's not, though. I support the curtailing of all freedoms of all citizens whenever failing to do so would create unreasonably high levels of danger. The state law I cited isn't student specific, it says NO ONE is allowed to use their speech to start a riot.

[Androidpk]

Sure.

Is that the jist of your rebuttal?

[Tisket]

Is that the jist of your rebuttal?

That's my textual equivalent of an eye roll.

[Tisket]

It's not, though. I support the curtailing of all freedoms of all citizens whenever failing to do so would create unreasonably high levels of danger. The state law I cited isn't student specific, it says NO ONE is allowed to use their speech to start a riot.

It was a shirt, not a firebomb. Take a deep breath.

[Androidpk]

It was a shirt, not a firebomb. Take a deep breath.

Your poor rebuttal aside.. in 2009 it was the waving of a flag that instigated a potentially violent situation, and yet a flag isn't a firebomb either.

[Tisket]

Your poor rebuttal aside.. in 2009 it was the waving of a flag that instigated a potentially violent situation, and yet a flag isn't a firebomb either.

So no actual flags should be allowed anywhere? Where does the madness stop?

[Methais]

It's not, though. I support the curtailing of all freedoms of all citizens whenever failing to do so would create unreasonably high levels of danger. The state law I cited isn't student specific, it says NO ONE is allowed to use their speech to start a riot.

What's your opinion on banning women from driving?

#waronwomen

[Androidpk]

So no actual flags should be allowed anywhere? Where does the madness stop?

Uhh, no. No one is saying that. You do understand what context means, right? The school did not ban flags or apparel with flags on it. It was for that one particular day, given the events of the previous year and the racial tension. These kids with the flag were using it to instigate and nothing more. You want to wear the American flag or hang one up? Go right ahead. You want to do that just to start trouble, in a bigoted manner? Then fuck you, stay home from school if you can't act respectful towards your fellow students.

[Warriorbird]

And I believe that is wrong and unconstitutional and should be protested at every instance. Let's face it, supressing kid's free speech might be easier on educators but is it really right?

Also, lol @ androidpk claiming he isn't mad. Almost every post he's made has him foaming and raging and calling names.

I didn't say I agreed with it. I absolutely detest my school's administration trolling Twitter to find students to suspend.

It's what the Supreme Court feels though. Schools go by what the courts have outlined. It's less the schools you should be protesting and more the court if you disagree with it.

I'm discouraged from most public protest though or statements of opinion on policy. I'm not from a union state. Without a union we have no ability to disagree at all.

[Tenlaar]

There are a few people here who I don't like and who I don't think contribute anything of worth to a conversation. You'd be one of those. Congratulations.

And you called Tg stupid...jesus.

God you are stupid.

your opinion on the matter means shit all.

Stop being a simpleton and start thinking for yourself.

Webster's should use your picture under "moron", Tisket

Maybe you should focus on being less of an angry twat before you worry so much about what other people contribute to a conversation.

[Tisket]

Uhh, no. No one is saying that. You do understand what context means, right? The school did not ban flags or apparel with flags on it. It was for that one particular day, given the events of the previous year and the racial tension. These kids with the flag were using it to instigate and nothing more. You want to wear the American flag or hang one up? Go right ahead. You want to do that just to start trouble, in a bigoted manner? Then fuck you, stay home from school if you can't act respectful towards your fellow students.

And you know their motivations because you interviewed them, I forgot. I also forgot you were a firsthand witness to the incident.

Also, as despicable as I find bigotry to be, it is protected speech. If someone reacts to it with violent intent, that's on them, not the speaker.

[Androidpk]

WB, what do you mean trolling twitter to support students?

[Tisket]

Maybe you should focus on being less of an angry twat before you worry so much about what other people contribute to a conversation.

Aww, I have a stalker. How cute.

[Tisket]

WB, what do you mean trolling twitter to support students?

You know that kids have been expelled for things they've said on Twitter? How do you feel about that?

edit: oops didn't see WB's post

[Warriorbird]

WB, what do you mean trolling twitter to support students?

Phone based error. I corrected it to find students to suspend. I've had a bunch of kids suspended for Twitter postings, also something that happens due to the same Supreme Court case.

[Androidpk]

And you know their motivations because you interviewed them, I forgot. I also forgot you were a firsthand witness to the incident.

Also, as despicable as I find bigotry to be, it is protected speech. If someone reacts to it with violent intent, that's on them, not the speaker.


1. No, I was not there, but I have been reading all the new stories surrounding this.

2. Bigotry speech is not protected speech in a school and the courts have ruled on this. Not to mention how asinine it would be to allow students to act in that manner. All it does is create a hostile environment and set an incredibly bad precedent. But hey, freedom of speech right!??

[Androidpk]

You know that kids have been expelled for things they've said on Twitter? How do you feel about that?

edit: oops didn't see WB's post

Vaguely, though I can't recall specifics. I don't support a school trying to punish a student for something that he or she does outside of the school setting.

[Tisket]

But hey, freedom of speech right!??

Exactly.

[Androidpk]

Phone based error. I corrected it to find students to suspend. I've had a bunch of kids suspended for Twitter postings, also something that happens due to the same Supreme Court case.

What were they posting that allowed the school to suspend them?

[Tgo01]

A person without the means to consummate the desire to do harm cannot do harm. In practice we have a sliding scale: a man without a hammer CAN drive in nails but it is harder, a man without a gun CAN kill many people but it is harder, a student without a specific emblem CAN cause racial tension but it is harder, and so on.

The problem here is automatically assuming the American flag is causing racial tension. As I've said before (and apparently the ACLU said basically the same thing and I didn't even know that, maybe I should get a job with them) if a shirt with the American flag on it is causing racial tensions then the school has obviously failed at fostering a safe and diverse learning experience for the students. The fact that people are taking the school's side without realizing how the school has actually failed the students is the real crime here. Like I said earlier I went to school with over 100 different diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, my high school had around 3000 students. NO RACIAL STRIFE AT ALL. How did my school manage this but at this school a shirt causes racial strife?


You describe an unrelated situation. In the actual situation at hand, I would proceed as the school has done.

No actually that's exactly what happened.


Strong point is highly subjective, especially since all of his concerns have been addressed and yet he continues to act stupified.

Dude, seriously. Have you never had a conversation with someone with an opposing viewpoint? Am I your first? Is that why you're acting all awkward and angry around me because you're unsure of what to do?

My concerns have been "addressed"? By whom? You? Archigeek? Why is it your opinions are solid gold and once you done told me then my "concerns" no longer matter?


And as for my no real rebuttal.. I've posted facts surrounding this case, not opinion.

So have I. But I can understand you wouldn't be able to recognize that seeing as how you have spent more time screaming and name calling rather than engaging in conversation.


The courts have ruled that the school, in pre-empting a potentially volatile situation, did not violate the students rights.

So? The courts have ruled people have the right to bear arms yet it's still a daily debate; same goes for abortion, cursing on TV, prayer in school and a myriad other hot button topics.

[Tgo01]

Your poor rebuttal aside.. in 2009 it was the waving of a flag that instigated a potentially violent situation, and yet a flag isn't a firebomb either.

This another "fact" you pulled out of your ass? You sure it wasn't the kids shouting "USA!" that was causing the volatile situation?

[Tgo01]

It was for that one particular day, given the events of the previous year and the racial tension.

So you're saying people's rights shouldn't be defended 365 days a year? Just certain days?


Maybe you should focus on being less of an angry twat before you worry so much about what other people contribute to a conversation.

At least half those quotes were in response to pk acting like a jackass. Maybe if pk doesn't want to get called out for acting like a jackass he shouldn't act like a jackass.

[Androidpk]

You seem awfully concerned about me calling you an idiot. What do you have against my freedom of speech?

[Androidpk]

So you're saying people's rights shouldn't be defended 365 days a year? Just certain days?



At least half those quotes were in response to pk acting like a jackass. Maybe if pk doesn't want to get called out for acting like a jackass he shouldn't act like a jackass.

Uh oh, you're calling me names. Stop being so angry!

[Tgo01]

You seem awfully concerned about me calling you an idiot. What do you have against my freedom of speech?

I get that you're trying to make some sort of point but when did I try to stifle your freedom of speech?

I also like how previously you claimed to be rebutting my arguments with "facts" and yet this is all you come back with in regards to my latest posts.


Uh oh, you're calling me names. Stop being so angry!

Uh-oh, pk has entered the Tu quoque fallacy zone.

[Latrinsorm]

It was a shirt, not a firebomb. Take a deep breath.The reason speech has to be protected is because it's important. If it was meaningless, why bother? I am also against students having firebombs, for the record.
So no actual flags should be allowed anywhere? Where does the madness stop?Tools (speech or otherwise) should not be allowed those who are actively misusing them in a way that (regardless of their intent) endangers those around them. A police man can take your gun if you are fomenting a sufficiently dangerous situation with it, a princi-pal can cover/hide your shirt if you are doing the same. If you are not inciting a riot using a flag, you can keep it.
Also, as despicable as I find bigotry to be, it is protected speech. If someone reacts to it with violent intent, that's on them, not the speaker.This is not the law if a reasonable person could anticipate that reaction. There is (legally) such a thing as provocation, and the provocateur using speech does not nullify it.
What's your opinion on banning women from driving?Reasonably high level of danger. Legalize it.
I didn't say I agreed with it. I absolutely detest my school's administration trolling Twitter to find students to suspend.Hater. Legalize it.

[Wrathbringer]

:moon2:

[Androidpk]

I get that you're trying to make some sort of point but when did I try to stifle your freedom of speech?

I also like how previously you claimed to be rebutting my arguments with "facts" and yet this is all you come back with in regards to my latest posts.



Uh-oh, pk has entered the Tu quoque fallacy zone.

More like I'm using your shitty fallacy back at you.

[Latrinsorm]

The problem here is automatically assuming the American flag is causing racial tension. As I've said before (and apparently the ACLU said basically the same thing and I didn't even know that, maybe I should get a job with them) if a shirt with the American flag on it is causing racial tensions then the school has obviously failed at fostering a safe and diverse learning experience for the students. The fact that people are taking the school's side without realizing how the school has actually failed the students is the real crime here. Like I said earlier I went to school with over 100 different diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, my high school had around 3000 students. NO RACIAL STRIFE AT ALL. How did my school manage this but at this school a shirt causes racial strife?Supporting the school's decision is not the same as supporting all decisions and practices in the school's history. You are blinded by your us vs. them mentality. (Eh? :))
So you're saying people's rights shouldn't be defended 365 days a year? Just certain days?Peoples' rights were protected; specifically, the first and most important right. Life, then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness.

[Warriorbird]

What were they posting that allowed the school to suspend them?

One told the other that white people performed lower on standardized tests and he was an excellent illustration of it.
The other said that she should go back to China.

[Tisket]

The reason speech has to be protected is because it's important. If it was meaningless, why bother?

It's protected regardless of content.


I'm also against students having firebombs

Where is your sense of adventure?


Tools (speech or otherwise) should not be allowed those who are actively misusing them in a way that (regardless of their intent) endangers those around them. A police man can take your gun if you are fomenting a sufficiently dangerous situation with it, a princi-pal can cover/hide your shirt if you are doing the same. If you are not inciting a riot using a flag, you can keep it.This is not the law if a reasonable person could anticipate that reaction. There is (legally) such a thing as provocation, and the provocateur using speech does not nullify it.

There are already laws that cover things like, slander, libel, false testimony, conspiracy to commit criminal acts, treason, espionage, etc. We don't need to outlaw, ban, or otherwise regulate anything depicting the US flag as well. The idea is ludicrous to me.

[Tgo01]

More like I'm using your shitty fallacy back at you.

That's what I said. Learn Latin.

[Androidpk]

It's protected regardless of content.

SCOTUS rulings trump you opinion and we are a nation built on laws



There are already laws that cover things like, slander, libel, false testimony, conspiracy to commit criminal acts, treason, espionage, etc. We don't need to outlaw anything depicting the US flag as well. The idea is ludicrous to me.

If people were suggesting a law outlawing anything depicting the flag you would have a point, but no one is suggesting that.

[Wrathbringer]

One told the other that white people performed lower on standardized tests and he was an excellent illustration of it.
The other said that she should go back to China.

suspended for that, eh? Seems harsh.

edit: also, lol'd.

[Warriorbird]

suspended for that, eh? Seems harsh.

For 10 days each since it was linked to the school's name by hashtags. I thought it was ridiculous. I have no ability to publicly disagree because of a gloriously conservative lack of a union however. These were both some of my highest performing students.

[Wrathbringer]

For 10 days each since it was linked to the school's name by hashtags. I thought it was ridiculous. I have no ability to publicly disagree because of a gloriously conservative lack of a union however. These were both some of my highest performing students.

ah, a link to the school. I was wondering how they got away with that.

[Tisket]

If people were suggesting a law outlawing anything depicting the flag you would have a point, but no one is suggesting that.

You missed quoting my edit. I'm getting ready for work and posted rather rushed.

[Androidpk]

You missed quoting my edit. I'm getting ready for work and posted rather rushed.

You can't leave, there are people wrong on the internet! Call in sick!

[Tisket]

You can't leave, there are people wrong on the internet! Call in sick!

Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong but not worth wasting a PTO day over!

[Methais]

What were they posting that allowed the school to suspend them?

I'm gonna go with WB IS A BIG POOPIEHEAD! #WBPOOPIEHEAD

[Tgo01]

Supporting the school's decision is not the same as supporting all decisions and practices in the school's history. You are blinded by your us vs. them mentality. (Eh? :))Peoples' rights were protected; specifically, the first and most important right. Life, then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness.

What about the students' right to wear an American flag shirt, were their rights protected?

[Androidpk]

Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong but not worth wasting a PTO day over!

Hmmph. And I WAS going to give your Ripley persona a cigar.

[Latrinsorm]

It's protected regardless of content.But not regardless of plausible outcome.
There are already laws that cover things like, slander, libel, false testimony, conspiracy to commit criminal acts, treason, espionage, etc. We don't need to outlaw, ban, or otherwise regulate anything depicting the US flag as well. The idea is ludicrous to me.There are also already laws that cover incitement to violence. What specifically makes that law different than the other ones you list?
What about the students' right to wear an American flag shirt, were their rights protected?In any system of rights, two particular rights are eventually going to come into conflict. It is in the resolution of this conflict that the system is defined. Any dope can list out a bunch of things people ought to have, the hard part is when having one precludes having another. If you possess a certain sort of cynicism, you might take that opportunity to decry the system for not coming through on its promise of the other, knowing full well that the system never made such a categorical promise.
Hmmph. And I WAS going to give your Ripley persona a cigar.That's got to be the most arcane innuendo I've ever heard.

[Warriorbird]

I'm gonna go with WB IS A BIG POOPIEHEAD! #WBPOOPIEHEAD

That would've gotten them busted too. I'm usually well liked by students though. Some science and math teachers had fake twitter handles made and those kids got expelled.

[Tgo01]

In any system of rights, two particular rights are eventually going to come into conflict. It is in the resolution of this conflict that the system is defined. Any dope can list out a bunch of things people ought to have, the hard part is when having one precludes having another. If you possess a certain sort of cynicism, you might take that opportunity to decry the system for not coming through on its promise of the other, knowing full well that the system never made such a categorical promise.

In other words the school failed to ensure all student's right to free speech/free expression so they let things get out of control to the point where their only solution was to infringe on the rights of one group, right?

If the KKK wants to hold a rally they have that right, as long as they get the proper permits and whatnot, it is then up to the local/state/whoever government to ensure their safety. Sure, it's much easier to just say "Fuck you racist assholes," but is that the kind of society you want to live in Latrin?

Don't answer that last one, it's rhetorical. We all know you want to live in that kind of society :D

[Warriorbird]

In other words the school failed to ensure all student's right to free speech/free expression so they let things get out of control to the point where their only solution was to infringe on the rights of one group, right?

If the KKK wants to hold a rally they have that right, as long as they get the proper permits, it is then up to the local/state/whoever government to ensure their safety. Sure, it's much easier to just say "Fuck you racist assholes," but is that the kind of society you want to live in Latrin?

Don't answer that last one, it's rhetorical. We all know you want to live in that kind of society :D

Once again... students have none of those rights.

[Tgo01]

Once again... students have none of those rights.

Once again yes they do. I already posted this earlier and outlined the very specific cases in which students don't have the right to free speech/free expression. Schools are only allowed to act within those specific guidelines. If you missed the post earlier you can check back through the thread to find it.

[Androidpk]

>That's got to be the most arcane innuendo I've ever heard.

It's in regards to an ongoing rep horror story!

[Warriorbird]

Once again yes they do. I already posted this earlier and outlined the very specific cases in which students don't have the right to free speech/free expression. Schools are only allowed to act within those specific guidelines. If you missed the post earlier you can check back through the thread to find it.

Given that I'm actually involved with public schools I might know a few more things in this regard than you do. Carry on pretending though. You certainly have the right to protest that conservative court decision (and the others) but I know you won't. I don't have that right. Thanks non union state!

[Androidpk]

Given that I'm actually involved with public schools I might know a few more things in this regard than you do. Carry on pretending though.

But tgo went to a school with lots of diversity!

[Warriorbird]

But tgo went to a school with lots of diversity!

I'm sure that totally makes him more qualified than the Commonwealth's Attorney who gave us our courses and even the Supreme Court.

[Tgo01]

Given that I'm actually involved with public schools I might know a few more things in this regard than you do. Carry on pretending though.

Obviously teachers/schools break the law all the damn time, why else would we have so many supreme court and other court cases pertaining to the actions of teachers/schools?

In other words you'll forgive me if I don't believe you know everything in regards to the public school system just because you work for one. Know how I know you don't? Because you think students have no rights to freedom of speech or freedom of expression in school.

Can you imagine the type of bullshit that would lead to in this country if that were true? Got a bible thumping Christian for a principle? What would stop him from disallowing Muslim students from praying while on school grounds? Or an Atheist principle disallowing anyone to pray?

If you think that shit is legal then you are wrong.

[Tgo01]

I'm sure that totally makes him more qualified than the Commonwealth's Attorney who gave us our courses and even the Supreme Court.

Really? Your Commonwealth's attorney said students have no freedom of speech/expression while on school grounds? I know the Supreme Court didn't say that so I'm not even going to bother commenting on that.

You should totally publish this supposed letter on the internet and be sure to outline your school district. I'm sure the news would have a field day with that information.

[Warriorbird]

Really? Your Commonwealth's attorney said students have no freedom of speech/expression while on school grounds? I know the Supreme Court didn't say that so I'm not even going to bother commenting on that.

You should totally publish this supposed letter on the internet and be sure to outline your school district. I'm sure the news would have a field day with that information.

No, purpousefully idiotic guy. They don't have the right to speech and expression that disrupts the environment. This is far from the traditional "right to free speech."

[Tgo01]

No, purpousefully idiotic guy. They don't have the right to speech and expression that disrupts the environment.

No shit. If you had bothered to find the post I mentioned earlier I specifically mentioned that is one thing the school can censor.

Saying "Students don't have freedom of speech or freedom of expression" (which is what you said) is not the same as "Students have freedom of speech and freedom of expression with a few exceptions."

[Warriorbird]

No shit. If you had bothered to find the post I mentioned earlier I specifically mentioned that is one thing the school can censor.

Saying "Students don't have freedom of speech or freedom of expression" (which is what you said) is not the same as "Students have freedom of speech and freedom of expression with a few exceptions."

Semantics are really dumb. Either way, your argument is unfounded and a lot of hot air given that this expression disrupted the environment.

If you disagree with the Courts? Protest it. I don't have that right.

As for my actual beliefs? I think my students deserve free speech more than corporations do.

[Tgo01]

Semantics are really dumb.

Semantics? Semantics?!


Either way, your argument is unfounded and a lot of hot air given that this expression disrupted the environment.

No it didn't, the school said they nipped it in the bud before it got out of hand, which according to the courts is within their rights.

However they need proof or need a reason for thinking they are acting before things get out of hand. Saying well last year a bunch of morons started shouting "USA! USA! USA!" at Mexican students on Cinco de Mayo, and oh yeah, there was a flag around too, is not proof enough that students showing up to class wearing an American flag shirt is going to lead to the same sort of problem.

[Parkbandit]

I have no ability to publicly disagree because of a gloriously conservative lack of a union however.

Does a union give you your testicles back?

Man the fuck up.

[Methais]

That would've gotten them busted too. I'm usually well liked by students though. Some science and math teachers had fake twitter handles made and those kids got expelled.

Your students know you as Warriorbird?

Nice.

[Androidpk]

Your students know you as Warriorbird?

Nice.

Of course, that's his birth name.

http://www.nativetatanka.com/images/269_Small_Red_Hair_Arms_Crossed.jpg

[Methais]

Of course, that's his birth name.

http://www.nativetatanka.com/images/269_Small_Red_Hair_Arms_Crossed.jpg

But that's Tatanka, not WB. :(

[Latrinsorm]

In other words the school failed to ensure all student's right to free speech/free expression so they let things get out of control to the point where their only solution was to infringe on the rights of one group, right?Wrong. Obama failed to do so.
If the KKK wants to hold a rally they have that right, as long as they get the proper permits and whatnot, it is then up to the local/state/whoever government to ensure their safety. Sure, it's much easier to just say "Fuck you racist assholes," but is that the kind of society you want to live in Latrin?This is not the case. It is always up to the government to ensure peoples' safety, but this does not mean people can behave in any way and blame the government for no longer being safe. One specific case of this is inciting violence. You can say it's BS until you're blue in the face, it's still a Constitutionally valid practice.

[Parkbandit]

Of course, that's his birth name.

http://www.nativetatanka.com/images/269_Small_Red_Hair_Arms_Crossed.jpg

Whoa.. that's Tatanka... This is Warriorbird:

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/198/8/0/adventure_time__meet_warrior_bird_princess__by_nav aehluvsanime-d6dvtmt.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

But that's Tatanka, not WB. :(Longform birth certificates at twelve horts.
Whoa.. that's Tatanka... This is Warriorbird:WB probably wishes he had those locks.

[Androidpk]

But that's Tatanka, not WB. :(

He's a warrior with a bird on his crotch. Warriorbird.

[Wrathbringer]

It is always up to the government to ensure peoples' safety, but this does not mean people can choose not to own guns then blame the government for no longer being safe. One specific case of this is inciting violence. You can say it's BS until you're blue in the face, it's still a Constitutionally valid practice.

Fixed that for you. Anything to change the subject at this point. I am no longer entertained.

[Warriorbird]

Your students know you as Warriorbird?

Nice.


WB probably wishes he had those locks.

If only.

My hair isn't as awesome as either of the two suggestions either.

To the non Methais/PB people:

The handle is a reference to my character back when I still played GS. Much like Parkbandit's is a reference to his.

[Methais]

He's a warrior with a bird on his crotch. Warriorbird.

Why are you so focused on his crotch? And how do you know that he's a warrior? He could be a shaman for all you know.


If only.

My hair isn't as awesome as either of the two suggestions either.

To the non Methais/PB people:

The handle is a reference to my character back when I still played GS. Much like Parkbandit's is a reference to his.

PB's is self explanatory though...he pickpocketed people in the park.

We require more input on your reference.

MORE INPUT!

http://aws-cdn.dappered.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/So-MUCH-INFORMATION.gif

[Androidpk]

I wish I could read that fast.

[Warriorbird]

Why are you so focused on his crotch? And how do you know that he's a warrior? He could be a shaman for all you know.



PB's is self explanatory though...he pickpocketed people in the park.

We require more input on your reference.

MORE INPUT!

http://aws-cdn.dappered.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/So-MUCH-INFORMATION.gif

I played a Warrior (Jacinto) who's last name was Quetzal. Thus Warriorbird.

[Latrinsorm]

Fixed that for you. Anything to change the subject at this point. I am no longer entertained.People who choose not to own guns aren't no longer safe: due to not increasing their risk of suicide, they are more safe than if they hadn't. I also don't get what you're going for leaving the rest of the comment the same.

[Parkbandit]

PB's is self explanatory though...he pickpocketed people in the park.


It was my park. I had a "deed".

[Thondalar]

People who choose not to own guns aren't no longer safe: due to not increasing their risk of suicide, they are more safe than if they hadn't. I also don't get what you're going for leaving the rest of the comment the same.

I'll trade a higher chance of offing myself over a higher chance of getting offed by someone else any time.

[JackWhisper]

What was this "deed", PB?

[Parkbandit]

What was this "deed", PB?

Don't really remember.. it was an alter saying something along the lines that I thought I owned the park and this document is the proof.

[Latrinsorm]

I'll trade a higher chance of offing myself over a higher chance of getting offed by someone else any time.Illogical, Captain. Dead is dead.

[Androidpk]

Illogical, Captain. Dead is dead.

Death is the road to awe.

[Warriorbird]

Don't really remember.. it was an alter saying something along the lines that I thought I owned the park and this document is the proof.

A lot of document alters made for really entertaining RP. I got a Turmyzzrian patent of nobility for my human.

[Androidpk]

I would also note here that we're talking about speech.

Actions are actions...if you go old-skool lynching and string up a couple negros, that's pretty much a clear sign you have some serious issues. The rub is, at what point does speech get too far to that side of the equation.

"White power" and "black power" were simplistic, abbreviated examples for a theme...how many times have you heard the phrase "proud black man/woman"? I have quite often, recently in fact. Now let's flip that...say a white guy walked up to you and said "I'm a proud white man!" I already know what your assumption would be.

I was hoping to show your own prejudices by pointing them out, but apparently I have failed. I'll try one last time...

You don't like it when people make assumptions about women based on their appearance and/or speech, so what gives you the right to make assumptions about anyone else's appearance and/or speech? Why is that right exclusively reserved to you? What makes you so special that you're allowed to assume intent when nobody else can?

Related.

http://i.imgur.com/qEKdbLc.png

[Thondalar]

Related.

http://i.imgur.com/qEKdbLc.png

Exactly.

[Thondalar]

Illogical, Captain. Dead is dead.

Would you rather wreck your own car, or have someone else wreck your car?


edit: By running in to it...either case you're still driving.

[Latrinsorm]

Would you rather wreck your own car, or have someone else wreck your car?


edit: By running in to it...either case you're still driving.Neither. And if removing the tail fins had no impact on other people wrecking my car and helped keep me from wrecking, I would therefore pursue a tail fin ban.

[Thondalar]

Neither. And if removing the tail fins had no impact on other people wrecking my car and helped keep me from wrecking, I would therefore pursue a tail fin ban.

Neither is not an option.

[Latrinsorm]

Neither is not an option.I guess you could say I don't believe in the no-win scenario. Have you seen a car with tail fins lately? I rest my case.

[Thondalar]

I guess you could say I don't believe in the no-win scenario. Have you seen a car with tail fins lately? I rest my case.

If you still played, you'd be 3x dodge with enhancives.

[JackWhisper]

He used to own those +15 dodge bonus gloves.

[Jeril]

Post the case?


Related.

http://i.imgur.com/qEKdbLc.png

Yes, lets teach all the white people they should feel guilty and ashamed just for being white.

[Thondalar]

Yes, lets teach all the white people they should feel guilty and ashamed just for being white.

Oh, trust me, that teaching has been in place for a long time now.

[Androidpk]

If you still played, you'd be 3x dodge with enhancives.

My monk was 3x dodge with almost 50 in dodge enhancives. Talk about overkill.

[Jeril]

Oh, trust me, that teaching has been in place for a long time now.

I know, it is rather sad.

[Thondalar]

Yes, lets teach all the white people they should feel guilty and ashamed just for being white.

Google "white guilt". It's actually a real thing. It's what makes all the rich Democrats feel good about themselves for continuing to exploit minorities under the guise of social justice.

[Warriorbird]

Google "white guilt". It's actually a real thing. It's what makes all the rich Democrats feel good about themselves for continuing to exploit minorities under the guise of social justice.

Totally in the "real" category.

[leifastagsweed]

For a people who historically hated each other, it seems a LOT of us over on this rock have Scots *and* Irish!

So I hit my mother up for info after this dicussion last week, and she told me that it was a government initiative that started wayyyy back. I googled it and bam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_of_Ulster

Excerpts:


The Plantation of Ulster (Irish: Plandáil Uladh; Ulster-Scots: Plantin o Ulstèr)[1] was the organised colonisation (plantation) of Ulster – a province of Ireland – by people from Britain during the reign of King James I. Most of the colonists came from Scotland and England. Small private plantation by wealthy landowners began in 1606,[2] while the official plantation began in 1609. An estimated half a million acres (2,000 km²) spanning counties Tyrconnell, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Cavan, Coleraine and Armagh,[3] was confiscated from Gaelic chiefs, most of whom had fled Ireland in the 1607 Flight of the Earls. Most of counties Antrim and Down were privately colonised.[2] Colonising Ulster with loyal settlers was seen as a way to prevent further rebellion, as it had been the region most resistant to English control during the preceding century.

King James wanted the Plantation to be "a civilising enterprise" that would settle Protestants in Ulster,[4] a land that was mainly Gaelic-speaking and of the Catholic faith. The Lord Deputy of Ireland, Arthur Chichester, also saw the Plantation as a scheme to anglicise the Irish.[5][non-primary source needed]Accordingly the colonists (or "British tenants")[6][7] were required to be English-speaking and Protestant.[8][9] Some of the undertakers and colonists however were Catholic and it has been suggested that a significant number of the Scots spoke Gaelic.[10][11][12] The Scottish colonists were mostly Presbyterian[6] and the English mostly members of the Church of England. The Plantation of Ulster was the biggest of the Plantations of Ireland.

The Plantation of Ulster was presented to James I as a joint "British", or English and Scottish, venture to 'pacify' and 'civilise' Ulster. Therefore at least half the settlers would be Scots.

So, the Scots were sent over to breed with and inevitably pacify the loony Irish. Clearly it didn't work as a government initiative but it would explain for the historic cultural differences in Scots versus Irish and the cross-breed hybrid that evolved. Makes so much sense, too, from my own personal perspective of my family. I love it!!!


Leifa -

As I understood it from my grams, one of my ancestors on the Irish side, a female, decided to hit it off with an across-the-field type guy, who was Scottish. Thus, my lineage. Like Romeo and Juliet but... without all the suicide, and family hatred on a much larger scale.

I still like your Romeo & Juliet story, though. Reminds me of Leifa's storyline!