View Full Version : Alabama School Band Message of Tolerance, Citing Bigotry of Alabamians
Some are hopeful that the attention brought to LGBT bullying over the past year will make schools safer this year, but Hoover High School in Alabama is not off to a very good start. School officials told 15-year-old Sara Couvillon that she shouldn’t wear her “gay? fine by me” t-shirt because they were “concerned for her safety.”
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/08/31/309363/alabama-students-pro-gay-shirt-censored-out-of-concern-for-her-safety/
*facepalm*
ConHog
09-01-2011, 09:30 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/08/31/309363/alabama-students-pro-gay-shirt-censored-out-of-concern-for-her-safety/
*facepalm*
Why should a school not be concerned with making sure their students don't wear things that might be disruptive or make the person wearing it a target for someone's anger?
KartRacerBoy
09-01-2011, 09:41 PM
IF it isn't gang colors, what is the criteria for disruptive? So no one can wear a shirt that espouses a minority view? I really don't see how that promotes learning when a school tells someone that they can't espouse a view that isn't popular. Kinda mocks the COTUS.
But then I think the SCt is composed of ninnies and assholes when it comes to Constitutional rights for kids in school. "Kids don't leave their constituional rights at the school house door" the court declares just before it strips another right away from students. That's is an accurate assessment, though. What the SCt actually means is that a minor never even gets out of their bed with their Constitutional rights becz they don't have any. Police interrogation of a minor at schoo without being Mirandized and without parental permission to question the kid? Sure! OK!
The Supreme Court is stupid on school issues, IMO. Not that I have a strong opinion or anything. :laugh:
ConHog
09-01-2011, 10:07 PM
IF it isn't gang colors, what is the criteria for disruptive? So no one can wear a shirt that espouses a minority view? I really don't see how that promotes learning when a school tells someone that they can't espouse a view that isn't popular. Kinda mocks the COTUS.
But then I think the SCt is composed of ninnies and assholes when it comes to Constitutional rights for kids in school. "Kids don't leave their constituional rights at the school house door" the court declares just before it strips another right away from students. That's is an accurate assessment, though. What the SCt actually means is that a minor never even gets out of their bed with their Constitutional rights becz they don't have any. Police interrogation of a minor at schoo without being Mirandized and without parental permission to question the kid? Sure! OK!
The Supreme Court is stupid on school issues, IMO. Not that I have a strong opinion or anything. :laugh:
Oh now we're getting into my bailiwick KRB. First of all, let's agree that the SCOTUS has LONG agreed that students, and for that matter teachers, do not enjoy the full freedom of the first amendment while at school??
Now let's discuss the irrefutable fact that is doesn't take much to distract teenager, and that is really the only standard that has to be met when it comes to dress codes, is something potentially distracting? Yes, then it's banned. End of story.
IF it isn't gang colors, what is the criteria for disruptive? So no one can wear a shirt that espouses a minority view? I really don't see how that promotes learning when a school tells someone that they can't espouse a view that isn't popular. Kinda mocks the COTUS.
But then I think the SCt is composed of ninnies and assholes when it comes to Constitutional rights for kids in school. "Kids don't leave their constituional rights at the school house door" the court declares just before it strips another right away from students. That's is an accurate assessment, though. What the SCt actually means is that a minor never even gets out of their bed with their Constitutional rights becz they don't have any. Police interrogation of a minor at schoo without being Mirandized and without parental permission to question the kid? Sure! OK!
The Supreme Court is stupid on school issues, IMO. Not that I have a strong opinion or anything. :laugh:
Incorrect. If a matter goes beyond the school and into the hands of the police it then becomes a legal matter and all legal niceities are followed.
KartRacerBoy
09-02-2011, 07:03 AM
Incorrect. If a matter goes beyond the school and into the hands of the police it then becomes a legal matter and all legal niceities are followed.
Not exactly. Actually, SCOTUS issued a ruling that is really kind of muddy this past summer on in school Miranda warnings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/supreme-court-ruling-rising-police-presence-in-schools-spur-miranda-questions/2011/06/21/gIQAYXgeKI_story.html
fj1200
09-02-2011, 07:56 AM
Uniforms.
ConHog
09-02-2011, 08:31 AM
Not exactly. Actually, SCOTUS issued a ruling that is really kind of muddy this past summer on in school Miranda warnings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/supreme-court-ruling-rising-police-presence-in-schools-spur-miranda-questions/2011/06/21/gIQAYXgeKI_story.html
Only sworn police are required to give Miranda warnings — and only if a suspect is in police custody
a school official isn't a sworn police officer, and a school building is not police custody. Even if a cop is present.
KartRacerBoy
09-02-2011, 08:34 AM
Only sworn police are required to give Miranda warnings — and only if a suspect is in police custody
a school official isn't a sworn police officer, and a school building is not police custody. Even if a cop is present.
:laugh: Wow. I've actually LoL'd at two different posts this morning.
And wrong again!
Why should a school not be concerned with making sure their students don't wear things that might be disruptive or make the person wearing it a target for someone's anger?
Apply this to other topics of discourse to see the disparity. Say the girl wanted to wear a 'Vote Palin' tshirt, but there where fears for her safety because of seemingly hate filled lefties at the school. Or if she wanted to wear a tshirt that promoted veganism, or where a tshirt with a depiction of Mohammed? Etc ect, there are count,ess designs that could be termed 'disruptive' or 'making yourself a target' it's up t the person who wants to where the top to decide if they are willing to take the hate they may result (however wrong the hate may be)
But more to the point, 'making yourself a target for someone's anger' that does not sit well with me at all as it implies that the person who is attacked is in the wrong, not the attacker. Taking a real life example; When a Dutch Newspaper printed cartoons of the "prophet" Mohammed, there were violent attacks against Dutch embassies etc. And allot of well (imo wrongly) respected people like the Pope, and arch bishop of Canterbury said the attacks where a reaction to what the Newspaper had done. They made themselves a target, and brought it on themselves. Maybe you too accept that, I don't.
ConHog
09-02-2011, 08:48 AM
Apply this to other topics of discourse to see the disparity. Say the girl wanted to wear a 'Vote Palin' tshirt, but there where fears for her safety because of seemingly hate filled lefties at the school. Or if she wanted to wear a tshirt that promoted veganism, or where a tshirt with a depiction of Mohammed? Etc ect, there are count,ess designs that could be termed 'disruptive' or 'making yourself a target' it's up t the person who wants to where the top to decide if they are willing to take the hate they may result (however wrong the hate may be)
But more to the point, 'making yourself a target for someone's anger' that does not sit well with me at all as it implies that the person who is attacked is in the wrong, not the attacker. Taking a real life example; When a Dutch Newspaper printed cartoons of the "prophet" Mohammed, there were violent attacks against Dutch embassies etc. And allot of well (imo wrongly) respected people like the Pope, and arch bishop of Canterbury said the attacks where a reaction to what the Newspaper had done. They made themselves a target, and brought it on themselves. Maybe you too accept that, I don't.
Sorry, but when you're at a public school where the school itself is culpable if something happens, they DO have the right to ensure that you aren't contributing to a situation
Sorry, but when you're at a public school where the school itself is culpable if something happens, they DO have the right to ensure that you aren't contributing to a situation
Yar, who needs common sense when you can have rules!
ConHog
09-02-2011, 12:03 PM
Yar, who needs common sense when you can have rules!
Common sense carries NO weight when a school is fighting a lawsuit because Johnny was beat up for wearing his "I'm gay" t shirt on campus. It's a fact that schools must protect themselves from such exposure.
Blame litigation happy parents if you wish.
Common sense carries NO weight when a school is fighting a lawsuit because Johnny was beat up for wearing his "I'm gay" t shirt on campus. It's a fact that schools must protect themselves from such exposure.
Blame litigation happy parents if you wish.
You're legal system is laughable when it opens it's self up to such nonsense. If someone is assaulted they should pursue the attacker criminally and be rewarded criminal injuries if deserved. The school itself should have nothing to do with it, again, common sense.
ConHog
09-02-2011, 12:13 PM
You're legal system is laughable when it opens it's self up to such nonsense. If someone is assaulted they should pursue the attacker criminally and be rewarded criminal injuries if deserved. The school itself should have nothing to do with it, again, common sense.
I happen to disagree with you. I believe a school absolutely has the responsibility of maintaining a safe learning environment for all; and that they SHOULD be held accountable when they don't.
Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?
I happen to disagree with you. I believe a school absolutely has the responsibility of maintaining a safe learning environment for all; and that they SHOULD be held accountable when they don't.
Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?
To what extent would you push this? Say a black kid wants to transfer school but some headmaster happens to know there is a small but dangerous White supremacist group in the school, does he deny the black a place because of a 'safe learning environment? What if some Muslims are offend to the point of anger that girls/women are not covering their faces? Do they have to force the girls/women to do so in order to maintain peace?
That way lies madness, that much should be obvious. And yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting, amazingly you do not sue the schools here in Britain if there is a fight, you do as I suggested earlier, amazingly, it works.
ConHog
09-02-2011, 12:49 PM
To what extent would you push this? Say a black kid wants to transfer school but some headmaster happens to know there is a small but dangerous White supremacist group in the school, does he deny the black a place because of a 'safe learning environment? What if some Muslims are offend to the point of anger that girls/women are not covering their faces? Do they have to force the girls/women to do so in order to maintain peace?
That way lies madness, that much should be obvious. And yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting, amazingly you do not sue the schools here in Britain if there is a fight, you do as I suggested earlier, amazingly, it works.
We have laws which prevent schools from precluding anyone based on religion or sex from attending. Now schools most certainly could prevent those black kids from wearing t shirts that read "fuck you KKK" or something like that.
We have laws which prevent schools from precluding anyone based on religion or sex from attending. Now schools most certainly could prevent those black kids from wearing t shirts that read "fuck you KKK" or something like that.
Indeed I should of realised that beforehand. But that notwithstanding, by taking the stance if banning things people may find offensive you are punishing possible victims because they may be victims. That is stupid.
Trigg
09-02-2011, 03:01 PM
you both have valid points. I agree with both of you because you're not really on different sides.
The schools and laws are different here than in the UK.
The school has to look at the fact that the t-shirt wearer wore the shirt to make a statement and get a rise out of certain people. The wearer should not have violence threatened to them, however they are knowingly putting themselves in a bad position. They have the right to do that, but the school also has the responsibility to make sure they are safe.
Parents will sue the school for not keeping little johnny safe.
you both have valid points. I agree with both of you because you're not really on different sides.
The schools and laws are different here than in the UK.
The school has to look at the fact that the t-shirt wearer wore the shirt to make a statement and get a rise out of certain people. The wearer should not have violence threatened to them, however they are knowingly putting themselves in a bad position. They have the right to do that, but the school also has the responsibility to make sure they are safe.
Parents will sue the school for not keeping little johnny safe.
Indeed, the stupidity of a system that means that schools can be sued for assaults is surpassed only by the stupidity of the parents doing the suing, which itself is only surpassed by the stupidity of some narrow minded swine who needs only see the words 'gays okay' or something akin and resort to violence acts or threats =/
ConHog
09-02-2011, 03:15 PM
Indeed, the stupidity of a system that means that schools can be sued for assaults is surpassed only by the stupidity of the parents doing the suing, which itself is only surpassed by the stupidity of some narrow minded swine who needs only see the words 'gays okay' or something akin and resort to violence acts or threats =/
Which is dumber, over reacting to a stupid t shirt, or purposely wearing a t shirt to get people to over react? Which can the school control to prevent possible problems? That's how a school administration has to look at things.
Trigg
09-02-2011, 03:23 PM
again you're both right.
KartRacerBoy
09-02-2011, 03:24 PM
Indeed, the stupidity of a system that means that schools can be sued for assaults is surpassed only by the stupidity of the parents doing the suing, which itself is only surpassed by the stupidity of some narrow minded swine who needs only see the words 'gays okay' or something akin and resort to violence acts or threats =/
You mock the US legal system, and yet your lawyers have to wear horsehair wigs in court. :laugh:
Seriously, our school laws are screwed up, though. Schools are terrified of lawsuits so they adopt inane rules and follow them to the letter. I read a story about a 13 yr old girl who kept acne drugs in her locker and was suspended for 7 weeks, essentially dropping her a semester behind. The whole zero tolerance thing in schools means I can't give my 8 yr old daughter a pill for her allergies to take every 4 hrs (over the counter) without giving it personally to the school nurse with a doctor's prescription (for an OTC drug!). If I don't comply with this idiotic rule, the school will suspend my daughter. Holy F*cking A.
And it's true on the other side that parents are crazy. If a kid is kicked out for semester (suspended/expelled), litigation may be worth the trouble. The real problem is that it the courts take too long to resolve the problem. By the time the case is done, the suspension is usually done. Expulsions are another matter.
But parents are like mother bears. They will fight everything to the death. I am a lawyer. I actually drafted school policies on drug testing policies and was involved in a lot school law a decade ago. It made me pull my hair out. Neither side is rational.
Which is dumber, over reacting to a stupid t shirt, or purposely wearing a t shirt to get people to over react? Which can the school control to prevent possible problems? That's how a school administration has to look at things.
The former IMO.
I'm not the best to ask though, last year I lived in a heavily Musilim area of England and by way of defiance of the censorship that they would wish imposed on me I made a depiction of Mohammed and clipped him onto my bag. Now no doubt if someone had assaulted me or something people would go 'you provoked him with the picture' 'you set out to offend him' etc, load of tosh.
ConHog
09-02-2011, 03:33 PM
The former IMO.
I'm not the best to ask though, last year I lived in a heavily Musilim area of England and by way of defiance of the censorship that they would wish imposed on me I made a depiction of Mohammed and clipped him onto my bag. Now no doubt if someone had assaulted me or something people would go 'you provoked him with the picture' 'you set out to offend him' etc, load of tosh.
That is your right, but again. A school has to do what is best for EVERYONE, not just what is best for an individual, and schools will ALWAYS defer to taking the safer route. You may call it cowardly, I call it realistic. I've been on a school board for 12 years, and our parents are relatively tame compared to what some of my colleagues have told me; but still we have to be VERY careful about what we allow students to do. We can't simply have a free for all and say "hey you want to be offensive and maybe get your ass kicked, go for it."
Trigg
09-02-2011, 03:35 PM
The former IMO.
I'm not the best to ask though, last year I lived in a heavily Musilim area of England and by way of defiance of the censorship that they would wish imposed on me I made a depiction of Mohammed and clipped him onto my bag. Now no doubt if someone had assaulted me or something people would go 'you provoked him with the picture' 'you set out to offend him' etc, load of tosh.
Did you know they would be offended???
If so, you set out to offend them. Glad you didn't get beat up, but honestly if you had I'd have said "what the hell were you thinking wearing a picture like that".
ConHog
09-02-2011, 03:38 PM
You mock the US legal system, and yet your lawyers have to wear horsehair wigs in court. :laugh:
Seriously, our school laws are screwed up, though. Schools are terrified of lawsuits so they adopt inane rules and follow them to the letter. I read a story about a 13 yr old girl who kept acne drugs in her locker and was suspended for 7 weeks, essentially dropping her a semester behind. The whole zero tolerance thing in schools means I can't give my 8 yr old daughter a pill for her allergies to take every 4 hrs (over the counter) without giving it personally to the school nurse with a doctor's prescription (for an OTC drug!). If I don't comply with this idiotic rule, the school will suspend my daughter. Holy F*cking A.
And it's true on the other side that parents are crazy. If a kid is kicked out for semester (suspended/expelled), litigation may be worth the trouble. The real problem is that it the courts take too long to resolve the problem. By the time the case is done, the suspension is usually done. Expulsions are another matter.
But parents are like mother bears. They will fight everything to the death. I am a lawyer. I actually drafted school policies on drug testing policies and was involved in a lot school law a decade ago. It made me pull my hair out. Neither side is rational.
Yep zero tolerance rules at school are stupid................... Tell that to the kid who is no longer beat up at school because his former tormentor(s) has been told that zero tolerance means s/he is out of school permanently if there is a single incident.
As for self medication. No that isn't allowed, for good reason. If kids are allowed to self medicate at school that means each teacher who might see him/her doing so would have to be trained in determining whether a student was taking a drug that they should in fact be taking, or if they were doing something they shouldn't be doing. MUCH easier to just say "no if you're child needs an allergy pill every 4 hours then we will make sure she is given an opportunity to get to the nurse's office every 4 hours so that she may get the medication she needs." It's actually quite childish and naive to suggest that a school ought let students take drugs on their own.
Did you know they would be offended???
If so, you set out to offend them. Glad you didn't get beat up, but honestly if you had I'd have said "what the hell were you thinking wearing a picture like that".
I knew people may be offended, and I know some where, I had one man refuse to serve me at a shop because of it. The point is a simple one; No one has the right not to be offended. When you are offended, deal with it in a respectable and adult-like way (:
ConHog
09-02-2011, 03:50 PM
I knew people may be offended, and I know some where, I had one man refuse to serve me at a shop because of it. The point is a simple one; No one has the right not to be offended. When you are offended, deal with it in a respectable and adult-like way (:
That simply isn't the case when it comes to schools. Children are their to learn is a clean, safe, nurturing environment. They aren't there to test the social boundaries and see how far they can go in pissing someone off before they get in a fight. You can do that shit in your own private life if you wish, you can't do it in a school.
Trigg
09-02-2011, 08:22 PM
I knew people may be offended, and I know some where, I had one man refuse to serve me at a shop because of it. The point is a simple one; No one has the right not to be offended. When you are offended, deal with it in a respectable and adult-like way (:
If everyone dealt with being offended in an adult way the crime rate would go way down.
Since that isn't going to happen, reasonable people, if they aren't looking for a fight, avoid wearing a mohammad picture in a heavily muslim area.
KartRacerBoy
09-02-2011, 10:39 PM
Yep zero tolerance rules at school are stupid................... Tell that to the kid who is no longer beat up at school because his former tormentor(s) has been told that zero tolerance means s/he is out of school permanently if there is a single incident.
As for self medication. No that isn't allowed, for good reason. If kids are allowed to self medicate at school that means each teacher who might see him/her doing so would have to be trained in determining whether a student was taking a drug that they should in fact be taking, or if they were doing something they shouldn't be doing. MUCH easier to just say "no if you're child needs an allergy pill every 4 hours then we will make sure she is given an opportunity to get to the nurse's office every 4 hours so that she may get the medication she needs." It's actually quite childish and naive to suggest that a school ought let students take drugs on their own.
You and I have a much different vision of what school should be. I think you are pretty much 100% wrong on this. But why should this subject be different than any other we've discussed? :laugh:
Quite childish? Good god. You'd be an excellent candidate to head the next nanny state, ConHog. You are qute the authoritarian. :laugh:
ConHog
09-02-2011, 10:43 PM
You and I have a much different vision of what school should be. I think you are pretty much 100% wrong on this. But why should this subject be different than any other we've discussed? :laugh:
Quite childish? Good god. You'd be an excellent candidate to head the next nanny state, ConHog. You are qute the authoritarian. :laugh:
Our differences on this MIGHT be why I have been elected 3 times to sit on our school board while you do nothing but sit at home and pontificate on what's wrong with society eh?
You 100% disagree with my belief that schools should a safe and nurturing educational environment for everyone?
You're a god damned fool. You had me fooled for a bit. But you are just dumb.
Schools should only be liable for incidents that occur on school grounds/time (field trips etc) if it can be shown that school staff was negligent in taking reasonable measures in response to a clear danger or threat they should have reasonable perceived or been aware of. This doesn't seem to be the way it tends to be handled, though.
KartRacerBoy
09-02-2011, 10:58 PM
Our differences on this MIGHT be why I have been elected 3 times to sit on our school board while you do nothing but sit at home and pontificate on what's wrong with society eh?
You 100% disagree with my belief that schools should a safe and nurturing educational environment for everyone?
You're a god damned fool. You had me fooled for a bit. But you are just dumb.
There is that authoritarian streak in you, ConHog. Someone disagrees with you and so you annoint them "dumb."
Schools are govt organizations subject to Constitutional law. I disagree with the current SCt interpretation of that law. I hope it changes. From my point of view, unfortunately they agree with you.
And just becz you've been elected 3 whole times, that doesn't make you an expert on anything except getting elected. I'm sure the seats were hotly contested, too, as school board elections always are. :rolleyes: But I've been involved in school law, too. IMO, it as much CYA as it is "protect the students." If you can't see that, you are a bit naive in my view.
And where did I say schools shouldn't be safe and nurturing? I just disagree with your belief in what that phrase means and how to implement it. But due to your apparent all knowing authoritarian nature, that just pisses you off. :laugh:
ConHog
09-02-2011, 11:01 PM
There is that authoritarian streak in you, ConHog. Someone disagrees with you and so you annoint them "dumb."
Schools are govt organizations subject to Constitutional law. I disagree with the current SCt interpretation of that law. I hope it changes. From my point of view, unfortunately they agree with you.
And just becz you've been elected 3 whole times, that doesn't make you an expert on anything except getting elected. I'm sure the seats were hotly contested, too, as school board elections always are. :rolleyes: But I've been involved in school law, too. IMO, it as much CYA as it is "protect the students." If you can't see that, you are a bit naive in my view.
And where did I say schools shouldn't be safe and nurturing? I just disagree with your belief in what that phrase means and how to implement it. But due to your apparent all knowing authoritarian nature, that just pisses you off. :laugh:
You don't piss me off. You sadden me. If the seats are so easy to win and you think schools are doing things wrong, why don't you get off your fat ass and go get elected to your local school board and push for some changes?
You really contend that schools should allow students to take drugs willy nilly while on campus? How fucking stupid are you? Yes, I can't foresee any problems if we did that.
KartRacerBoy
09-02-2011, 11:08 PM
You don't piss me off. You sadden me. If the seats are so easy to win and you think schools are doing things wrong, why don't you get off your fat ass and go get elected to your local school board and push for some changes?
You really contend that schools should allow students to take drugs willy nilly while on campus? How fucking stupid are you? Yes, I can't foresee any problems if we did that.
I know. So many children died in the past from taking aspirin or acne medicine and the like. It was a tragedy of EPIC proportions all through the 80s and 90s. Millions of kids HOOKED on the aspirin habit. It was a tragedy to watch.
Wow, ConHog. You really hate having your authority questioned. It gets you pissy like a 2 yr old. Are you sure you weren't Heights on the LegacyGT.com board? :laugh:
Roosevelt was elected three times, too.
Just sayin'...
You really contend that schools should allow students to take drugs willy nilly while on campus?
Where was this?
KartRacerBoy
09-02-2011, 11:18 PM
Roosevelt was elected three times, too.
Just sayin'...
Where was this?
In his imagination. I think school policies stating that kids can't bring ANY drugs to school (aspirin, tylenol, allergy meds) are inane. That apparently means I want kids to deal drugs at each schoolroom door to ConHog. Seems a bit of a leap of logic to me, but then I'm questioning his vaunted authority as an elected official. God knows, society can't stand that sort of tripe.
ConHog
09-02-2011, 11:19 PM
Roosevelt was elected three times, too.
Just sayin'...
Where was this?
Read the quote below and tell me that isn't exactly what KRB was saying.
You mock the US legal system, and yet your lawyers have to wear horsehair wigs in court. :laugh:
Seriously, our school laws are screwed up, though. Schools are terrified of lawsuits so they adopt inane rules and follow them to the letter. I read a story about a 13 yr old girl who kept acne drugs in her locker and was suspended for 7 weeks, essentially dropping her a semester behind. The whole zero tolerance thing in schools means I can't give my 8 yr old daughter a pill for her allergies to take every 4 hrs (over the counter) without giving it personally to the school nurse with a doctor's prescription (for an OTC drug!). If I don't comply with this idiotic rule, the school will suspend my daughter. Holy F*cking A.
And it's true on the other side that parents are crazy. If a kid is kicked out for semester (suspended/expelled), litigation may be worth the trouble. The real problem is that it the courts take too long to resolve the problem. By the time the case is done, the suspension is usually done. Expulsions are another matter.
But parents are like mother bears. They will fight everything to the death. I am a lawyer. I actually drafted school policies on drug testing policies and was involved in a lot school law a decade ago. It made me pull my hair out. Neither side is rational.
In his imagination. I think school policies stating that kids can't bring ANY drugs to school (aspirin, tylenol, allergy meds) are inane. That apparently means I want kids to deal drugs at each schoolroom door to ConHog. Seems a bit of a leap of logic to me, but then I'm questioning his vaunted authority as an elected official. God knows, society can't stand that sort of tripe.
You idiot, do you REALLY not think that if kids are told they can bring a bottle of Aspirin, for instance , to school that some kids won't figure out to take the Aspirin out of the bottle and fill it with meth, for example?
Idiot.
I don't see what you see. I see a call for common sense and parental responsibility when it comes to trusting our youth (at a reasonable age) to use aspirin or allergy meds if needed. It should go without saying that measures should be taken if there's illicit drug use or any other criminal activity taking place and I see nothing to suggest he believes or indicated otherwise. If anything, I see another sign of your nanny-statism showing through, if you really think the schools should be 'cracking down' on students having aspirin, allergy meds, or something for their upset stomach given by their parents to take as needed.
KartRacerBoy
09-02-2011, 11:28 PM
You idiot, do you REALLY not think that if kids are told they can bring a bottle of Aspirin, for instance , to school that some kids won't figure out to take the Aspirin out of the bottle and fill it with meth, for example?
Idiot.
Well that's why you have drug sniffing dogs searching the schools all the time. That's why you strip and cavity search the kids before they go into the school every day. Eliminating ALL risk is the nature of the educational process. That's the only way to make spelling safe for everyone.
You are so funny when your authority is questioned, Cartman. :laugh: Or should I say "idiot"?
You idiot, do you REALLY not think that if kids are told they can bring a bottle of Aspirin, for instance , to school that some kids won't figure out to take the Aspirin out of the bottle and fill it with meth, for example?
Idiot.
You think meth addicts and sellers won't take meth to school if you ban Tylenol and not just sell/use it in the bathroom or when nobody's around? You might as well claim requiring permits (with a registration fee [read:tax]) for law-abiding citizens will stop criminals from their concealing weapons :laugh:
Hey conhog, why don't we ban guns while we're at it? I'm sure the criminals will obey that law, too! :laugh:
ConHog
09-02-2011, 11:33 PM
Well that's why you have drug sniffing dogs searching the schools all the time. That's why you strip and cavity search the kids before they go into the school every day. Eliminating ALL risk is the nature of the educational process. That's the only way to make spelling safe for everyone.
You are so funny when your authority is questioned, Cartman. :laugh: Or should I say "idiot"?
Good idea b/c schools after all have unlimited budgets and so have plenty of money to invest in preventive measures to make sure only legal and neccesary drugs are brought into school.
Also by your reasoning, no one can really be hurt by a toy gun, so it's absolute bullshit that schools have a zero tolerance for bringing them on campus either.
Also , who has ever been harmed by a student coming to school dressed inappropriately? What a crock of shit that kids can't just wear whatever they want to school.
Either that, or it's stupid that some liberal dipshit wants to send his school to a public school funded by tax dollars and not have to adhere to the fucking rules . If you can't handle the few simple rules that schools do have, here is a suggestion, keep your child at home and educate her yourself you damn dirty hippie. It's not like you're doing anything else.
Hey conhog, why don't we ban guns while we're at it? I'm sure the criminals will obey that law, too! :laugh:
Guns are already banned at schools . How dare schools abridge the 2nd amendment rights of students.
KartRacerBoy
09-02-2011, 11:38 PM
Good night, ConHog. It's been really fun watching you wave the red neck, authoritarian flag tonight. Nice to see your true colors.
It was pleasant for a few days when you weren't so deeply offended that someone disagreed with you, but alas, those days are apparently over.
Good night for now. It was truly an enjoyable and uninsightful conversation. Hope you have something intellgient to say tomorrow besides "Respect my authority" like Cartman.
chloe
09-02-2011, 11:40 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/08/31/309363/alabama-students-pro-gay-shirt-censored-out-of-concern-for-her-safety/
*facepalm*
so you think the public school should allow her to advertise pro any certain sexual preference ? Does the school allow shirts that advertise Heteros Cool ! :laugh2:
Or do Gays get the honor of always advertizing there sexual preferences to "distinguish" themselves ?
ConHog
09-02-2011, 11:42 PM
Good night, ConHog. It's been really fun watching you wave the red neck, authoritarian flag tonight. Nice to see your true colors.
It was pleasant for a few days when you weren't so deeply offended that someone disagreed with you, but alas, those days are apparently over.
Good night for now. It was truly an enjoyable and uninsightful conversation. Hope you have something intellgient to say tomorrow besides "Respect my authority" like Cartman.
I'm not offended that you disagree with me, you are well within your rights to be wrong. That is a right that you take full advantage of by the way. Why to bed so early? Job interview tomorrow? No?
Maybe you can wake up around noon struggle to see your toes, wander out and collect your welfare and have a nice steak dinner on me. Enjoy brah.
Guns are already banned at schools .
And we see how criminals obey that law- Columbine, anyone?
Name one good reason teachers and others who are legally allowed to have firearms should not be allowed to have their weapons in their cars or (in the case of colleges and staff) on their persons.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml
Do you know why people go on shooting sprees at schools? Because they know nobody else is armed. If teachers were allowed to concealed carry and college students could carry on campus, how eager do you think those school shooters would be to commit the same acts? How many shooting sprees happen at gun shows or NRA meetings, where everyone else is armed, too?
ConHog
09-02-2011, 11:51 PM
And we see how criminals obey that law- Columbine, anyone?
Name one good reason teachers and others who are legally allowed to have firearms should not be allowed to have their weapons in their cars or (in the case of colleges and staff) on their persons.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml
Do you know why people go on shooting sprees at schools? Because they know nobody else is armed. If teachers were allowed to concealed carry and college students could carry on campus, how eager do you think those school shooters would be to commit the same acts? How many shooting sprees happen at gun shows or NRA meetings, where everyone else is armed, too?
I challenge you to find ANYWHERE where I have agreed with the ban on adult employees of schools from carrying weapons at school, or as you have suggested students at well at a college. I haven't .
I challenge you to find ANYWHERE where I have agreed with the ban on adult employees of schools from carrying weapons at school, or as you have suggested students at well at a college. I haven't .
Guns are already banned at schools . How dare schools abridge the 2nd amendment rights of students.
So now you're opposing these bans and claiming you weren't being a snarky little punk in the second half of that post, but were really saying they're violating the students' second amendment rights and asking 'how dare' they do this?
You're backpedaling again.
ConHog
09-02-2011, 11:58 PM
So now you're opposing these bans and claiming you weren't being a snarky little punk in the second half of that post, but were really saying they're violating the students' second amendment rights and asking 'how dare' they do this?
You're backpedaling again.
How so? I didn't say I opposed the bans either. They are what they are. Frankly I can see both sides of that coin .
How so? I didn't say I opposed the bans either
So you support them after all? Damn, you slip fast. Would you vote for or against the bans? Try to stick to one line, if you can. Yea or nay? Are you capable of sticking to one position for two posts in a row?
ConHog
09-03-2011, 12:06 AM
So you support them after all? Damn, you slip fast. Would you vote for or against the bans? Try to stick to one line, if you can. Yea or nay? Are you capable of sticking to one position for two posts in a row?
Are you incapable of understanding the concept of discussing a law without offering your opinion on said law? That is what I was doing, I wasn't changing my opinion.
Now IF it actually were held up to a vote the truth is just as i said, I would have to do a LOT more research before I would choose a side because I can see the merit of both sides.
So you refuse to actually stick to anything you ever say?
How dare schools abridge the 2nd amendment rights of students.
Wither you were being a smartass (meaning you are cool with these bans) or you actually meant what you said and weren't being snarky (meaning you oppose the bans as unconstitutional).
Why are you so scared to actually pick a single position and stick with it?
ConHog
09-03-2011, 12:18 AM
So you refuse to actually stick to anything you ever say?
Wither you were being a smartass (meaning you are cool with these bans) or you actually meant what you said and weren't being snarky (meaning you oppose the bans as unconstitutional).
Why are you so scared to actually pick a single position and stick with it?
I'm not scared of anything. I merely haven't studied the situation enough to have an opinion. Now I know that you just blast off opinions on EVERY subject whether you know what you are talking about or not, but I don't. I am undecided and would have to do a lot more research and thinking before I cast a vote.
haven't studied the situation enough to have an opinion.
So you admit to being an ignorant buffoon when you posted this claptrap:
How dare schools abridge the 2nd amendment rights of students.
?
If everyone dealt with being offended in an adult way the crime rate would go way down.
Since that isn't going to happen, reasonable people, if they aren't looking for a fight, avoid wearing a mohammad picture in a heavily muslim area.
Which means there is an implied threaded backed by violence to censure yourself. And I you are attacked, then *you* are the one at fault for not restricting your own rights so as not to offend? That is a seriously twisted way to look at things imo. In the same respect, I knew white girls who'd walk about without their faces or hair covered, no doubt that offened some of the local population, should they of been more reasonable and covered their faces if they aren't looking for a fight?...
That simply isn't the case when it comes to schools. Children are their to learn is a clean, safe, nurturing environment. They aren't there to test the social boundaries and see how far they can go in pissing someone off before they get in a fight. You can do that shit in your own private life if you wish, you can't do it in a school.
Well I think it's wrong to teach children that the responsibilty lies on them
Not to offend the bully's...as an aside, does this supression rest only with clothes or does it go further, I mean what if in a religious studies class the girl said 'gays okay' or indeed what if she came out as a lesbian, is she then provoking and disrupting others lives?
KartRacerBoy
09-03-2011, 07:48 AM
Good idea b/c schools after all have unlimited budgets and so have plenty of money to invest in preventive measures to make sure only legal and neccesary drugs are brought into school.
Also by your reasoning, no one can really be hurt by a toy gun, so it's absolute bullshit that schools have a zero tolerance for bringing them on campus either.
Also , who has ever been harmed by a student coming to school dressed inappropriately? What a crock of shit that kids can't just wear whatever they want to school.
Either that, or it's stupid that some liberal dipshit wants to send his school to a public school funded by tax dollars and not have to adhere to the fucking rules . If you can't handle the few simple rules that schools do have, here is a suggestion, keep your child at home and educate her yourself you damn dirty hippie. It's not like you're doing anything else.
:laugh:
And you're really into my unemployment situation aren't you? It somehow digs at you.
Trigg
09-03-2011, 08:09 AM
Which means there is an implied threaded backed by violence to censure yourself. And I you are attacked, then *you* are the one at fault for not restricting your own rights so as not to offend? That is a seriously twisted way to look at things imo. In the same respect, I knew white girls who'd walk about without their faces or hair covered, no doubt that offened some of the local population, should they of been more reasonable and covered their faces if they aren't looking for a fight?...
Personally I see it as common sense not to walk into a heavily minority area wearing something that you KNOW for a fact will offend them. Should they respond with violence, NO of course not. If they do, they should be arrested. A picture of mohammed is something they've killed people for.
Would you go back at night when you're more likely to be attacked? Again, it would be wonderful if everyone acted in a respectful manner, some people are simply incapable of that.
Personally I see it as common sense not to walk into a heavily minority area wearing something that you KNOW for a fact will offend them. Should they respond with violence, NO of course not. If they do, they should be arrested. A picture of mohammed is something they've killed people for.
Would you go back at night when you're more likely to be attacked? Again, it would be wonderful if everyone acted in a respectful manner, some people are simply incapable of that.
Indeed but the principle is greater than the possible verbal or physical abuse dirived thereof IMO. And yeah I lived in a flat there so (espically durin the winter when it gets dark about 4pm) I was unconcerned about walking about at night.
And indeed plenty of people, in shops or bus stops or at work etc asked what it was about and I was able to tell them about the fundamentally blackmail nature of self vitimization. And funnily enough I got *allot* of hassle from the AirPort security in SanFranciso, it didn't please them at all which I found wonderfully bizarre lol
ConHog
09-03-2011, 12:53 PM
So you admit to being an ignorant buffoon when you posted this claptrap:
?
You truly are an idiot. Sorry you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it, but CLEARLY I was being sarcastic to KRB when I made the comment about taking away student's 2nd AMendment rights.
Actually upon reflection, I think you know that you are just a dishonest person so you acted like you didn't understand it in order to try to make some sort of point.
:laugh:
And you're really into my unemployment situation aren't you? It somehow digs at you.
Yes, worthless shifts who do nothing but sit at home collecting benefits that I and other workers provide all the while bitching about the system digs at me. Get a job.
I suspect ConHog would be singing a different tune in this thread if the shirt said 'Love Jesus? Fine by me.'?
ConHog
09-03-2011, 01:09 PM
I suspect ConHog would be singing a different tune in this thread if the shirt said 'Love Jesus? Fine by me.'?
You suspect wrong; AND I suspect you already know that from our past talks and this is just more dishonesty from you
Schools are NOT the place to be making statements about who you are PERIOD.
KartRacerBoy
09-03-2011, 01:59 PM
Yes, worthless shifts who do nothing but sit at home collecting benefits that I and other workers provide all the while bitching about the system digs at me. Get a job.
You aren't working from what you've said but you still manage to be a superior human? Gosh I don't know how you do it. Wish I had that air of moral uppitiness that you parade about.
What IS really funny, though, is how to turn from nice guy to complete asshole just becz someone disagrees with your vast knowledge on school law. You must be fun in meetings sitting on that stick up your ass instead of using a chair. :clap:
You suspect wrong; AND I suspect you already know that from our past talks and this is just more dishonesty from you
Schools are NOT the place to be making statements about who you are PERIOD.
Yeah. A southern public school would make a kid remove a shirt that said "Love Jesus." :laugh:
ConHog
09-03-2011, 02:05 PM
You aren't working from what you've said but you still manage to be a superior human? Gosh I don't know how you do it. Wish I had that air of moral uppitiness that you parade about.
What IS really funny, though, is how to turn from nice guy to complete asshole just becz someone disagrees with your vast knowledge on school law. You must be fun in meetings sitting on that stick up your ass instead of using a chair. :clap:
There is a difference between being RETIRED and being UNEMPLOYED, you do grok that don't you? If I wanted a job, I'd have one within an hour. You on the other hand..............
Oh and I turned into an ass b/c you revealed yourself for what you are. Has nothing to do with agreeing with me or not.
KartRacerBoy
09-03-2011, 02:10 PM
I apologize for not being a racist apologist, sir.
ConHog
09-03-2011, 03:28 PM
I apologize for not being a racist apologist, sir.
No one said any such thing JB errr KRB.
BTW I don't appreciate the fake quote from me in your signature, please remove it, thanks.
IF it isn't gang colors, what is the criteria for disruptive? So no one can wear a shirt that espouses a minority view? I really don't see how that promotes learning when a school tells someone that they can't espouse a view that isn't popular. Kinda mocks the COTUS.
But then I think the SCt is composed of ninnies and assholes when it comes to Constitutional rights for kids in school. "Kids don't leave their constituional rights at the school house door" the court declares just before it strips another right away from students. That's is an accurate assessment, though. What the SCt actually means is that a minor never even gets out of their bed with their Constitutional rights becz they don't have any. Police interrogation of a minor at schoo without being Mirandized and without parental permission to question the kid? Sure! OK!
The Supreme Court is stupid on school issues, IMO. Not that I have a strong opinion or anything. :laugh:
So you'd be down with a kid wearing a shirt with a pic of a Black swinging from a noose too?
No one said any such thing JB errr KRB.
BTW I don't appreciate the fake quote from me in your signature, please remove it, thanks.
Does anyone find it hypocritical of Gomer here to speak out on what anyone has in their signature or anywhere else for that matter?
Lol, douchebag.
There is a difference between being RETIRED and being UNEMPLOYED, you do grok that don't you? If I wanted a job, I'd have one within an hour. You on the other hand..............
Oh and I turned into an ass b/c you revealed yourself for what you are. Has nothing to do with agreeing with me or not.
You are an ablebodied American living on taxpayer dollars............shame.
By the way, flipping burgers at BK ain't a proud job(the one you could get) its a job but not something to be proud of at your age but hey maybe its all you are qualified for, peeling potatoes in the Army was good training.:laugh2:
ConHog
09-03-2011, 03:39 PM
Does anyone find it hypocritical of Gomer here to speak out on what anyone has in their signature or anywhere else for that matter?
Lol, douchebag.
Howdy Muppet. How goes the crying game?
Howdy Muppet. How goes the crying game?
I don't know Gomer, do you have "would you like to supersize that" nailed down yet?
How are you spending MY tax dollars right now?
ConHog
09-03-2011, 03:56 PM
I don't know Gomer, do you have "would you like to supersize that" nailed down yet?
How are you spending MY tax dollars right now?
I doubt you've ever paid a cent in income tax so it's not YOUR tax dollars that are paying my retirement.
However, let me ask you this, how are YOU spending the freedom that MY blood helped purchase?
jimnyc
09-03-2011, 04:02 PM
I'm glad they made this decision. This shit doesn't need to be in our schools. No more than if someone wore a shirt that said "The LBGT community are freaks".
ConHog
09-03-2011, 04:03 PM
I'm glad they made this decision. This shit doesn't need to be in our schools. No more than if someone wore a shirt that said "The LBGT community are freaks".
Agreed. That's what I don't get about people like KRB he thinks that everyone on the left should be able to do whatever they want, but anyone more conservative should just keep their opinion to themselves. Never recognizing that there certain situations where everyone should shut up. Schools are NOT the place for these kinds of statements.
I doubt you've ever paid a cent in income tax so it's not YOUR tax dollars that are paying my retirement.
However, let me ask you this, how are YOU spending the freedom that MY blood helped purchase?
Show me the scars.................cutting yourself with a steak knife doesn't count.
I've paid more tax than I care to remember, I expect an xmas gift for supporting your lazy ass all year long.
ConHog
09-03-2011, 04:38 PM
Show me the scars.................cutting yourself with a steak knife doesn't count.
I've paid more tax than I care to remember, I expect an xmas gift for supporting your lazy ass all year long.
I'll buy you a $10 hooker, I'm sure it would be the best looking woman you've ever been with. Well , unless it was against her will.
I'll buy you a $10 hooker, I'm sure it would be the best looking woman you've ever been with. Well , unless it was against her will.
Better looking than any Mexican anyway.
Green card?
ConHog
09-03-2011, 04:48 PM
Better looking than any Mexican anyway.
Green card?
What are you implying?
Sir Evil
09-03-2011, 04:55 PM
See that, Mike, if a flaming fucking idiot like Sir Evil here can recognize facts from guesses (krb), than surely the guy from the Dos Equis commercials can too!
Suck a mule fucknuts.....:fu:
:laugh2:
Kathianne
09-03-2011, 05:06 PM
What are you implying? OCA never implies, he only baits and flames.
ConHog
09-03-2011, 05:19 PM
OCA never implies, he only baits and flames.
Oh, I know EXACTLY what the Muppet was trying to do there. Too bad he's stupid to realize that I don't give a shit what he says about my wife, even if he brings her into the thread himself, AND that my wife is an American so his calling her a Mexican just further proves how stupid he is.
It is funny though after all his whining a few weeks ago when I made a comment about a picture HE posted first that he would now bring MY wife into a thread. Pathetic.
Better looking than any Mexican anyway.
Hey look, we found another racist!
:clap:
Kinda puts the other thread (about the door-to-door salesfolk arrested after complaints that they were pushy and aggressive) into context, don't it?
KartRacerBoy
09-03-2011, 05:36 PM
BTW I don't appreciate the fake quote from me in your signature, please remove it, thanks.
:laugh:
Dude, I've revised my opinion of what cartoon character best describes you. :2up:
ConHog
09-03-2011, 05:38 PM
Better looking than any Mexican anyway.
Green card?
2416
Selma says to tell the slump buster to suck an egg.
Gaffer
09-03-2011, 05:42 PM
OCA knows all about Mexicans, the illegal kind. He hires them for cheap labor all the time.
Gunny
09-03-2011, 05:51 PM
Why should a school not be concerned with making sure their students don't wear things that might be disruptive or make the person wearing it a target for someone's anger?
They should. Unless you belong to the pussy, in your face crowd that thinks they have the right to do anything they want without facing the consequences of their actions. Perverting the law to protect them is the name of their game. Comically enough they aren't smart enough to know the law isn't going to protect them -- it's going to solve their murder -- and/or are too weak to protect their big mouths.
Oh, I know EXACTLY what the Muppet was trying to do there. Too bad he's stupid to realize that I don't give a shit what he says about my wife, even if he brings her into the thread himself, AND that my wife is an American so his calling her a Mexican just further proves how stupid he is.
It is funny though after all his whining a few weeks ago when I made a comment about a picture HE posted first that he would now bring MY wife into a thread. Pathetic.
Congratulations..............you are now the only member of this board that I will bust on their wife now.............tit for tat.
She's a spick.
What are you implying?
That Mexicans are nasty looking, probably got a little Indian in her.
Oh......ni implication, just want to see the green card, i'm just like cons, i'm a profiler.
OCA never implies, he only baits and flames.
If at first you don't succeed...............just slander, its the Rino way.
Hey look, we found another racist!
:clap:
Kinda puts the other thread (about the door-to-door salesfolk arrested after complaints that they were pushy and aggressive) into context, don't it?
No, it doesn't really..........all is fair with Gomer.
ConHog
09-03-2011, 08:29 PM
Congratulations..............you are now the only member of this board that I will bust on their wife now.............tit for tat.
She's a spick.
LOL , I guess that puts your fauxrage of a few weeks ago when you screamed your pussy off that you wanted me banned on full display doesn't it?
2416
Selma says to tell the slump buster to suck an egg.
Notice how she does her best to take on caucasian features.
WAIT! I FOUND YOUR WIFE'S PIC!
2417
OCA knows all about Mexicans, the illegal kind. He hires them for cheap labor all the time.
I would, thats true.................outwork whites, anytime, anywhere.
LOL , I guess that puts your fauxrage of a few weeks ago when you screamed your pussy off that you wanted me banned on full display doesn't it?
No, it didn't happen so now you will get the disrespect I reserve for only crackheads, liars and card cheats.
Nobody else here, not even RSR or Gaffer will get that from me, you? Your lower than dogshit, not even a care if you live or die.
Gaffer
09-03-2011, 08:42 PM
Another thread bound for the steel cage and lock down with OCA at the wheel. You have to admit he is consistent.
ConHog
09-03-2011, 08:44 PM
Another thread bound for the steel cage and lock down with OCA at the wheel. You have to admit he is consistent.
Amazing that he starts a thread with a pic of his wife then screams like a pussy when someone says his wife is not attractive and demands that they get banned and then HE turns right around brings a person's wife into the thread himself and calls her names . What a fucking hypocrite.
Amazing that he starts a thread with a pic of his wife then screams like a pussy when someone says his wife is not attractive and demands that they get banned and then HE turns right around brings a person's wife into the thread himself and calls her names . What a fucking hypocrite.
Hey, you lost the very highly prized right frome me not to talk shit about family, now i'm going to go full force and you ain't liking it one bit Gomer.
You got nobody to blame but yourself and your obvious lack of morals and class.
Another thread bound for the steel cage and lock down with OCA at the wheel. You have to admit he is consistent.
Oh well.
You suspect wrong; AND I suspect you already know that from our past talks and this is just more dishonesty from you
Schools are NOT the place to be making statements about who you are PERIOD.
Totally disagree, schools are a huge part of where you become who you are.
Again where would you draw the line? I mean, in the case of the OP, the girl was wearing a 'gays okay' top or whatever, but what if she was gay (and indeed maybe she is idk) would you then in force 'don't ask don't tell' in schools? For her 'safety' (not that it could possibly ever work lol) but surly knowing she was gay would be much more of a target that wearing the odd tshirt, no?
ConHog
09-03-2011, 09:18 PM
Totally disagree, schools are a huge part of where you become who you are.
Again where would you draw the line? I mean, in the case of the OP, the girl was wearing a 'gays okay' top or whatever, but what if she was gay (and indeed maybe she is idk) would you then in force 'don't ask don't tell' in schools? For her 'safety' (not that it could possibly ever work lol) but surly knowing she was gay would be much more of a target that wearing the odd tshirt, no?
You are talking about making someoene hide who they are, No I wouldn't want to do that. I am ONLY talking about schools not being a place to make political statements.
You are talking about making someoene hide who they are, No I wouldn't want to do that. I am ONLY talking about schools not being a place to make political statements.
...right, so someone is allowed to be gay, but not allowed to wear a tshirt saying its okay to be gay because that would cause disruption?
I think it can be safely inferred that if someone is gay they think that being gay is okay, don't you?
And again I totally disagree, in my school I was able to flourish simply because I was able to make political statements, be it in debating society, public speaking, representing student interest etc.
ConHog
09-03-2011, 09:38 PM
...right, so someone is allowed to be gay, but not allowed to wear a tshirt saying its okay to be gay because that would cause disruption?
I think it can be safely inferred that if someone is gay they think that being gay is okay, don't you?
And again I totally disagree, in my school I was able to flourish simply because I was able to make political statements, be it in debating society, public speaking, representing student interest etc.
Every rule has an exception and those are exceptions to this rule, and even then there are limits.
Every rule has an exception and those are exceptions to this rule, and even then there are limits.
That's before you got into the rest: Relgious studies, Politics, Histroy, Philosophy and Ethics, *all* require discussion on morality and political expression.
But anyways back to my main point. How can it be that a school can ban you from wearing a 'gays okay' top because that will cause disruption, when acutally being gay is fine? Surly if anything the whole being gay lark will cause more disruption, no?
ConHog
09-03-2011, 09:48 PM
That's before you got into the rest: Relgious studies, Politics, Histroy, Philosophy and Ethics, *all* require discussion on morality and political expression.
But anyways back to my main point. How can it be that a school can ban you from wearing a 'gays okay' top because that will cause disruption, when acutally being gay is fine? Surly if anything the whole being gay lark will cause more disruption, no?
Because what are you going to do ? Kick gay kids out of school? You do realize that most every kid would then claim to be gay don't you? :laugh:
That's before you got into the rest: Relgious studies, Politics, Histroy, Philosophy and Ethics, *all* require discussion on morality and political expression.
But anyways back to my main point. How can it be that a school can ban you from wearing a 'gays okay' top because that will cause disruption, when acutally being gay is fine? Surly if anything the whole being gay lark will cause more disruption, no?
Making the "choice" to be queer is ok?:wtf:
Because what are you going to do ? Kick gay kids out of school? You do realize that most every kid would then claim to be gay don't you? :laugh:
But won't the gays get victimised and beaten up and their parents sue the school?...or will they ignore the gays and attack the people wearing the 'gays okay' tshirts instead? Comeon, you *must* see the silliness in all of this.
darin
09-03-2011, 10:23 PM
I would, thats true.................outwork whites, anytime, anywhere.
No, it didn't happen so now you will get the disrespect I reserve for only crackheads, liars and card cheats.
Nobody else here, not even RSR or Gaffer will get that from me, you? Your lower than dogshit, not even a care if you live or die.
OCA - please stop fucking up threads.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.