colourwheel Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 What is the point that you are trying to make? What does a story about a gang that wore flag bandannas have to do with the school ban on flag t-shirts? There is zero evidence or mention of the students who wore the t-shirts having any gang affiliation, so I do not see the connection. The point I am trying to make is you have no proof either of the situation or circumstances of the story. There is zero evidence about anything when your the one who has injected more accusations about the story than any other poster with in this thread. Regardless of what I think or of what you think the school is in its right to do what ever they want when conducting safety of their students. Doesn't matter how much you claim they have 1st amendment rights, as students of that school their rights are limited the moment they step on school grounds. If the school wanted they could ban American Flag t-shirts all year round and the only thing one can do is just mope around and sigh about how their freedoms are taken away from them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) The point I am trying to make is you have no proof either of the situation or circumstances of the story. There is zero evidence about anything when your the one who has injected more accusations about the story than any other poster with in this thread. Regardless of what I think or of what you think the school is in its right to do what ever they want when conducting safety of their students. Doesn't matter how much you claim they have 1st amendment rights, as students of that school their rights are limited the moment they step on school grounds. If the school wanted they could ban American Flag t-shirts all year round and the only thing one can do is just mope around and sigh about how their freedoms are taken away from them.... Please, point to one single claim that I have made that is demonstrably false. I bet you can't do it! Now, let us apply your logic to another issue and see how this attitude jives with you...... There is a group of students at the school who are extremely opposed to abortion and premarital sex. The very idea of abortions and premarital sex cause those students great agitation, and they have threatened to violently attack other students who are pregnant or have been pregnant, are considered to be promiscuous, or are known to have had abortions in the past. The school must protect the students from this agitation, so they expel any student who fits any of those criteria. If a girl is pregnant or has been pregnant, or is wearing an outfit that is the least bit revealing or spends too much time with her boyfriend she is sent home. They must do this, because the safety of the school is of paramount importance and trumps the rights of those students who are expelled. If they do this the only thing one can do is just mope around and sigh about how their freedoms are taken away from them... Do you see how catering to the will of the agitated segment while punishing the agitators is completely backwards? In this scenario the people who should have been punished are the agitated students who are a threat to the others, not the ones who are "agitating" others through their actions. Do you see how ridiculous it is to say that all that can be done is to "mope around and sigh about how their freedoms are taken away"? I know that you would be outraged by such a thing, because you have made it very clear that you consider reproductive rights to be sacrosanct. I feel the same way about free speech. Expression should only be hindered in the most dire of situations, and some punks starting a fight because they do not like someone's t-shirt is hardly a dire situation. Edited February 6, 2014 by TRoaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Please, point to one single claim that I have made that is demonstrably false. I bet you can't do it! An example below... What I do think is the gang that was attacking students who were wearing flag shirts was demonstrating a probable "anti-American" attitude within their ranks. "I also know" that the administration's response to the influence of this gang at the school was to punish the victims of the attacks by restricting their expression as a method of protecting them. If this isn't an accusation being injected into a story, it just must be my imagination.... Regardless of what I think or of what you think the school is in its right to do what ever they want when conducting safety of their students. Doesn't matter how much you claim they have 1st amendment rights, as students of that school their rights are limited the moment they step on school grounds. If the school wanted they could ban American Flag t-shirts all year round and the only thing one can do is just mope around and sigh about how their freedoms are taken away from them.... Now, let us apply your logic to another issue and see how this attitude jives with you...... I think your missing the point there doesn't even need to be logical reason when a school decides what is acceptable and what is not when students show up on school grounds "knowing" they have limited rights. Doesn't matter how much you try to evade with ridiculous hypothetical examples, doesn't change the fact the school was doing what they thought was in the best interests to protect their students. Edited February 6, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Please, point to one single claim that I have made that is demonstrably false. I bet you can't do it! An example below... What I do think is the gang that was attacking students who were wearing flag shirts was demonstrating a probable "anti-American" attitude within their ranks. "I also know" that the administration's response to the influence of this gang at the school was to punish the victims of the attacks by restricting their expression as a method of protecting them. There is nothing in your example that is inaccurate or untrue. The school did, in fact, say that their decision was in response to a gang at the school and the altercations that the gang was involved in regarding the flag shirts. Their attorneys even stated this in court, so the evidence is pretty clear that my statement was accurate. Try again! I think your missing the point there doesn't even need to be logical reason when a school decided what is acceptable and what is not when students show up on school grounds "knowing" they have limited rights. Doesn't matter how much you try to evade with ridiculous hypothetical examples, Doesn't change the fact the school was doing what they thought was in the best interests to protect their students.You heard it here first! Colourwheel believes that, as long as the school administration believes they are acting in the best interests of their students, they would be within their rights to expel students who have had abortions. They don't need a logical reason! The individual rights of those students are irrelevant! They can do whatever they want, as long as they believe it is necessary for the safety of the school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripple Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Please, point to one single claim that I have made that is demonstrably false. I bet you can't do it!I am not going to read any more of your silly imaginary scenarios, where you try to inject items that are irrelevant to the discussion or the case example (like whether 'trolling' is 'illegal'). Just one thing that needs to be pointed out, since you are so confident in your ability to read things carefully... The school officials stated there were violent altercations in the year -prior- to the incident during the Cinco de Mayo celebrations, which is what prompted the school administrators to act and pre-empt the possibility it may occur again, -not- that any of the trolls were "attacked" in the subsequent year, when this incident took place, as you mistakenly stated. Edited February 6, 2014 by ripple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 What I do think is the gang that was attacking students who were wearing flag shirts was demonstrating a probable "anti-American" attitude within their ranks. "I also know" that the administration's response to the influence of this gang at the school was to punish the victims of the attacks by restricting their expression as a method of protecting them. If this isn't an accusation being injected into a story, it just must be my imagination.... There is nothing in your example that is inaccurate or untrue. So you know for fact this was done to punish the victims of the attacks by restricting their expression as a method of protecting them? Without any real details about the story regarding any kind of ill intentions, this is quite a claim to make.... Btw... You have no ground in stating what anyone believes in no more than one can claim what you believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Erm, seems to me, there WASN'T any attack, as the shirts that would have caused it, were not allowed to be worn. The issue here is, was the school administration correct in banning shirts with an american flag on them, for ONE day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The school officials stated there were violent altercations in the year -prior- to the incident during the Cinco de Mayo celebrations, which is what prompted the school administrators to act and pre-empt the possibility it may occur again, -not- that any of the trolls were "attacked" in the subsequent year, when this incident took place, as you mistakenly stated.I never claimed that the students expelled were also the students who were attacked, or made any statements about the timeline of events. I restated what the administration said: That they banned the shirts because altercations involving gangs who were agitated by the shirts, and who had attacked other students because of this agitation. Careful reading indeed! (Truthfully, I can't be bothered to read back through and confirm this, so I may have slipped up at some point and incorrectly implied that the attack victims and the censorship victims were the same people. I don't think that I did, though. I'm sure you'll let me know.) So you know for fact this was done to punish the victims of the attacks by restricting their expression as a method of protecting them? Without any real details about the story regarding any kind of ill intentions, this is quite a claim to make....Btw... You have no ground in stating what anyone believes in no more than one can claim what you believe in. I made no claims regarding the internal motivation of the school administration, beyond what they said themselves. I do know for a fact that what was done was a form of punishment. They were expelled from school. How is that not a form of punishment? It is not my "belief" that they were expelled because they displayed the same flag that is mounted on the flag pole outside of the school. It really did happen. No belief necessary. Erm, seems to me, there WASN'T any attack, as the shirts that would have caused it, were not allowed to be worn. The issue here is, was the school administration correct in banning shirts with an american flag on them, for ONE day.And there is one of the aspects that distinguishes this case from most others involving challenges to school dress codes. It would be one thing if the school banned the display of any political flag. It is entirely another thing to ban the display of a particular flag. Imagine the outrage if the school had banned the Mexican flag instead of the US flag, or if they had banned rainbow flags or pink triangles. An argument could be made that each of those examples could be disruptive. What if a gay student was beaten by a gang, and the school's response was to ban any LGBT symbols because they don't want any disruptions? I acknowledge their right to do so, but is it really the right thing to do? Wouldn't it be better to teach the kids that, in a free society, you are not allowed to impose your will on others through the threat of violence simply because you disagree with their view point? Instead they showed the kids that if you beat up enough people you will get what you want. Remember kids, violence solves problems! Btw... You have no ground in stating what anyone believes in no more than one can claim what you believe in. I guess you should probably "mope around and sigh about it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 The only offense I take is with the cowardice of those who are put in places of responsibility who are more afraid of loosing that position than the people they serve. These are the people who make these ludicrous decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) The only offense I take is with the cowardice of those who are put in places of responsibility who are more afraid of loosing that position than the people they serve. These are the people who make these ludicrous decisions. I don't necessarily think it was a ludicrous decision, when it comes to protecting their students from "preventable" violence on school grounds. If you think students in schools shouldn't have their constitutional rights restricted, maybe high school students across the nation should even be able to carry fire arms into school since the 2nd amendment protects them of this right... unless you begin to realize this would probably cause more violence in schools..... The school did what was in their right to limit what people wear on Cinco de Mayo day, despite how one might think it being unpatriotic. Edited February 7, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts