colourwheel Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) There is no mention of gangs being a factor anywhere in that article, so I have no idea that is coming from. One only needs to do more research than just reading one article about a story... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/17/california-school-ban-us-flag-heads-appeals/ "The school’s argument during the 2010 matter was that racial tensions and gang problems plagued the student body at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, located 20 miles outside of San Jose, The Associated Press reported. So when administrators caught wind that some of the altercations experienced on Cinco de Mayo day may have been rooted in the wearing of U.S. flag shirts by three students, their reaction was quick." I have to argue this is still not an example of people being offended "specifically" at the US national flag. But more so the outrage of a few students using the American flag to purposely provoke gang violence on Cinco de Mayo day. If the situation was where as a group of students at this school were using anything to invoke gang violence on any national holiday the results would probably conclude the same way.. Edited February 5, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 "We banned the flag because it offends people""We banned the flag because it provokes people" They are the same thing. The article does not say anything about a "street gang" wearing flag t-shirts, as you stated. It says that a "street gang" was attacking people for wearing flag t-shirts. The school banned the flag shirts because they were capitulating to the will of a racist street gang, and thereby condoning the existence of a gang in their school and validating their overt racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripple Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) @colourwheel: You asked for an example and I provided one. There is no mention of gangs being a factor anywhere in that article, so I have no idea that is coming from. If the school wants to enforce a dress code that is fine and they are within their rights to do so but why would they ban the US flag while allowing Mexican flags?I asked for the example. And I clearly asked -specifically- for an example where the US flag was singled out as the one flag that was arbitrarily banned, as implied by all of these "OMG! Can't wear the US flag anymore!", 'news' sources, rather than cases where the institution has adopted an 'all are equally banned' (so you can't wear -any- flags any more, whether it's a US flag on Mexican holiday, A swaztika on a Jewish Holiday, or an Israeli flag on a Palestinian holiday) approach (as is consistent with how these institutions operate, which is basically to preempt any 'problems', and to ensure the institution will be discharged from any legal liabilities), or where the policy they are drafting are 'pending' (which means they do not yet have a policy on this, rather than have implemented a policy that specifically targets the US flag as the one flag that is banned). Edited February 5, 2014 by ripple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) @TRoaches If you're wanting to get "specific" about the issue here there is no mention of anyone getting offended "specifically" at the US national flag or justifying why this would be the reason of banning. There is no case I have found, even web searching that concludes banning a flag because "it offends people"... Edited February 5, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheo3309 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 "We banned the flag because it offends people""We banned the flag because it provokes people" They are the same thing. I have to disagree here. Being offensive is with aggressive malice. Provocation is a reaction. Could it be due to being offended? Yes. But the two don't equally hold the same scenario. I concur with Ripple and Colour. I haven't seen a case either. Not without unbiased sourcing involved at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 People were getting beat up at that school for wearing a US flag t-shirt. Even if we disregard the school's policy that specifically banned the display of the US flag, or if we justify the policy as a necessary step taken to protect the students, the fact remains that people in the US were being attacked for wearing a US flag on their shirts. And I clearly asked -specifically- for an example where the US flag was singled out as the one flag that was arbitrarily banned, as implied by all of these "OMG! Can't wear the US flag anymore!", 'news' sources, rather than cases where the institution has adopted an 'all are equally banned' (so you can't wear -any- flags any more, whether it's a US flag on Mexican holiday, A swaztika on a Jewish Holiday, or an Israeli flag on a Palestinian holiday) approach (as is consistent with how these institutions operate, which is basically to preempt any 'problems', and to ensure the institution will be discharged from any legal liabilities), or where the policy they are drafting are 'pending' (which means they do not yet have a policy on this, rather than have implemented a policy that specifically targets the US flag as the one flag that is banned).The school prohibited students from wearing US flags. while allowing other students to wear Mexican flags. You could perhaps argue that they did not actually draft a policy, but if a school administrator is making a student do something under their authority it is fair to describe it as a de facto policy of the school, even if it is not official or written policy. I have to disagree here. Being offensive is with aggressive malice. Provocation is a reaction. Could it be due to being offended? Yes. But the two don't equally hold the same scenario. I concur with Ripple and Colour. I haven't seen a case either. Not without unbiased sourcing involved at least. Go here: http://thesaurus.com/browse/offend ...and notice that "provoke" is listed as a synonym for "offend". Hopefully this will stop any further semantic arguments about the difference between being offended and provoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheo3309 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) People were getting beat up at that school for wearing a US flag t-shirt. Even if we disregard the school's policy that specifically banned the display of the US flag, or if we justify the policy as a necessary step taken to protect the students, the fact remains that people in the US were being attacked for wearing a US flag on their shirts. And I clearly asked -specifically- for an example where the US flag was singled out as the one flag that was arbitrarily banned, as implied by all of these "OMG! Can't wear the US flag anymore!", 'news' sources, rather than cases where the institution has adopted an 'all are equally banned' (so you can't wear -any- flags any more, whether it's a US flag on Mexican holiday, A swaztika on a Jewish Holiday, or an Israeli flag on a Palestinian holiday) approach (as is consistent with how these institutions operate, which is basically to preempt any 'problems', and to ensure the institution will be discharged from any legal liabilities), or where the policy they are drafting are 'pending' (which means they do not yet have a policy on this, rather than have implemented a policy that specifically targets the US flag as the one flag that is banned).The school prohibited students from wearing US flags. while allowing other students to wear Mexican flags. You could perhaps argue that they did not actually draft a policy, but if a school administrator is making a student do something under their authority it is fair to describe it as a de facto policy of the school, even if it is not official or written policy. I have to disagree here. Being offensive is with aggressive malice. Provocation is a reaction. Could it be due to being offended? Yes. But the two don't equally hold the same scenario. I concur with Ripple and Colour. I haven't seen a case either. Not without unbiased sourcing involved at least. Go here: http://thesaurus.com/browse/offend ...and notice that "provoke" is listed as a synonym for "offend". Hopefully this will stop any further semantic arguments about the difference between being offended and provoked. A synonym doesn't mean that it is defined the same as the other... I'm simply stating that to provoke is to get someone riled up and that someone reacts. Someone can be offended and not react. That's not semantics, that's just basic human behavior. Using a thesaurus doesn't give you everything in a scenario. Same with the etymology of the word which originally meant "to sin against". I brought it up because of the story itself. No one was being offended. People were being provoked. While it could have been stimulated by being viewed "offensive", the school didn't see it nor state it that way, the sight of the shirt provoked them. So these two are two separate terms. As for the Cinco de Mayo holiday, it's not an American holiday. Why would you be patriotic on ONE day when you don't do it repetitively? Sure, the same could be asked the other way, however it doesn't answer the question. It was banned after incident which means that there's more to the story than we're getting. Why were these kids wearing them one day, knowing of the holiday, when they could have done so any other time and possibly not have provocation? Why was it that important? Questions like these are questions that need to be asked and addressed first. Without it, there's no evidence to support that the banning of them were offensive. Hence why I keep provoke and offend as two separate terms. Until it says that the shirts were offensive and caused provocation, which provocation is a reaction to something that gives rising reactions, I'm going to continue to disagree. Edited February 5, 2014 by pheo3309 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) People were getting beat up at that school for wearing a US flag t-shirt. Even if we disregard the school's policy that specifically banned the display of the US flag, or if we justify the policy as a necessary step taken to protect the students, the fact remains that people in the US were being attacked for wearing a US flag on their shirts. I am not disagreeing with the fact people are being punished for wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo day because they actually are. The thing I am disagreeing with is the issue of anyone getting offended "specifically" at the US national flag or justifying this as the reason of banning. Let me remind you these students were also aware that people wearing flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo day would cause trouble on campus leading to possible violence... I am sure if you were in charge of the students on this campus and were liable for their well being you would probably do the same thing. Edited February 5, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripple Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) People were getting beat up at that school for wearing a US flag t-shirt. Even if we disregard the school's policy that specifically banned the display of the US flag, or if we justify the policy as a necessary step taken to protect the students, the fact remains that people in the US were being attacked for wearing a US flag on their shirts. And I clearly asked -specifically- for an example where the US flag was singled out as the one flag that was arbitrarily banned, as implied by all of these "OMG! Can't wear the US flag anymore!", 'news' sources, rather than cases where the institution has adopted an 'all are equally banned' (so you can't wear -any- flags any more, whether it's a US flag on Mexican holiday, A swaztika on a Jewish Holiday, or an Israeli flag on a Palestinian holiday) approach (as is consistent with how these institutions operate, which is basically to preempt any 'problems', and to ensure the institution will be discharged from any legal liabilities), or where the policy they are drafting are 'pending' (which means they do not yet have a policy on this, rather than have implemented a policy that specifically targets the US flag as the one flag that is banned).The school prohibited students from wearing US flags. while allowing other students to wear Mexican flags. You could perhaps argue that they did not actually draft a policy, but if a school administrator is making a student do something under their authority it is fair to describe it as a de facto policy of the school, even if it is not official or written policy. I didn't see any 'reputable' source that stated the students were allowed to wear Mexican flags, only that they did so -after- this incident during a protest in which they marched off of the school's property. But as much as some people would like to seize on this one shinning example from 4 years ago as a rally point for...something, the judge's ruling is totally consistent. The point made by the judge, is that it doesn't matter what the students were wearing. If wearing a 'I Heart Justin Bieber!!!!!!!' shirt on that day presents a likely chance that a violent disruption could ensue, then the school administrators had the authority to 'act.' The school administrator explained that they acted not because they had some phantom disdain towards the US national flag, but because they were concerned with safety issues, as colourwheel explained. It's totally consistent with how these institutions and their administrators operate--which is to ensure they would not be blamed and held legally liable for not doing anything if the crap hits the fan. Just like how the ALCU is being 'consistent' in firing off a letter to the school protesting their censorship. Edited February 5, 2014 by ripple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 A synonym doesn't mean that it is defined the same as the other...That is, literally, what "synonym" means. No one was being offended. People were being provoked.As I illustrated above, these both mean the same thing. It is fine if you want to apply your own personal definitions to these terms, but for the rest of us they are interchangeable terms. I am sure if you were in charge of the students on this campus and were liable for their well being you would probably do the same thing.If any group of students were attacking any other group of students, for any reason whatsoever, I would expel those students. If a kid born in Mexico decided to wear a shirt with a Mexican flag on US independence day and any of the other students decided to attack him for wearing that shirt I would expel those violent students. I would not blame the student who was attacked for "provoking" the other students, and I would not demand that he invert his shirt to prevent offending the other students. Reading carefully seems to be not your forte...I think you meant to say "Reading carefully seems not to be your forte....". Did I read that carefully enough? Regarding the rest of your post, I don't dispute that the school administration was within their rights in prohibiting the shirts. I do think they did the politically correct thing instead of the "right" thing, which would have been to recognize and uphold any student's right to express themselves in a civil way and refusing to capitulate to the will of a group of violent students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts