HeyYou Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It wasn't specifically the flag they were wearing, it was WHY they were wearing it that would make them targets. Any other day of the week, it would be just another shirt. But, if you flat out STATE that you are going to wear X shirt on Y day, to piss off some segment of the population, well, what do you expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) ...these kids have the right to wear a US flag to school... But you see you are quiet wrong here.... The students have limited rights on school grounds. seems you don't quite follow this... "Their constitution grants public school children only limited First Amendment rights when they enter the schoolhouse gates." "A school may restrict a student's speech, to prevent unruly disruptions." "the school was within its right to ban the shirts for just that single day." Whether you thinks this ruling was right or wrong is another story.... Edited February 6, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheo3309 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The students who were attacked were probably instigators in past instances. Thus it escalated the situation to the point where it became physical. I could speculate that words were probably said on both sides. We don't know. Which is why I was asking for more evidence. There isn't any evidence that the students who were attacked weren't guilty of instigating the situations before hand. None of these words were found on that link, as you asked in your former post as quoted below which was not to use any of the words listed there. I did as you asked. Due to the reasoning which has been displayed in the thread. The protection of the students who were attacked. Now since you don't have a source, may I ask why you think they're being banned for being offensive when there's no evidence that supports such?Why were they attacked? Try to explain why without using any of the words listed here: http://thesaurus.com/browse/offend Again, rape is taken into legal action. The school wouldn't have a choice what really happened to those assaulting due to the fact that the parents would press charges and then try for the most they can demand justice for. The school has no authority over that. The reason why I seen it as a red herring is because you're answering questions with questions and eluding to begging the question in which I'm trying to find why you came to the reasoning of your premise rather than taking you out of context. Now in context with your latest post, @TRoachesIf any student male or female was "warned" they were going to be raped if they showed up wearing an American flag T-shirt, I doubt they would be so patriotic they would just throw caution in the wind because they must their 1st amendment rights.... :laugh: Don't know anyone I have ever met who welcomes being raped regardless what they wear.... :facepalm: Women are often warned that their manner of dress could make them a target for rape. If a woman ignores those warnings and dresses as provocatively as she pleases, and is raped while wearing those provocative clothes it is unacceptable to place the blame on her, regardless of the warnings she received. She has a right to wear whatever clothes she prefers, just like these kids have the right to wear a US flag to school, and in neither case is it appropriate to blame the victim of the crime instead of the perpetrator. I can agree with this if it was a case of two individuals getting into a fist fight because some jerk stole a toy. When it's multiple parties involved however, it's an issue that has to be appeased from all angles. The kids who assaulted those wearing the shirts probably were punished too. There's no evidence to support that they weren't punished. I grew up close to gang neighborhoods. We couldn't have red or blue handkerchiefs on our person because that meant that we were either part of the Bloods or the Crypts. Looking back on it now, I'm glad that they did that, not only did it remove myself as a potential target, but it also kept the school violence at a minimum, minus the love triangle quarrels and the like. If that hadn't have happened I'm sure that the violence would have only escalated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It wasn't specifically the flag they were wearing, it was WHY they were wearing it that would make them targets. Any other day of the week, it would be just another shirt. But, if you flat out STATE that you are going to wear X shirt on Y day, to piss off some segment of the population, well, what do you expect?Apply this logic to a rape situation: "It wasn't specifically the dress that you were wearing, it was WHY you were wearing it that made you a target. Any other scenario it would just be another dress. But, if you flat out STATE that you are going to wear X dress to Y nightclub to arouse some segment of the population, what do you expect?" Just imagine how insane a police officer or judge would sound if they said something like that to a rape victim while dismissing their complaint and enacting a "protective" restriction on their clothing choices to prevent future rapes. I very clearly stated early in the thread that I understood and recognize the school's right to restrict the student's clothing choices. I am only questioning whether the way that the school handled it was right or wrong. If the school prohibited the depiction of MLK because it may provoke a gang of white supremacists and cause racial tension at the school they would be within their rights to do so, but they would be doing the wrong thing. Having the right to do something is not the same as doing the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The students who were attacked were probably instigators in past instances. Thus it escalated the situation to the point where it became physical. I could speculate that words were probably said on both sides. We don't know. Which is why I was asking for more evidence. There isn't any evidence that the students who were attacked weren't guilty of instigating the situations before hand. None of these words were found on that link, as you asked in your former post as quoted below which was not to use any of the words listed there. I did as you asked. You are suggesting that they were perhaps attacked, not because of their shirts, but because of being "instigators in past instances". If this is true why ban the flag shirts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheo3309 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The students who were attacked were probably instigators in past instances. Thus it escalated the situation to the point where it became physical. I could speculate that words were probably said on both sides. We don't know. Which is why I was asking for more evidence. There isn't any evidence that the students who were attacked weren't guilty of instigating the situations before hand. None of these words were found on that link, as you asked in your former post as quoted below which was not to use any of the words listed there. I did as you asked. You are suggesting that they were perhaps attacked, not because of their shirts, but because of being "instigators in past instances". If this is true why ban the flag shirts? I'm saying it could have sent the students over the edge. Hence why the faculty felt it was necessary and warranted. What do you do when a group of people abuse something? They take it away. Now back to my question. Why do you think that flags are being banned for being offensive when there's no evidence to support this? I answered your questions. I jumped through your hoops. :P It's only fair that you answer my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) I'm saying it could have sent the students over the edge. Hence why the faculty felt it was necessary and warranted. What do you do when a group of people abuse something? They take it away. Now back to my question. Why do you think that flags are being banned for being offensive when there's no evidence to support this? I answered your questions. I jumped through your hoops. :tongue: It's only fair that you answer my question.Nobody abused anything, except maybe the violent students who took Cinco de Mayo as an excuse to attack other students for their clothing choices. The "hoops" were intended to demonstrate the illogicality of your premise, which is based entirely on the semantic difference between the shirts being banned for being "offensive" versus the shirts being banned for "provoking/instigating/sending the students over the edge". They are all different ways of saying the same thing, and your argument is therefore pedantic and semantic. What is the difference between being "offensive" and "sending the students over the edge"? If you can differentiate between those two concepts then I could perhaps answer your question. Without that differentiation any answer that I provide will simply be dismissed semantically by saying "The attackers were not offended...they were provoked/sent over the edge/etc". Edited February 6, 2014 by TRoaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It wasn't specifically the flag they were wearing, it was WHY they were wearing it that would make them targets. Any other day of the week, it would be just another shirt. But, if you flat out STATE that you are going to wear X shirt on Y day, to piss off some segment of the population, well, what do you expect?Apply this logic to a rape situation: "It wasn't specifically the dress that you were wearing, it was WHY you were wearing it that made you a target. Any other scenario it would just be another dress. But, if you flat out STATE that you are going to wear X dress to Y nightclub to arouse some segment of the population, what do you expect?" Just imagine how insane a police officer or judge would sound if they said something like that to a rape victim while dismissing their complaint and enacting a "protective" restriction on their clothing choices to prevent future rapes. I very clearly stated early in the thread that I understood and recognize the school's right to restrict the student's clothing choices. I am only questioning whether the way that the school handled it was right or wrong. If the school prohibited the depiction of MLK because it may provoke a gang of white supremacists and cause racial tension at the school they would be within their rights to do so, but they would be doing the wrong thing. Having the right to do something is not the same as doing the right thing. I have yet to meet a woman that gets dressed, thinking: "I want to wear something that will prompt men to rape me." They may want sex, but, they want it at THEIR convenience, and choice..... The folks wearing the t-shirts, if they had not mentioned WHY they were wearing them, they would have been just another t-shirt. The two situations are apples and railroad ties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I have yet to meet a woman that gets dressed, thinking: "I want to wear something that will prompt men to rape me."They may want sex, but, they want it at THEIR convenience, and choice..... The folks wearing the t-shirts, if they had not mentioned WHY they were wearing them, they would have been just another t-shirt. The two situations are apples and railroad ties. I have yet to meet a high school student that gets dressed thinking "I want to wear something that will prompt men to beat me up". The motivation of the students is irrelevant, just as the reason for the women to wear the provocative dress is irrelevant. What is relevant is the crime that was committed. There is no positive result to be gained by scrutinizing the thoughts, motivations, or actions of the victim and allowing that scrutiny to lead you to place the blame on the victim. The two situations are apples and more apples. In both situations a person is attacked because of their manner of dress. In both situations there are people who prefer to place the blame on the victim rather than the attacker. In both situations there are people who tell the victim that they should have known what was going to happen if they dressed like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheo3309 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) The students who were attacked were probably instigators in past instances. Thus it escalated the situation to the point where it became physical. I could speculate that words were probably said on both sides. We don't know. Which is why I was asking for more evidence. There isn't any evidence that the students who were attacked weren't guilty of instigating the situations before hand. None of these words were found on that link, as you asked in your former post as quoted below which was not to use any of the words listed there. I did as you asked. You are suggesting that they were perhaps attacked, not because of their shirts, but because of being "instigators in past instances". If this is true why ban the flag shirts? I'm saying it could have sent the students over the edge. Hence why the faculty felt it was necessary and warranted. What do you do when a group of people abuse something? They take it away. Now back to my question. Why do you think that flags are being banned for being offensive when there's no evidence to support this? I answered your questions. I jumped through your hoops. :tongue: It's only fair that you answer my question. Nobody abused anything, except maybe the violent students who took Cinco de Mayo as an excuse to attack other students for their clothing choices. The "hoops" were intended to demonstrate the illogicality of your premise, which is based entirely on the semantic difference between the shirts being banned for being "offensive" versus the shirts being banned for "provoking/instigating/sending the students over the edge". They are all different ways of saying the same thing, and your argument is therefore pedantic and semantic. What is the difference between being "offensive" and "sending the students over the edge"? If you can differentiate between those two concepts then I could perhaps answer your question. Without that differentiation any answer that I provide will simply be dismissed semantically by saying "The attackers were not offended...they were provoked/sent over the edge/etc". I think you're off topic again. It's really a simple question. You stated that you don't have evidence that flags are being banned for being offensive, yet you don't want to say why you think they are being banned for being offensive, which is the original topic of the thread... I don't see why you can't answer it without going off topic. We're over the semantics argument and frankly you're talking in circles now from three pages ago. Edited February 6, 2014 by pheo3309 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts