pheo3309 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. I asked that a few pages back, though this sums it up better. They are apples and railroad ties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripple Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) The 4th of July is a holiday in the US. So your 'example' is moot. Why does that make my example moot? it would be perfectly 'consistent' for the school administrator to tell the students to turn their Mexican flag shirt over, or go home--if there was a likely threat of hostility and/or disruption to the school, because, as I have been trying to tell you, the administrator didn't act out of any political agenda or conspiracy, but only to cover their ass. A gang of violent white supremacists are racially motivated to attack a student who is wearing a Mexican flag on their shirt. The school administrators, concerned about the threat of hostility and disruption to the school, decide to ban such shirts. There is no political agenda or conspiracy. They only want to "cover their ass". Is this acceptable to you? Is the school doing the right thing in this example? Why should the school capitulate to the will of the gang instead of protecting the victim? The whole thing reeks of the same kind of victim-blaming that is done when a rape victim is told that they invited the rape by dressing provocatively. There is no valid excuse for a person to commit violence against another person. It does not matter how abhorrent, detestable, obscene, repugnant, repulsive, ghastly, creepy, disgusting, distasteful, foul, repellent, yucky, hideous, horrid, outrageous, objectionable, obnoxious, dysphemistic, nauseating, provocative, or offensive the clothing of the victim is to the attacker. If a gang of serial rapists were violently attacking other students, and the school administration's response was require all of the girls in the school to wear burkas so as to not provoke the gang to violence against them, would this be acceptable to you? I would prefer that they address the problem by removing the violent gang instead, and allowing the students to dress and express themselves as they please without fear of violence. Right... This form of 'flawed reasoning' is what is referred to as a 'theme shift.' It's when the person substitutes one concept with another concept of different meaning and proceeds to build a string of fallacious arguments as if those two concepts are equivalent. When did trolls become 'victims' (of what, exactly?) The three kids conspired to collectively perform an act, on a very specific day of the year, that they knew would agitate some tensions among the student body and lead to potential violence. They were trolling for reactions. Calling them 'victims' is like calling the Westboro Baptist Church 'victims.' They are not 'victims.' Second, as I keep stating, the example you cited is actually not about -a- flag, and does not substantiate or counter the OP's question in any meaningful way. It's not 'proof' that the US national flag was singled out as the one flag that offends people (while no other national flags does). The motive of the school administrators was to diffuse any tension before they escalate. If some students conspired to show up that day with French flag shirts, and told the other student that the French army should have killed a lot more Mexicans during the Battle of Puebla, the school administrators' reaction would likely have been exactly the same. The OP's question is whether there are people inside the US who are offended by the US national flag--this is a no brainer. Invariably, there are. Just as there are people inside Russia who are offended by the Russian national flag, including those who are apparently responsible for the spectre of 'terrorism' at the Sochi games. There is nothing new or unique about finding someone in your country that is offended by the country's national flag, for whatever reason, because there is no country in the world in which this would not be the case. However, what is implied in the OP's post is that there is some wide-spread phenomenon of 'anti-Americanism' in the US now being officially supported by the policies of companies and institutions, and there is no evidence of that. Yet, you've managed to use that as a platform to spin a number of imaginary scenarios. In your imaginary scenarios, high schools in the US hold classes on national holidays, trolls are 'rape victims', and school administrators hate the US national flag. Edited February 6, 2014 by ripple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Right... This form of 'flawed reasoning' is what is referred to as a 'theme shift.' It's when the person substitutes one concept with another concept of different meaning and proceeds to build a string of fallacious arguments as if those two concepts are equivalent. What I really love about this is the way that you segue directly into a "theme shift" of your own, in which you compare people who dare to display the US flag to the WBC protestors.... When did trolls become 'victims' (of what, exactly?) The three kids conspired to collectively perform an act, on a very specific day of the year, that they knew would agitate some tensions among the student body and lead to potential violence. They were trolling for reactions. Calling them 'victims' is like calling the Westboro Baptist Church 'victims.' They are not 'victims.' "Trolling" is not illegal. Violently attacking someone is. Therefore, they became victims the moment that they were attacked by a violent street gang that, apparently, is running the school. You are basically saying "they were asking for it", which again correlates closely with the "blame the victim" attitude that some people apply to rape victims. Second, as I keep stating, the example you cited is actually not about -a- flag, and does not substantiate or counter the OP's question in any meaningful way. It's not 'proof' that the US national flag was singled out as the one flag that offends people (while no other national flags does). Mexican flags were allowed to be displayed by the school administration. The only flag that was banned was the US flag. Unless there is another flag that was also banned that day then the US flag was singled out. Were there any other flags banned by the school? Or was the US flag the SINGLE flag that was banned, meaning it was SINGLED out? The OP's question is whether there are people inside the US who are offended by the US national flag--this is a no brainer. Invariably, there are. Just as there are people inside Russia who are offended by the Russian national flag, including those who are apparently responsible for the spectre of 'terrorism' at the Sochi games. There is nothing new or unique about finding someone in your country that is offended by the country's national flag, for whatever reason, because there is no country in the world in which this would not be the case. However, what is implied in the OP's post is that there is some wide-spread phenomenon of 'anti-Americanism' in the US now being officially supported by the policies of companies and institutions, and there is no evidence of that Only in the United States, and perhaps a few other nations populated by self-loathing automatons (I'm looking at you, UK) would the display of the national flag be banned so as to not offend an immigrant group. I do not think that any particular policy or institution is "anti-american", and have never claimed otherwise. 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. The expression of Mexican nationalism at the school was tolerated, but American nationalism was censored and punished with physical violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) 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. Why are you so sure in "thinking" these students were not in a gang as well? Who knows, these students who were trying to stir up trouble with others could have been in a gang as well. Just because they are wearing American flag T-shirts your patriotism shrouds your judgement on the actual situation? You automatically assume the people who wear American flags to school are just innocent who cause no trouble to society who's Patriotism trumps their actual actions? I will just have to point out you know no better about the actual situation within this school no more than any of the readers here on this forum unless they actually attending or are involved with the situation. For all we know The three students who showed up wearing American flag T-shirts use the American flag as their gang symbol.... But it must be Anti-American to not side in defense of a street gang who shrouds themselves in the american flag who purposely try to invoke gang violence... Edited February 6, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripple Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Right... This form of 'flawed reasoning' is what is referred to as a 'theme shift.' It's when the person substitutes one concept with another concept of different meaning and proceeds to build a string of fallacious arguments as if those two concepts are equivalent. What I really love about this is the way that you segue directly into a "theme shift" of your own, in which you compare people who dare to display the US flag to the WBC protestors.... That's because it's an 'example' and I did not structure further arguments on that as if it was a 'premise' and as if those examples were equivalent, unlike your lengthy appropriation of 's**t-shaming' and 'rape victims' as some perfect analogy for what these trolls did. In fact, since you obviously didn't understand, let me spell it out for you: the 'comparison' is not so much illustrating the actions of one group of 'trolls' as exactly equivalent to another group of 'trolls', but intended to illustrate the ridiculousness of your analogy between the 'trolls' and 'rape victims.' When did trolls become 'victims' (of what, exactly?) The three kids conspired to collectively perform an act, on a very specific day of the year, that they knew would agitate some tensions among the student body and lead to potential violence. They were trolling for reactions. Calling them 'victims' is like calling the Westboro Baptist Church 'victims.' They are not 'victims.' "Trolling" is not illegal. Violently attacking someone is. Therefore, they became victims the moment that they were attacked by a violent street gang that, apparently, is running the school. You are basically saying "they were asking for it", which again correlates closely with the "blame the victim" attitude that some people apply to rape victims.1) 'Trolling' is not 'illegal'--and here you insert yet another 'imaginary scenario' which does not apply at all in this case. There was never any government legislation that made the display of the US national flag 'illegal.' There were -school policies- that authorized school administrators to restrict certain student actions and activities if they might be disruptive to the school environment. Deliberately doing things that would agitate fellow students definitely fall into that category. 2) No one was attacked--again, another 'imaginary scenario' to suggest that anyone was physically assaulted and necessitated criminal charges that were never laid. Perhaps these students *might* have been involved in physical altercations with other students--we do not know that. But there is zero evidence to suggest they were ever attacked. Edited February 6, 2014 by ripple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajKrAzAm Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 News at 10: California streets terrorized by American flag wearing gangs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) News at 10: California streets terrorized by American flag wearing gangs. Wouldn't shock me... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/08/south-carolina-school-says-flag-shirt-represents-gang-affiliation/ 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 (edited) Why are you so sure in "thinking" these students were not in a gang as well? Who knows, these students who were trying to stir up trouble with others could have been in a gang as well. Just because they are wearing American flag T-shirts your patriotism shrouds your judgement on the actual situation? You automatically assume the people who wear American flags to school are just innocent who cause no trouble to society who's Patriotism trumps their actual actions? I will just have to point out you know no better about the actual situation within this school no more than any of the readers here on this forum unless they actually attending or are involved with the situation. For all we know The three students who showed up wearing American flag T-shirts use the American flag as their gang symbol.... But it must be Anti-American to not side in defense of a street gang who shrouds themselves in the american flag who purposely try to invoke gang violence... I am not sure that they were not in a gang. I am sure that no mention was made of the students who were punished having any gang affiliation. What WAS mentioned, was that the aggressive students were in a gang, and that the school was responding to the threat of this gang. I have not speculated about any aspect of this. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but produce speculative reasons why they may have deserved their punishment, including possible gang affiliation, without any evidence of this whatsoever. As far as patriotism and anti-Americanism are concerned, I could care less. I have publicly burned more than one American flag. Anti-American sentiment is surely justified in many corners of the world and here in the States. I simply do not accept any situation where a person's right to expression is trumped by someone else's thin skin, and I certainly have no sympathy for anyone whose response to expression that they disagree with is to bring violence against that person. 1) 'Trolling' is not 'illegal'--and here you insert yet another 'imaginary scenario' which does not apply at all in this case. There was never any government legislation that made the display of the US national flag 'illegal.' There were -school policies- that authorized school administrators to restrict certain student actions and activities if they might be disruptive to the school environment. Deliberately doing things that would agitate fellow students definitely fall into that category.I did not claim that trolling was illegal. I was showing that the students who were breaking the law were the ones who the school catered to. You have one group of students who are in a gang that terrorizes the student body with violent attacks. You have another group of students who wore a symbol on a t-shirt. The school punished the students who wore the t-shirts. As far as "deliberately doing things that would agitate fellow students" I can only say....who cares? In a free country you are allowed to agitate your peers. You are not, however, allowed to respond to agitation with violence. 2) No one was attacked--again, another 'imaginary scenario' to suggest that anyone was physically assaulted and necessitated criminal charges that were never laid. Perhaps these students *might* have been involved in physical altercations with other students--we do not know that. But there is zero evidence to suggest they were ever attacked.It is not an imaginary scenario. The administration said that the ban was in response to altercations involving a gang at the school. No imagination necessary. The evidence of the altercations is the school's statements regarding the incident. Wouldn't shock me...That isn't actually a flag on that shirt. It is an arrangement of blue and red bandanna that vaguely resembles a flag. If you can find me a picture of a post office with that image flying off the flag pole then I will be convinced that the shirt pictured in that article is a US flag. Bandannas are probably banned from pretty much every school in the country, regardless of what image, print, or color they are. 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 @TRoaches http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/09-13-2012/5-teens-charged-gang-activity-after-thefts-fayette-co-high Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Like I already said, bandannas are banned from pretty much every school in the country, regardless of what image, print, or color they are. 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. If you want to prove that sometimes people do bad things while wearing US flags then wow, point taken. How profound! Hey check this out.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/3832732/The-Smoking-Gun-2008-mugshots-of-the-year.html?image=11 Does that prove anything about Obama, or people who support him? Does it establish some kind of link between the behavior of the people in the mug shots and the rest of Obama's support? Of course not, and it would be absurd to argue otherwise. Likewise, your story about a gang that wears flag bandannas has no bearing on the banned flag t-shirts, and it is absurd to imply any relevance between the bandanna gang and the topic. Edited February 6, 2014 by TRoaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts