Print Page | Close Window

Cinco De Mayo Fail

Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=185486
Printed Date: 26 January 2026 at 8:02pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Cinco De Mayo Fail
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Subject: Cinco De Mayo Fail
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 10:29am
I nominate this principle for DBag of the month award!
 
http://news.yahoo.com/video/local-15749667/19585803 - http://news.yahoo.com/video/local-15749667/19585803
 
 


-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.



Replies:
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 10:38am
Wow.


While I don't believe they didn't do it to envoke reaction, I don't think it was okay to send them home for wearing it.


-------------
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo


Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 11:11am
...Really?

-------------

irc.esper.net
#paintball


Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 11:14am
I wish I would have known that getting a free day off was as easy as wearing a flag when I was in high school

-------------


Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 11:30am
It's not even a Mexican holiday, it's only celebrated in Pueblo and even then, not in the style which is purported by all the beer companies that pushed it on the public here in the US.

I wonder if the principal sent students wearing american flag themed shirts or even orange shirts home on March 17th.

-------------
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>


Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 12:45pm
Yay for stupid people reacting to other stupid people.

He couldn't just ask them to turn them inside out?


-------------
BU Engineering 2012


Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 12:59pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Yay for stupid people reacting to other stupid people.

He couldn't just ask them to turn them inside out?
He did. They refused.

-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum


Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 1:01pm
Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Yay for stupid people reacting to other stupid people.

He couldn't just ask them to turn them inside out?
He did. They refused.

So it's wrong to live in America and wear a t-shirt with an American flag on it?


-------------
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!




Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 1:16pm
You know what "Live Oak" Schools produce don't you?
 
 
 
 
(I kill me).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(what, you don't get it?...)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Come on. An Oak tree...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nuts. ahhahahhahhahahaha
 
 
 
(inb4 technically "acorns") by oldpbnoob....


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 1:18pm
please FE, you can come up with better than that...

-------------
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!




Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 1:22pm
Originally posted by Ceesman762 Ceesman762 wrote:

Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Yay for stupid people reacting to other stupid people.

He couldn't just ask them to turn them inside out?
He did. They refused.

So it's wrong to live in America and wear a t-shirt with an American flag on it?
I would have refused to as well and probably been suspended for giving the principal a one fingererd salute along with "k.. my....s"
 
Does it make it any better that the principal is Hispanic?


-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 1:26pm
Originally posted by Ceesman762 Ceesman762 wrote:

Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Yay for stupid people reacting to other stupid people.

He couldn't just ask them to turn them inside out?
He did. They refused.

So it's wrong to live in America and wear a t-shirt with an American flag on it?
Absolutely not. I think it's ridiculous that they were asked to take off their shirts or turn them inside out. I also have no doubt in my mind that these kids wore the shirts to be d-bags, and had nothing to do with patriotism, but that's not really relevant.

-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum


Posted By: Magoo
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 1:32pm
Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Originally posted by Ceesman762 Ceesman762 wrote:

Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Yay for stupid people reacting to other stupid people.

He couldn't just ask them to turn them inside out?
He did. They refused.

So it's wrong to live in America and wear a t-shirt with an American flag on it?
Absolutely not. I think it's ridiculous that they were asked to take off their shirts or turn them inside out. I also have no doubt in my mind that these kids wore the shirts to be d-bags, and had nothing to do with patriotism, but that's not really relevant.


It's entirely relevant. Playing devil's advocate here, a school environment is no place for instigating confrontation. It was in the interest of the general learning environment to prevent it. Do we know how apparent it was that these students wearing the flags were doing it just to instigate a reaction? Do they get a free pass, just because it's a flag?


Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 1:33pm
D-bags or not, they were not offending any one. That principal needs a taking to the wood shed and introduced a comedy club.


-------------
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!




Posted By: Magoo
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 1:35pm
^^^ We don't know that. Perhaps it was because of pressuring that the administration intervened.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 1:39pm
NUTS...
 
 
 
BWAHAHAHAHHAHA!
 
 
lol.


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 1:39pm
Originally posted by Magoo Magoo wrote:

Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Originally posted by Ceesman762 Ceesman762 wrote:

Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Yay for stupid people reacting to other stupid people.

He couldn't just ask them to turn them inside out?
He did. They refused.

So it's wrong to live in America and wear a t-shirt with an American flag on it?
Absolutely not. I think it's ridiculous that they were asked to take off their shirts or turn them inside out. I also have no doubt in my mind that these kids wore the shirts to be d-bags, and had nothing to do with patriotism, but that's not really relevant.


It's entirely relevant. Playing devil's advocate here, a school environment is no place for instigating confrontation. It was in the interest of the general learning environment to prevent it. Do we know how apparent it was that these students wearing the flags were doing it just to instigate a reaction? Do they get a free pass, just because it's a flag?

Creating a non-hostile(I'm using that term loosely here) school environment is no grounds for trampling over a citizen's rights.


-------------


Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 1:43pm
Wait wait wait... we're in America, and an American school got mad at people wearing American clothing? Screw that.



The vice principal better lose his job... and I'm not one to throw that around lightly.




Eville, if it was getting hostile, send the kids home who were getting mad at American flag shirts as a UNIVERSALLY non-offensive shirt cannot be considered hostile.

-------------



Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 2:18pm
I don't see how this was an issue.  Unless it actually instigated something, I don't see why they were sent home.

Vice principals were invented to overreact.


-------------
BU Engineering 2012


Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 2:22pm
If someone starts a fight because they don't like that someone is wearing an American flag shirt, then the person starting the fight should be removed from the school.

-------------


Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 2:25pm

I don't really care if the kid was wearing a shirt with the north Korean flag. I have a problem with government workers imposing rules about how kids are to dress. I think thats an issue between the parents and the kid, personally.

A year after I switched, the public highschool I went to started a rule that boys wernt allowed to have hair long enough to cover their ears. And they don't allow ear guages now, or lip rings, etc. While I think guages look ridiculous, it's stupid for a public, government controlled school to make a rule banning them.


-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum


Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 2:42pm
I think its disgusting.
 
I wish I was attending that highschool, I would raise hell.


-------------


Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 2:44pm
Originally posted by Eville Eville wrote:

If someone starts a fight because they don't like that someone is wearing an American flag shirt, then the person starting the fight should be removed from the US.


Fixed.

-------------



Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 2:53pm
That's insane. Seriously insane. I can't imagine any situation in Canada where wearing a Canadian flag would get me kicked out, and I'd image the same the south of the border. In fact I was wearing a Canada shirt at work all day yesterday. What an idiot.....wow


Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 3:05pm
Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

That's insane. Seriously insane. I can't imagine any situation in Canada where wearing a Canadian flag would get me kicked out, and I'd image the same the south of the border. In fact I was wearing a Canada shirt at work all day yesterday. What an idiot.....wow

Why do you feel like an idiot Choop? You are Canadian and damn proud of it.


-------------
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!




Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 3:07pm
Hahaha, nice


Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 3:18pm
^^ I call it as I see it.^^

-------------
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!




Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 3:34pm
Canadians aren't idiots, they're just evil. How else can you explain both Celine Dion AND Justin Bieber.

I'll never let you live that down Canada, NEVER!!!!

-------------
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>


Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 3:35pm
Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

Canadians aren't idiots, they're just evil. How else can you explain both Celine Dion AND Justin Bieber.

I'll never let you live that down Canada, NEVER!!!!


We're just trying to compete with Americas terrible pop acts


Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 3:35pm
Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

Canadians aren't idiots, they're just evil. How else can you explain both Celine Dion AND Justin Bieber.

I'll never let you live that down Canada, NEVER!!!!



Don't forget Cindy.  If it weren't for Choop, I'd advocate nuking all of Canada, just as a taste of what we have to suffer through.


-------------
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo


Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 3:36pm

But really? Did you have to let Justin Bieber out? He ruins my day.



-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum


Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 3:58pm
Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

But really? Did you have to let Justin Bieber out? He ruins my day.



I'd have him killed myself if I could, I can't stand that little girl


Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 4:02pm
The fact that he actually makes money selling music makes me want to scream.

-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum


Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 4:09pm
Bieber is Canadian?

-------------


Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 4:45pm
If any of you sport his hair cut, I will hunt you done and revoke your Man Card and then kill you for your own good.

-------------
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!




Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 4:53pm
^still rockin' the emo hair. ;)

-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum


Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 4:55pm
to match the glove?

-------------
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!




Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 5:00pm
Originally posted by Ceesman762 Ceesman762 wrote:

to match the glove?
Maybe I should get my aunt to dye me a pink/black coon-tail to match the gloves. Wink

-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum


Posted By: Magoo
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 5:00pm
Originally posted by Ceesman762 Ceesman762 wrote:

If any of you sport his hair cut, I will hunt you done and revoke your Man Card and then kill you for your own good.


The little <poopy> stole MY haircut. I've had my hair cut the same way since before he was born...


Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 5:01pm
Originally posted by Magoo Magoo wrote:

Originally posted by Ceesman762 Ceesman762 wrote:

If any of you sport his hair cut, I will hunt you done and revoke your Man Card and then kill you for your own good.


The little <poopy> stole MY haircut. I've had my hair cut the same way since before he was born...


You would.


-------------
Que pasa?




Posted By: Magoo
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 5:02pm
It's more of a convenience thing. My hair does what it likes.


Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 5:04pm
Those kids look incredibly douchey and their actions only confirm this.

I guess I'm the only one who is on the side of the administration in this case, provided all of the information in the video was accurate.  Well this should be fun.  A few points:
  • Students in public schools, while on the premises of their school, do not have the unrestricted free speech afforded to the rest of us.  This has been upheld in court case after court case and is the reason student newspapers are restricted in what they can print and the banning of certain hairstyles or clothing items is not unconstitutional.  Go to some schools and you can't wear any flag, certain logos or graphics and even certain colors.
  • The primary function of a school is to provide children with an education.  In order to do so, they must take measures, usually unpopular and sometimes drastic, to ensure the student body is disrupted and distracted as little as possible.  What Tallen said about this not being a real holiday is true, and when coupled with the fact that the offending clothing items represented the American flag, it seems, and is, ridiculous that students were getting upset (which they were - watch the video).  However, ridiculousness of a situation should not come into account with deciding the what actions are to be taken.  Normally none of the above conditions would merit the action taken by the administration, but those who were there at the time did sense the tension and were afraid violence would ensue if something were not done.  With such a predicament the administration was rather limited in the actions they could take and had three possible routes  - deal with the offended, deal the offenders or pop popcorn.
  • The "best" (see: most American) route would be to deal with the offended.  While this might be the more savory the the two, it is also the more impractical.  For reasons I shouldn't have to elaborate on, one can not send an entire ethnicity of people home.  So what options are left?  Sending those who are angry home?  As the Hispanic population makes up 40% of the school, it would have been impossible single out students based on how angry they were and how likely they would be to act on this anger in any reasonable length of time.  If you doubt the impracticality of this option and still see it as viable, how angry must the students be to qualify being sent home?  Do you only send those home who are furious? What about those slightly mad or barely perturbed?  Besides, "being mad" has never been grounds for being sent home before.
  • The second route is to deal with the offenders, which is what the school did.   In doing so, sending the kids home was the action taken only after asking them to change or turn the shirt inside out.  Outside of these three options, there were no actions that could have been taken with the offending students that could have changed the situation.  Moreover, the school did not punish the kids outside of the single day and did not suspend them or anything of that nature, thereby showing they are more reasonable than most school districts - most have a habit of overreacting and suspending kids when such a consequence hardly fits the offense.
  • Finally, they could have just popped some popcorn and watched the show.  This would have been negligent and irresponsible and only an option to those who would not mind risking their job in an attempt to remain uncaring, impartial or politically correct.
  • One must also keep in mind that by the time the administration learned of the disruption, they had probably 30 minutes at most to make a decision to the best of their abilities.
  • As far as the "if the 'Murican" flag offends ewe, geet out of mah country" comments are concerned, I hope you guys were joking about suspending and/or deporting people who feel this way.  If not, you should realize that this is hardly a legal reason to remove someone from school/ the country.  If you wish it were a legal reason, you should go to prison, write a book, assume leadership of the country and start a war.  You can persecute everyone who is un-'Murican then.
TL;DR - The school was afraid violence would break out and had limited time to act. The fact that action had to be taken in the first place may have been ridiculous, but the school showed good judgment in not allowing the ridiculousness of the situation affect their actions.  Moreover, their actions diffused the situation in the most efficient manner possible which resulted in the removal of only 4 students from school.  They also showed good judgment by not punishing them more harshly than necessary.

Edit - Lol, I guess I came in a little late for the serious conversation.


Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 5:09pm
Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:

As far as the "if the 'Murican" flag offends ewe, geet out of mah country" comments are concerned, I hope you guys were joking about suspending and/or deporting people who feel this way. If not, you should realize that this is hardly a legal reason to remove someone from school/ the country. If you wish it were a legal reason, you should go to prison, write a book, assume leadership of the country and start a war. You can persecute everyone who is un-'Murican then.


Yes, it was meant in jest, but not completely without reason either. If you're so pissed that someone would wear the flag of the country you currently reside in because they are happy to be here, you have problems, plain and simple.

-------------



Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 5:26pm
Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:

Those kids look incredibly douchey and their actions only confirm this.

I guess I'm the only one who is on the side of the administration in this case, provided all of the information in the video was accurate.  Well this should be fun.  A few points:
  • Students in public schools, while on the premises of their school, do not have the unrestricted free speech afforded to the rest of us.  This has been upheld in court case after court case and is the reason student newspapers are restricted in what they can print and the banning of certain hairstyles or clothing items is not unconstitutional.  Go to some schools and you can't wear any flag, certain logos or graphics and even certain colors.

Only part of your post I'm going to reply to, because it follows what I brought up earlier.
 
Not true - your freedoms do not stop at the door. You are not allowed to write anything you want in the schools newspaper, but if you start your own paper and hand it out at the school, you can say whatever you'd like. And just because the school rules say you can't wear certain logos or colors, doesn't mean it should be that way. Not much would ever be done if we didn't challenge things.


-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum


Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 7:15pm
Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Not true - your freedoms do not stop at the door. You are not allowed to write anything you want in the schools newspaper, but if you start your own paper and hand it out at the school, you can say whatever you'd like. And just because the school rules say you can't wear certain logos or colors, doesn't mean it should be that way. Not much would ever be done if we didn't challenge things.


Partially true.  Students do not "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door" - Tinker v. Des Moines (1969).  In this case the suspension of students for wearing a black armband in protest of the Vietnam war was deemed unconstitutional.  And then there are these SCOTUS cases:

Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) - "The First Amendment did not prevent the School District from disciplining respondent for giving the offensively lewd and indecent speech at the assembly."

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) - "First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school"

Morse v. Frederick (2007) - "Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending"  This kid was not even on school grounds, but was across the street.

And no, we should not change the rules pertaining to clothing.  Schools that have such dress codes do primarily for gang related reasons.  In areas where gang activity is a problem there is absolutely no reason to allow kids in school to further destabilize the environment by wearing their colors.


Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 7:23pm
And schools should be able to say "No, you can't have hair past your ear! You're a boy!"? Or "No, you cant guage your ears!" or "No! You can't wear a lipring at school!" To a very certain extent, I understand what you mean, but it's so easy to overstep your bounds on this issue.

-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum


Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 7:41pm
I agree with you there, mostly.  99% of the time it is fine, but then you have that 1% who see fit to have a 1.5 ft tall mohawk or 25 facial piercings, both of which are incredibly distracting to both students and faculty.  Does this mean we should punish the 99% by requiring military style haircuts?  No, but I don't think a laissez-faire policy would be beneficial either.

So, yes the school should restrict hairstyles and facial jewelry, but only in extreme cases and the same goes for clothes.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 11:36am
But, can they use the term teabagger in school, if the President uses that term?...
 
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/president-obama-gop-opposition-to-stimulus-helped-to-create-the-teabaggers.html - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/president-obama-gop-opposition-to-stimulus-helped-to-create-the-teabaggers.html
 
"Three days after he decried the lack of civility in American politics, President Obama is quoted in a new book about his presidency referring to the Tea Party movement using a derogatory term with sexual connotations."


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 12:01pm
Well I guess you all should stop being teabaggers then.

-------------
BU Engineering 2012


Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 12:07pm
Hysteria: what's you're stance on allowing school-owned laptops to be used to spy on kids in their own homes? 


Posted By: JohnnyHopper
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 1:25pm
Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:

Hysteria: what's you're stance on allowing school-owned laptops to be used to spy on kids in their own homes? 



That story is so much fail. The main character in it is a dbag who fished them in by popping skittles on camera and pretended they were drugs. The school was typical fail with an IT department that couldn't even read and follow the directions on how and when to use the anti-theft feature.

-------------
My shoes of peace have steel toes.


Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 4:02pm
I'm still waiting for the vice principal to lose his job, just as he should. I'd love to see if he took down the American flag in front of the school, or the flags in the classrooms too.



This part irks me though
Quote "I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican heritage day," Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, told NBC. "We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."

They demand an apology for being disrespected on their old countrys holiday, yet are disrespecting their new country and see nothing wrong with it. And they wonder WHY people do stuff like wear a shirt on 'their' holiday. Hypocrites.    


-------------



Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 4:18pm
Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:

Hysteria: what's you're stance on allowing school-owned laptops to be used to spy on kids in their own homes? 


I dislike that very much, but I've not heard the story so I can't comment on it further.

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

I'm still waiting for the vice principal to lose his job, just as he should. I'd love to see if he took down the American flag in front of the school, or the flags in the classrooms too.


How then would you have handled the situation?


Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 4:23pm
You mean aside from not being a douchebag and kicking kids out of school for wearing a non-offensive Tshirt?

-------------



Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 4:27pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

You mean aside from not being a douchebag and kicking kids out of school for wearing a non-offensive Tshirt?


Clearly.


Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 4:44pm
Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:


Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

You mean aside from not being a douchebag and kicking kids out of school for wearing a non-offensive Tshirt?
Clearly.


I would have done exactly that: Not send home kids for wearing non-offensive tshirts.


If you beg to differ, please explain your reasoning, because clearly you and the vice principal are in the minority.

-------------



Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 4:49pm
About the only way I can even remotely see a reason to remove the kids from school is if they were going around and being confrontational or combative with the flag apparel. Essentially, if they were getting in peoples face and provoke a reaction, than MAYBE. But even than, the reason for remove would be for the behavior, not for wearing a flag. If all they were doing is walking around the school with a flag on their t-shirt and someone found that offensive and started getting worked up about it.... too damn bad, get over it.

-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 4:59pm
Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:

Those kids look incredibly douchey and their actions only confirm this.

I guess I'm the only one who is on the side of the administration in this case, provided all of the information in the video was accurate.  Well this should be fun.  A few points:
  • Students in public schools, while on the premises of their school, do not have the unrestricted free speech afforded to the rest of us.  This has been upheld in court case after court case and is the reason student newspapers are restricted in what they can print and the banning of certain hairstyles or clothing items is not unconstitutional.  Go to some schools and you can't wear any flag, certain logos or graphics and even certain colors.
  • The primary function of a school is to provide children with an education.  In order to do so, they must take measures, usually unpopular and sometimes drastic, to ensure the student body is disrupted and distracted as little as possible.  What Tallen said about this not being a real holiday is true, and when coupled with the fact that the offending clothing items represented the American flag, it seems, and is, ridiculous that students were getting upset (which they were - watch the video).  However, ridiculousness of a situation should not come into account with deciding the what actions are to be taken.  Normally none of the above conditions would merit the action taken by the administration, but those who were there at the time did sense the tension and were afraid violence would ensue if something were not done.  With such a predicament the administration was rather limited in the actions they could take and had three possible routes  - deal with the offended, deal the offenders or pop popcorn.
  • The "best" (see: most American) route would be to deal with the offended.  While this might be the more savory the the two, it is also the more impractical.  For reasons I shouldn't have to elaborate on, one can not send an entire ethnicity of people home.  So what options are left?  Sending those who are angry home?  As the Hispanic population makes up 40% of the school, it would have been impossible single out students based on how angry they were and how likely they would be to act on this anger in any reasonable length of time.  If you doubt the impracticality of this option and still see it as viable, how angry must the students be to qualify being sent home?  Do you only send those home who are furious? What about those slightly mad or barely perturbed?  Besides, "being mad" has never been grounds for being sent home before.
  • The second route is to deal with the offenders, which is what the school did.   In doing so, sending the kids home was the action taken only after asking them to change or turn the shirt inside out.  Outside of these three options, there were no actions that could have been taken with the offending students that could have changed the situation.  Moreover, the school did not punish the kids outside of the single day and did not suspend them or anything of that nature, thereby showing they are more reasonable than most school districts - most have a habit of overreacting and suspending kids when such a consequence hardly fits the offense.
  • Finally, they could have just popped some popcorn and watched the show.  This would have been negligent and irresponsible and only an option to those who would not mind risking their job in an attempt to remain uncaring, impartial or politically correct.
  • One must also keep in mind that by the time the administration learned of the disruption, they had probably 30 minutes at most to make a decision to the best of their abilities.
  • As far as the "if the 'Murican" flag offends ewe, geet out of mah country" comments are concerned, I hope you guys were joking about suspending and/or deporting people who feel this way.  If not, you should realize that this is hardly a legal reason to remove someone from school/ the country.  If you wish it were a legal reason, you should go to prison, write a book, assume leadership of the country and start a war.  You can persecute everyone who is un-'Murican then.
TL;DR - The school was afraid violence would break out and had limited time to act. The fact that action had to be taken in the first place may have been ridiculous, but the school showed good judgment in not allowing the ridiculousness of the situation affect their actions.  Moreover, their actions diffused the situation in the most efficient manner possible which resulted in the removal of only 4 students from school.  They also showed good judgment by not punishing them more harshly than necessary.

Edit - Lol, I guess I came in a little late for the serious conversation.

Soooo, you're advocating the minority population be removed because it makes the majority population uncomfortable?


-------------
Real Men play Tuba

[IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg">

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1


Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 6:57pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:


Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

You mean aside from not being a douchebag and kicking kids out of school for wearing a non-offensive Tshirt?
Clearly.


I would have done exactly that: Not send home kids for wearing non-offensive tshirts.


If you beg to differ, please explain your reasoning, because clearly you and the vice principal are in the minority.


Well that's fine and dandy.  I guess you would take option three in my little scenario then - sit back and just wait for the kids to start fighting?  I explained my reasoning with a huge block of text on this same page.  I don't care to restate myself.


Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 7:00pm
Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Soooo, you're advocating the minority population be removed because it makes the majority population uncomfortable?


They could have taken the shirts off or turned them inside out, so no, I'm not necessarily advocating that.  I am, however, advocating the prevention of violence through the removal of that which is stimulating the hostilities.


Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 7:25pm
Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Soooo, you're advocating the minority population be removed because it makes the majority population uncomfortable?


They could have taken the shirts off or turned them inside out, so no, I'm not necessarily advocating that.  I am, however, advocating the prevention of violence through the removal of that which is stimulating the hostilities.

Ahhh, so, instead the minority should conform to what the majority population demands, to make the majority happy and prevent violence.  Is that right?


-------------
Real Men play Tuba

[IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg">

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1


Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 7:27pm
Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:


Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Soooo, you're advocating the minority population be removed because it makes the majority population uncomfortable?
They could have taken the shirts off or turned them inside out, so no, I'm not necessarily advocating that.  I am, however, advocating the prevention of violence through the removal of that which is stimulating the hostilities.


So people who wear NON OFFENSIVE clothing are the ones to be blamed for the violence, and not the ones who are offended by an American flag, IN America of all places? How does that make sense?


If you want to prevent violence, get rid of the people getting offended for no logical reason.



If I was a principal and I had a kid who got angry every time another kid drew a tiger, I wouldn't ban the drawing of tigers, I'd get the first kid out of the environment and get him, and his immature ill gotten mindset, corrected.

-------------



Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 10:29pm
Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Soooo, you're advocating the minority population be removed because it makes the majority population uncomfortable?


They could have taken the shirts off or turned them inside out, so no, I'm not necessarily advocating that.  I am, however, advocating the prevention of violence through the removal of that which is stimulating the hostilities.


Hmmmm . . .

. . . abolitionists stimulated hostilities back before the civil war . . .

. . . women's suffragettes stimulated hostilities in the first part of the twentieth century . . .

. . . civil rights marchers stimulated hostilities in the '60s . . .

. . . anti-war protesters and women's libbers stimulated hostilities in the '70s . . .

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

If I was a principal and I had a kid who got angry every time another kid drew a tiger, I wouldn't ban the drawing of tigers, I'd get the first kid out of the environment and get him, and his immature ill gotten mindset, corrected.


Now that, is a logical solution.

This is the US of A; citizens have a lot of rights guaranteed by the constitution, but the right to not be offended is not among them.


 


-------------


Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 10:42pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:


So people who wear NON OFFENSIVE clothing are the ones to be blamed for the violence, and not the ones who are offended by an American flag, IN America of all places? How does that make sense?


If you want to prevent violence, get rid of the people getting offended for no logical reason.



If I was a principal and I had a kid who got angry every time another kid drew a tiger, I wouldn't ban the drawing of tigers, I'd get the first kid out of the environment and get him, and his immature ill gotten mindset, corrected.


I'll just leave this here again since I guess you did not see it the first time.

Originally posted by Me Me wrote:

The "best" (see: most American) route would be to deal with the offended.  While this might be the more savory the the two, it is also the more impractical.  For reasons I shouldn't have to elaborate on, one can not send an entire ethnicity of people home.  So what options are left?  Sending those who are angry home?  As the Hispanic population makes up 40% of the school, it would have been impossible single out students based on how angry they were and how likely they would be to act on this anger in any reasonable length of time.  If you doubt the impracticality of this option and still see it as viable, how angry must the students be to qualify being sent home?  Do you only send those home who are furious? What about those slightly mad or barely perturbed?  Besides, "being mad" has never been grounds for being sent home before.


Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Ahhh, so, instead the minority should conform to what the majority population demands, to make the majority happy and prevent violence.  Is that right?


When we are talking about 8 hours of a single day with a population size of only 1000-2000 children, yes.  Comparing this situation to the struggles of entire races or sexes of people, or the cause of wars is entirely hyperbolic.


Posted By: Impulse.
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 11:52pm
It's California..... There is a reason all the Mexicans flock there, and a smaller majority come to Arizona.

-------------
[IMG]http://www.word-detective.com/berry.gif">


Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 12:08am
I highly doubt the entire group of latin american students were offended. Some? Of course. All? Hell no.

-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum


Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 12:32am
Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:


When we are talking about 8 hours of a single day with a population size of only 1000-2000 children, yes.  Comparing this situation to the struggles of entire races or sexes of people, or the cause of wars is entirely hyperbolic.

How?


-------------
Real Men play Tuba

[IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg">

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1


Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 1:03am
And I'll post it again since YOU obviously missed it, Hysteria;

Quote The "best" (see: most American) route would be to deal with the offended.


If they are offended by something that's is universally NOT offensive, they need to quit being immature twits and get used to it.



If I have to deal with KKK members being allowed to do their overtly racist marches when and where they want, some spoiled little brat can handle an American flag tshirt in an American school.





-------------



Posted By: JohnnyHopper
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 1:31am
Marquess of Queensberry rules should be used in all disagreements:

1.To be a fair stand-up boxing match in a 24-foot ring, or as near that size as practicable.
2.No wrestling or hugging allowed.
3.The rounds to be of three minutes duration, and one minute's time between rounds.
4.If either man falls through weakness or otherwise, he must get up unassisted, 10 seconds to be allowed him to do so, the other man meanwhile to return to his corner, and when the fallen man is on his legs the round is to be resumed and continued until the three minutes have expired. If one man fails to come to the scratch in the 10 seconds allowed, it shall be in the power of the referee to give his award in favour of the other man.
5.A man hanging on the ropes in a helpless state, with his toes off the ground, shall be considered down.
6.No seconds or any other person to be allowed in the ring during the rounds.
7.Should the contest be stopped by any unavoidable interference, the referee to name the time and place as soon as possible for finishing the contest; so that the match must be won and lost, unless the backers of both men agree to draw the stakes.
8.The gloves to be fair-sized boxing gloves of the best quality and new.
9.Should a glove burst, or come off, it must be replaced to the referee's satisfaction.
10.A man on one knee is considered down and if struck is entitled to the stakes.
11.That no shoes or boots with spikes or sprigs be allowed. [1]
12.The contest in all other respects to be governed by revised London Prize Ring Rules.


The problem is that the little buggers are allowed to act like animals and honestly feel justified in seriously harming or killing each other over nonsense.

-------------
My shoes of peace have steel toes.


Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 2:49am
I feel like I'm my mother - I've already addressed all of this and I don't want to repeat myself.  But whatever, here you go.

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

And I'll post it again since YOU obviously missed it, Hysteria;

Quote The "best" (see: most American) route would be to deal with the offended.


If they are offended by something that's is universally NOT offensive, they need to quit being immature twits and get used to it.

If I have to deal with KKK members being allowed to do their overtly racist marches when and where they want, some spoiled little brat can handle an American flag tshirt in an American school.


So you want High School kids to stop being immature twits?  Good luck with that.  If you find a solution, please inform the rest of the world; we have been looking for a solution for centuries.

The.  Administration.  Avoided.  Inevitable.  Violence. Efficiently. + We.  Are. Discussing. Immature. Highschoolers..

Talking about how you maturely avoid confrontation as an adult is irrelevant.  Period.

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:


When we are talking about 8 hours of a single day with a population size of only 1000-2000 children, yes.  Comparing this situation to the struggles of entire races or sexes of people, or the cause of wars is entirely hyperbolic.

How?


Are you serious?  Dear FSM I hope you're not.

I have a feeling you're not, so I'll elaborate:  8 hours and 4 people =/= centuries and millions of people.  I know you're a math guy so I'll break it down for you that way; the the former variable in the former part of the equation is less than the former variable of latter part of the equation by an order of magnitude of 6, while the latter variable in the former part of the equation is less than its respective variable by an order of magnitude of of 4.  To try to equate such drastically different variables and situations would be ridiculous and, as previously stated, hyperbolic..

Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

I highly doubt the entire group of latin american students were offended. Some? Of course. All? Hell no.


Sweet, I get to quote myself again.

Originally posted by Me, again Me, again wrote:

As the Hispanic population makes up 40% of the school, it would have been impossible single out students based on how angry they were and how likely they would be to act on this anger in any reasonable length of time.  If you doubt the impracticality of this option and still see it as viable, how angry must the students be to qualify being sent home?  Do you only send those home who are furious? What about those slightly mad or barely perturbed?  Besides, "being mad" has never been grounds for being sent home before.


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 8:46am

So the life lesson we teach these kids is that if you whine and cry about something, no matter if you are in the wrong, you get your way? Awesome.



-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 11:28am
I'm making it official and known in this thread:

Hysteria is now forbidden in the future from claiming anyone has the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and ability to protest... especially if they are under the age of 19.


-------------



Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 11:42am
Big boohoo.


Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 12:34pm
Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:

I feel like I'm my mother - I've already addressed all of this and I don't want to repeat myself.  But whatever, here you go.

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

And I'll post it again since YOU obviously missed it, Hysteria;

Quote The "best" (see: most American) route would be to deal with the offended.


If they are offended by something that's is universally NOT offensive, they need to quit being immature twits and get used to it.

If I have to deal with KKK members being allowed to do their overtly racist marches when and where they want, some spoiled little brat can handle an American flag tshirt in an American school.


So you want High School kids to stop being immature twits?  Good luck with that.  If you find a solution, please inform the rest of the world; we have been looking for a solution for centuries.

True, but the solution is definitely not to encourage the immature twit behavior by rewarding it.

The.  Administration.  Avoided.  Inevitable.  Violence. Efficiently. + We.  Are. Discussing. Immature. Highschoolers..

Applied to a larger scale perhaps we should all change our religion, cover our women and remove them from school to make the immature twits in the Middle-East happy.  That would also Avoid. Inevitable. Violence. 

The fact that such violence is inevitable should be considered a sign that the administration of the school should be changed since they obviously don't have control of the school.  (Apparently control of the school rests in the hands of a hostile student majority with a predisposition towards violent acts.)

Talking about how you maturely avoid confrontation as an adult is irrelevant.  Period.

No, it's not.  Eventually these students will be adults.  I can't speak for others but I would prefer that the random stranger adults I interact with on a daily basis would have learned the lesson that threatening violence is an inappropriate and ineffective way to get their way before they enter the world on their own.

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:


When we are talking about 8 hours of a single day with a population size of only 1000-2000 children, yes.  Comparing this situation to the struggles of entire races or sexes of people, or the cause of wars is entirely hyperbolic.


No, it's a debating technique based on extending one's assertions to their logical conclusion as a means of showing the absurdity of those assertions.  Generally, if an idea/approach is not something one would want occurring on a wide scale as a matter of course then it is a bad idea even when applied on a smaller scale.  Denying otherwise is just being disingenuous.

How?


Are you serious?  Dear FSM I hope you're not.

I have a feeling you're not, so I'll elaborate:  8 hours and 4 people =/= centuries and millions of people.  I know you're a math guy so I'll break it down for you that way; the the former variable in the former part of the equation is less than the former variable of latter part of the equation by an order of magnitude of 6, while the latter variable in the former part of the equation is less than its respective variable by an order of magnitude of of 4.  To try to equate such drastically different variables and situations would be ridiculous and, as previously stated, hyperbolic..

So . . . it's okay to infringe upon the rights of small groups of people when it is the easy way to handle a problem.

Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

I highly doubt the entire group of latin american students were offended. Some? Of course. All? Hell no.


Sweet, I get to quote myself again.

Originally posted by Me, again Me, again wrote:

As the Hispanic population makes up 40% of the school, it would have been impossible single out students based on how angry they were and how likely they would be to act on this anger in any reasonable length of time.  If you doubt the impracticality of this option and still see it as viable, how angry must the students be to qualify being sent home?  Do you only send those home who are furious? What about those slightly mad or barely perturbed?  Besides, "being mad" has never been grounds for being sent home before.


To the best of my knowledge, "being the target of some immature losers misdirected hostility" has never been a reason to send someone home either.  It is an expedient solution for an ineffective school leadership that doesn't have the courage to address the real problem.  (A view that the school district, based on the original video and later articles, agrees with.)





-------------


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 1:19pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

NUTS...
 
 
 
BWAHAHAHAHHAHA!
 
 
lol.

This is by far the best post in this thread. 


Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 2:01pm
I think I have Hysteria figured out.


If a kid wears glasses and gets bullied for it, and refuses to get contacts, it would be far better to send the kid home for fostering a violent atmosphere than punishing the bullies.

Am I catching on?

-------------



Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 3:09pm
Interesting http://article - article on this specific situation.  The school administration admitted their mistake and it goes on to explain in detail why they were wrong.  Hysteria should check out the following information:

Originally posted by article article wrote:

William J. Becker Jr., a First Amendment attorney based in Los Angeles, said the students' First Amendment rights were absolutely violated when administrators asked that they remove their T-shirts.

"The student wearing the Old Navy T-shirt with the flag does not shed their First Amendment rights at the school house gates," Becker said.

Administrators cannot ask students to relinquish their freedom of speech and expression due to the fear that something might happen. When a person's right to freedom of speech or expression is restricted to prevent another party from reacting, it's known as the heckler's veto. Becker said this is a perfect example of how heckler's veto was used to displace the students' freedom of speech.

"Every viewpoint has a particular averse viewpoint," Becker said. "That's why the First Amendment is there - to support unpopular expression."



-------------


Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 3:15pm
I hope those kids own that school district when all this is over.

-------------
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo


Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 9:36pm
I disagree with Hysteria. Im not going to go into length, because I am simply lazy, but...
 
If WBC students wore Westboro Baptist Church related clothing (without any foul language or offensive, such as a burning WTC or anything of the like), they would be offending people but voicing their opinion. They wouldnt be asked to remove their shirts (yet again, so long as it wasnt "crossing the line"), and if they did, they would be hit with a whirlwind from WBC. Eventually, they would probably be escorted around like the first handful of black students during the civil rights movement.
 
Call me a radical, but I hope the administration in charge of that situation become jobless, and their expensive PhD's are useless in Public Schools because nobody will want them. Perhaps they can go to precious Mexico, earning 6 pesos an hour next Cinco de Mayo.
 
I grew up in an extremely hispanic area, and was often a minority growing up. A majority of the Colombians and Puerto Ricans were proud of the barrio or whereever else, but also didnt whine if the white kids wore American Flag shirts...
 
Although they didnt get the style of Converses until highschool.


-------------


Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 May 2010 at 10:47pm
I'm waiting to see if the ACLU picks up the case, as it's right in their alley.


If they don't, they will have lost what respect I DID have for them, and they will be labeled as hypocrites.

-------------



Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 2:21am
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

NUTS...
 
 
 
BWAHAHAHAHHAHA!
 
 
lol.

This is by far the best post in this thread. 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net