It should be acceptable. Kids have a right to convey their ideas as long as they don't force them on others. If him and a few other people want to put up posters about their thoughts, so be it.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited July 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 23 2004, 06:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jul 23 2004, 04:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And the fact that he calls the ACLU even after completely insulting them in a poster.At this point it's rather clear that it's not about his convictions anymore, just an immature personal battel to say "I beat the school! YAY FOR ME!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So what if the poster makes fun of the ACLU?
What if Bush prevented someone from posting a poster that labeled him a facist?
stop holding double-standards, please <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How is that a double standard? It's hypocritical to go to people you insult for help when things stop going your way. It'd be like anti-war protestors calling in the national guard to protect them. Did I ever say he had no right to post that? Did I ever say that should have been prevented? No I did not, just making a comment about the double standard HE is holding. When the ACLU goes agianst what he thinks, they are bad but when they can help him they're good.
I honestly have no problem with someone presenting political veiwpoints that are against mine, at my school people posted all kinda of crazy crap on the walls and noone complained. At one point people were posting biblical passages and there was very little fuss made, it;s just that this particular kid strikes me as a hypocrit and kindof a jerk, not some freedom fighter.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I felt that my posts were all articulate and, if not always clear, at least in proper English. I cannot understand how you could think that I somehow do not speak English, and while you followed it with, "No offense," I found the, "You seem to have trouble piecing this stuff together," line quite offensive.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, hey, expect to me to think that when you don't even respond to my text. For a clear example:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bah. Noam Chomsky is articulate. Wonderfully so. And he raises many issues in a way that encourages discussion. By your logic, I must be a socialist. But I'm not. Don't think that you must somehow agree with someone in order to repect them. If you continue to do that, you will find that the list of people you respect dwindles every second, and you will never be exposed to new ways of looking at a situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does this have to do with this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yep, notice the words of "another kick" about how "articulate" Noam Chomsky. Praise is praise, and repeated praise often means that you respect a person's oppinions as well share their views.
It therefore follows from such logic that since Chomsky is a socialist, she is too.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In one, we talk about praise, and the other we talk about agreement.
Futhermore:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We have only Templar_Crusader's extremely subjective view of events of things to go by. But I disagree that repeatedly praising somehow means that you agree with them. I praise John McCain often in my daily life. That doesn't mean I agree with his fiscal policy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But again, notice how I use the word 'often' int he above said quote. You may the exception, but I think we all certianly understand the mode.
I do consider it strange you missed out on these meanings. So that keys into me that you are not American by birth, also
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I emphatically disagree with your insistence on reducing the issue to a simple, black-and-white "Objectionable Actions, Non-Objectionable Actions" list.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I can tell that you've probably never spent too much time in American schools. I can tell you from 12 years of first hand experience, including from being the major dissenter of every school I've been in, that things in the school are black and white when looking at issues.
So that's what I mean by 'live in this country', did you immigrate here? Also, by 'speak english' I do not question your mastery of this language, it appears much better than mine. However, I meant that question of 'is english your first language.'
Sorry for any possible offense, really! But what's the harm in answering me a question to begain with?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You consider this and this to be decent arguments?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Often times, I post one or two little things to prelude some info I want out of someone, before I post the big one. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> It saves time. Really!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As coil said, he was looking for a fight before it even started. Forlorn, would you also be supporting someone who posted these posters throughout his school and was shut down by "the man"?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This poster is not offensive at all. Furthermore, if I wanted to disagree with that poster, I would say those men died for a cause, and replacements for them is a noble cause.
However, it definately has a lot less tact than any of the posters at www.protestwarrior.com simply because the ones they use cartoons, or professionally done pictures.
Versus coffins of real soliders who died fighting for someone else. Definately a LOT less tact.
But nevertheless, I still would allow that to stay up. If "The MAN!" wanted to take them down, I'd demand he'd either take down all posters in the school, or else he has no ground to stand on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is that a double standard? It's hypocritical to go to people you insult for help when things stop going your way. Did I ever say he had no right to post that? Did I ever say that should have been prevented? No I did not, just making a comment about the double standard HE is holding. When the ACLU goes agianst what he thinks, they are bad but when they can help him they're good.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This may be hyprocritical in other governments, but not in America's. Perfect example, take a good liberal. Both bash the government and military to hell. And it is the same government, that they are allowed to ask for help if someone is threatening to shut them up.
I think you are confusing an institution and person. If you were to insult a person and then ask him for help, it may be hypocritical, but not if you were to insult an institution and then go use it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Vinin+Jul 23 2004, 07:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Vinin @ Jul 23 2004, 07:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, it's a picture of a man holding a chain around a woman's neck. I think that in many Islamic circles, the men are the very dominant half. So dominant in fact that polygamy is allowed (albeit with many rules concerning) and there are so many restrictions put on the women. I believe it is impossible even for a woman to request a divorce under Islamic law. Basically, women are almost considered property of a man as long as he can properly "take care of it." Thus the poster is trying to sarcastically say, say no to war and let Islamic men have women as property. Something along those lines anyway, this is my foray into the discussion forum. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh jeez, my eyesight must be going.
I found a bigger picture and it makes a lot more sense now:
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 23 2004, 09:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 09:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is that a double standard? It's hypocritical to go to people you insult for help when things stop going your way. Did I ever say he had no right to post that? Did I ever say that should have been prevented? No I did not, just making a comment about the double standard HE is holding. When the ACLU goes agianst what he thinks, they are bad but when they can help him they're good.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This may be hyprocritical in other governments, but not in America's. Perfect example, take a good liberal. Both bash the government and military to hell. And it is the same government, that they are allowed to ask for help if someone is threatening to shut them up.
I think you are confusing an institution and person. If you were to insult a person and then ask him for help, it may be hypocritical, but not if you were to insult an institution and then go use it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> When was the last time you heard a "good liberal" ask for the military's help? And of course a liberal is going to ask for the government's help, OUR MAIN ECONOMIC STANCE IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HELP PEOPLE!!!!!!! It's hypocritical when a good conservative (who favors less government and argues against government programs) asks for the government's help, not when a liberal asks for it.
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jul 23 2004, 09:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 09:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 23 2004, 09:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 09:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is that a double standard? It's hypocritical to go to people you insult for help when things stop going your way. Did I ever say he had no right to post that? Did I ever say that should have been prevented? No I did not, just making a comment about the double standard HE is holding. When the ACLU goes agianst what he thinks, they are bad but when they can help him they're good.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This may be hyprocritical in other governments, but not in America's. Perfect example, take a good liberal. Both bash the government and military to hell. And it is the same government, that they are allowed to ask for help if someone is threatening to shut them up.
I think you are confusing an institution and person. If you were to insult a person and then ask him for help, it may be hypocritical, but not if you were to insult an institution and then go use it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When was the last time you heard a "good liberal" ask for the military's help? And of course a liberal is going to ask for the government's help, OUR MAIN ECONOMIC STANCE IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HELP PEOPLE!!!!!!! It's hypocritical when a good conservative (who favors less government and argues against government programs) asks for the government's help, not when a liberal asks for it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ....what? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> Your original post does not even remotely link with your most recent post.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited July 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 23 2004, 09:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 09:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jul 23 2004, 09:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 09:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 23 2004, 09:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 09:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is that a double standard? It's hypocritical to go to people you insult for help when things stop going your way. Did I ever say he had no right to post that? Did I ever say that should have been prevented? No I did not, just making a comment about the double standard HE is holding. When the ACLU goes agianst what he thinks, they are bad but when they can help him they're good.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This may be hyprocritical in other governments, but not in America's. Perfect example, take a good liberal. Both bash the government and military to hell. And it is the same government, that they are allowed to ask for help if someone is threatening to shut them up.
I think you are confusing an institution and person. If you were to insult a person and then ask him for help, it may be hypocritical, but not if you were to insult an institution and then go use it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When was the last time you heard a "good liberal" ask for the military's help? And of course a liberal is going to ask for the government's help, OUR MAIN ECONOMIC STANCE IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HELP PEOPLE!!!!!!! It's hypocritical when a good conservative (who favors less government and argues against government programs) asks for the government's help, not when a liberal asks for it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ....what? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> Your original post does not even remotely link with your most recent post. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You compared this kid asking for the ACLU's help to liberal's asking for the government's help. I rebutted the point. I nconclusion, it is hypocritical for someone to ask for help from a group they condemn. Most Liberal's do not condemn "The government", merely the people who run it so they can therefor ask for its help. This kid though, did condemn the ACLU, so he should not ask for their help.
I wonder how many bothered reading the whole thing from that guys site (I assume) in this thread:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your administration does not need to like what you're saying, but as <b>long as it doesn't create a material and substantial disruption in the classroom</b>, you can say it. And the <b>disruption has to actually be created -- fear of disruption is not grounds for censorship</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is kind of funny, because a couple of people in this thread have this tangent that he deliberately created a disturbance, when he seems fully aware is not the correct thing to do.
I also find it odd how nobody seems to be commenting (and in fact complementing him) on his amazing ability to seemingly want to discuss and talk through things. Even while being threatened, insulted and similar, he calmly talked to those who were going after him and tried to find out what their problem was and address it. Even when someone challenged him that he "didn't know enough about Islam" he replied that he would be happy to discuss it with them (IE learn about it).
No matter what he did, I certainly have an amazing amount of respect for him due to the way he handled things.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Aegeri+Jul 24 2004, 12:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Jul 24 2004, 12:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I wonder how many bothered reading the whole thing from that guys site (I assume) in this thread:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your administration does not need to like what you're saying, but as <b>long as it doesn't create a material and substantial disruption in the classroom</b>, you can say it. And the <b>disruption has to actually be created -- fear of disruption is not grounds for censorship</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is kind of funny, because a couple of people in this thread have this tangent that he deliberately created a disturbance, when he seems fully aware is not the correct thing to do.
I also find it odd how nobody seems to be commenting (and in fact complementing him) on his amazing ability to seemingly want to discuss and talk through things. Even while being threatened, insulted and similar, he calmly talked to those who were going after him and tried to find out what their problem was and address it. Even when someone challenged him that he "didn't know enough about Islam" he replied that he would be happy to discuss it with them (IE learn about it).
No matter what he did, I certainly have an amazing amount of respect for him due to the way he handled things. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not inclined to take everything on his site as the absolute truth of the situation. I can see him going around with a self righteous smirk while thinking he's being perfectly polite and rational a lot more easily than I can see him behaving as he describes. I certainly did a lot of that when I was an arrogant teenager. From the sounds of things he conducted himself admirably, but I'm willing to bet that he wasn't just the stolid polite diplomat the whole time.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jul 24 2004, 01:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jul 24 2004, 01:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Aegeri+Jul 24 2004, 12:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Jul 24 2004, 12:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I wonder how many bothered reading the whole thing from that guys site (I assume) in this thread:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your administration does not need to like what you're saying, but as <b>long as it doesn't create a material and substantial disruption in the classroom</b>, you can say it. And the <b>disruption has to actually be created -- fear of disruption is not grounds for censorship</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is kind of funny, because a couple of people in this thread have this tangent that he deliberately created a disturbance, when he seems fully aware is not the correct thing to do.
I also find it odd how nobody seems to be commenting (and in fact complementing him) on his amazing ability to seemingly want to discuss and talk through things. Even while being threatened, insulted and similar, he calmly talked to those who were going after him and tried to find out what their problem was and address it. Even when someone challenged him that he "didn't know enough about Islam" he replied that he would be happy to discuss it with them (IE learn about it).
No matter what he did, I certainly have an amazing amount of respect for him due to the way he handled things. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not inclined to take everything on his site as the absolute truth of the situation. I can see him going around with a self righteous smirk while thinking he's being perfectly polite and rational a lot more easily than I can see him behaving as he describes. I certainly did a lot of that when I was an arrogant teenager. From the sounds of things he conducted himself admirably, but I'm willing to bet that he wasn't just the stolid polite diplomat the whole time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And the other parties were?
He may have not been the perfect little kid, but he was better than the opposing party, which is what counts.
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jul 23 2004, 07:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You compared this kid asking for the ACLU's help to liberal's asking for the government's help. I rebutted the point. I nconclusion, it is hypocritical for someone to ask for help from a group they condemn. Most Liberal's do not condemn "The government", merely the people who run it so they can therefor ask for its help. This kid though, did condemn the ACLU, so he should not ask for their help.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Straw man. You're assuming it's hypocritical to disagree with a part of a persons platform and still agree with the rest of it. That's absolutely not the case. I agree with fiscal conservatives (in principle) with the idea that a smaller, more efficient government is ideal while still disagreeing with their approaches to fiscal government (ie trickle down economics etc). I am not being a hypocrite.
The above argument can, of course, be applied just as well to what the kid is saying (or even For-"Liberals are always blahblah"-lorn <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->). I mean, the kid was claiming he won an argument just because he had a little more composure and conviction than a high school student.
As far as the kid's activism, I can definately see coil's point about mature debate, but it would never be right to restrict a person's right to speech because they didn't have a good argument. If I had a choice between a highschool full of activists that opposed my views and a high school full of cynical non-participants I would definately choose the former. It's much harder to get people to engage in debate than to pursuade them to your views. I can only back that up with experience, though.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 24 2004, 01:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 24 2004, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And the other parties were?
He may have not been the perfect little kid, but he was better than the opposing party, which is what counts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I never said otherwise.
It is not hypocrititcal to ask any organization to do its job (protecting civil liberties) even if you criticize or disagree with it. you may as well say that if you disagree with the Bush administration you shouldn''t be able to ask it to do something that you would like to see happen because it would be "hypocritical" to disagree with something, but still expect it to do its job.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-ElectricSheep+Jul 24 2004, 07:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Jul 24 2004, 07:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is not hypocrititcal to ask any organization to do its job (protecting civil liberties) even if you criticize or disagree with it. you may as well say that if you disagree with the Bush administration you shouldn''t be able to ask it to do something that you would like to see happen because it would be "hypocritical" to disagree with something, but still expect it to do its job. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It is when you criticise the very job you want it to do for you. Protect your rights.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr.Suredeath+Jul 25 2004, 04:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr.Suredeath @ Jul 25 2004, 04:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Uhh... this has nothing with liberal or conservatives.
That attention seeking little brat decided to put his posters all over the school. If I'm the teacher, I'll charge him for loitering.
For the lack of better words, his action is no different from email spammer using the free speech excuse. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Of all the "drummed up" charges - loitering?
First of all, it is OK in his school to put up posters. Granted, he put up a lot ~200 or so, but it is still OK (according to the school guidelines).
Second, it is not like e-spam at all. It is 1 school that is being affected - not a world wide epidemic. He does have the right to put up posters with a political message - just as much right as the person putting up movie posters. That, and they didn't advertize viagra.
That being said, I give the principal of the school a lot of credit for what he did. He played the part of a mediator, not allowing for posting, but allowing for the distribution of the signs. Perhaps allowing him an "area" of the school to post them would have been acceptable as well (his locker - a hallway or debate room).
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr.Suredeath+Jul 25 2004, 04:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr.Suredeath @ Jul 25 2004, 04:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For the lack of better words, his action is no different from email spammer using the free speech excuse. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Politics is important, **** enlargement cream and Mary Kate’s "drug addiction", two of the most popular topics in my e-mail spam of late, are not important.
My e-mail is private to me, and I open it on my computer in my house. However if someone wants to put up posters to help keep kids politically aware in a <b>public</b> school then they should have that right.
Regardless of the view something like this would have been great at my high school as most of the students were complete morons when it came to politics, history, geopolitics, etc. Have a conversation with a group of girls who have no idea what Desert Storm was and then have to argue that Kuwait does in fact exist, you’ll want to kill yourself.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Jul 25 2004, 04:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Jul 25 2004, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Of all the "drummed up" charges - loitering?
First of all, it is OK in his school to put up posters. Granted, he put up a lot ~200 or so, but it is still OK (according to the school guidelines). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll have no problem if he put up about 10-15 posters at certain places, like the BOARDS that most school, at least my school, provided.
200+ posters all over the places, including lockers, where many students probably don't want.
Do you really think he is being hailed as a hero in his school? Are you sure the students in his school are supporting his action, ruining the whole school with papers?
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jul 25 2004, 01:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 25 2004, 01:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is when you criticise the very job you want it to do for you. Protect your rights. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He didnt criticise it for protecting his rights. The Slogan wasnt "Death to the ACLU, enough Civil liberties garbage", it was merely complaining that the ACLU seems to be biased against Christianity. Given that the Religious Right and the ACLU rarely get along, I can kinda see his point.
But the ACLU, like Voltaire, is supposed to live by the creed "While I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it". He was calling upon the ACLU to defend his right to criticise them. This for me is pretty much a pivotal moment for the ACLU - where they really get to prove that they are in fact all about civil liberties, no one likes sticking up for the man whose attacking you.
To conclude - his request for help from the ACLU was 100% justified
on topic: the guy can say whatever he likes, he can post as many thoughtful and original posters as he likes, no one should stop him, no one will stop him, there is no 'leftist mob' against which he has 'been chosen' to battle.
off topic: this whole battle between the left and right makes me wonder what is happeneing to make this 'battle' so intense. can any of the older members tell me if it has always been this way or is the extreme polarisation of political allegance a recent development. perhaps its just a generational thing, youth needs rebelion and perhaps this is the start of a swing away from the liberal ideals of my generation. when this guy gains enough support, will the next generation rebel against his ideas and swing back to 'liberalism'?
If he werent so into his own rhetoric, he may see that his rants about freedom and especially the stuff from 'liberty rising' is not a million miles away from his 'enemies' ideas. theres certainly alot of speaking for the other side on his site <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ProtestWarrior will be there to take on the hordes of leftists whose entire goal is to silence, to hate, to scream out of existence the idea that freedom can flourish throughout the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I really wouldnt like to see anyone as apparently closed minded as this man rise to hold any sort of following. He seems to hold a very self assured view of the world, that I can relate to (we were all young once right?) but cant respect any more.
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
First, to answer Melatonin's off-topic question: I think the recent state of affairs in the US has severely polarized politics. An article in the NY Times today offered figures suggesting that this is one of the most polarized elections we have ever had. The Times (or someone; I didn't check the origin of it) polled both registered Democrats and Republicans as to their opinion of the President's performance. His job approval rating among Republicans is <b>76 percent higher</b> than his approval rating among Democrats. This figure was compared with previous presidents; Reagan's differential was 69%; Clinton's 67%, and Bush Sr's 62%. In comparison; Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, and Eisenhower were all below 50% difference between Democrat and Republican opinions.
What does that mean? It means we are a very, very partisan country.
On-topic, I'm going to touch briefly on a few points. I would appreciate it if people stopped picking on LANGUAGE and instead discussed <i>arguments</i>. There's nothing more tiresome than a debate of semantics.
A public school may be a public place, but as moultano mentioned, the rights of students in school are an abridged set. 1) As students are required by law to attend school, there is no way to "escape" speech that you find objectionable. Speech that unduly offends others, then, is not protected. 2) As school is a teaching environment and students are there to learn (and have the right to an education), expression that would hinder another student's ability to learn <i>or a teacher's ability to teach</i> is not protected. 3) The principal and teachers of the school are serving <i>in loco parentis</i> - in the place of parents. That means that yes, they are responsible for the moral stewardship of their students and that they are the arbiters of appropriate and inappropriate on school grounds.
The teachers did not object to his message, as much as he might want us to believe. I saw no evidence that would support such a claim. Also, not that he singled out posters that the teachers had deemed "objectionable" - which, to me, suggests that they did not object to all of them.
Why was he denied the right to free speech in the classroom? Because <i>everything he tells us about the situation</i> suggests that it happened during class. -1- His teacher was speaking* -2- there were other students present -3- he claims that his teacher was left "dumbstruck" -- that is, unable to speak when, we must assume, she had previously been speaking.
This kind of outburst - and it is an outburst - prevents both the teacher from teaching and the students from learning. He has no right to do either.
Why was he denied the right to put posters in the hallway? He doesn't tell us. Here are a few guesses: -1- the history teacher, angry at Templar_Crusader's disrespect for her position as his teacher, told him not to. When he did, he was blatantly acting against an order from a teacher. When you go against your parents, they are allowed to punish you within reason. Your teacher is acting <i>in loco parentis</i> and wields the same authority. -2- I would not be surprised if our little activist made a pretty big stink about his initial "censorship" (which I have already said most likely was not censorship), and perhaps even got the whole student body talking about it. In that case, plastering the school with over 200 posters would mean the students might be talking about little else. This again prevents the teachers from doing their state-mandated job. -3- Again, there is evidence to suggest that not all of his signs were objected to. Therefore, it is possible that not all of his signs were removed. The school has moral authority and may decide whether or not something is objectionable. -4- Combining all three of the above points, objecting to some of the posters (#3)could be considered grounds to remove all of them.
Lastly: again, he has AMPLE opportunity in his school for appropriate free speech. I don't care if he's campaigning to save the whales, abandon the operation in Iraq, eliminate all taxes, or get better food in the cafeteria. If this kid were posting signs that said "What the hell, it's just Alaska!" I would think his actions just as inappropriate. <i>There is a time and a place - especially in public grade school - for protest.</i>
* As he said, she was speaking about - praising - Noam Chomsky, who in fact <i>is</i> an extremely articulate man. I mentioned his name in discussing this thread to both my girlfriend, a linguistics major; and my roommate, a journalism student. Both of them <i>immediately</i> praised Chomsky's linguistic faculty. I can assure you than neither is a socialist; my girlfriend is even, as mentioned previously, a Libertarian. Given their reaction, I feel safe in suggesting that praising Chomsky in particular for his articulate nature in particular does not constitute agreeing with his beliefs.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
I'm real happy to see that while I spent the last few days after my last post vacationing in Mackinac City, a number no greater than 3 of you even bothered to read or at the very least respond to my post. Thanks. Pretty much what I expected.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->can any of the older members tell me if it has always been this way or is the extreme polarisation of political allegance a recent development.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The answer to your question is yes and no. Yes there has always been disagreement of core ideas. And no, the great difference is that it used to be OUR OWN DAMN IDEAS ABOUT A TOPIC. Not some regurgitated rhetoric. Which you might notice I was trying to avoid in this discussion.
Feel free to throw this thread away or continue nonsensing each other as you please. I'll be over there.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Jul 26 2004, 03:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Jul 26 2004, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm real happy to see that while I spent the last few days after my last post vacationing in Mackinac City, a number no greater than 3 of you even bothered to read or at the very least respond to my post. Thanks. Pretty much what I expected.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->can any of the older members tell me if it has always been this way or is the extreme polarisation of political allegance a recent development.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The answer to your question is yes and no. Yes there has always been disagreement of core ideas. And no, the great difference is that it used to be OUR OWN DAMN IDEAS ABOUT A TOPIC. Not some regurgitated rhetoric. Which you might notice I was trying to avoid in this discussion.
Feel free to throw this thread away or continue nonsensing each other as you please. I'll be over there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> wow, that killed the conversation.
Comments
So what if the poster makes fun of the ACLU?
What if Bush prevented someone from posting a poster that labeled him a facist?
stop holding double-standards, please <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is that a double standard? It's hypocritical to go to people you insult for help when things stop going your way. It'd be like anti-war protestors calling in the national guard to protect them. Did I ever say he had no right to post that? Did I ever say that should have been prevented? No I did not, just making a comment about the double standard HE is holding. When the ACLU goes agianst what he thinks, they are bad but when they can help him they're good.
I honestly have no problem with someone presenting political veiwpoints that are against mine, at my school people posted all kinda of crazy crap on the walls and noone complained. At one point people were posting biblical passages and there was very little fuss made, it;s just that this particular kid strikes me as a hypocrit and kindof a jerk, not some freedom fighter.
Well, hey, expect to me to think that when you don't even respond to my text. For a clear example:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bah. Noam Chomsky is articulate. Wonderfully so. And he raises many issues in a way that encourages discussion. By your logic, I must be a socialist. But I'm not. Don't think that you must somehow agree with someone in order to repect them. If you continue to do that, you will find that the list of people you respect dwindles every second, and you will never be exposed to new ways of looking at a situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does this have to do with this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Yep, notice the words of "another kick" about how "articulate" Noam Chomsky. Praise is praise, and repeated praise often means that you respect a person's oppinions as well share their views.
It therefore follows from such logic that since Chomsky is a socialist, she is too.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In one, we talk about praise, and the other we talk about agreement.
Futhermore:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We have only Templar_Crusader's extremely subjective view of events of things to go by. But I disagree that repeatedly praising somehow means that you agree with them. I praise John McCain often in my daily life. That doesn't mean I agree with his fiscal policy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But again, notice how I use the word 'often' int he above said quote. You may the exception, but I think we all certianly understand the mode.
I do consider it strange you missed out on these meanings. So that keys into me that you are not American by birth, also
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I emphatically disagree with your insistence on reducing the issue to a simple, black-and-white "Objectionable Actions, Non-Objectionable Actions" list.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I can tell that you've probably never spent too much time in American schools. I can tell you from 12 years of first hand experience, including from being the major dissenter of every school I've been in, that things in the school are black and white when looking at issues.
So that's what I mean by 'live in this country', did you immigrate here? Also, by 'speak english' I do not question your mastery of this language, it appears much better than mine. However, I meant that question of 'is english your first language.'
Sorry for any possible offense, really! But what's the harm in answering me a question to begain with?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You consider this and this to be decent arguments?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Often times, I post one or two little things to prelude some info I want out of someone, before I post the big one. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> It saves time. Really!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As coil said, he was looking for a fight before it even started. Forlorn, would you also be supporting someone who posted these posters throughout his school and was shut down by "the man"?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This poster is not offensive at all. Furthermore, if I wanted to disagree with that poster, I would say those men died for a cause, and replacements for them is a noble cause.
However, it definately has a lot less tact than any of the posters at www.protestwarrior.com simply because the ones they use cartoons, or professionally done pictures.
See, cartoon:
<img src='http://207.234.130.239/gallery/protestwarriors/16.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
See, professionally done photo of a figurehead:
<img src='http://207.234.130.239/gallery/protestwarriors/18.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Versus coffins of real soliders who died fighting for someone else. Definately a LOT less tact.
But nevertheless, I still would allow that to stay up. If "The MAN!" wanted to take them down, I'd demand he'd either take down all posters in the school, or else he has no ground to stand on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is that a double standard? It's hypocritical to go to people you insult for help when things stop going your way. Did I ever say he had no right to post that? Did I ever say that should have been prevented? No I did not, just making a comment about the double standard HE is holding. When the ACLU goes agianst what he thinks, they are bad but when they can help him they're good.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This may be hyprocritical in other governments, but not in America's. Perfect example, take a good liberal. Both bash the government and military to hell. And it is the same government, that they are allowed to ask for help if someone is threatening to shut them up.
I think you are confusing an institution and person. If you were to insult a person and then ask him for help, it may be hypocritical, but not if you were to insult an institution and then go use it.
Oh jeez, my eyesight must be going.
I found a bigger picture and it makes a lot more sense now:
<img src='http://207.234.130.239/gallery/protestwarriors/19.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
K, it makes perfect sense now. I like this one a lot.
This may be hyprocritical in other governments, but not in America's. Perfect example, take a good liberal. Both bash the government and military to hell. And it is the same government, that they are allowed to ask for help if someone is threatening to shut them up.
I think you are confusing an institution and person. If you were to insult a person and then ask him for help, it may be hypocritical, but not if you were to insult an institution and then go use it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
When was the last time you heard a "good liberal" ask for the military's help? And of course a liberal is going to ask for the government's help, OUR MAIN ECONOMIC STANCE IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HELP PEOPLE!!!!!!! It's hypocritical when a good conservative (who favors less government and argues against government programs) asks for the government's help, not when a liberal asks for it.
This may be hyprocritical in other governments, but not in America's. Perfect example, take a good liberal. Both bash the government and military to hell. And it is the same government, that they are allowed to ask for help if someone is threatening to shut them up.
I think you are confusing an institution and person. If you were to insult a person and then ask him for help, it may be hypocritical, but not if you were to insult an institution and then go use it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When was the last time you heard a "good liberal" ask for the military's help? And of course a liberal is going to ask for the government's help, OUR MAIN ECONOMIC STANCE IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HELP PEOPLE!!!!!!! It's hypocritical when a good conservative (who favors less government and argues against government programs) asks for the government's help, not when a liberal asks for it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
....what? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> Your original post does not even remotely link with your most recent post.
This may be hyprocritical in other governments, but not in America's. Perfect example, take a good liberal. Both bash the government and military to hell. And it is the same government, that they are allowed to ask for help if someone is threatening to shut them up.
I think you are confusing an institution and person. If you were to insult a person and then ask him for help, it may be hypocritical, but not if you were to insult an institution and then go use it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When was the last time you heard a "good liberal" ask for the military's help? And of course a liberal is going to ask for the government's help, OUR MAIN ECONOMIC STANCE IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HELP PEOPLE!!!!!!! It's hypocritical when a good conservative (who favors less government and argues against government programs) asks for the government's help, not when a liberal asks for it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
....what? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> Your original post does not even remotely link with your most recent post. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You compared this kid asking for the ACLU's help to liberal's asking for the government's help. I rebutted the point. I nconclusion, it is hypocritical for someone to ask for help from a group they condemn. Most Liberal's do not condemn "The government", merely the people who run it so they can therefor ask for its help. This kid though, did condemn the ACLU, so he should not ask for their help.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your administration does not need to like what you're saying, but as <b>long as it doesn't create a material and substantial disruption in the classroom</b>, you can say it. And the <b>disruption has to actually be created -- fear of disruption is not grounds for censorship</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is kind of funny, because a couple of people in this thread have this tangent that he deliberately created a disturbance, when he seems fully aware is not the correct thing to do.
I also find it odd how nobody seems to be commenting (and in fact complementing him) on his amazing ability to seemingly want to discuss and talk through things. Even while being threatened, insulted and similar, he calmly talked to those who were going after him and tried to find out what their problem was and address it. Even when someone challenged him that he "didn't know enough about Islam" he replied that he would be happy to discuss it with them (IE learn about it).
No matter what he did, I certainly have an amazing amount of respect for him due to the way he handled things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your administration does not need to like what you're saying, but as <b>long as it doesn't create a material and substantial disruption in the classroom</b>, you can say it. And the <b>disruption has to actually be created -- fear of disruption is not grounds for censorship</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is kind of funny, because a couple of people in this thread have this tangent that he deliberately created a disturbance, when he seems fully aware is not the correct thing to do.
I also find it odd how nobody seems to be commenting (and in fact complementing him) on his amazing ability to seemingly want to discuss and talk through things. Even while being threatened, insulted and similar, he calmly talked to those who were going after him and tried to find out what their problem was and address it. Even when someone challenged him that he "didn't know enough about Islam" he replied that he would be happy to discuss it with them (IE learn about it).
No matter what he did, I certainly have an amazing amount of respect for him due to the way he handled things. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not inclined to take everything on his site as the absolute truth of the situation. I can see him going around with a self righteous smirk while thinking he's being perfectly polite and rational a lot more easily than I can see him behaving as he describes. I certainly did a lot of that when I was an arrogant teenager. From the sounds of things he conducted himself admirably, but I'm willing to bet that he wasn't just the stolid polite diplomat the whole time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your administration does not need to like what you're saying, but as <b>long as it doesn't create a material and substantial disruption in the classroom</b>, you can say it. And the <b>disruption has to actually be created -- fear of disruption is not grounds for censorship</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is kind of funny, because a couple of people in this thread have this tangent that he deliberately created a disturbance, when he seems fully aware is not the correct thing to do.
I also find it odd how nobody seems to be commenting (and in fact complementing him) on his amazing ability to seemingly want to discuss and talk through things. Even while being threatened, insulted and similar, he calmly talked to those who were going after him and tried to find out what their problem was and address it. Even when someone challenged him that he "didn't know enough about Islam" he replied that he would be happy to discuss it with them (IE learn about it).
No matter what he did, I certainly have an amazing amount of respect for him due to the way he handled things. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not inclined to take everything on his site as the absolute truth of the situation. I can see him going around with a self righteous smirk while thinking he's being perfectly polite and rational a lot more easily than I can see him behaving as he describes. I certainly did a lot of that when I was an arrogant teenager. From the sounds of things he conducted himself admirably, but I'm willing to bet that he wasn't just the stolid polite diplomat the whole time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the other parties were?
He may have not been the perfect little kid, but he was better than the opposing party, which is what counts.
Straw man. You're assuming it's hypocritical to disagree with a part of a persons platform and still agree with the rest of it. That's absolutely not the case. I agree with fiscal conservatives (in principle) with the idea that a smaller, more efficient government is ideal while still disagreeing with their approaches to fiscal government (ie trickle down economics etc). I am not being a hypocrite.
The above argument can, of course, be applied just as well to what the kid is saying (or even For-"Liberals are always blahblah"-lorn <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->). I mean, the kid was claiming he won an argument just because he had a little more composure and conviction than a high school student.
As far as the kid's activism, I can definately see coil's point about mature debate, but it would never be right to restrict a person's right to speech because they didn't have a good argument. If I had a choice between a highschool full of activists that opposed my views and a high school full of cynical non-participants I would definately choose the former. It's much harder to get people to engage in debate than to pursuade them to your views. I can only back that up with experience, though.
He may have not been the perfect little kid, but he was better than the opposing party, which is what counts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said otherwise.
It is when you criticise the very job you want it to do for you. Protect your rights.
That attention seeking little brat decided to put his posters all over the school. If I'm the teacher, I'll charge him for loitering.
For the lack of better words, his action is no different from email spammer using the free speech excuse.
That attention seeking little brat decided to put his posters all over the school. If I'm the teacher, I'll charge him for loitering.
For the lack of better words, his action is no different from email spammer using the free speech excuse. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of all the "drummed up" charges - loitering?
First of all, it is OK in his school to put up posters. Granted, he put up a lot ~200 or so, but it is still OK (according to the school guidelines).
Second, it is not like e-spam at all. It is 1 school that is being affected - not a world wide epidemic. He does have the right to put up posters with a political message - just as much right as the person putting up movie posters. That, and they didn't advertize viagra.
That being said, I give the principal of the school a lot of credit for what he did. He played the part of a mediator, not allowing for posting, but allowing for the distribution of the signs. Perhaps allowing him an "area" of the school to post them would have been acceptable as well (his locker - a hallway or debate room).
Politics is important, **** enlargement cream and Mary Kate’s "drug addiction", two of the most popular topics in my e-mail spam of late, are not important.
My e-mail is private to me, and I open it on my computer in my house. However if someone wants to put up posters to help keep kids politically aware in a <b>public</b> school then they should have that right.
Regardless of the view something like this would have been great at my high school as most of the students were complete morons when it came to politics, history, geopolitics, etc.
Have a conversation with a group of girls who have no idea what Desert Storm was and then have to argue that Kuwait does in fact exist, you’ll want to kill yourself.
This type of thing should be encouraged.
First of all, it is OK in his school to put up posters. Granted, he put up a lot ~200 or so, but it is still OK (according to the school guidelines). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll have no problem if he put up about 10-15 posters at certain places, like the BOARDS that most school, at least my school, provided.
200+ posters all over the places, including lockers, where many students probably don't want.
Do you really think he is being hailed as a hero in his school? Are you sure the students in his school are supporting his action, ruining the whole school with papers?
He didnt criticise it for protecting his rights. The Slogan wasnt "Death to the ACLU, enough Civil liberties garbage", it was merely complaining that the ACLU seems to be biased against Christianity. Given that the Religious Right and the ACLU rarely get along, I can kinda see his point.
But the ACLU, like Voltaire, is supposed to live by the creed "While I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it". He was calling upon the ACLU to defend his right to criticise them. This for me is pretty much a pivotal moment for the ACLU - where they really get to prove that they are in fact all about civil liberties, no one likes sticking up for the man whose attacking you.
To conclude - his request for help from the ACLU was 100% justified
off topic: this whole battle between the left and right makes me wonder what is happeneing to make this 'battle' so intense.
can any of the older members tell me if it has always been this way or is the extreme polarisation of political allegance a recent development.
perhaps its just a generational thing, youth needs rebelion and perhaps this is the start of a swing away from the liberal ideals of my generation.
when this guy gains enough support, will the next generation rebel against his ideas and swing back to 'liberalism'?
If he werent so into his own rhetoric, he may see that his rants about freedom and especially the stuff from 'liberty rising' is not a million miles away from his 'enemies' ideas.
theres certainly alot of speaking for the other side on his site
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ProtestWarrior will be there to take on the hordes of leftists whose entire goal is to silence, to hate, to scream out of existence the idea that freedom can flourish throughout the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really wouldnt like to see anyone as apparently closed minded as this man rise to hold any sort of following.
He seems to hold a very self assured view of the world, that I can relate to (we were all young once right?) but cant respect any more.
What does that mean? It means we are a very, very partisan country.
On-topic, I'm going to touch briefly on a few points. I would appreciate it if people stopped picking on LANGUAGE and instead discussed <i>arguments</i>. There's nothing more tiresome than a debate of semantics.
A public school may be a public place, but as moultano mentioned, the rights of students in school are an abridged set.
1) As students are required by law to attend school, there is no way to "escape" speech that you find objectionable. Speech that unduly offends others, then, is not protected.
2) As school is a teaching environment and students are there to learn (and have the right to an education), expression that would hinder another student's ability to learn <i>or a teacher's ability to teach</i> is not protected.
3) The principal and teachers of the school are serving <i>in loco parentis</i> - in the place of parents. That means that yes, they are responsible for the moral stewardship of their students and that they are the arbiters of appropriate and inappropriate on school grounds.
The teachers did not object to his message, as much as he might want us to believe. I saw no evidence that would support such a claim. Also, not that he singled out posters that the teachers had deemed "objectionable" - which, to me, suggests that they did not object to all of them.
Why was he denied the right to free speech in the classroom? Because <i>everything he tells us about the situation</i> suggests that it happened during class.
-1- His teacher was speaking*
-2- there were other students present
-3- he claims that his teacher was left "dumbstruck" -- that is, unable to speak when, we must assume, she had previously been speaking.
This kind of outburst - and it is an outburst - prevents both the teacher from teaching and the students from learning. He has no right to do either.
Why was he denied the right to put posters in the hallway? He doesn't tell us. Here are a few guesses:
-1- the history teacher, angry at Templar_Crusader's disrespect for her position as his teacher, told him not to. When he did, he was blatantly acting against an order from a teacher. When you go against your parents, they are allowed to punish you within reason. Your teacher is acting <i>in loco parentis</i> and wields the same authority.
-2- I would not be surprised if our little activist made a pretty big stink about his initial "censorship" (which I have already said most likely was not censorship), and perhaps even got the whole student body talking about it. In that case, plastering the school with over 200 posters would mean the students might be talking about little else. This again prevents the teachers from doing their state-mandated job.
-3- Again, there is evidence to suggest that not all of his signs were objected to. Therefore, it is possible that not all of his signs were removed. The school has moral authority and may decide whether or not something is objectionable.
-4- Combining all three of the above points, objecting to some of the posters (#3)could be considered grounds to remove all of them.
Lastly: again, he has AMPLE opportunity in his school for appropriate free speech. I don't care if he's campaigning to save the whales, abandon the operation in Iraq, eliminate all taxes, or get better food in the cafeteria. If this kid were posting signs that said "What the hell, it's just Alaska!" I would think his actions just as inappropriate. <i>There is a time and a place - especially in public grade school - for protest.</i>
* As he said, she was speaking about - praising - Noam Chomsky, who in fact <i>is</i> an extremely articulate man. I mentioned his name in discussing this thread to both my girlfriend, a linguistics major; and my roommate, a journalism student. Both of them <i>immediately</i> praised Chomsky's linguistic faculty. I can assure you than neither is a socialist; my girlfriend is even, as mentioned previously, a Libertarian. Given their reaction, I feel safe in suggesting that praising Chomsky in particular for his articulate nature in particular does not constitute agreeing with his beliefs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->can any of the older members tell me if it has always been this way or is the extreme polarisation of political allegance a recent development.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The answer to your question is yes and no. Yes there has always been disagreement of core ideas. And no, the great difference is that it used to be OUR OWN DAMN IDEAS ABOUT A TOPIC. Not some regurgitated rhetoric. Which you might notice I was trying to avoid in this discussion.
Feel free to throw this thread away or continue nonsensing each other as you please. I'll be over there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->can any of the older members tell me if it has always been this way or is the extreme polarisation of political allegance a recent development.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The answer to your question is yes and no. Yes there has always been disagreement of core ideas. And no, the great difference is that it used to be OUR OWN DAMN IDEAS ABOUT A TOPIC. Not some regurgitated rhetoric. Which you might notice I was trying to avoid in this discussion.
Feel free to throw this thread away or continue nonsensing each other as you please. I'll be over there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow, that killed the conversation.