Mexifornia

[Oblarg]

Their intentions were irrelevant.

 

That is ridiculous.

 

No, that is reasonable. What they were doing should not have been offensive to any reasonable person. Thus, the fault lies with the people who are offended by it. Whether or not they were intentionally trying to bait unreasonable people is irrelevant in that regard - what they were doing may have been irresponsible and detestable, but it was not worthy of punishment.

 

At a certain point people need to learn that some people are jerks. Being a jerk is not a crime. Attacking someone for being a jerk is.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Oblarg

[Calax]

Their intentions were irrelevant.

 

That is ridiculous.

 

No, that is reasonable. What they were doing should not have been offensive to any reasonable person. Thus, the fault lies with the people who are offended by it. Whether or not they were intentionally trying to bait unreasonable people is irrelevant in that regard - what they were doing may have been irresponsible and detestable, but it was not worthy of punishment.

 

At a certain point people need to learn that some people are jerks. Being a jerk is not a crime. Attacking someone for being a jerk is.

Actually, in any school the provoker and the provoked would both technically be suspended. I mean hell, in my school I nearly strangled somebody because they were calling me an idiot (well, them and their six friends) for pulling down a politically charged poster. I told them several time to back off until finally I just snapped. Got popped in the face for my troubles but the guy who socked me got suspended, and the provokers got detention. Admittedly I was a bit of an exception given that I'd spent half a day in county mental health that year, but even in the law there is a defense for provocation.

 

And intent does matter, otherwise we wouldn't have different degrees of murder down to manslaughter. We'd just have murder.

 

Also what you're claiming is contrary to everything I've ever seen in government and business. Or is it just the fault of the Offended when the situation deals with something "patriotic" rather than, say, A womans breasts or Dr. Manhattans Cheney?

 

It's much easier to kick out five students for trying to be offensive, then suspend 60 for fighting them.

[Oblarg]

Their intentions were irrelevant.

 

That is ridiculous.

 

No, that is reasonable. What they were doing should not have been offensive to any reasonable person. Thus, the fault lies with the people who are offended by it. Whether or not they were intentionally trying to bait unreasonable people is irrelevant in that regard - what they were doing may have been irresponsible and detestable, but it was not worthy of punishment.

 

At a certain point people need to learn that some people are jerks. Being a jerk is not a crime. Attacking someone for being a jerk is.

Actually, in any school the provoker and the provoked would both technically be suspended. I mean hell, in my school I nearly strangled somebody because they were calling me an idiot (well, them and their six friends) for pulling down a politically charged poster. I told them several time to back off until finally I just snapped. Got popped in the face for my troubles but the guy who socked me got suspended, and the provokers got detention. Admittedly I was a bit of an exception given that I'd spent half a day in county mental health that year, but even in the law there is a defense for provocation.

 

And intent does matter, otherwise we wouldn't have different degrees of murder down to manslaughter. We'd just have murder.

 

Also what you're claiming is contrary to everything I've ever seen in government and business. Or is it just the fault of the Offended when the situation deals with something "patriotic" rather than, say, A womans breasts or Dr. Manhattans Cheney?

 

It's much easier to kick out five students for trying to be offensive, then suspend 60 for fighting them.

 

When the only response they are inciting is an unreasonable one, they should not be punished. Being offended by an American flag in an American school is unreasonable.

[Calax]

Their intentions were irrelevant.

 

That is ridiculous.

 

No, that is reasonable. What they were doing should not have been offensive to any reasonable person. Thus, the fault lies with the people who are offended by it. Whether or not they were intentionally trying to bait unreasonable people is irrelevant in that regard - what they were doing may have been irresponsible and detestable, but it was not worthy of punishment.

 

At a certain point people need to learn that some people are jerks. Being a jerk is not a crime. Attacking someone for being a jerk is.

Actually, in any school the provoker and the provoked would both technically be suspended. I mean hell, in my school I nearly strangled somebody because they were calling me an idiot (well, them and their six friends) for pulling down a politically charged poster. I told them several time to back off until finally I just snapped. Got popped in the face for my troubles but the guy who socked me got suspended, and the provokers got detention. Admittedly I was a bit of an exception given that I'd spent half a day in county mental health that year, but even in the law there is a defense for provocation.

 

And intent does matter, otherwise we wouldn't have different degrees of murder down to manslaughter. We'd just have murder.

 

Also what you're claiming is contrary to everything I've ever seen in government and business. Or is it just the fault of the Offended when the situation deals with something "patriotic" rather than, say, A womans breasts or Dr. Manhattans Cheney?

 

It's much easier to kick out five students for trying to be offensive, then suspend 60 for fighting them.

 

When the only response they are inciting is an unreasonable one, they should not be punished. Being offended by an American flag in an American school is unreasonable.

And so is using a flag for purposes of inciting violence.

[Oblarg]

And so is using a flag for purposes of inciting violence.

 

You shouldn't be able to use a flag to incite violence in that situation. Any violence is purely the fault of the people who are unreasonably offended by the American flag.

 

This is akin to wearing gang attire when you're not a member of a gang and getting beaten up for it. Is it a stupid thing to do? Yes. Should it be punishable? No. The people who attack are the ones at fault.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Oblarg

[Monte Carlo]

Calax, your argument is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.

[Amentep]

The cause of the fight is the overreaction, not the shirts. The group that is unreasonable is the group that should be inconvenienced to diffuse the situation.

 

The simple fact is, if what they were doing was offensive, it's the fault of those who were offended. No reasonable person would give a **** about an American flag on someone's shirt in America.

 

How do you "inconvenience" the unreasonable group unless you wait for them to act on their unreasonable position? Answer this question understanding that allowing the students to act (ie fighting) when there could have been a way to prevent the situation escalating is pretty much asking for the school board to fire you (or at least reassign you to a lower position).

 

There were a lot better ways to deal with this situation than the administration did but allowing the groups to fight so you could suspend the fighters isn't really one of them, IMO.

[Trenitay]

What they were doing should not have been offensive to any reasonable person.

 

The thing about that is, high school students aren't reasonable people.

[Calax]

Calax, your argument is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.

Just trying to be one of the crowd.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Nordom: This issue no longer equals total logic.

[Gromnir]

Their intentions were irrelevant.

 

That is ridiculous.

 

 

 

At a certain point people need to learn that some people are jerks. Being a jerk is not a crime. Attacking someone for being a jerk is.

 

yes. good thinking. so the school administrator should do... what? give the assembled and agitated hispanic students a stern lecture; tell them that they is being unreasonable and that they should all grow up. is that the plan? after violence erupts, you may then suspend the hispanic students for their misbehavior. no doubt racial tensions will significantly decrease following the fight and subsequent suspensions. as angry as the parents is that their innocent and patriotic lambkins were treated unjustly by the school administration, one wonders how much more furious those parents woulda' been if their children had been injured during a fight. oh sure, maybe their son is suffering from some stitches and lost a tooth, but at least his First Amendment rights were protected.

 

*chuckle*

 

you is gonna have a difficult time finding a more ardent defender o' free speech than Gromnir, but we is also recognizing that the school administrator has got to consider student safety as paramount. we woulda' handled different, but am understanding that the first and natural reaction when preventing a fight is to blame the kid who were being the agitator. the kids with the bandannas and tee-shirts knew what they was doing. even though we woulda' done different, we complete understand the school reaction in a potentially volatile heat-of-the-moment scenario.

 

@ boo

 

"Alright. Explain please why wearing the US flag on cinco de mayo is agitation? "

 

eh? read the article linked on the front page. the hispanic students felt that they were being intentionally "disrespected." you may honestly not see any reason for agitation, but do you honestly believe that the kids with the American flag garb were equally naive? whether you or Gromnir believes that hispanic agitation were reasonable is an interesting topic for debate, but how does our abstract arguments aid the the teacher or administrator who is attempting to prevent violence from erupting? once the likelihood o' violence becomes apparent, does the school not have a duty to intervene?

 

as we stated already, we would not have attempted to force the students with the American flag tee shirts to remove their garb, but once the school went down that route they were kinda stuck...

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 7, 2010 by Gromnir

[RPGmasterBoo]

eh? read the article linked on the front page. the hispanic students felt that they were being intentionally "disrespected." you may honestly not see any reason for agitation, but do you honestly believe that the kids with the American flag garb were equally naive? whether you or Gromnir believes that hispanic agitation were reasonable is an interesting topic for debate, but how does our abstract arguments aid the the teacher or administrator who is attempting to prevent violence from erupting? once the likelihood o' violence becomes apparent, does the school not have a duty to intervene?

 

as we stated already, we would not have attempted to force the students with the American flag tee shirts to remove their garb, but once the school went down that route they were kinda stuck...

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

The hispanic students "taking offense" could also be seen as veiled threats, the kind of which institutions should not back down from?

 

Coming from a country where schoolyard violence is not commonplace (mostly taking place over girls, arguments, due to alcohol - not due to dispute over symbols)I have no idea of what the likelihood of something actually happening in that school in the US is. From my perspective it seems that the likelihood of violence was exaggerated, but Hurlshot can easily tell us what that neighborhood is like.

 

I agree it was mishandled by the people in charge. At the very least you will agree that its the symptom of a larger problem that is bound to worsen if it is repeatedly handled this way.

[Oblarg]

The cause of the fight is the overreaction, not the shirts. The group that is unreasonable is the group that should be inconvenienced to diffuse the situation.

 

The simple fact is, if what they were doing was offensive, it's the fault of those who were offended. No reasonable person would give a **** about an American flag on someone's shirt in America.

 

How do you "inconvenience" the unreasonable group unless you wait for them to act on their unreasonable position? Answer this question understanding that allowing the students to act (ie fighting) when there could have been a way to prevent the situation escalating is pretty much asking for the school board to fire you (or at least reassign you to a lower position).

 

There were a lot better ways to deal with this situation than the administration did but allowing the groups to fight so you could suspend the fighters isn't really one of them, IMO.

 

That's the thing - the action the school took was not in the interest of preventing a fight, it was in the interest of "respecting Mexican culture." Let me find the quote...

 

"They said we could wear it on any other day," Daniel Galli said, "but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today."

 

To further my previous analogy, this would be akin to telling the person wearing gang attire to take it off because it's insensitive to those who are actually in the gang.

 

If they had been pulled aside and asked to take off the clothes because they were risking an attack by unreasonable people, that would be somewhat reasonable (albeit indicative of a much larger problem).

[Amentep]

Regardless of what one of the kids sent home says about why the administration told them to take it off, the only reasonable reason why any administrator would have asked them to take the clothes off was if they feared violence.

 

And there are better ways they could have dealt with that.

[Walsingham]

This entire argument merely underlines a conclusion I made earlier this week: that context is vital to an understanding of effect.

 

Boo, I don't wish to attack you as such, but you seem to be the most extreme exponent. It seems that you are arguing that wearing the shirts is not and CANNOT be offensive because the flag is an inherently neutral thing at worst. But this defies common sense.

 

The effect delivered by an object or event is completely interlinked with the other objects and events linked to it. For example, I just farted. In the privacy of my own house, with only a dog for company, this is a healthy thing to do. If I were to emit such a noise and smell actually from the podium during a speech by Barack Obama it would be disrespectful and offensive. Similarly, I can enjoy a cigarette ...unless I'm working with petrol.

 

As for my opinion of their motivations I am going to appeal to Hurlshot in his capacity as a teacher. Kids push the line. All the ****ing time. And if a teacher intervened it's almost certainly not going to be just on the basis of what shirts they are wearing. Just consider the known facts. There were a highly concentrated group all wearing Old Glory. Coincidence?

[Hurlshort]

It is my professional opinion that the administrator missed out on a teachable moment.

[Thorton_AP]

Besides I feel that a clear hierarchy benefits overall stability.

 

Isn't that an important tenant of fascism?

 

Its an important tenant of political thought since the dawn of man, so I don't see where you're going with this.

 

 

Should people just allow themselves to be subjugated, especially if they have the power and capabilities to not be?

 

The Jewish people (Godwin's Law! woo) seemed to do a pretty good job of not outright resisting their place in hierarchy, and that didn't really go so well for them. Should the American people have just let the British push them around? It was pretty disrespectful of them to go around revolting, and they should have understood their place in the hierarchy. I mean, the thoughts and actions of the Thirteen Colonies certainly seemed to cause some general instability in the British Empire.

 

Basically where I'm going with this, is that your comment was bunk. It's easy to say that a clear hierarchy benefits overall stability when you seek to maintain the status quo. I'm sure the current American people are rather appreciative that their ancestors didn't seek to maintain the status quo. But maybe I'm incorrect in my assumptions?

[Amentep]

It is my professional opinion that the administrator missed out on a teachable moment.

 

 

But really, what would the moment have learned from the administrator's teaching?

 

Ba-dum-tish

Edited May 7, 2010 by Amentep

[Walsingham]

Should the American people have just let the British push them around? It was pretty disrespectful of them to go around revolting, and they should have understood their place in the hierarchy.

 

 

YES.

 

Just think. I could be a governor general, hammering around Venice Beach on a steam driven mechanical ostrich, powdered wig askew, and clutching a bikini babe.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Shouldn't have taxed our tea.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Besides I feel that a clear hierarchy benefits overall stability.

 

Isn't that an important tenant of fascism?

 

Its an important tenant of political thought since the dawn of man, so I don't see where you're going with this.

 

Should people just allow themselves to be subjugated, especially if they have the power and capabilities to not be?

 

 

No they shouldn't. But they should also be prepared to suffer the consequences of rebellion. I'm for both sides. It is the "right" of the state to try to establish order, just as it is the "right" of the people to try to define their position in the world

 

However if you want freedom, earn it through sacrifice. The american people that rebelled against the British empire understood this.

I just have no respect for gains made through a policy of appeasement.

 

Enforced political correctness, and positive discrimination (which are policies of appeasement) is the worst sort of freedom because its given. IMO it breeds discontent, because:

a) those who get it, get it without enough effort

b) those on the other end (most often the majority) feel they're unfairly losing power and status

 

You could just as easily see in this schoolyard nonsense a terror of a minority over the majority by manipulating the promised freedoms of the system. I suspect many (white) Americans will see it as such, and it must be realized that they aren't all ignorant rednecks without a right to voice their opinion. Failing to recognize this will result in a venomous atmosphere, that will probably end in violence.

[Walsingham]

Shouldn't have taxed our tea.

 

Oh well excuse us for taxing a fething LUXURY after paying for defending you against the French. What else might have provoked your mighty yearnings for freedom? A tax on wafer biscuits? Hair pomade?

 

You may take our lives, but you'll never take our GREY POUPON!

Edited May 7, 2010 by Walsingham

[Amentep]

Did you take the Grey Poupon from the French when you defended us?

[Walsingham]

Did you take the Grey Poupon from the French when you defended us?

 

Probably. I doubt their indian allies had much use for french mustard. I expect buffalo needs the far superior and stronger english variety.

[Thorton_AP]

 

J'Accuse!