|
And it's not like this kid was looking for a fight. He dropped a private note to the authorities that what they were doing is wrong. It didn't take him much time and he trusted his teachers and people in charge to act correctly. Should someone really expect what he got because of that?
|
On May 28 2011 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:48 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:41 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you? Are you serious? Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit: "He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer." He didn't try to stop any one individual from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing the prayer. Is it really so hard for your to understand this? If every person in the room had prayed without endorsement from the representative of the school, that is perfectly legal (as long as they do not cause a significant disruption of school business). If a representative of the school acting in official capacity endorses this it is illegal. Fowler tried to stop one of these two things. Can you guess which one? How can this not be getting through to you? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I never said he tried to stop any individual from praying. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. This is stopping others from praying. Do you understand? It's rather simple and basic logic, X, Y, Z type thing. You don't need to state what would be legal or not because that is irrelevant to what he did. An illegal prayer was going to happen at a public government-paid high school graduation. He reported this so it wouldn't happen. He tried to stop it from happening. He tried to stop this prayer from happening. Is it that hard to see? He tried to stop the prayer from happening.It doesn't matter why he did it, or whether it was right or wrong, I'm saying nothing about that. I'm saying what he did, not why he did it. Either you are trolling or you are confused about the semantics of your own language. You said it yourself. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. Full stop. Period. There is not follow on from this. By the same law that prevents the government from supporting a religion the government (and its actors) are forbidden from blocking a religion also. No one can stop you or anyone else in that school from praying. Here is what your logic looks like. The city council of atlanta forced the speed of limit of 55 on the highway within the city. So they must be trying to stop Nascars at the speedway from racing. After the full stop and period, that is entirely correct and completely compatible with "he tried to stop everyone from having their prayer" . I think a better analogy would be if you reported everyone who drove 10 mph above the speedlimit on that highway to the appropriate legal authorities and I were to say "you wanted to stop everyone from driving above the speedlimit"
Well if you removed the word "everyone" from your statement you would be right. As it stands, you have no proof whatsoever that he wanted to prevent EVERYONE from prayer. And yes I am just playing semantics, because that is what you are doing by defending you poor wording.
EDIT:Ignore it, I did not notice someone already made that argument 
|
On May 28 2011 08:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I guess my entire stance can be summed up as if you're going to fight, make it something worth fighting for
Yea, seriously, who gives a fuck about this "constitution" thing anyway?
|
On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated. Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm". I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right? Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely.
Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic.
And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car.
Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them.
|
On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote:He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better.
He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong.
Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.
“Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record. “How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?”
I don't see much of a difference between your comment and Ms. Harrison's. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop.
Ms. Harrison is not blaming the victim per se. She is blaming the mother, who is most certainly not 11.
edit: Which is not to say that I find your statement any less deplorable. Would it have been ok if she was a 16 year old girl who dressed sexy? How about a 20 year old? At what age can we start blaming the woman for dressing sexily if she is raped?
|
It's not illegal to ostracize people. This "kid" is not a kid. He's 18 years old. Parents don't have to support him. Correct me if I'm wrong but most parents don't support their kids after college. Occasionally they offer housing, but that's not mandatory. Obviously the death threats are bad and totally unacceptable. But there is nothing wrong with people (including his own parents) disliking him and not wanting to be around him.
|
On May 28 2011 08:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:46 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 08:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:29 redviper wrote:Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. A total fabrication. Atleast one person at the school wasn't trying to have a prayer. Okay you got me with semantics, good job. Every single literal individual was not trying to have a prayer. On May 28 2011 08:31 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:14 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:48 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:41 redviper wrote:
[quote]
He didn't try to stop any one individual from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing the prayer. Is it really so hard for your to understand this?
If every person in the room had prayed without endorsement from the representative of the school, that is perfectly legal (as long as they do not cause a significant disruption of school business). If a representative of the school acting in official capacity endorses this it is illegal.
Fowler tried to stop one of these two things. Can you guess which one?
How can this not be getting through to you?
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I never said he tried to stop any individual from praying. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. This is stopping others from praying. Do you understand? It's rather simple and basic logic, X, Y, Z type thing. You don't need to state what would be legal or not because that is irrelevant to what he did. An illegal prayer was going to happen at a public government-paid high school graduation. He reported this so it wouldn't happen. He tried to stop it from happening. He tried to stop this prayer from happening. Is it that hard to see? He tried to stop the prayer from happening.It doesn't matter why he did it, or whether it was right or wrong, I'm saying nothing about that. I'm saying what he did, not why he did it. Either you are trolling or you are confused about the semantics of your own language. You said it yourself. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. Full stop. Period. There is not follow on from this. By the same law that prevents the government from supporting a religion the government (and its actors) are forbidden from blocking a religion also. No one can stop you or anyone else in that school from praying. Here is what your logic looks like. The city council of atlanta forced the speed of limit of 55 on the highway within the city. So they must be trying to stop Nascars at the speedway from racing. After the full stop and period, that is entirely correct and completely compatible with "he tried to stop everyone from having their prayer" . I think a better analogy would be if you reported everyone who drove 10 mph above the speedlimit on that highway to the appropriate legal authorities and I were to say "you wanted to stop everyone from driving above the speedlimit" I am shocked that I care enough but its friday and I am waiting for nasl to start so: He DID NOT try to stop everyone from having their prayer. He tried to stop the school from having its prayer. There is a difference. And it would be entirely reasonable of me to report people going over the speed limit if I could do so without breaking the law myself. And like someone said because you don't report jaywalking I guess you won't report a burglary? Or a rape or murder either? Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. They can be the same exact thing if you interpret it was such which is what I did. You all didn't. Now that you know what I'm saying, would you still deny that "student ostracized for trying to stop public school from having it's prayer" is a better title than 'student ostracized for refusing to pray" I'm not saying it isn't a crime, but I don't consider jaywalking on the same level of crime as rape or murder and I'd hope you wouldn't either. No, because that title STILL assumes vindictive intent, as if he just did it to ruin everyone's good time, rather than protect his right to freedom from state-endorsed religion. Something more like "Student ostracized for defending the first amendment" would be more accurate. But he did try to ruin everyone's good time. I still don't see how his freedom was violated up until he started getting harassed unjustly. It's like complaining that "under God" shouldn't be in the pledge because it violates your freedom. Is that really what a violation of freedom is these days? If the alternative is not agreeable to you, what about " student ostracized for stopping public school prayer at public school ceremony which is illegal" and neither one of us can try to dumb-down or sugar-coat it because that's just telling it how it is Yes, there's a big controversy over the "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, that's argued on the exact same level as this particular debate. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Or how about, again, "Student ostracized for defending the first amendment", which is also just telling it how it is? I'm not even saying ignore it to make it go away, I'm saying ignore it because it isn't a big fucking deal. How about you actually fight for something worth fighting for, in this case the community backlash at him. I guess my entire stance can be summed up as if you're going to fight, make it something worth fighting for and I don't think this kid chose his battle wisely at all, unless his action was provoked by prior harassment. If that's the case then I stand behind him entirely, but we don't know so it's pointless to speculate either way I suppose because it changes everything if your speculation is wrong, at least in my opinion. Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:47 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 08:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:29 redviper wrote:Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. A total fabrication. Atleast one person at the school wasn't trying to have a prayer. Okay you got me with semantics, good job. Every single literal individual was not trying to have a prayer. On May 28 2011 08:31 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:14 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:48 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:41 redviper wrote:
[quote]
He didn't try to stop any one individual from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing the prayer. Is it really so hard for your to understand this?
If every person in the room had prayed without endorsement from the representative of the school, that is perfectly legal (as long as they do not cause a significant disruption of school business). If a representative of the school acting in official capacity endorses this it is illegal.
Fowler tried to stop one of these two things. Can you guess which one?
How can this not be getting through to you?
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I never said he tried to stop any individual from praying. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. This is stopping others from praying. Do you understand? It's rather simple and basic logic, X, Y, Z type thing. You don't need to state what would be legal or not because that is irrelevant to what he did. An illegal prayer was going to happen at a public government-paid high school graduation. He reported this so it wouldn't happen. He tried to stop it from happening. He tried to stop this prayer from happening. Is it that hard to see? He tried to stop the prayer from happening.It doesn't matter why he did it, or whether it was right or wrong, I'm saying nothing about that. I'm saying what he did, not why he did it. Either you are trolling or you are confused about the semantics of your own language. You said it yourself. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. Full stop. Period. There is not follow on from this. By the same law that prevents the government from supporting a religion the government (and its actors) are forbidden from blocking a religion also. No one can stop you or anyone else in that school from praying. Here is what your logic looks like. The city council of atlanta forced the speed of limit of 55 on the highway within the city. So they must be trying to stop Nascars at the speedway from racing. After the full stop and period, that is entirely correct and completely compatible with "he tried to stop everyone from having their prayer" . I think a better analogy would be if you reported everyone who drove 10 mph above the speedlimit on that highway to the appropriate legal authorities and I were to say "you wanted to stop everyone from driving above the speedlimit" I am shocked that I care enough but its friday and I am waiting for nasl to start so: He DID NOT try to stop everyone from having their prayer. He tried to stop the school from having its prayer. There is a difference. And it would be entirely reasonable of me to report people going over the speed limit if I could do so without breaking the law myself. And like someone said because you don't report jaywalking I guess you won't report a burglary? Or a rape or murder either? Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. They can be the same exact thing if you interpret it was such which is what I did. You all didn't. Now that you know what I'm saying, would you still deny that "student ostracized for trying to stop public school from having it's prayer" is a better title than 'student ostracized for refusing to pray" I'm not saying it isn't a crime, but I don't consider jaywalking on the same level of crime as rape or murder and I'd hope you wouldn't either. No, because that title STILL assumes vindictive intent, as if he just did it to ruin everyone's good time, rather than protect his right to freedom from state-endorsed religion. Something more like "Student ostracized for defending the first amendment" would be more accurate. But he did try to ruin everyone's good time. I still don't see how his freedom was violated up until he started getting harassed unjustly. It's like complaining that "under God" shouldn't be in the pledge because it violates your freedom. Is that really what a violation of freedom is these days? If the alternative is not agreeable to you, what about " student ostracized for stopping public school prayer at public school ceremony which is illegal" and neither one of us can try to dumb-down or sugar-coat it because that's just telling it how it is How about "Brave student stops school from breaking the law and suffers the consequence of his bravery"? How about that? That would be fine if this was a reaction to previous harassment he received for being an atheist but we don't know for sure so I prefer my universally true title that holds for both situations.
It's not like it took significant fighting on his part, like he was ready to die for the cause. He even expressed as much by calling it a shitstorm. He went to the school, in private, discussed the issue (maybe the discourse was civil, maybe not, either way it should have REMAINED PRIVATE). It was leaked and now we have this.
It was a trivial thing, and yet the COMMUNITY decided to blow the whole thing out of proportion, presumably taken as an attack on their religion, by atheists, and ostracized the guy.
|
On May 28 2011 09:10 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote:He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better.
He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong.
Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.
“Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record. “How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?”
I don't see much of a difference between your comment and Ms. Harrison's. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop. Ms. Harrison is not blaming the victim per se. She is blaming the mother, who is most certainly not 11. edit: Which is not to say that I find your statement any less deplorable. Would it have been ok if she was a 16 year old girl who dressed sexy? How about a 20 year old? At what age can we start blaming the woman for dressing sexily if she is raped?
Which is a legitimate complaint. I'm not going to address it because it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
as to your edit: Never. But if you can't figure out the difference I'm not going to do it for you. Stick to the debate at hand or don't stick at all.
|
On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote:He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better.
He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong.
Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.
“Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record. “How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?”
I don't see much of a difference between your comment and Ms. Harrison's. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop.
Your words echo that of some in the middle east, you say the rape analogy is ridiculous but it's not.
If a woman is raped in the middle east while not wearing a burka, many would say it was equally her fault, because she knew full well a man would not be able to resist. She can't just walk around without a burka and expect people not to rape her. You might say every party involved is wrong.
See the similarity? Just because it should be expected doesn't put the victim in the wrong.
|
Why didn't he just sit quietly at the back of the bus? Bus rides are only a few minutes long, it's not that big of a deal.
Wait I might be thinking of a different article...
|
On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated. Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm". I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right? Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely.
If you don't defend your rights then you lose them. He fought for something he believed in. He fought for his legal rights. What you're saying is he shouldn't have them those rights? You're saying those rights aren't worth anything? He should just give them up because it bothers a few people? Where do you start and where do you end? What else should you give up to a regional majority? Maybe we should all learn Chinese if we all live near China town?
Where is your bias coming from? Let's look at it from the other side. Why do you think the state has a right to force religion on to people? Why should we just sit by and let this happen? Why are our rights NOT worth fighting for?
|
On May 28 2011 09:13 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:10 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote:He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better.
He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong.
Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.
“Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record. “How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?”
I don't see much of a difference between your comment and Ms. Harrison's. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop. Ms. Harrison is not blaming the victim per se. She is blaming the mother, who is most certainly not 11. edit: Which is not to say that I find your statement any less deplorable. Would it have been ok if she was a 16 year old girl who dressed sexy? How about a 20 year old? At what age can we start blaming the woman for dressing sexily if she is raped? Which is a legitimate complaint. I'm not going to address it because it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. as to your edit: Never. But if you can't figure out the difference I'm not going to do it for you. Stick to the debate at hand or don't stick at all.
At first I thought you were saying that the complaint I made about your statement was legitimate but with your edit it seems like you think blaming the mother is a legitimate complaint.
I actually didn't think I could be more outraged than I was after reading the OP. Bravo sir. You have lowered the bar considerably.
|
On May 28 2011 09:13 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote:He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better.
He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong.
Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.
“Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record. “How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?”
I don't see much of a difference between your comment and Ms. Harrison's. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop. Your words echo that of some in the middle east, you say the rape analogy is ridiculous but it's not. If a woman is raped in the middle east while not wearing a burka, many would say it was equally her fault, because she knew full well a man would not be able to resist. She can't just walk around without a burka and expect people not to rape her. You might say every party involved is wrong. See the similarity? Just because it should be expected doesn't put the victim in the wrong.
Fine, jesus christ I'll address this since apparently all you people want to talk about.
Is the victim "in the wrong"? No. There are no circumstances where rape is condoned nor do I agree with his parents or society shunning him over something this ridiculous.
However, people have to understand that everybody doesn't act the way you want them to. In your random ass middle east example the fact is that while only the rapists were wrong, the woman at hand certainly could have decreased the likelihood of that. It's the same idea that the cop got reprimanded in Canada for a few months back for basically telling women not to dress slutty.
It's not saying "lol u dezerve it u gonna' get raped." It's saying, "We live in a really shitty world and there are ways to hopefully prevent some of the shit from hitting you in the face." I wish it weren't the case, but the real world sucks.
On May 28 2011 09:17 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:13 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:10 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote:He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better.
He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong.
Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.
“Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record. “How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?”
I don't see much of a difference between your comment and Ms. Harrison's. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop. Ms. Harrison is not blaming the victim per se. She is blaming the mother, who is most certainly not 11. edit: Which is not to say that I find your statement any less deplorable. Would it have been ok if she was a 16 year old girl who dressed sexy? How about a 20 year old? At what age can we start blaming the woman for dressing sexily if she is raped? Which is a legitimate complaint. I'm not going to address it because it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. as to your edit: Never. But if you can't figure out the difference I'm not going to do it for you. Stick to the debate at hand or don't stick at all. At first I thought you were saying that the complaint I made about your statement was legitimate but with your edit it seems like you think blaming the mother is a legitimate complaint. I actually didn't think I could be more outraged than I was after reading the OP. Bravo sir. You have lowered the bar considerably.
Partially to blame? You damn well better believe it.
|
|
|
On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated. Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm". I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right? Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them.
Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right:
"The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!"
It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice.
See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease.
But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead.
|
On May 28 2011 09:18 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:13 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote:He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better.
He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong.
Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.
“Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record. “How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?”
I don't see much of a difference between your comment and Ms. Harrison's. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop. Your words echo that of some in the middle east, you say the rape analogy is ridiculous but it's not. If a woman is raped in the middle east while not wearing a burka, many would say it was equally her fault, because she knew full well a man would not be able to resist. She can't just walk around without a burka and expect people not to rape her. You might say every party involved is wrong. See the similarity? Just because it should be expected doesn't put the victim in the wrong. Fine, jesus christ I'll address this since apparently all you people want to talk about. Is the victim "in the wrong"? No. There are no circumstances where rape is condoned nor do I agree with his parents or society shunning him over something this ridiculous. However, people have to understand that everybody doesn't act the way you want them to. In your random ass middle east example the fact is that while only the rapists were wrong, the woman at hand certainly could have decreased the likelihood of that. It's the same idea that the cop got reprimanded in Canada for a few months back for basically telling women not to dress slutty. It's not saying "lol u dezerve it u gonna' get raped." It's saying, "We live in a really shitty world and there are ways to hopefully prevent some of the shit from hitting you in the face." I wish it weren't the case, but the real world sucks.
Your original post didn't say that. "He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong." Look, I don't actually think you condone rape or anything but your reasoning and example was poor and I was simply showing that.
|
On the plus side, the kid now knows who his real friends are and the people who really care about him. The truth may be hard to swallow but it's better than being fooled by people in his community and his parents who are actually dirtbags when their true colors are revealed.
|
On May 28 2011 09:21 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:18 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:13 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote:He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better.
He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong.
Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.
“Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record. “How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?”
I don't see much of a difference between your comment and Ms. Harrison's. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop. Your words echo that of some in the middle east, you say the rape analogy is ridiculous but it's not. If a woman is raped in the middle east while not wearing a burka, many would say it was equally her fault, because she knew full well a man would not be able to resist. She can't just walk around without a burka and expect people not to rape her. You might say every party involved is wrong. See the similarity? Just because it should be expected doesn't put the victim in the wrong. Fine, jesus christ I'll address this since apparently all you people want to talk about. Is the victim "in the wrong"? No. There are no circumstances where rape is condoned nor do I agree with his parents or society shunning him over something this ridiculous. However, people have to understand that everybody doesn't act the way you want them to. In your random ass middle east example the fact is that while only the rapists were wrong, the woman at hand certainly could have decreased the likelihood of that. It's the same idea that the cop got reprimanded in Canada for a few months back for basically telling women not to dress slutty. It's not saying "lol u dezerve it u gonna' get raped." It's saying, "We live in a really shitty world and there are ways to hopefully prevent some of the shit from hitting you in the face." I wish it weren't the case, but the real world sucks. Your original post didn't say that. "He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong." Look, I don't actually think you condone rape or anything but your reasoning and example was poor and I was simply showing that.
So you're just one of many who wants to debate semantics and word choice instead of the underlying issue? I stand by the idea behind what I originally said vehemently. Could I articulate my points more clearly? Of course, but I also don't feel like typing up a 20 page essay defining each term I plan to use.
The student can't pretend he didn't know the community would be pissed. It doesn't justify their actions, but he can't be surprised or shocked by the outcome.
Edit: My main idea of the student being "wrong" is because he's creating a shit storm for nothing. I clarified this point slightly earlier in that people do things all the time they don't want to. Minority rights are important, but the right to not have to listen to people talk about God for 1 minute while graduating is so undeserving of attention it's not even funny.
|
I do not understand, He reminds someone that what they are doing is against the LAW, and that it affects him negatively, and since it is against the LAW they should stop doing it.
Case closed.
They either follow the law as it is written or they chose not to. If they do not follow the law then they should be judged according to the law. In this case most likely a fine.
Your friend decides to drive home drunk, breaking the law, You first tell him that it is against the law, then you try to take the keys from him and what not. But he carries on anyway and breaks the law.
Now whatever your personal opinion about the law in question is, you most likely believe that people should try do their best to act within the confines of the law. Even when their personal believes dictate the law is foolish.
Many people find laws about mild alternative substance use silly, And even if overwhelming scientific facts and the general consensus of the people hold the belief that it should be legal, until it actually is made legal you have to follow the law or face the consequences.
Therefor debating weather the person in question is right or not is futile. Since said person has the backing of the law, and is therefor legally in the right.
So any debate held, should be as to if the law in question is correct or not.
|
On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated. Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm". I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right? Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead.
Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person.
And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities.
What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
