A Culture of Intolerance

[PaintMyHouse]

Hardly. Rational people don't kill children outside of the womb. You're insane.

Absolutely we do, if they are sick enough and in pain. Just like an old dog, we put them down. That is the humane thing to do.

Who is "WE," the Nazis that threw new born babies down garbage chutes into incinerators?

[MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]

We means rational people here, and elsewhere.

 

[Gracie]

Crap like that does not need to be in a school. Take it to a park and let people who are picnicing see it. In school? No.

 

[Gracie]

Oh. Never mind. I see this is yet again another abortion thread. Eye roll.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Absolutely we do, if they are sick enough and in pain. Just like an old dog, we put them down. That is the humane thing to do.

That is a faulty rationale. Given that the US has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world, your premise is bunk. The great majority of babies born in America are born free of pain and suffering. Try again.

We are 169th of 224. Not so good. And it doesn't matter how many, it matters that it is done and for good reason.

Perhaps that was a stretch, but it is also irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Hardly. Rational people don't kill children outside of the womb. You're insane.

Absolutely we do, if they are sick enough and in pain. Just like an old dog, we put them down. That is the humane thing to do.

Who is "WE," the Nazis that threw new born babies down garbage chutes into incinerators?

People and Places: The Nazi nurses behind the 'Super Race Children' & The V1

[MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]

The Nazi nurses behind the 'Super Race Children': Inside the Aryan breeding wards where boys and girls were given UV treatment if their hair turned brown... and they even had a more sinister side to their job - assisting with Third Reich's 'experiments' including euthanizing the mentally handicapped and other groups Hitler deemed 'undesirable' and assisting in the creation of 'Super Race Children.' A collection of harrowing photographs has captured these women, probably in the nursing profession's darkest hour.

LMAO some more of Rabbi's lies?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, you're evading me. If you were the principal, and the girl had a pro abortion display she wanted to set up, would you stop her? It isn't their call to arbitrarily deem a viewpoint "controversial and disruptive" purely because it doesn't jibe with their political ideologies. Now tell me, how is it "their call" to pick and choose what speech is acceptable on school grounds based on personal preference?

One more time, the school is responsible for keeping order. How they do so, in cases like this, is their call.


If you were the principal, and the girl had a pro abortion display she wanted to set up, would you stop her?

Very likely. If I thought it would be disruptive, without question.

The question is not do I, as the principal, approve or disapprove of this speech, but will it be disruptive? That is the very same question that the courts ask and the authorities usually win.

Sorry, given what I've seen of your posts and your viewpoints, being the pro choice liberal that you are, I think it would be logical to assume you would have done the exact opposite of what this principal did. You're lying.

Anyhow, if your decisions indeed are motivated by the court's interpretation, could you give me a strict legal basis for such a decision? How would this display have proven to be disruptive? And at what point would the educational goals of the school have outweighed the student's right to speech?

If you can't answer that question, then we can safely deduce that the display would not have been disruptive; strictly using the court's reasoning.

You having trouble understanding doesn't mean that I am lying. The reasoning of the court is again, In Loco Parentis. It's why the court allows a school to tell your daughter to put on a longer skirt or in many states, smack her behind when she misbehaves. If they can't reach a parent or guardian, they can approve of her emergency brain surgery. Once on their property she is in their care, and they get to make the calls within the long-established boundaries, which the court almost always respects. Those calls include, but are not limited to. her right to free speech.

 

[deltex1]

It has become quite obvious to me that in the years after I left school, that there is little tolerance of certain political views that students hold in school. Especially on hot button issues like abortion. As this 17 year old high school student found out, it's not okay to freely express your worldviews in school. If you don't believe government and politics have any influence in the classroom, you're in for a rude awakening. There is a culture of intolerance that is nurtured in the minds of our children that cannot be allowed to continue. The school should be a place where ideas and views are accepted no matter what they are. The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just to those who hold like views.

BRANFORD, Conn. (WTNH)– Life-sized replicas of fetuses are too much for lunchtime at Branford High School. A student leader of the school’s pro-life club says the principal banned her from using the models and she is fighting that.

Seventeen-year-old Samantha is a senior at Branford High School and she is learning a harsh lesson in education policy after trying to set up a pro-life table during lunch at Branford High.

“When we asked our principal at our school if we can have this set up during lunch and have an opportunity for kids to come over and take a look at our display, he said no,” said Samantha Bailey-Loomis.

Samantha is the founder of the students for life club. Their table is complete with blown-up images of fetuses and real- life sized fetus models that look just like the real thing and she says that doesn’t sit well with her principal.

“He tells us that this topic in particular is too controversial to be talked about in public school,” said Bailey-Loomis.

Life-sized fetus causes cafeteria controversy at Connecticut school | WWLP

Tolerated...not necessarily "accepted".

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nothing is wrong with me. I deal in reality, not Ayn Rand Fantasyland.

Does reality include insulting others viewpoints?

Absofuckinlutely.

There is a lot wrong with you. You have an obvious selective interpretation of the First Amendment when it pertains to undesirable expressions of speech that contradict your stated worldviews. We call that hypocrisy.

It's all about a time and a place, but you ignore the restrictions on Free Speech, and there are many, at your peril.

What? So you never did answer my question. What if the girl had wanted to set up a pro-abortion display? Would you say the same thing? That it's disruptive?

Have you ever seen a pro- abortion display? I haven't. What does one look like?

You are taking things from your imagination and comparing them to reality, dummy.

 

[J.E.D]

The Principal did, believe it or not, the Principal does not constitute "the school." The kid didn't even get to set up the display, actually. So the principal had no way of knowing it would be disruptive or not.

One other thing, she wasn't planning to do any of this in a classroom. Students would have been free to peruse the display or ignore it as they deemed fit. So once again, how would it have been disruptive? So, the school was out of line for stopping the student from having that display. Your premise is flawed, once again.

As usual, your argument is the pointless flailings of somebody with no life experience. Having the display in the school cafeteria does not make the setting any less of an educational one than if it were set up in a classroom. It's inside a public school full of impressionable children who are still growing emotionally and intellectually. Having such a display inside the school would inevitably lead to emotional displays from both sides of the argument that would distract students, spill over into the classroom and interfere with the normal curriculum.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, PMH, try giving me a legal rationale for this principal's decision. You've been shucking and jiving this entire thread. You can't prove, nor can this Principal prove that such a display would have been disruptive. If people were actually aware of the case law involving student's rights there wouldn't be any reason to restrict the speech of an American student without just cause. This isn't just and you know it.

 

[Luissa]

Then such restrictions and laws thusly are unconstitutional. By logic alone.



Now what?

You are free to call them whatever you like but the Supreme Court calls them the Law of the Land. Under our system, that's reality. You can pick your own if you like but the laws still apply. Learn of a concept called Extra-Constitutional. You will find that most of your life falls under that.

Under our system, laws imposed by government that violate the free speech rights of an American citizen are unconstitutional. I am studying to be a paralegal, I interpret law on a basic constitutional concept. Anything that takes away the rights of Americans via the law is unconstitutional, pure and simple.

You aren't studying to be a paralegal, if you were you would understand that the school has every right to not let her set up her booth.
Googling information on paralegals doesn't mean you know anything about the constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[Luissa]

Baby murder isn't a pretty sight. People who are pro baby murder should see what their beliefs are upholding...

Innocent minors are pro baby murder?

You are an idiot.





Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

They believe in abortion then absolutely yes they are.

Are you a complete idiot?
The Pro Life people were not protesting anyone's views. It was across from a high school full of minor children which none had expressed their views.



Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No, you're evading me. If you were the principal, and the girl had a pro abortion display she wanted to set up, would you stop her? It isn't their call to arbitrarily deem a viewpoint "controversial and disruptive" purely because it doesn't jibe with their political ideologies. Now tell me, how is it "their call" to pick and choose what speech is acceptable on school grounds based on personal preference?

One more time, the school is responsible for keeping order. How they do so, in cases like this, is their call.


If you were the principal, and the girl had a pro abortion display she wanted to set up, would you stop her?

Very likely. If I thought it would be disruptive, without question.

The question is not do I, as the principal, approve or disapprove of this speech, but will it be disruptive? That is the very same question that the courts ask and the authorities usually win.

Sorry, given what I've seen of your posts and your viewpoints, being the pro choice liberal that you are, I think it would be logical to assume you would have done the exact opposite of what this principal did if it were a view you tolerated. You're lying.

Anyhow, if your decisions indeed are motivated by the court's interpretation, could you give me a strict legal basis for such a decision? How would this display have proven to be disruptive? And at what point would the educational goals of the school have outweighed the student's right to speech?

If you can't answer that question, then we can safely deduce that the display would not have been disruptive; strictly using the court's reasoning.

And....there it is. A question asked and answered. Asked again as if it was not answered. Answered again. Asked a third time with an accusation of evading the question. Answered again.

And then....to top it all off....an accusation of dishonesty based on the idiot's take on the responder's political ideology.

Great job, stupid ass.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So, PMH, try giving me a legal rationale for this principal's decision. You've been shucking and jiving this entire thread. You can't prove, nor can this Principal prove that such a display would have been disruptive. If people were actually aware of the case law involving student's rights there wouldn't be any reason to restrict the speech of an American student without just cause. This isn't just and you know it.

I'm quite sure it is just, but it hardly matters whether it is or it is not. If she wishes to take it to court she can but at the time she was told to knock it off, that was entirely their call, not hers. Until you understand that she is subject to their authority, your reasoning, such as it is, will be utterly flawed.

The display could have been for World Peace and Fuzzy Puppies, and same court-approve logic would have applied. If the school said take it down, down it comes, period.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Hardly. Rational people don't kill children outside of the womb. You're insane.

Absolutely we do, if they are sick enough and in pain. Just like an old dog, we put them down. That is the humane thing to do.

Who is "WE," the Nazis that threw new born babies down garbage chutes into incinerators?

People and Places: The Nazi nurses behind the 'Super Race Children' & The V1

[MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]

The Nazi nurses behind the 'Super Race Children': Inside the Aryan breeding wards where boys and girls were given UV treatment if their hair turned brown... and they even had a more sinister side to their job - assisting with Third Reich's 'experiments' including euthanizing the mentally handicapped and other groups Hitler deemed 'undesirable' and assisting in the creation of 'Super Race Children.' A collection of harrowing photographs has captured these women, probably in the nursing profession's darkest hour.

Mengele, who murdered hundreds of children in warped medical experiments, died in Brazil in 1979.

You are the worst person on these forums. On the bright side, you illuminate the and expose the minds and thoughts of Progressive LEADERSHIP. You know exactly what you're saying. You know exactly what you want done. And you know that you're flock of Progressive sheep are totally in dark as to your true desires and intentions. And you take sick pride in knowing how effortlessly you manipulate them, by appealing to their most basic emotions in the most Orwellian manner.

You TRAIN them in public school that those who wish to retain their property are greedy, but those who desire to steal their property are not (the welfare state).

You TRAIN them to believe that those who are disarmed are safer than those who are armed. How many tens of millions of disarmed people were slaughtered by their Government in the 20th Century?

You TRAIN them to believe that anyone who does not conform to your master plan is a a racist/homophobe/woman-hater.

You're so sick, you're so demonic, and the worst part, you're very proud of it, you display such contempt for the Constitution whilst wallowing in your own pride and arrogance at your manipulation skills.

 

[Avatar4321]

To controversial to discuss in school? We can discuss various crude and lewd sexual conversations in health class but discussing abortion?

with that said, there is not a culture in the world that isn't intolerant of something. The question isnt whether we can become tolerant. The question is what should we be tolerant towards?

for example, i hope we are always intolerant toward murder, unfortunately, we have it legalized when it comes to unborn children.

 

[LoneLaugher]

To controversial to discuss in school? We can discuss various crude and lewd sexual conversations in health class but discussing abortion?

with that said, there is not a culture in the world that isn't intolerant of something. The question isnt whether we can become tolerant. The question is what should we be tolerant towards?

for example, i hope we are always intolerant toward murder, unfortunately, we have it legalized when it comes to unborn children.

Murder, huh? Should women who have abortions be jailed for murder? Executed, maybe?

 

[TemplarKormac]

One more time, the school is responsible for keeping order. How they do so, in cases like this, is their call.


If you were the principal, and the girl had a pro abortion display she wanted to set up, would you stop her?

Very likely. If I thought it would be disruptive, without question.

The question is not do I, as the principal, approve or disapprove of this speech, but will it be disruptive? That is the very same question that the courts ask and the authorities usually win.

Sorry, given what I've seen of your posts and your viewpoints, being the pro choice liberal that you are, I think it would be logical to assume you would have done the exact opposite of what this principal did. You're lying.

Anyhow, if your decisions indeed are motivated by the court's interpretation, could you give me a strict legal basis for such a decision? How would this display have proven to be disruptive? And at what point would the educational goals of the school have outweighed the student's right to speech?

If you can't answer that question, then we can safely deduce that the display would not have been disruptive; strictly using the court's reasoning.

You having trouble understanding doesn't mean that I am lying. The reasoning of the court is again, In Loco Parentis. It's why the court allows a school to tell your daughter to put on a longer skirt or in many states, smack her behind when she misbehaves. If they can't reach a parent or guardian, they can approve of her emergency brain surgery. Once on their property she is in their care, and they get to make the calls within the long-established boundaries, which the court almost always respects. Those calls include, but are not limited to. her right to free speech.

Like I said the first time In Loco Parentis is inapplicable here. You dodged my question once again. At what point would the school's educational goals outweigh the student's right to speech? Can you be at least forthright with me, just once?

By the way, In Loco Parentis does not mean a teacher can just up and spank a student or otherwise paddle them for being disobedient, that is assault and child cruelty. Such things are better left to the parents themselves.

Let me recite the opinion in Tinker v. Des Moines for you one more time.

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

Moreover, your argument falls flat here:

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. | LII / Legal Information Institute

Now once again, what legal basis did the principal use to restrict the speech of this girl? Hmm? He didn't. Simply that it was "too controversial." That would not stand up in the court of law PMH. In fact, the principal's reasoning would have failed this test applied by this court. Saying it is "controversial" indicates the subject was unpleasant to the principal, and that his action was based on such. There was no compelling interest in such a decision. The law is not on your side.

 

[Luissa]

Sorry, given what I've seen of your posts and your viewpoints, being the pro choice liberal that you are, I think it would be logical to assume you would have done the exact opposite of what this principal did. You're lying.



Anyhow, if your decisions indeed are motivated by the court's interpretation, could you give me a strict legal basis for such a decision? How would this display have proven to be disruptive? And at what point would the educational goals of the school have outweighed the student's right to speech?



If you can't answer that question, then we can safely deduce that the display would not have been disruptive; strictly using the court's reasoning.

You having trouble understanding doesn't mean that I am lying. The reasoning of the court is again, In Loco Parentis. It's why the court allows a school to tell your daughter to put on a longer skirt or in many states, smack her behind when she misbehaves. If they can't reach a parent or guardian, they can approve of her emergency brain surgery. Once on their property she is in their care, and they get to make the calls within the long-established boundaries, which the court almost always respects. Those calls include, but are not limited to. her right to free speech.

Like I said the first time In Loco Parentis is inapplicable here. You dodged my question once again. At what point would the school's educational goals outweigh the student's right to speech? Can you be at least forthright with me, just once?



By the way, In Loco Parentis does not mean a teacher can just up and spank a student or otherwise paddle them for being disobedient, that is assault and child cruelty. Such things are better left to the parents themselves.



Let me recite the opinion in Tinker v. Des Moines for you one more time.

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

Moreover, your argument falls flat here:

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. /QUOTE]



Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. | LII / Legal Information Institute

Look up Bethel V Frazier, or Hazelwood, smart one.
Like I said, googling doesn't make you a paralegal.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Hardly. Rational people don't kill children outside of the womb. You're insane.

Absolutely we do, if they are sick enough and in pain. Just like an old dog, we put them down. That is the humane thing to do.

Who is "WE," the Nazis that threw new born babies down garbage chutes into incinerators?

People and Places: The Nazi nurses behind the 'Super Race Children' & The V1

[MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]

The Nazi nurses behind the 'Super Race Children': Inside the Aryan breeding wards where boys and girls were given UV treatment if their hair turned brown... and they even had a more sinister side to their job - assisting with Third Reich's 'experiments' including euthanizing the mentally handicapped and other groups Hitler deemed 'undesirable' and assisting in the creation of 'Super Race Children.' A collection of harrowing photographs has captured these women, probably in the nursing profession's darkest hour.

Mengele, who murdered hundreds of children in warped medical experiments, died in Brazil in 1979.

You are the worst person on these forums. On the bright side, you illuminate the and expose the minds and thoughts of Progressive LEADERSHIP. You know exactly what you're saying. You know exactly what you want done. And you know that you're flock of Progressive sheep are totally in dark as to your true desires and intentions. And you take sick pride in knowing how effortlessly you manipulate them, by appealing to their most basic emotions in the most Orwellian manner.

You TRAIN them in public school that those who wish to retain their property are greedy, but those who desire to steal their property are not (the welfare state).

You TRAIN them to believe that those who are disarmed are safer than those who are armed. How many tens of millions of disarmed people were slaughtered by their Government in the 20th Century?

You TRAIN them to believe that anyone who does not conform to your master plan is a a racist/homophobe/woman-hater.

You're so sick, you're so demonic, and the worst part, you're very proud of it, you display such contempt for the Constitution whilst wallowing in your own pride and arrogance at your manipulation skills.

I'm gonna take a wild guess here but I don't think he likes me??