11 year old thug arrested after threatening teacher,principal and resisting arrest in school

[Correll]

3. The history of racism is no excuse to be hostile to his fellow citizens. If it is, then Diversity and Multiculturalism were not only lies, but deadly poisons to our nation.

He was not being hostile to his fellow citizens. He was expressing his c=views about racism and the flag. Diversity and Multiculturalism are lies, and deadly poisons to our nation- only according to bigots and xenophobes .

THe nation is nothing but the whole of it's citizens.


If he is refusing to stand for the Flag, because it is symbol of a nation that he considers so "racist" that he has to refuse to join in the unity ritual,


then he is stating that he considers his fellow citizens to be so "Racist" that he cannot stand to even pretend for a few minutes to be loyal to them,


then he is hostile to them.



THe supposed goal of diversity and multiculturalism is that a diverse mix of different people can have their differences and yet live in harmony and peace.


That what is actually happening is that a significant portion of our population is being raised to believe that the nation as a whole, and large percentages of their fellow citizens are "racist" and literally out to get them,

makes that utterly impossible.


ANY event perception of a conflict of interest will, instead of being seen as an internal and minor issue, will be seen as a move by Evul Enemies with which no real dialog is possible.


Only a fool could pretend to himself that that is going to work out for anyone, but the most vile.

Just more of the same regurgitated horseshit

Your inability to even address, let along even TRY to refute my points,


is you losing the debate.

You can't simply declare that I am l failing to address or refute your points and make it true. That is an appeal to ignorance

Except that you clearly did not address or even try to refute any of my points.


Your reply, and it's utter failure is right above and clear to see.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

1. An ELEVEN YEAR old in a school setting, does not have the right to Freedom of Speech. He is there to be TAUGHT, and being taught to respect the Flag and the Nation it stands for is completely right and proper.

Where in the constitution does it specify the age at which we are granted freedom of speech?

Don't know, don't care.


My point rests on it's obvious logic. Yours is nothing but the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Thus, your point is invalid and you lose.

It appears the it is you who are employing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority

And what Authority would you claim that I am appealing to?

Your idiotic claim that an 11 year old does not have the right to freedom of speech. Your repeated bleating that I "you lose " does not make you a winner.

 

[Jackson]

1. An ELEVEN YEAR old in a school setting, does not have the right to Freedom of Speech. He is there to be TAUGHT, and being taught to respect the Flag and the Nation it stands for is completely right and proper.

Where in the constitution does it specify the age at which we are granted freedom of speech?

Don't know, don't care.


My point rests on it's obvious logic. Yours is nothing but the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Thus, your point is invalid and you lose.

It appears the it is you who are employing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority

And what Authority would you claim that I am appealing to?

Let's address "authority". A child's first introduction to authority is the parents. They tell you what to do and there should be a consequence if they don't. That is how they learn.

The second experience is with the teacher. Again respecting authority is essential and consequences follow if that respect in not remitted.

When an 11 year old does not follow a direction from a teacher to stand, they have had poor training at home showing respect and dealing with consequences.

Finally the last authority the child will face is police. By that time, we find if respect has evolved with person or someone dropped the ball.l

 

[Correll]

1. An ELEVEN YEAR old in a school setting, does not have the right to Freedom of Speech. He is there to be TAUGHT, and being taught to respect the Flag and the Nation it stands for is completely right and proper.

Where in the constitution does it specify the age at which we are granted freedom of speech?

Don't know, don't care.


My point rests on it's obvious logic. Yours is nothing but the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Thus, your point is invalid and you lose.

It appears the it is you who are employing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority

And what Authority would you claim that I am appealing to?

Your idiotic claim that an 11 year old does not have the right to freedom of speech. Your repeated bleating that I "you lose " does not make you a winner.

A claim is not an "Authority".

An Appeal to Authority requires that there is someone, perhaps myself, who I am claiming is an expert at this field, and you should defer to his opinion because he is an expert on this subject.


I repeat my question. Who is the Authority I am supposedly appeal TO?

 

[cnm]

A group that has no mechanism to encourage group loyalty, and no mechanism to protect itself from disloyalty,


is one doomed to fall in short order.

Brains must be washed from school age in the land of the free. No argument.

 

[Correll]

A group that has no mechanism to encourage group loyalty, and no mechanism to protect itself from disloyalty,


is one doomed to fall in short order.

Brains must be washed from school age in the land of the free. No argument.

Do you have children?

 

[cnm]

What do you think that it means that his guess was right?

At the very least, that he's part of the fringe. Really, that white racism is still a large part of the culture of the US.

 

[cnm]

Do you have children?

None of your business. Your point?

 

[Jackson]

Where in the constitution does it specify the age at which we are granted freedom of speech?

Don't know, don't care.


My point rests on it's obvious logic. Yours is nothing but the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Thus, your point is invalid and you lose.

It appears the it is you who are employing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority

And what Authority would you claim that I am appealing to?

Your idiotic claim that an 11 year old does not have the right to freedom of speech. Your repeated bleating that I "you lose " does not make you a winner.

A claim is not an "Authority".

An Appeal to Authority requires that there is someone, perhaps myself, who I am claiming is an expert at this field, and you should defer to his opinion because he is an expert on this subject.


I repeat my question. Who is the Authority I am supposedly appeal TO?

Freedom of Speech has it's restrictions. Check with authorities of different kinds to determine what those restrictions are.

When you are 11, there are teachers, parents, principals, police, crossing guards and even more that take precedence over the 11 year olds whims.

He cannot bully another, use profanity in school, push anyone down the stairs, refuse to answer a police officer, and the cardinal sin, disobeying the teacher!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

1. An ELEVEN YEAR old in a school setting, does not have the right to Freedom of Speech. He is there to be TAUGHT, and being taught to respect the Flag and the Nation it stands for is completely right and proper.

Where in the constitution does it specify the age at which we are granted freedom of speech?

Don't know, don't care.


My point rests on it's obvious logic. Yours is nothing but the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Thus, your point is invalid and you lose.

It appears the it is you who are employing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority

And what Authority would you claim that I am appealing to?

Let's address "authority". A child's first introduction to authority is the parents. They tell you what to do and there should be a consequence if they don't. That is how they learn.

The second experience is with the teacher. Again respecting authority is essential and consequences follow if that respect in not remitted.

When an 11 year old does not follow a direction from a teacher to stand, they have had poor training at home showing respect and dealing with consequences.

Finally the last authority the child will face is police. By that time, we find if respect has evolved with person or someone dropped the ball.l

There is authority and there is abuse of authority. Children, and you, need to learn the difference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jackson]

A group that has no mechanism to encourage group loyalty, and no mechanism to protect itself from disloyalty,


is one doomed to fall in short order.

Brains must be washed from school age in the land of the free. No argument.

So, what are you infering?

 

[Jackson]

Where in the constitution does it specify the age at which we are granted freedom of speech?

Don't know, don't care.


My point rests on it's obvious logic. Yours is nothing but the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Thus, your point is invalid and you lose.

It appears the it is you who are employing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority

And what Authority would you claim that I am appealing to?

Let's address "authority". A child's first introduction to authority is the parents. They tell you what to do and there should be a consequence if they don't. That is how they learn.

The second experience is with the teacher. Again respecting authority is essential and consequences follow if that respect in not remitted.

When an 11 year old does not follow a direction from a teacher to stand, they have had poor training at home showing respect and dealing with consequences.

Finally the last authority the child will face is police. By that time, we find if respect has evolved with person or someone dropped the ball.l

There is authority and there is abuse of authority. Children, and you, need to learn the difference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, where am I wrong. Set me straight.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Where in the constitution does it specify the age at which we are granted freedom of speech?

Don't know, don't care.


My point rests on it's obvious logic. Yours is nothing but the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Thus, your point is invalid and you lose.

It appears the it is you who are employing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority

And what Authority would you claim that I am appealing to?

Your idiotic claim that an 11 year old does not have the right to freedom of speech. Your repeated bleating that I "you lose " does not make you a winner.

A claim is not an "Authority".

An Appeal to Authority requires that there is someone, perhaps myself, who I am claiming is an expert at this field, and you should defer to his opinion because he is an expert on this subject.


I repeat my question. Who is the Authority I am supposedly appeal TO?

You of course


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Marion Morrison]

Dupe thread:

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Not sure if I want the Twattasaurus Rexes in here twatting up my thread, though.

 

[Correll]

What do you think that it means that his guess was right?

At the very least, that he's part of the fringe. Really, that white racism is still a large part of the culture of the US.

That does not follow.


His guess being right, in no way indicates anything about hundreds of millions of other people.

 

[Correll]

Do you have children?

None of your business. Your point?

Anyone with children would know that you use your parental authority to insist they learn and adapt certain behaviors and ideas, in order to become good people, and not feral barbarians.


They would either know it, and do it, and see the good results,


or not know it, and not do it, and see the bad results, and learn, too late.

 

[Correll]

Don't know, don't care.


My point rests on it's obvious logic. Yours is nothing but the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Thus, your point is invalid and you lose.

It appears the it is you who are employing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority

And what Authority would you claim that I am appealing to?

Your idiotic claim that an 11 year old does not have the right to freedom of speech. Your repeated bleating that I "you lose " does not make you a winner.

A claim is not an "Authority".

An Appeal to Authority requires that there is someone, perhaps myself, who I am claiming is an expert at this field, and you should defer to his opinion because he is an expert on this subject.


I repeat my question. Who is the Authority I am supposedly appeal TO?

You of course


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't know, don't care.


My point rests on it's obvious logic. Yours is nothing but the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Thus, your point is invalid and you lose.

It appears the it is you who are employing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority

And what Authority would you claim that I am appealing to?

Your idiotic claim that an 11 year old does not have the right to freedom of speech. Your repeated bleating that I "you lose " does not make you a winner.

A claim is not an "Authority".

An Appeal to Authority requires that there is someone, perhaps myself, who I am claiming is an expert at this field, and you should defer to his opinion because he is an expert on this subject.


I repeat my question. Who is the Authority I am supposedly appeal TO?

You of course


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did not cite my Authority as a reason for my point to be deferred to.


I offered an argument, that made a number of points, that you have utterly failed to address.


Your inability to understand this is probably driven by your inability to face the fact that you cannot refute any of my points.


Your emotional and irrational response is understandable.


BUt my points still stand, and if you cannot even try to address them seriously and honestly, then it is approaching time to declare me the winner.

 

[anynameyouwish]

I was a teacher when a father came in and said his son would not stand or say the pledge. I came back with: :Your son will stand because that it at my direction. I don't care if he says the pledge, but I do care that he does follow my direction."

stand.....or what?

beat him?
ruin his life?
toss him in jail?
drag him behind your car?
lynch him?

what do you ( a fascist piece of shit) believe is the best way to treat people you want to kill?

 

[Marion Morrison]

I was a teacher when a father came in and said his son would not stand or say the pledge. I came back with: :Your son will stand because that it at my direction. I don't care if he says the pledge, but I do care that he does follow my direction."

stand.....or what?

beat him?
ruin his life?
toss him in jail?
drag him behind your car?
lynch him?

what do you ( a fascist piece of shit) believe is the best way to treat people you want to kill?

If it was you, hang you for treason, you piece of shit.

 

[cnm]

A group that has no mechanism to encourage group loyalty, and no mechanism to protect itself from disloyalty,


is one doomed to fall in short order.

Brains must be washed from school age in the land of the free. No argument.

So, what are you infering?

I'm implying US values are so shaky US children need to be brainwashed for said values to be instilled in them. Otherwise the kids would pick up those values as part of the culture.