A Culture of Intolerance

[J.E.D]

And given the slew of trolling right now, the insult to intelligence lies in the fact that people can't argue my points. Lack of intelligence exists when you have nothing for which to base a cogent argument upon.

Typical TK response. "Nobody agrees with me; therefore, I win". People have given you pages of intelligent responses that you just refuse to entertain, because you always think that you are right about everything. We have all seen it over and over again with you. Remember the thread where you challenged liberals to find you a job? You got plenty of helpful responses from people, but you you talked right over them.

Seriously, you seem like an intelligent enough person, you just need to learn that you're not right about everything. Instead of spending hours on USMB composing theses on the eroding of society due to liberal boogeymen, focus on honing your talent for writing and do something constructive with it.

 

[boilermaker55]

One more ridiculous talking point from the radical right.
Keep yelling about something that has no merit.
Wasteful thinking.

I wish the radical whacko leftist would hurry up and decide when they want to come for our guns. The suspense is gripping

-Geaux

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I wonder if the school would have had the same feelings over a pro choice display set during lunch? I can't say for sure but my best guess would be no.

You're best guess, not so good.

Well that's why it's called a guess. So since you feel it's not so good are you saying they have done the same with pro choice?

Yep.

 

[boilermaker55]

How can one be intelligent when they cannot prove their point. All they go by is statements taken out of context that fit their argument. And when proven that what they say has no validity.
Seems a bit insane.
Or it stems from nothing more than pure hatred.

And given the slew of trolling right now, the insult to intelligence lies in the fact that people can't argue my points. Lack of intelligence exists when you have nothing for which to base a cogent argument upon.

Typical TK response. "Nobody agrees with me; therefore, I win". People have given you pages of intelligent responses that you just refuse to entertain, because you always think that you are right about everything. We have all seen it over and over again with you. Remember the thread where you challenged liberals to find you a job? You got plenty of helpful responses from people, but you you talked right over them.

Seriously, you seem like an intelligent enough person, you just need to learn that you're not right about everything. Instead of spending hours on USMB composing theses on the eroding of society due to liberal boogeymen, focus on honing your talent for writing and do something constructive with it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I wonder if the school would have had the same feelings over a pro choice display set during lunch? I can't say for sure but my best guess would be no.

You're best guess, not so good.

Well that's why it's called a guess. So since you feel it's not so good are you saying they have done the same with pro choice?

Yes. Yes....that is what he is saying. He has said it PLAINLY AND CLEARLY four times now. Why do nutters fail to accept answers?

 

[TemplarKormac]

What are you even talking about? I never even claimed whatever you just posted. Please keep up.



And no, expressing your social beliefs is not an educational tool. She set up the booth to back up her views on abortion.

Neither side of that debate should be using a public school to get their opinion out. The Principal had every right to not allow the booth.





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

Sorry, when you use science to back up your views, you are thus educating people about those views scientifically. I'm sorry that doesn't jibe with your views on reality, Luissa.



As I already demonstrated, the Principal had no legal basis to disallow the booth. He did not prove beyond any doubt that it would have disrupted school activity, he only merely demonstrated that it was "controversial." Using the test established in Tinker, that reasoning would have failed, you cannot disallow speech simply because you find it unpleasant.

As I proved with two court rulings, the principal had every right.

My views? Like I said, either side should not be using public school to get their opinion out there.
The principal didn't disallow free speech, for one she is still allowed to have her club and express her views, he just exercised his right to not allow the booth.
And the two Supreme Court rulings I posted were after Tinker, and proved he has every right to not allow her booth.
Sorry if that goes against your ignorant understanding of what the first amendment protects you from.


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

But once again, Hazelwood did not reverse Tinker, in fact if I recall, it cited Tinker as precedent. It reversed a circuit court decision. Just because a Supreme Court decision supersedes another on the same subject, doesn't always mean it has the aims of contradicting or overruling it. Your knowledge of law and precedent is sorely lacking Luissa.

In Hazelwood:

The standard for determining when a school may punish student expression that happens to occur on school premises is not the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination of student expression. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, distinguished. Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities, so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.

Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier - 484 U.S. 260 (1988)

The display would serve a legitimate pedagogical purpose in this case. Showing students the progression of a human fetus from a zygote to a fully mature infant is indeed educational, even if it is mired in the political views of a student. Moreover, the observers are free to make their own judgments on the subject. In Hazelwood moreover, they made it clear that the school isn't obligated to promote certain types of speech over the other. Nowhere did it say that a school could arbitrarily restrict speech on that basis either. If the restriction of speech serves no educational interest, it is as Tinker points out invalid and unconstitutional.

Your argument is once again toast. You obviously can't make clear delineations between decisions that restrict speech which have a legitimate educational goal and those that are made purely because the person deems them to be unpleasant.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And given the slew of trolling right now, the insult to intelligence lies in the fact that people can't argue my points. Lack of intelligence exists when you have nothing for which to base a cogent argument upon.

Typical TK response. "Nobody agrees with me; therefore, I win". People have given you pages of intelligent responses that you just refuse to entertain, because you always think that you are right about everything. We have all seen it over and over again with you. Remember the thread where you challenged liberals to find you a job? You got plenty of helpful responses from people, but you you talked right over them.

Seriously, you seem like an intelligent enough person, you just need to learn that you're not right about everything. Instead of spending hours on USMB composing theses on the eroding of society due to liberal boogeymen, focus on honing your talent for writing and do something constructive with it.

You are way too kind. Really.

 

[blackhawk]

I wonder if the school would have had the same feelings over a pro choice display set during lunch? I can't say for sure but my best guess would be no.

They probably would. Do you see planned parenthood showing up at schools? Nope.


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

This was a student leader of the school’s pro-life club that was denied not a outside group like planned parenthood the question is if the school had a pro choice club would it have been denied as well not would outside groups be denied.

 

[blackhawk]

You're best guess, not so good.

Well that's why it's called a guess. So since you feel it's not so good are you saying they have done the same with pro choice?

Yep.

Are you basing that on aything or simply guessing as well?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Sorry, when you use science to back up your views, you are thus educating people about those views scientifically. I'm sorry that doesn't jibe with your views on reality, Luissa.



As I already demonstrated, the Principal had no legal basis to disallow the booth. He did not prove beyond any doubt that it would have disrupted school activity, he only merely demonstrated that it was "controversial." Using the test established in Tinker, that reasoning would have failed, you cannot disallow speech simply because you find it unpleasant.

As I proved with two court rulings, the principal had every right.

My views? Like I said, either side should not be using public school to get their opinion out there.
The principal didn't disallow free speech, for one she is still allowed to have her club and express her views, he just exercised his right to not allow the booth.
And the two Supreme Court rulings I posted were after Tinker, and proved he has every right to not allow her booth.
Sorry if that goes against your ignorant understanding of what the first amendment protects you from.


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

But once again, Hazelwood did not reverse Tinker, in fact if I recall, it cited Tinker as precedent. It reversed a circuit court decision. Just because a Supreme Court decision supersedes another on the same subject, doesn't always mean it has the aims of contradicting or overruling it. Your knowledge of law and precedent is sorely lacking Luissa.

In Hazelwood:

The standard for determining when a school may punish student expression that happens to occur on school premises is not the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination of student expression. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, distinguished. Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities, so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.

Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier - 484 U.S. 260 (1988)

The display would serve a legitimate pedagogical purpose in this case. Showing students the progression of a human fetus from a zygote to a fully mature infant is indeed educational, even if it is mired in the political views of a student. Moreover, the observers are free to make their own judgments on the subject. In Hazelwood moreover, they made it clear that the school isn't obligated to promote certain types of speech over the other. Nowhere did it say that a school could arbitrarily restrict speech on that basis either. If the restriction of speech serves no educational interest, it is as Tinker points out invalid and unconstitutional.

Your argument is once again toast. You obviously can't make clear delineations between decisions that have a legitimate educational goal and those that are made purely because the person deems them to be unpleasant.

If you recall? What bullshit. I'd bet that you never heard of "Tinker" before today. Fucking poser.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

[MENTION=47594]PaintMyHouse[/MENTION]
Thankfully, we don't need to guess about your stance towards us. You said "White people are an easy group to hate."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ffs-nullify-federal-gun-laws.html#post8708254

I have all your shit on bookmark.
[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION] [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION] [MENTION=19484]The T[/MENTION]

Fitting, since the title of this thread is about Progressive Intolerance.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How can one be intelligent when they cannot prove their point. All they go by is statements taken out of context that fit their argument. And when proven that what they say has no validity.
Seems a bit insane.
Or it stems from nothing more than pure hatred.

And given the slew of trolling right now, the insult to intelligence lies in the fact that people can't argue my points. Lack of intelligence exists when you have nothing for which to base a cogent argument upon.

Typical TK response. "Nobody agrees with me; therefore, I win". People have given you pages of intelligent responses that you just refuse to entertain, because you always think that you are right about everything. We have all seen it over and over again with you. Remember the thread where you challenged liberals to find you a job? You got plenty of helpful responses from people, but you you talked right over them.

Seriously, you seem like an intelligent enough person, you just need to learn that you're not right about everything. Instead of spending hours on USMB composing theses on the eroding of society due to liberal boogeymen, focus on honing your talent for writing and do something constructive with it.

How interesting. How can one be intelligent when they refer to me as "insane"? Do you have an actual argument or are you here to preach to me?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I wonder if the school would have had the same feelings over a pro choice display set during lunch? I can't say for sure but my best guess would be no.

They probably would. Do you see planned parenthood showing up at schools? Nope.


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

This was a student leader of the school’s pro-life club that was denied not a outside group like planned parenthood the question is if the school had a pro choice club would it have been denied as well not would outside groups be denied.

Well said. You sure don't need to retake comp.

 

[Luissa]

Sorry, when you use science to back up your views, you are thus educating people about those views scientifically. I'm sorry that doesn't jibe with your views on reality, Luissa.







As I already demonstrated, the Principal had no legal basis to disallow the booth. He did not prove beyond any doubt that it would have disrupted school activity, he only merely demonstrated that it was "controversial." Using the test established in Tinker, that reasoning would have failed, you cannot disallow speech simply because you find it unpleasant.

As I proved with two court rulings, the principal had every right.



My views? Like I said, either side should not be using public school to get their opinion out there.

The principal didn't disallow free speech, for one she is still allowed to have her club and express her views, he just exercised his right to not allow the booth.

And the two Supreme Court rulings I posted were after Tinker, and proved he has every right to not allow her booth.

Sorry if that goes against your ignorant understanding of what the first amendment protects you from.





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

But once again, Hazelwood did not reverse Tinker, in fact if I recall, it cited Tinker as precedent. It reversed a circuit court decision. Just because a Supreme Court decision supersedes another on the same subject, doesn't always mean it has the aims of contradicting or overruling it. Your knowledge of law and precedent is sorely lacking Luissa.



In Hazelwood:

The standard for determining when a school may punish student expression that happens to occur on school premises is not the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination of student expression. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, distinguished. Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities, so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.

Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier - 484 U.S. 260 (1988)



The display would serve a legitimate pedagogical purpose in this case. Showing students the progression of a human fetus from a zygote to a fully mature infant is indeed educational, even if it is mired in the political views of a student. Moreover, the observers are free to make their own judgments on the subject. In Hazelwood moreover, they made it clear that the school isn't obligated to promote certain types of speech over the other. Nowhere did it say that a school could arbitrarily restrict speech on that basis either. If the restriction of speech serves no educational interest, it is as Tinker points out invalid and unconstitutional.



Your argument is once again toast. You obviously can't make clear delineations between decisions that have a legitimate educational goal and those that are made purely because the person deems them to be unpleasant.

I obviously have more knowledge than you do. Because it was quite simple to understand the precedent Hazelwood established. And the fact it proves the Principal had every right to not allow the booth.
You are not a paralegal, and you know nothing about this subject.
Hazelwood also established the right for the Principal to not allow something simply because it is unpleasant and disruptive.

My argument isn't toast, because I am right. Just admit it, you have no point and you are wrong.

The part you are missing is the student was not punished, the school doesn't allow Pro Choice supporters to put up a booth, so she wasn't discriminated against. The Principal exercised his right to not allow a booth, which he has every right to.
You have no leg to stand on.


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

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well that's why it's called a guess. So since you feel it's not so good are you saying they have done the same with pro choice?

Yep.

Are you basing that on aything or simply guessing as well?

I'm basing it on decades of experience that started out when I was very young and was told, by both my parents, both in public and in private, that we do not discuss such things - at - the - dinner - table! Continuing then to discuss such things did not end well, and tended to leave one sore, and crying, and hungry.

When later on my school authorities also said to "shut up", they had a similar outlook, and an oddly similar response.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now, do any of you have anything else? For nearly three hours I've taken down each of your arguments.

I have established that

1) Regardless of the view, restriction of speech cannot take place unless it serves a legitimate educational concern

2) If the only premise of such action is based on the undesirability of said view, it is unconstitutional

3) When the principal referred to the display as "controversial" he basically used his disagreement as a premise to restrict speech, which if using the Tinker Test, would be unconstitutional.

4) The concept of In Loco Parentis does not give a school the right to limit speech. Students are obligated to follow school rules, yes, but as Tinker points out, a student does not surrender his constitutional rights as soon as he steps into the schoolhouse. The only time administrators can limit speech is if it presents a legitimate disruption of school operations or activities. Since when does having a display out during lunch hour disrupt the operations of a school?

Now if you will excuse me, I have dinner to prepare.

 

[Luissa]

I wonder if the school would have had the same feelings over a pro choice display set during lunch? I can't say for sure but my best guess would be no.

They probably would. Do you see planned parenthood showing up at schools? Nope.





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

This was a student leader of the school’s pro-life club that was denied not a outside group like planned parenthood the question is if the school had a pro choice club would it have been denied as well not would outside groups be denied.

Yes they would have obviously been denied too. The Principal stated the debate was not appropriate for school. Which is his right to decide.


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

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

[MENTION=47594]PaintMyHouse[/MENTION]
Thankfully, we don't need to guess about your stance towards us. You said "White people are an easy group to hate."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ffs-nullify-federal-gun-laws.html#post8708254

I have all your shit on bookmark.
[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION] [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION] [MENTION=19484]The T[/MENTION]

Fitting, since the title of this thread is about Progressive Intolerance.

I didn't know you cared? I'm honestly not sure why you would? To each his own.

 

[Luissa]

Now, do any of you have anything else? For nearly three hours I've taken down each of your arguments.

I have established that

1) Regardless of the view, restriction of speech cannot take place unless it serves a legitimate educational concern

2) If the only premise of such action is based on the undesirability of said view, it is unconstitutional

3) When the principal referred to the display as "controversial" he basically used his disagreement as a premise to restrict speech, which using the Tinker Test is unconstitutional.

4) The concept of In Loco Parentis does not give a school the right to limit speech. Students are obligated to follow school rules, yes, but as Tinker points out, a student does not surrender his constitutional rights as soon as he steps into the schoolhouse.

You need to forget about Tinker for starters. For one there have been two court rulings since that gave the administration the right to limit certain speech.
And the girl has no constitutional right to set up a booth. She has the right to express her views, wear a Pro Choice T shirt, etc.. She does not have the right to set up a booth that would have caused a debate, something the Principal did not want. And he had every right to not allow a booth.


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

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

[MENTION=47594]PaintMyHouse[/MENTION]
Thankfully, we don't need to guess about your stance towards us. You said "White people are an easy group to hate."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ffs-nullify-federal-gun-laws.html#post8708254

I have all your shit on bookmark.
[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION] [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION] [MENTION=19484]The T[/MENTION]

Fitting, since the title of this thread is about Progressive Intolerance.

I didn't know you cared? I'm honestly not sure why you would? To each his own.

I know what you are, and so do you, you be should be ashamed. You're an Authoritarian Contortion Artist who hides behind the mask of Progressivism, spreading propaganda everywhere you can.

It's people like that convinced entire nations to embrace fasicsm and communism, which led to democide of tens of millions in 20th Century and the miseries of hundreds of millions to this very day.

Lincoln said the banks are more dangerous than standing armies. He was correct.

But people like you are even more dangerous than banks, the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, so mighty that is has managed to conquer every sword in the UK and Japan. And now you've brought he Marxist Pen to the United States, and unfortunately, I believe in my hearts of hearts, that you're going to win, without a bullet fired.