If it gets to the Supreme Court, the 4 libs will need Kennedy or one of the conservatives to become more forgiving than recent on student free speech rights. Perhaps the American flag will carry as much weight as an Articles of Incoproration, though.We'll see how the courts rule, if this gets that far.I suspect they'll be less forgiving than you, but I could be wrong. I certainly hope not.
I am aware of all this, yes, and acknowledge that in atmosphere such as the display made by these students was ill-advised and tactless. That does not, however, necessarily imply that they are rabid anti-Mexican bigots. They may be, but it does not follow from the information which we have been given.
My apologies; the information does not appear to be in the article linked in the OP, although I have read it elsewhere. Googling "Dominic Maciel father" turns up a few links, poor evidence as that is. If nothing else, his blatantly Latino name at least implies his probable origins.
Well, my mistake. In the United Kingdom, those of immigrant descent tend to be less hostile to other immigrants, at least those of their own religions- in my experience, for example, the Scots-Irish community is typically less hostile towards immigrant Poles, Lithuanians and so, because of their similar history and shared Catholic faith. I was aware that the United States was different, particularly in regards to race, but had assumed that in such a religious country bonds of faith my carry some weight.
Yeah. Being a nob-head, no matter how spectacularly so, doesn't imply for a moment that you are a bigot. They're high schoolers, for god's sake, doing something ill-considered to get attention is hardly unusual. I honestly don't see why this is a reflection of poor character any more than a nose-piercing or a drunken fight."Unfounded personal attacks?" Against these rabble rousers who obviously quite intentionally all dressed up in matching bandanas to try to piss off other students?
I merely meant to suggest that perpetuating your lithic bombardment could leave your home shattered and cracked beyond repair. Neighbourly advice, nothing more.Besides, it is quite one thing to supposedly engage in a "personal attack" regarding people not in this forum and those who actually are. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best.
So you actually think it was a coincidence these 5 jock friends all decided to dress up in matching bandanas on Cinco de Mayo Day? And it was also a coincidence that 20 other students dressed up in "Border Patrol" T-shirts at different high school?
I fully admit it very well may be quite possible. As I said, people tend to forget their roots quite quickly in this country. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if there isn't a pecking order amongst Latinos in areas like this which has a frequent influx of new immigrants due to the agriculture. The Gilroy / Morgan Hill area is the "garlic capitol" of the US.
I had to look that one up. I hope some mod doesn't think you are deliberately trying to get past the censor bot.
In what sense? In both cases, it's quite obvious that the groups coordinated their dress on that particular day, I agree, but I don't think that necessarily implies a shared intent between the two.
Granted, but that still makes it hard to believe that a prejudice against ethnic Mexicans is likely, given the Mexican ethnicity of two of the students. A prejudice against Mexican nationals, particularly immigrants, is possible, but I don't think that we can infer this solely their act.
Well, yes, exactly, "a bigot or an idiot". That's what I've been saying.
Did you completely forget about "innocent until proven guilty".
Oh, no. I wasn't trying to suggest there was any connection. I was merely pointing out that both groups had the same intent: To create a disruption on campus. But wait until next year. That likely will be coordinated, apparently by the tea partyers.
Alright. I can accept that compromise. They are clearly one or the other.
You do know the difference between my personal opinion based on the few facts I know and legal innocence or guilt of a crime, right?
Well, in this case I'm not sure "disruption" so much as "petty irritation" was the goal- I really doubt they expected anything like this mess to come out of it. Either way, I'm not sure that this group intended to make any sort of racist or anti-Mexican statement, which the "Border Patrol" group probably did. That does not appear self-evident in their actions.
Fair enough.Alright. I can accept that compromise. They are clearly one or the other.
Sure. One of these two is commonly found nauseating.You do know the difference between my personal opinion based on the few facts I know and legal innocence or guilt of a crime, right?
Given your track record, I hardly think you're one to talk.Attacking the poster instead of addressing the issues? Gee, what a surprise.
(I don't especially care if you view that as yet another attack -- it's very much true, as anyone who reads your posts would know) I don't suppose you could be bothered to hold up to your own standard, and actually addressing the relevant points, could you? Like, say, my main point: that you haven't proven that they had actually racist intentions?I think it's reasonable to assume that most people do most things for a reason. So sure, I'm sure they did it for a reason! I've never denied that, I think it's be rather odd to say that they did it for no purpose whatsoever. What I don't agree with is that their actions (Or any of the facts presented thus far) are at all like what you seem to think they are. (Most notably, the idea that "an individual or a small group could have an "anti-Semitic Day" by merely anonymously posting notices all over the school that if you hate Jews to wear anything which has the American flag on it the next day" is at all comparable) I repeat: It's quite a long jump from "They did this for a reason" to "this is part of a racist plan!"
Saying "You have to prove your assertions, or else you look silly" is not a personal attack. It's a statement about how civilized discussions go. When talking with intelligent, rational people and you make an assertion that is widely disputed, you either have to prove it, withdraw it (Or otherwise say something to the effect of "I'm pretty sure this is right, but I confess that I can't completely prove it right now) or look silly for making unsupported assertions. I'm not insulting you, I'm informing you of how adults talk to each other.
To be perfectly honest, if you feel "incited" or "harassed" because someone wears a shirt with an American flag on it in an American school, then that's your problem. It's not something that a reasonable person in America would be upset over, and I don't think everyone else should have to cater to you to make you feel comfortable. Now, if the guys wearing the shirt did stuff that actually was insulting or harassing -- say, running around yelling about how Mexico sucks and everyone from Mexico should go home -- then you should have just cause to discipline them. But because they were acting badly and disruptively, not because they're wearing an American flag.
Can you explain why children in school should not be allowed at least a modicum of First Amendment rights, given that current law says they're allowed some, at the very least?
Oh I understand the difference perfectly -- it just amuses me how odd a conception of the First Amendment you have!
Is that right? Care to point out where I made 3 personal attacks in one post as you just did?Given your track record, I hardly think you're one to talk.
Don't tell me you actually think opinions can be proven.
Ah. So now you are going to construct elaborate strawmen instead of actually arguing what I did say?
Saying that I have to "prove" my personal opinions is actually the "silly" part. You certainly never do, nor does anybody else.
Can you explain why you didn't actually read what I have posted in this thread before repeatedly personally attacking me?
I don't think you have a clue what my opinions actually are. You are too busy creating absurd strawmen you think you can defeat while repetitively engaging in personal attacks. I suggest you start by actually reading what I have posted in this thread.
If that was what I actually thought, you might even be right. What sort of logic is that?
I heard it was bad down there, but I didn't realize it got THAT blown out of proportion.This, in bold.
More delightful irony.In other words, you again don't actually have any facts to support your opinions. You just know it must be true because you think it is "common sense".
That's not "ironic" at all. You can't "prove" an opinion. But you can certainly use "facts" to support it.
I bet we are about to learn that there isn't much at all about this rhetoric which is "admirable" in the least, but it certainly is "consistent".
Just wait until the tea partyers arrive in droves to "protest" their "civil rights".Holy cow!
Two points, and I hope you will substantively respond to both:
You said that they were being "bigoted idiots by obviously using it as a form of incitement and provocation against a group of people who were simply celebrating their heritage one day a year," and that it was "planned beforehand." Bigotry against an ethnic group+planning = racist plan. Summarizing that as "this is part of a racist plan!" is not a strawman in the slightest -- it's exactly what you said.
The "it's my opinion! You can't ask me to prove it!" defense is incredibly lame. For starters, it's a new addition -- you haven't really used it earlier in the thread, it's taken nearly a dozen pages before it's become clear that you have no real evidence, so you have to take a different tact. Additionally, it's lame because you're misunderstanding: I'm not asking you to "prove your opinions" in the sense that I think all your opinions have to be justifiable to everyone; I'm asking you to give cogent reasons why anyone at all should listen to you, why your opinions are worth the energy it takes to transmit them from your computer to CFC OT to my computer screen. You're entitled to opinions without reasons behind them if you like, but don't expect anyone else to respect them or agree with you. So if you have reasons for your opinions on the subject based on evidence, then you should share them.
This is the other lame tactic that you commonly employ -- accusing the other person of not actually having read what you've written. Unfortunately, I actually have read what you've said. Every post of yours in this entire thread. It's still not clear to me on what basis you don't think children in school should have no First Amendment rights at all. (You've stated that they don't, but you have not explained why that is, and why it is reasonable to believe such a thing) To repeat myself yet again: I've read what you've said, but you have no offered any halfway decent justification for your statements thusfar.
Which necessarily entails complete adoption of WASPish American culture?
Why do you think the two groups committed quite similar acts? Sheer coincidence?
You are trying to make it sound like I'm the only person who can perceive the obvious! Did you watch the video of the kid in the wheelchair?
You aren't "listening to me"? Then why do you continue to try to turn this thread into an obvious personal attack instead of addressing the issues?
It's not a "lame tactic" at all given that you have completely failed to do so while making yet another personal attack!
Did you miss this exchange on this very page?
