Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Michigan Messenger)   Michigan GOP: "Legalize it". And by "it", they mean bullying gay students   (michiganmessenger.com) divider line 311
    More: Sick, GOP, Michigan, Republican Left, Trojan horse, family association, homosexual agenda, charter schools, Michigan Senate  
•       •       •

6708 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Nov 2011 at 3:27 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



311 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-11-03 02:51:46 PM  
Cool! I have a moral conviction to kick gingers.
 
2011-11-03 02:53:42 PM  
Easy solution: act less gay!
 
2011-11-03 02:57:01 PM  
i bet they are furious that the term "scared straight" has already been taken.
 
2011-11-03 03:00:09 PM  
Aren't we supposed to be progressing as a species?
 
2011-11-03 03:02:24 PM  
I cannot think of a single issue the GOP is correct about. They are wrong about everything, and many times shamelessly so.
 
2011-11-03 03:05:14 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: I cannot think of a single issue the GOP is correct about. They are wrong about everything, and many times shamelessly so.


This.

They really have fallen on the wrong side of just about everything.
 
2011-11-03 03:05:20 PM  
Can someone just take a video of someone asking one the GOP sponsors of the bill:

"So..if you are a bully who has a strong religious conviction (i.e. Westboro-style) that all homosexuals should be dead, that would give said bully the right to pummel anyone who he percieved to be gay?"

Then put the video on every national news program every night for a week.
 
2011-11-03 03:07:33 PM  
The full language of the insert is: "This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."

That is some truly awful legislation.
 
2011-11-03 03:08:25 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: The full language of the insert is: "This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."

That is some truly awful legislation.


I have a sincere, moral conviction that Republicans are douchebags.
 
2011-11-03 03:11:23 PM  
I don't see why we need anti-bullying legislation.

If this is happening in school, its a matter for the school admins and parents.

If its happening off school grounds, its a matter for parents, and police, in the case of threats, harassment or violence, police and courts already have the tools to address this.
 
2011-11-03 03:20:02 PM  
Well, when bullies are in power, they are pro bully. Once they are out of power, they are anti-bully. Cause once they lose power, bullies are a bunch of pussies who go running home to cry to mama.

And the Republican party is a bunch of pussies.
 
2011-11-03 03:21:15 PM  

vernonFL: I don't see why we need anti-bullying legislation.

If this is happening in school, its a matter for the school admins and parents.

If its happening off school grounds, its a matter for parents, and police, in the case of threats, harassment or violence, police and courts already have the tools to address this.


I blame Facebook and poor parenting and schools that have lawsuitaphobia, with the order depending on the circumstances.
 
2011-11-03 03:28:24 PM  
What if my gang of anti-gay bullies wants to unionize?
 
2011-11-03 03:29:04 PM  

Diogenes: Cool! I have a moral conviction to kick gingers.


Bring it.
 
2011-11-03 03:29:32 PM  
Jackboots are flying off the shelves.
 
2011-11-03 03:29:35 PM  
FTFBill: "This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."

I have a moral conviction against people who bully people just because of their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. Think I'll get a free pass?
 
2011-11-03 03:29:38 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: The full language of the insert is: "This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."

That is some truly awful legislation.


Farkin' first amendment, how do they work?
 
2011-11-03 03:30:07 PM  
Another proud moment in america. The world looks at you and just shakes their head.
 
2011-11-03 03:30:23 PM  
Wow... I have no witty retort for this... I'm simply stunned...
 
2011-11-03 03:30:37 PM  

sweetmelissa31: What if my gang of anti-gay bullies wants to unionize?


Sorry, that's not free market enough. You can, however, apply to be a church and get out of taxes.
 
2011-11-03 03:31:29 PM  

GWLush: Aren't we supposed to be progressing as a species?


I believe this is the beginning of humanity's extinction. We had a good run.
/Can you really bully the gay out of someone?
 
2011-11-03 03:31:41 PM  
You southern folk are just stupid.
 
2011-11-03 03:31:48 PM  
I for one, am welcoming our 19th century relapse...

We really should bring back debtor's prisons too. For poor people.
 
2011-11-03 03:32:47 PM  
So it will be perfectly OK for a teacher in Michigan to stand in front of the class and express their sincere moral conviction that Republican are purely evil?
 
2011-11-03 03:33:48 PM  
Interesting.

So if a muslim, say, seriously believes that all christians are apostates and, while perhaps they shouldn't be put to the sword, their lives should at least be made a living hell, would he be allowed to bully Christians and Jewish people under this law? And the GOP would be cool with that?
 
2011-11-03 03:33:50 PM  

vernonFL: I don't see why we need anti-bullying legislation.

If this is happening in school, its a matter for the school admins and parents.

If its happening off school grounds, its a matter for parents, and police, in the case of threats, harassment or violence, police and courts already have the tools to address this.


The obvious solution to any problem is more laws. Even if said laws are completely stupid.
 
2011-11-03 03:34:18 PM  
wut?
 
2011-11-03 03:34:21 PM  
The GOP really is despicable...
 
2011-11-03 03:34:26 PM  
"This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."

Damn jews.
 
2011-11-03 03:34:43 PM  

Felgraf: Interesting.

So if a muslim, say, seriously believes that all christians are apostates and, while perhaps they shouldn't be put to the sword, their lives should at least be made a living hell, would he be allowed to bully Christians and Jewish people under this law? And the GOP would be cool with that?


Hey, it does pave the way nicely for a Civil Rights Act repeal...
 
2011-11-03 03:34:56 PM  

sprawl15: Farkin' first amendment, how do they work?


Your rights do not extend to the right to deny any other person of their rights or to harass or intimidate any other person. You have no more right to bully anybody for any reason than you do to haul off and punch them.

By the way, our argument is done and I've won it, so feel free to save yourself the further embarrassment of trying to form a cogent retort. You can't because the basic facts of the issue are stacked entirely against you and have been for more than two centuries now.
 
2011-11-03 03:34:58 PM  
Congrats Michigan at making Missouri look sane by comparison.
 
2011-11-03 03:34:59 PM  

Quasar: I have a sincere, moral conviction that Republicans are douchebags.


And saying that isn't prohibited because of the insert the Republicans placed in the bill. Or are you against free speech?
 
2011-11-03 03:35:11 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: The full language of the insert is: "This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."

That is some truly awful legislation.


So does this allow students to call out their school administrators, teachers or any other idiot who tries condemning them as true douchebags and lecture them on what pathetic excuses for human beings they are since it would also count as a "sincerely held moral conviction"?

/or is it only for harassing the gheys and mooslimbs?
 
2011-11-03 03:35:46 PM  
I am a member of the ethiopian zion coptic church, so if I bully you into smoking weed you can't do nothin about it! suck it conservatives!
 
2011-11-03 03:35:46 PM  

Serious Black: FTFBill: "This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."

I have a moral conviction against people who bully people just because of their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. Think I'll get a free pass?


Let's try it. Walk into the capitol building in Lansing with an aluminum baseball bat and crack the skull of every Republican in the Senate. You may spend some time in prison, but let's be honest - it will be worth it. I'll even donate to your defense fund.
 
2011-11-03 03:35:54 PM  

whidbey: I for one, am welcoming our 19th century relapse...

We really should bring back debtor's prisons too. For poor people.


Yeah, we sort of have those in Michigan too. (new window)
 
2011-11-03 03:35:59 PM  
FTFA: the legislation provides an exception which allows bullying based on "moral convictions."

So if a bunch of gay thugs got together and beat the crap out of straight kids based on "moral convictions," that's okay?
 
2011-11-03 03:36:06 PM  
If I believed in a god, I would politely request that he damn everyone who thinks this legislation is a great idea.

And gingers. (except for the hot female ones)
 
2011-11-03 03:36:09 PM  

Felgraf: So if a muslim, say, seriously believes that all christians are apostates and, while perhaps they shouldn't be put to the sword, their lives should at least be made a living hell, would he be allowed to bully Christians and Jewish people under this law? And the GOP would be cool with that?



Uhhhhh.......errrrrmmm...........uhhhhhhhh............

9/11 changed everything!
 
2011-11-03 03:36:33 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: I cannot think of a single issue the GOP is correct about. They are wrong about everything, and many times shamelessly so.


It's called Bill Kristoling.
 
2011-11-03 03:36:46 PM  

CanisNoir: And saying that isn't prohibited because of the insert the Republicans placed in the bill. Or are you against free speech?


Going into their office, following them on the street, and standing outside their home and screaming that in their face day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day until one of them kills themselves is not free speech, it's harassment. Just like it's harassment when one of those shiatheads, or a shiathead like yourself, does the same thing to a gay student. Or anybody else. Even disgusting people like you deserve that protection.
 
2011-11-03 03:36:47 PM  
This thread is going to get bad quick
 
2011-11-03 03:36:51 PM  

sweetmelissa31: What if my gang of anti-gay bullies wants to unionize?


What if my gang of flamboyantly gay bullies want to beat your bullies up?

Poor legislation leads to questions like these.
 
2011-11-03 03:37:15 PM  
Time to bring up that "How to bully a Christian kid" website.
 
2011-11-03 03:37:42 PM  

CanadianConservative: You southern folk are just stupid.


Michigan is a western state canadian colony.
 
2011-11-03 03:38:13 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: I cannot think of a single issue the GOP is correct about. They are wrong about everything, and many times shamelessly so.


It's called reverse psychology and understanding it is obviously above your pay grade.
 
2011-11-03 03:38:56 PM  
Does that mean Muslims/Zoroastrians/Jews/Hindus/etc can hate on Christians and have it protected by the bullying law?
 
2011-11-03 03:39:30 PM  

vernonFL: I don't see why we need anti-bullying legislation.

If this is happening in school, its a matter for the school admins and parents.

If its happening off school grounds, its a matter for parents, and police, in the case of threats, harassment or violence, police and courts already have the tools to address this.


stop making sense
 
2011-11-03 03:39:31 PM  
Looking at this legislation in the absolute BEST possible light it basically says that if I say "I think you being gay means you're going to hell for you're morally reprehensible behavior based on my religious beliefs" then I am not, in fact, bullying that person.

What is means in every other light is it gives legal cover for people to act like douchebags....
 
2011-11-03 03:39:51 PM  

yert: CanadianConservative: You southern folk are just stupid.

Michigan is a western state canadian colony.


Except if they were Canadian they would be coming out against bullying like some members of our farking government did.
 
2011-11-03 03:40:13 PM  

Felgraf: Interesting.

So if a muslim, say, seriously believes that all christians are apostates and, while perhaps they shouldn't be put to the sword, their lives should at least be made a living hell, would he be allowed to bully Christians and Jewish people under this law? And the GOP would be cool with that?


It's cute that you think Republicans can't hold two completely different and conflicting opinions on a subject.
 
2011-11-03 03:40:18 PM  

Gunny Highway: This thread is going to get bad quick


It already has.
 
2011-11-03 03:40:23 PM  
Bet that language was in there to protect asswipes like this guy.

I usually don't wish this upon people because I try to be an actual Christian and all but he's one of those guys who i sincerely wishes he DIAF.
 
2011-11-03 03:40:25 PM  

CanisNoir: Or are you against free speech?


When it's delivered by a fist, yes.
 
2011-11-03 03:40:47 PM  
We should encourage kids to start pro-gay bullying groups ... they spot a straight kid, they grab him and stuff him in a locker
 
2011-11-03 03:40:57 PM  

CanisNoir: Quasar: I have a sincere, moral conviction that Republicans are douchebags.

And saying that isn't prohibited because of the insert the Republicans placed in the bill. Or are you against free speech?


The inserted language allows a teacher to stand in front of their class and call all Republicans evil and say they're going to hell. You ok with that?
 
2011-11-03 03:41:09 PM  

Felgraf: So if a muslim, say, seriously believes that all christians are apostates and, while perhaps they shouldn't be put to the sword, their lives should at least be made a living hell, would he be allowed to bully Christians and Jewish people under this law? And the GOP would be cool with that?


By my reading, no, they wouldn't. Let me bold the important part of the insert for you.

"This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."


In other words, the Muslim in your example would be fine walking up to a Christian or Jew and tell them that he believes they are apostates that deserve no less than to die by the sword. You see, that is a statement of a sincerely held religious belief and therefore not prohibited because of this rider. Now, if he goes out of his way to make that persons life a living hell, I believe that would be covered under current Harassment law and could be handled through that system. Likewise if he were to get physical, assault would be the charge.

If you're looking for the Evangelical angle, it's so that nobody gets into trouble for saying "I believe you're going to hell if you're gay.".

Again, this insert only protects free speech. I'm surprised so many people are outraged by it.
 
2011-11-03 03:41:10 PM  

Elfich: Does that mean Muslims/Zoroastrians/Jews/Hindus/etc can hate on Christians and have it protected by the bullying law?


does it mean that I can hate on people who use the phrase "hate on"?
 
2011-11-03 03:41:22 PM  
So does that mean any neo-nazi that holds a "moral conviction" of what they believe in would be perfectly fine to outright slaughter any group they deemed beneath them?
 
2011-11-03 03:41:34 PM  

timujin: Diogenes: Cool! I have a moral conviction to kick gingers.

Bring it.


Oh you'd like that wouldn't you?

/recovering ginger
//growing brown as i get older
 
2011-11-03 03:41:52 PM  

Elfich: Does that mean Muslims/Zoroastrians/Jews/Hindus/etc can hate on Christians and have it protected by the bullying law?


No. They're not Real Americans so they go to gitmo if they try that sort of shiat.

When will you libtards realize that pro-hate laws like this only extend their loving protection to WASPs?
 
2011-11-03 03:42:50 PM  
All you have to do is read a CanisNoir post to know whether you're for or against something.

:D
 
2011-11-03 03:42:52 PM  

Fizpez: Looking at this legislation in the absolute BEST possible light it basically says that if I say "I think you being gay means you're going to hell for you're morally reprehensible behavior based on my religious beliefs" then I am not, in fact, bullying that person.

What is means in every other light is it gives legal cover for people to act like douchebags....


also protected: "I think your small minded, antiquated opinions are the result of an incurious mind and bad parenting".

This sword cuts both ways methinks.
 
2011-11-03 03:43:02 PM  

tnpir: Serious Black: FTFBill: "This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."

I have a moral conviction against people who bully people just because of their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. Think I'll get a free pass?

Let's try it. Walk into the capitol building in Lansing with an aluminum baseball bat and crack the skull of every Republican in the Senate. You may spend some time in prison, but let's be honest - it will be worth it. I'll even donate to your defense fund.


Sweet! That sounds like a brilliant idea. It'll even allow me to let loose of some the pent-up aggression I have after quitting boxing and wrestling.
 
2011-11-03 03:43:20 PM  

Diogenes: timujin: Diogenes: Cool! I have a moral conviction to kick gingers.

Bring it.

Oh you'd like that wouldn't you?

/recovering ginger
//growing brown as i get older


I'm not as orange as I once was, more auburn now and gradually going white. Pale with white hair and beard, I'm going to be a freaky looking old dude.
 
2011-11-03 03:43:25 PM  

whidbey: Gunny Highway: This thread is going to get bad quick

It already has.


It never had a chance.
 
2011-11-03 03:43:58 PM  

Warlordtrooper: So does that mean any neo-nazi that holds a "moral conviction" of what they believe in would be perfectly fine to outright slaughter any group they deemed beneath them?


I don't think this legislation supersedes laws against murder and assault.
 
2011-11-03 03:44:04 PM  
Hey, GOP! Instead of talking about taking back the country, why don't you take back your party. Jesus H. Christ, what in the hell is the matter with you?!
 
2011-11-03 03:44:41 PM  

CanisNoir: Again, this insert only protects free speech.


Heh. No.
 
2011-11-03 03:44:48 PM  

TravisBickle62: We should encourage kids to start pro-gay bullying groups ... they spot a straight kid, they grab him and stuff him in a locker


iamatvjunkie.typepad.com
/bad screen cap
//obscure
///not really
 
2011-11-03 03:45:05 PM  
The GOP: we defend bigotry, violence and stupidity so you don't have to!
 
2011-11-03 03:45:09 PM  

Splinshints: CanisNoir: And saying that isn't prohibited because of the insert the Republicans placed in the bill. Or are you against free speech?

Going into their office, following them on the street, and standing outside their home and screaming that in their face day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day until one of them kills themselves is not free speech, it's harassment. Just like it's harassment when one of those shiatheads, or a shiathead like yourself, does the same thing to a gay student. Or anybody else. Even disgusting people like you deserve that protection.


I also want to use the above post to illustrate that their *IS* a difference between a verbal confrontation and harassment or bullying.

If kids don't like each other, even for stupid bigoted reasons, and they say something about it at some point, that's not really bullying. If some dipshiat continually makes life hell for another kid, is violent, pervasive and abusive then that *IS* bullying and it doesn't matter in the farking slightest if it's based upon a "sincere religious belief".

This legislation is trying to give harassment a free pass. Casual disagreements, isolated verbal confrontations or even specific intolerance isn't currently actionable anyhow.. the only thing further legislation like this could be used for would be to give the green light to hunting down specific classes of people and making them miserable.

Either these guys don't understand what bullying actually is or they are just true evil fools.
 
2011-11-03 03:46:18 PM  

imnotadoctor: Hey, GOP! Instead of talking about taking back the country, why don't you take back your party. Jesus H. Christ, what in the hell is the matter with you?!


What's there to actually "take back?"

Seriously, isn't it time for the GOP to die?

Where are all the "Fark Independents" who are all clamoring to start a new political party?

Get off your damn asses.
 
2011-11-03 03:46:25 PM  

CanadianConservative: yert: CanadianConservative: You southern folk are just stupid.

Michigan is a western state canadian colony.

Except if they were Canadian they would be coming out against bullying like some members of our farking government did.


Your conservative party (which is just to the left of our Democratic Party) did so. Judging by you Fark Handle, can I assume you are a member of that party?
 
2011-11-03 03:46:33 PM  
thats real low

I had more of a time, firing gay bars............
 
2011-11-03 03:46:37 PM  

Splinshints: Going into their office, following them on the street, and standing outside their home and screaming that in their face day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day until one of them kills themselves is not free speech, it's harassment. Just like it's harassment when one of those shiatheads, or a shiathead like yourself, does the same thing to a gay student. Or anybody else. Even disgusting people like you deserve that protection.


Yea, it already exists. You realize that this is an insert into an anti-bullying piece of legislation, and won't invalidate laws already on the books, right? Jesus are people really that stupid?
 
2011-11-03 03:46:38 PM  

Vodka Zombie: AdolfOliverPanties: I cannot think of a single issue the GOP is correct about. They are wrong about everything, and many times shamelessly so.

This.

They really have fallen on the wrong side of just about everything.


It's like they think that once they hang themselves they can figure a way out of it. Won't it be fun to watch the heads explode when the GOP (in general) figure out they're no way they can worm their way out of it.
 
2011-11-03 03:46:45 PM  
I wonder if they realize they've just made it okay for Muslims to bully Christian kids on the grounds of religious belief.
 
2011-11-03 03:47:01 PM  

CanisNoir: Again, this insert only protects free speech. I'm surprised so many people are outraged by it.


It is my deep held religious belief that God is going to set the world in flames at 1:15 PM. I don't know which day, so I need to run around the school everyday yelling "FIRE FIRE FIRE"
 
2011-11-03 03:47:26 PM  
Brainwashing children with religious mumbo-jumbo is child abuse and is morally reprehensible.

When your idea of right and wrong comes from made up bullshiat about magic, monsters, and deities then it will be very easy for you to make some poor farking decisions in your life.
 
2011-11-03 03:48:19 PM  

Ghastly: I wonder if they realize they've just made it okay for Muslims to bully Christian kids on the grounds of religious belief.


They tend to avoid Dearborn and stick to the West Coast of Michigan. Creepy evangelical area.
 
2011-11-03 03:48:23 PM  
Honest question what does an anti-bullying law cover that is not already covered by Harassment or Assault Laws already?

Is it one of those that if the assault is in the act of "bullying" it gets a mandatory sentence type thing?
 
2011-11-03 03:48:44 PM  
The Gay Agenda have been pretty successfull with the anti-bullying campaign. Much more effective than the Red Headed Kid with Glasses Agenda.
 
2011-11-03 03:50:06 PM  
This is why I beat the shiat out of young republicans. I have morals.
 
2011-11-03 03:50:10 PM  

timujin: Diogenes: Cool! I have a moral conviction to kick gingers.

Bring it.


How you doin???
 
2011-11-03 03:50:34 PM  

fritton: Either these guys don't understand what bullying actually is or they are just true evil fools.


They're republicans. They hate anybody that isn't white and Christian, so this is what they do. Sure, technically this law legalizes bullying for everybody (which is still entirely wrong - allowing everybody to bully everybody else is still bullshiat), but they know damn well that thanks to sheer numbers what this really means is that the vast majority heterosexual and white/Christian kids are being given a free pass to harass and intimidate based on sexual orientation and religion.

"B-b-b-but technically this applies to everybody".

When, of course, what really happens is the one openly gay kid in school is now a free target for every recalcitrant jackass with a chip on his shoulder as long as the kid says he's doing it because of his "moral beliefs".

Besides, it's a modern republican proposal. At this point is there really any point in even asking if there is ever any honest or moral intent in anything they do these days?
 
2011-11-03 03:50:45 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Honest question what does an anti-bullying law cover that is not already covered by Harassment or Assault Laws already?

Is it one of those that if the assault is in the act of "bullying" it gets a mandatory sentence type thing?


I think those laws holds schools responsible to actually do something about it. Many schools just don't care about it and some old school principals can never be convinced, no matter how many dead students. But they do understand lawsuits.
 
2011-11-03 03:50:53 PM  

skullkrusher: Warlordtrooper: So does that mean any neo-nazi that holds a "moral conviction" of what they believe in would be perfectly fine to outright slaughter any group they deemed beneath them?

I don't think this legislation supersedes laws against murder and assault.


Good lord I shut my eyes for 5 minutes and "you can say whatever" has turned into letting Nazi's murder?
 
2011-11-03 03:51:04 PM  

sweetmelissa31: What if my gang of anti-gay bullies wants to unionize?


You'll be disappointed to learn that the Republican party already exists
 
2011-11-03 03:51:18 PM  
And remember, these are also the peeps that think that state takeover of cities is a-ok...even as they rail on federal government meddling.
 
2011-11-03 03:51:36 PM  
I want to know why people should even vote for a party dedicated to attacking and removing the civil rights of a group.
 
2011-11-03 03:51:40 PM  

CanisNoir: By my reading, no, they wouldn't. Let me bold the important part of the insert for you.

"This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."


In other words, the Muslim in your example would be fine walking up to a Christian or Jew and tell them that he believes they are apostates that deserve no less than to die by the sword. You see, that is a statement of a sincerely held religious belief and therefore not prohibited because of this rider. Now, if he goes out of his way to make that persons life a living hell, I believe that would be covered under current Harassment law and could be handled through that system. Likewise if he were to get physical, assault would be the charge.

If you're looking for the Evangelical angle, it's so that nobody gets into trouble for saying "I believe you're going to hell if you're gay.".

Again, this insert only protects free speech. I'm surprised so many people are outraged by it.


Saying it to someone once is offensive douchebaggery, but it is already protected by free speech. What happens when you make that same statement every day? Maybe twice, three times a day? What happens when a dozen or twenty other people are also saying it to that person, in the same polite tones? Do you not see what kind of consequences that could have, especially for a teenager who is already uncertain about his identify, sexual and otherwise?

The problem with this law is not that it covers ground already covered by harassment laws. It is that it defines a specific exemption to bullying that could then be argued is not harassment or bullying despite the consequences it can have. Basically, it gives the douchebags an out that they can use to hurt people at will if they are just careful enough and organized enough.
 
2011-11-03 03:51:44 PM  

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: What if my gang of anti-gay bullies wants to unionize?

You'll be disappointed to learn that the Republican party already exists


It's not a GANG...it's a club.
 
2011-11-03 03:51:49 PM  

GhostFish: Brainwashing children with religious mumbo-jumbo is child abuse and is morally reprehensible.

When your idea of right and wrong comes from made up bullshiat about magic, monsters, and deities then it will be very easy for you to make some poor farking decisions in your life.



How dare you infringe on my right to raise my child as a wizard in the church of Dungeons & Dragons!
 
2011-11-03 03:51:58 PM  
Why do you people keep oppressing religious freedoms? The GOP is the last bastion of sanity in this world.
 
2011-11-03 03:52:42 PM  

timujin: Diogenes: Cool! I have a moral conviction to kick gingers.

Bring it.


What he said. You can't fight us, because we have nothing to lose, not even our souls.
 
2011-11-03 03:52:52 PM  
Normally all you have to do to reinstitute barbarism into a society is lower the standard of living. I respect anyone vile enough to actually legislate it.
 
2011-11-03 03:53:08 PM  

badhatharry: The Gay Agenda have been pretty successfull with the anti-bullying campaign. Much more effective than the Red Headed Kid with Glasses Agenda.


Saying "the Gay Agenda" makes you sound like a tard:

hulshofschmidt.files.wordpress.com

toppun.com

www.tailofthesnake.com

marknelson.biz

/Hopefully you're just trolling...otherwise you're just a dumbass
 
2011-11-03 03:53:27 PM  

Need Help Soonish: timujin: Diogenes: Cool! I have a moral conviction to kick gingers.

Bring it.

How you doin???


This thread has become the Perfect shiat Storm
 
2011-11-03 03:53:42 PM  
And by bullying they mean making religious statements.

Seriously subby, Democrats, etc - on this one you're all farking retarded. Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to be too harsh, don't go commit suicide now. Maybe we should make it illegal for me to inform you of how retarded you are via the internet next?
 
2011-11-03 03:53:43 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Honest question what does an anti-bullying law cover that is not already covered by Harassment or Assault Laws already?

Is it one of those that if the assault is in the act of "bullying" it gets a mandatory sentence type thing?


Exactly!

How did they define bullying?

When I first heard of the proposed legislation, it made me think that this is just the perfect scenario for classic unintended consequences!

What about smack talk in gym? What about griping about the smart kid in class breaking the curve?

(Or am I guilty of slippery slope claims?)
 
2011-11-03 03:53:44 PM  

LasersHurt: skullkrusher: Warlordtrooper: So does that mean any neo-nazi that holds a "moral conviction" of what they believe in would be perfectly fine to outright slaughter any group they deemed beneath them?

I don't think this legislation supersedes laws against murder and assault.

Good lord I shut my eyes for 5 minutes and "you can say whatever" has turned into letting Nazi's murder?


that appears to be the case
 
2011-11-03 03:54:42 PM  

Mrtraveler01: badhatharry: The Gay Agenda have been pretty successfull with the anti-bullying campaign. Much more effective than the Red Headed Kid with Glasses Agenda.

Saying "the Gay Agenda" makes you sound like a tard:

[hulshofschmidt.files.wordpress.com image 375x376]

[toppun.com image 173x173]

[www.tailofthesnake.com image 432x268]

[marknelson.biz image 400x300]

/Hopefully you're just trolling...otherwise you're just a dumbass


yes. Homogenda rolls off the tongue much more nicely
 
2011-11-03 03:55:14 PM  

skullkrusher: LasersHurt: skullkrusher: Warlordtrooper: So does that mean any neo-nazi that holds a "moral conviction" of what they believe in would be perfectly fine to outright slaughter any group they deemed beneath them?

I don't think this legislation supersedes laws against murder and assault.

Good lord I shut my eyes for 5 minutes and "you can say whatever" has turned into letting Nazi's murder?

that appears to be the case


Are you suggesting those two things are different?! I think it's pretty clear the intent of the first amendment was to legalize nazi murders.
 
2011-11-03 03:55:59 PM  

Diogenes: When it's delivered by a fist, yes.


So you support this insert, nice to know. (This doesn't legalize assault)

PanicMan: The inserted language allows a teacher to stand in front of their class and call all Republicans evil and say they're going to hell. You ok with that?


Sure, as long as his lesson plan was unbiased and the kids learned, he should be free to express his opinion. It would be a poor move as it would alienate many of the students, but having grown up through the PC craze of the late 80's early 90's, you'll have a hard time convincing me that people should *not* be allowed to voice their sincerely held convictions or religious beliefs.

fritton: This legislation is trying to give harassment a free pass. Casual disagreements, isolated verbal confrontations or even specific intolerance isn't currently actionable anyhow.. the only thing further legislation like this could be used for would be to give the green light to hunting down specific classes of people and making them miserable.


To be honest I'd like to see the entirety of the legislation because the article did a really poor job of painting both sides. It seemed to me to be the opposite. One thing we've seen much of, is the unintended consequences of legislation designed to protect our kids. Zero tolerance anyone? We've got kids being expelled for bringing toys to school which clearly falls outside the spirit of that legislation. This insert protects those who are deeply religious from falling into the black hole that is "Bannination" and does not give any one an open door to harass someone else.
 
2011-11-03 03:56:33 PM  

sprawl15: Farkin' first amendment, how do they work?


I think you misunderstand me. I take umbrage at vague terms used in legislation like "sincere religious beliefs" or "moral convictions". Who is the arbiter of such phrases?
 
2011-11-03 03:56:52 PM  

Felgraf: So if a muslim, say, seriously believes that all christians are apostates and, while perhaps they shouldn't be put to the sword, their lives should at least be made a living hell, would he be allowed to bully Christians and Jewish people under this law? And the GOP would be cool with that?


No, of course not. These provisions only apply to Real Americans (TM): white, protestant, upper-middle-class and above Christians; preferably members of the GOP Youth (offer invalid to liberals who happen to meet these criteria).
 
2011-11-03 03:56:54 PM  

CanisNoir: Splinshints: Going into their office, following them on the street, and standing outside their home and screaming that in their face day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day until one of them kills themselves is not free speech, it's harassment. Just like it's harassment when one of those shiatheads, or a shiathead like yourself, does the same thing to a gay student. Or anybody else. Even disgusting people like you deserve that protection.

Yea, it already exists. You realize that this is an insert into an anti-bullying piece of legislation, and won't invalidate laws already on the books, right? Jesus are people really that stupid?


The full protection and enforcement of the law is not often applied in the case of children interacting with children, especially in school, because they are growing up and still learning to live as civilized adults in our society. Because of this, sometimes special rules and laws are needed in place specifically for children, you disingenuous and worthless sack of crap.

Good god, are you ever not a horrible waste of skin?
 
2011-11-03 03:56:58 PM  
Just when I thought the GOP couldn't be more evil, they always bring me a new instance of them being more evil.

I am not sure what has no bounds:
a) evilness of GOP
b) wealth gap of 1% and 99%
c) both
 
2011-11-03 03:57:15 PM  
Let's try and look at this a bit seriously. Let's say Child A thinks that Child B is same sex oriented. Child A has the sincere moral belief that same sex orientation is a perversion of God's order and is wrong. Child A starts calling Child B "Pervert" when they pass in the hall. There is no threat of violence.

A. Would you consider that behavior 'bullying"?

B. Do you think that behavior would rise to the level of "harassment" under standard harassment laws?

C. Would the language in question prevent the school from acting to prevent Child A from continuing with that behavior?
 
2011-11-03 03:57:20 PM  

Quasar: I have a sincere, moral conviction that Republicans are douchebags.


Then you better pray that this amendment passes, or else you could be found guilty of "Bullying" Republicans if you voiced that conviction.

"Students and parents expect lawmakers to lead the charge against bullying, but instead Republicans made ideology more important than school safety," said Emily Dievendorf, policy director of Equality Michigan. "Research clearly shows that only states with enumerated bills see a reduction in bullying."

No, Emily Herpendurp, the Republicans' only mistake was amending this legislative turd instead of flushing it altogether. And please show me this research of yours. I'm just a little skeptical.
 
2011-11-03 03:57:33 PM  

Ghastly: I wonder if they realize they've just made it okay for Muslims to bully Christian kids on the grounds of religious belief.


Why would they care? Consider your typical public school. What percentage is Muslim? What percentage is Christian? Now who do you think is going to win in any confrontation like that on the basis of sheer numbers?

They know damn well what they inserted into that bill and they know damn well what the implications are.
 
2011-11-03 03:58:04 PM  
Hahahah jesus christ. It's the year 2011 and people troglodytes still use the phrase "the gay agenda" in earnest.
 
2011-11-03 03:58:36 PM  

CanisNoir: This insert protects those who are deeply religious ...


Seeing as this legislation can't possibly supersede one's 1st Amendment rights, why would it need to be inserted in the legislation at all?
 
2011-11-03 03:58:55 PM  

Splinshints: Ghastly: I wonder if they realize they've just made it okay for Muslims to bully Christian kids on the grounds of religious belief.

Why would they care? Consider your typical public school. What percentage is Muslim? What percentage is Christian? Now who do you think is going to win in any confrontation like that on the basis of sheer numbers?

They know damn well what they inserted into that bill and they know damn well what the implications are.


Um, give it time sparky. Muslims outbreed faster than your average cafeteria christian.
 
2011-11-03 03:58:56 PM  

GhostFish: Because of this, sometimes special rules and laws are needed in place specifically for children, you disingenuous and worthless sack of crap.

Good god, are you ever not a horrible waste of skin?


CanisNoir is actually underage, and here I think you might be driving him to suicide by your cyberbullying. There should be a law against you posting stuff like this. Yay for people like you and the Democrats to save the day!
 
2011-11-03 03:59:48 PM  
If hear the farking 'protected class' argument again, I might just lose it. There's an awful lot of that 'protected class' killing themselves because of the far-too-vigorous expression of 'strongly held religious beliefs.'
 
2011-11-03 04:00:06 PM  
This is why I'm not convinced that state legislatures are the best place to deal with bullying. I think it's awful and should be stopped, but doing it at the legislative level gives me heebie-jeebies as I watch the government enact restrictions on speech.

For the record, I'm gay and was bullied.
 
2011-11-03 04:00:09 PM  

lennavan: And by bullying they mean making religious statements.

Seriously subby, Democrats, etc - on this one you're all farking retarded. Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to be too harsh, don't go commit suicide now. Maybe we should make it illegal for me to inform you of how retarded you are via the internet next?


You're a retard for calling people who oppose this proposal retarded.

/moral conviction
 
2011-11-03 04:00:38 PM  

vernonFL: I don't see why we need anti-bullying legislation.

If this is happening in school, its a matter for the school admins and parents.

If its happening off school grounds, its a matter for parents, and police, in the case of threats, harassment or violence, police and courts already have the tools to address this.


Because all of the authority figures you've mentioned don't understand that laws apply when they're only written down once.
 
2011-11-03 04:00:44 PM  

Jackson Herring: Hahahah jesus christ. It's the year 2011 and people troglodytes still use the phrase "the gay agenda" in earnest.


The gayness - it's communicable by eye contact.™
 
2011-11-03 04:00:44 PM  

vernonFL: I don't see why we need anti-bullying legislation.

If this is happening in school, its a matter for the school admins and parents.

If its happening off school grounds, its a matter for parents, and police, in the case of threats, harassment or violence, police and courts already have the tools to address this.


Because, we need this and stuff. GOP SUCKS!
 
2011-11-03 04:01:03 PM  

KiltedBastich: Saying it to someone once is offensive douchebaggery, but it is already protected by free speech. What happens when you make that same statement every day? Maybe twice, three times a day? What happens when a dozen or twenty other people are also saying it to that person, in the same polite tones? Do you not see what kind of consequences that could have, especially for a teenager who is already uncertain about his identify, sexual and otherwise?


I'm guessing that the school system and parents would become quite involved. You're scenario presupposes that the teachers won't step in, the parents aren't aware of whats going on and that the kid has no friends who assist or stick up for them. Then again, the scenario you paint only happens a fraction of a fraction of the time. We should not be legislating for an entire state based upon a scenario that will most likely never occur.
 
2011-11-03 04:01:09 PM  

whidbey: Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: What if my gang of anti-gay bullies wants to unionize?

You'll be disappointed to learn that the Republican party already exists

It's not a GANG...it's a club.


And it's not a union, it's a group of hard working Americans.
 
2011-11-03 04:01:21 PM  

TrojanRabbit: This is why I'm not convinced that state legislatures are the best place to deal with bullying. I think it's awful and should be stopped, but doing it at the legislative level gives me heebie-jeebies as I watch the government enact restrictions on speech.

For the record, I'm gay and was bullied.


I side with you here. Making a law that says you can't say shiat is not an effective tactic, and I thought the whole PC liberalism kind of died off after the 90s.

You can't legislate away shiatheads.
 
2011-11-03 04:01:38 PM  

I alone am best: vernonFL: I don't see why we need anti-bullying legislation.

If this is happening in school, its a matter for the school admins and parents.

If its happening off school grounds, its a matter for parents, and police, in the case of threats, harassment or violence, police and courts already have the tools to address this.

Because, we need this and stuff. GOP SUCKS!


I know you're just being sarcastic, but your second statement is actually right-on.
 
2011-11-03 04:01:50 PM  

Serious Black: lennavan: And by bullying they mean making religious statements.

Seriously subby, Democrats, etc - on this one you're all farking retarded. Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to be too harsh, don't go commit suicide now. Maybe we should make it illegal for me to inform you of how retarded you are via the internet next?

You're a retard for calling people who oppose this proposal retarded.

/moral conviction


You people calling out bullying as wrong are the REAL BULLIES.
 
2011-11-03 04:01:54 PM  

Jackson Herring: Hahahah jesus christ. It's the year 2011 and people troglodytes still use the phrase "the gay agenda" in earnest.


You've got a rich troglodyte habitat, unfortunately.
 
2011-11-03 04:01:56 PM  

fritton: Either these guys don't understand what bullying actually is or they are just true evil fools.


They know what bullying is. They like it so long as they're the ones holding the swagger stick.

JRoo: GhostFish: Brainwashing children with religious mumbo-jumbo is child abuse and is morally reprehensible.

When your idea of right and wrong comes from made up bullshiat about magic, monsters, and deities then it will be very easy for you to make some poor farking decisions in your life.


How dare you infringe on my right to raise my child as a wizard in the church of Dungeons & Dragons!


Are you a wizard?
 
2011-11-03 04:02:38 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: A. Would you consider that behavior 'bullying"?


Yes.

Philip Francis Queeg: B. Do you think that behavior would rise to the level of "harassment" under standard harassment laws?


No. It's a kid being a stupid kid. Kids are gonna do stupid shiat.

Philip Francis Queeg: C. Would the language in question prevent the school from acting to prevent Child A from continuing with that behavior?


Why the hell do we need to insert laws and cops and courts into schools. The school should deal with it.
 
2011-11-03 04:03:29 PM  
On the topic of bullying we just had our 15 year class reunion and on the facebook event page someone wrote "I think it's sick that I got invited to this, I was bullied in High School, and hate you all!"

Funny thing, no one even remembers her, even the 2 guys there that WERE the bullies at our school. There is a difference between not fitting in and being bullied, one is real and should be stopped, the other is completely in your mind and you just need help.
 
2011-11-03 04:05:33 PM  

coeyagi: b) wealth gap of 1% and 99%


assuming you're talking about the wealthiest 1% vs the rest of us, the bounds of that is easily calculated.
 
2011-11-03 04:05:36 PM  

KiltedBastich: What happens when you make that same statement every day? Maybe twice, three times a day? What happens when a dozen or twenty other people are also saying it to that person, in the same polite tones?


Asked.

KiltedBastich: it is already protected by free speech.


And answered.
 
2011-11-03 04:05:40 PM  

Serious Black: lennavan: And by bullying they mean making religious statements.

Seriously subby, Democrats, etc - on this one you're all farking retarded. Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to be too harsh, don't go commit suicide now. Maybe we should make it illegal for me to inform you of how retarded you are via the internet next?

You're a retard for calling people who oppose this proposal retarded.

/moral conviction


My god tells me your intelligence is more than one standard deviation below the average.

=]
 
2011-11-03 04:06:02 PM  

Splinshints: By the way, our argument is done and I've won it, so feel free to save yourself the further embarrassment of trying to form a cogent retort. You can't because the basic facts of the issue are stacked entirely against you and have been for more than two centuries now.


You're out of your element, Donny.

Soup4Bonnie: sprawl15: Farkin' first amendment, how do they work?

I think you misunderstand me. I take umbrage at vague terms used in legislation like "sincere religious beliefs" or "moral convictions". Who is the arbiter of such phrases?


I think you misunderstand me. I took umbrage at the idea that school employees expressing religious beliefs in school was determined to be kosher by this bill. I don't care if they have religious beliefs, as employees of the state they had better damn well shut the fark up about them no matter how righteous or applicable that belief is. It's a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, and even if it wasn't utterly horrible from a practical or moral perspective, it should absolutely be overturned on a constitutional basis.
 
2011-11-03 04:07:58 PM  
Heh. "Umbrage."
 
2011-11-03 04:11:53 PM  

sweetmelissa31: And it's not a union, it's a group of hard working Americans.


i.imgur.com
 
2011-11-03 04:12:41 PM  
I guess bullying is ok as long as you have a sincerely held moral conviction. So go bully those Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, gays, lesbians, etc., etc., etc.; as long as you truly believe they are wrong and you are right.
 
2011-11-03 04:13:23 PM  

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: A. Would you consider that behavior 'bullying"?

Yes.

Philip Francis Queeg: B. Do you think that behavior would rise to the level of "harassment" under standard harassment laws?

No. It's a kid being a stupid kid. Kids are gonna do stupid shiat.

Philip Francis Queeg: C. Would the language in question prevent the school from acting to prevent Child A from continuing with that behavior?

Why the hell do we need to insert laws and cops and courts into schools. The school should deal with it.


If what the kid does would get any Adult arrested or fired from their jobs why should Kids be given a free pass?

Would derogatory name calling be appropriate in a work environment? If no then why would it be acceptable in schools?
 
2011-11-03 04:18:23 PM  

coeyagi: Splinshints: Ghastly: I wonder if they realize they've just made it okay for Muslims to bully Christian kids on the grounds of religious belief.

Why would they care? Consider your typical public school. What percentage is Muslim? What percentage is Christian? Now who do you think is going to win in any confrontation like that on the basis of sheer numbers?

They know damn well what they inserted into that bill and they know damn well what the implications are.

Um, give it time sparky. Muslims outbreed faster than your average cafeteria christian.


Dearborn has a large number of Muslims. It'll happen.
 
2011-11-03 04:18:40 PM  

whidbey: Heh. "Umbrage."


What? It made me feel brown. Is that so wrong?
 
2011-11-03 04:20:17 PM  

WizardofToast: Serious Black: lennavan: And by bullying they mean making religious statements.

Seriously subby, Democrats, etc - on this one you're all farking retarded. Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to be too harsh, don't go commit suicide now. Maybe we should make it illegal for me to inform you of how retarded you are via the internet next?

You're a retard for calling people who oppose this proposal retarded.

/moral conviction

You people calling out bullying as wrong are the REAL BULLIES.


You people who call out people who call out bullying as wrong are the real bullies!

/nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh
//hah hah hah hah hah hah
 
2011-11-03 04:24:34 PM  

Warlordtrooper: If what the kid does would get any Adult arrested or fired from their jobs why should Kids be given a free pass?


You bring up a good point. This is why infants who grab at boobs when they are hungry should be incarcerated. It's not like age and context are relevant.

Warlordtrooper: Would derogatory name calling be appropriate in a work environment? If no then why would it be acceptable in schools?


This reminds me, I didn't get recess today, nor did I get gym class. Which is crazy because work environments are exactly the same as school environments. And I definitely considered name calling appropriate, that's why I wrote:

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: A. Would you consider that behavior 'bullying"?

Yes.


and

lennavan: Why the hell do we need to insert laws and cops and courts into schools. The school should deal with it.


I said yes it is bullying but that was reverse psychology, I really meant no. And by saying "the school should deal with it" I clearly meant by praising the bully. Wow, you saw right through that one, you're so smart!
 
2011-11-03 04:30:58 PM  

sprawl15: whidbey: Heh. "Umbrage."

What? It made me feel brown. Is that so wrong?


I had some serious umbrage first thing this morning
 
2011-11-03 04:33:48 PM  

TrojanRabbit: This is why I'm not convinced that state legislatures are the best place to deal with bullying. I think it's awful and should be stopped, but doing it at the legislative level gives me heebie-jeebies as I watch the government enact restrictions on speech.

For the record, I'm gay and was bullied.


so do you need a Government to help you?
 
2011-11-03 04:34:08 PM  
Issue every bullied child one of these.

www.thewolfhouse.net

Bullying will cease

//More upset at the regulation of speech when there are already laws on the books that can be used to address bullying problems.
 
2011-11-03 04:35:00 PM  
I have a moral conviction that it's ok for me to shiat on the doorsteps of Republican legislatures.
 
2011-11-03 04:35:32 PM  
You know who else had sincerely held moral convictions that a certain segment of the population should be gotten rid of?
 
2011-11-03 04:35:35 PM  
At the high school level there's an easy solution for bullying, arrest for assault or assault and battery where appropriate and immediate expulsion from school.
 
2011-11-03 04:37:49 PM  

Gunny Highway: Need Help Soonish: timujin: Diogenes: Cool! I have a moral conviction to kick gingers.

Bring it.

How you doin???

This thread has become the Perfect shiat Storm


Are you suppressing my god given moral right to hit on gingers???
 
2011-11-03 04:38:05 PM  
Additionally I would like to state John Gleason is the biggest douche in the world. He cost me and several other people alot of money, then the coward literally snuck out the back door so he didnt have to talk to me.
 
2011-11-03 04:39:04 PM  
www.toddsolondz.com

JUSTICE FOR WIENERDOG!
 
2011-11-03 04:39:51 PM  

meat0918: More upset at the regulation of speech when there are already laws on the books that can be used to address bullying problems.


The existing laws that deal with harassment, assault, and battery are designed to be applied to adults. It would be unreasonable to simply apply the same laws to children.
 
2011-11-03 04:40:00 PM  

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: A. Would you consider that behavior 'bullying"?

Yes.

Philip Francis Queeg: B. Do you think that behavior would rise to the level of "harassment" under standard harassment laws?

No. It's a kid being a stupid kid. Kids are gonna do stupid shiat.

Philip Francis Queeg: C. Would the language in question prevent the school from acting to prevent Child A from continuing with that behavior?

Why the hell do we need to insert laws and cops and courts into schools. The school should deal with it.



Because the laws are already in schools, and certainly aren't being introduced by this law.

Because what's going to happen now when the school tries to stop Child A from saying that, is that the helicopter parent of Child A is going throw a hissy fit that the School is violating Child A's rights, and that it's all part of the liberal anti-christian agenda. If the school doesn't back down, Helicopter Parent A is going to lawyer up and go to court arguing that the school has no legal basis for acting against Precious Snowflake A.
 
2011-11-03 04:40:13 PM  

skullkrusher: [www.toddsolondz.com image 240x360]

JUSTICE FOR WIENERDOG!


Wiki just informed me that the actress who played her is a lesbian. Even more appropriate than I originally thought.
 
2011-11-03 04:40:18 PM  

sprawl15: I think you misunderstand me.


I did. Thanks for explaining.
 
2011-11-03 04:40:25 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: I cannot think of a single issue the GOP is correct about. They are wrong about everything, and many times shamelessly so.


I have the right to not pay taxes to support your bullshiat

Fark you and everything you believe in.
 
2011-11-03 04:40:39 PM  
Bullying is a new thing. It's directed solely at gays and nobody else. This is what liberals actually believe.
 
2011-11-03 04:40:40 PM  

CanisNoir: I'm guessing that the school system and parents would become quite involved. You're scenario presupposes that the teachers won't step in, the parents aren't aware of whats going on and that the kid has no friends who assist or stick up for them. Then again, the scenario you paint only happens a fraction of a fraction of the time. We should not be legislating for an entire state based upon a scenario that will most likely never occur.


You have missed the point. This legislation creates the scenario. This legislation specifically designates this behaviour as not bullying, a loophole which means if those parents and friends get involved now, they are interfering with an individual who can claim their behaviour is legally acceptable by statute and not harassment, and that therefore attempting to interfere with it could itself be considered harassment. It gives a legal cover for douchebaggery and social intimidation tactics. It subverts the intent of the original legislation almost completely by in effect designating a form of harassment as legally exempt that would have been covered under previous harassment statutes that did not consider the type of harassment beyond its effects.

Dancin_In_Anson: KiltedBastich: What happens when you make that same statement every day? Maybe twice, three times a day? What happens when a dozen or twenty other people are also saying it to that person, in the same polite tones?

Asked.

KiltedBastich: it is already protected by free speech.

And answered.


And here we have an idiot engaging in exactly the kind of petty legalistic defense of harassment I was talking about. Thank you for so effectively demonstrating that the problem I was mentioning isn't a hypothetical.

Here's a hint for you, o derpful one, the kind of behaviour I was describing would be considered harassment nearly everywhere currently, with consequences for that ranging from criminal charges to civil suits, because currently freedom to say what you like does not grant immunity from the consequences of that speech. Harassment laws currently don't look at the type of speech made, only the consequences. This legislation is trying to change that, and apparently you are exactly the kind of asshole who would take that as license to harass those you disagree with as long as you can remain within the boundaries drawn by statute.
 
2011-11-03 04:42:04 PM  
Laws are for crimes, its not a crime to be a bully

Deal with it
 
2011-11-03 04:42:15 PM  

meat0918: Issue every bullied child one of these.

[www.thewolfhouse.net image 570x359]

Bullying will cease


I fail to see how providing bullies with young girls will cause people to stop bullying.
 
2011-11-03 04:42:35 PM  

Putter: lennavan: Why the hell do we need to insert laws and cops and courts into schools. The school should deal with it.
Hm...

Well given amount of hardwork gay kids are putting into being suicide world champions, I'd say the schools aren't dealing with it and that's what prompted the legislation.

That's just me though.


I think you make a good point. Schools are absolutely the only place kids get bullied. What's more, schools are definitely the only influence on a kids life. Therefore the correct solution is to limit first amendment speech. Good point you have here.
 
2011-11-03 04:43:25 PM  

sprawl15: meat0918: Issue every bullied child one of these.

[www.thewolfhouse.net image 570x359]

Bullying will cease

I fail to see how providing bullies with young girls will cause people to stop bullying.


Haven't seen "Let the Right One In", have you?
 
2011-11-03 04:44:09 PM  
"This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."
---------------------------------------------------------------

So could I, as an atheist, go up to christian and call them a cocksucking jesus-prick? Somehow I get the feeling that we're going to have bullying like this and they'll amend it again.
 
2011-11-03 04:44:10 PM  

goorange: Laws are for crimes, its not a crime to be a bully

Deal with it


well this legislation wouldn't outlaw bullying. It would require schools to create policies to combat bullying.
 
2011-11-03 04:44:31 PM  

goorange: Laws are for crimes, its not a crime to be a bully

Deal with it


Course it's all fun and games until the gay kid is found hung in his closet by a belt.
 
2011-11-03 04:44:48 PM  

meat0918: sprawl15: meat0918: Issue every bullied child one of these.

[www.thewolfhouse.net image 570x359]

Bullying will cease

I fail to see how providing bullies with young girls will cause people to stop bullying.

Haven't seen "Let the Right One In", have you?


No, I'm not into Pokemon.
 
2011-11-03 04:45:23 PM  
Bullying is now protected speech, like money.
 
2011-11-03 04:46:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Because the laws are already in schools, and certainly aren't being introduced by this law.


Wait, so if I murder someone in school, the law applies and I might get in trouble?! Apparently I was unaware of this!

Philip Francis Queeg: Helicopter Parent A is going to lawyer up and go to court arguing that the school has no legal basis for acting against Precious Snowflake A.


Really? How often do you think these lawsuits are actually going to occur? And how successful do you think they really will be?

Seriously, you're whole argument here is just plain dishonest. Care to try again, with honesty this time?
 
2011-11-03 04:46:23 PM  

The Dog Ate The Constitution: Bullying is a new thing. It's directed solely at gays and nobody else. This is what liberals actually believe.


No, they just want a new Nanny State program to deal with it............
 
2011-11-03 04:46:26 PM  
"This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."

Um, that sounds more like a desperate attempt to make it seem like the law doesn't violate the first amendment (which, well, it does, pretty hard) than a loophole to allow assault. It'll allow the law to survive maybe an extra year before a court inevitably strikes it down.

//If it crosses the line into actual abusive behavior-- ostracism, assault, constant streams of invective, whatever-- there are already laws against all of that. But people are allowed to not like you, and allowed to be dicks about it short of the aforementioned. Going full Orwell is not cool regardless of your noble intention to save teenage shiats from each other.
 
2011-11-03 04:46:32 PM  

kapaso: Bullying is now protected speech, like money.


Taking someone's lunch money is now covered under Citizens United.
 
2011-11-03 04:46:43 PM  

lennavan: Putter: lennavan: Why the hell do we need to insert laws and cops and courts into schools. The school should deal with it.
Hm...

Well given amount of hardwork gay kids are putting into being suicide world champions, I'd say the schools aren't dealing with it and that's what prompted the legislation.

That's just me though.

I think you make a good point. Schools are absolutely the only place kids get bullied. What's more, schools are definitely the only influence on a kids life. Therefore the correct solution is to limit first amendment speech. Good point you have here.


I'd say most bullying happens at school since that's where kids are around their peers for most of the day. You call your teacher a "fat dyke" you're probably going to be disciplined. Is that an unacceptable limit on the first amendment?
 
2011-11-03 04:47:06 PM  

goorange: AdolfOliverPanties: I cannot think of a single issue the GOP is correct about. They are wrong about everything, and many times shamelessly so.

I have the right to not pay taxes to support your bullshiat

Fark you and everything you believe in.


Try only paying the taxes you want to. I'm sure it will work out as well as the rest of the conservative agenda.
 
2011-11-03 04:47:27 PM  

sprawl15: meat0918: sprawl15: meat0918: Issue every bullied child one of these.

[www.thewolfhouse.net image 570x359]

Bullying will cease

I fail to see how providing bullies with young girls will cause people to stop bullying.

Haven't seen "Let the Right One In", have you?

No, I'm not into Pokemon.


I didn't know Pokemon was Swedish.
 
2011-11-03 04:47:34 PM  

WhyteRaven74: At the high school level there's an easy solution for bullying, arrest for assault or assault and battery where appropriate and immediate expulsion from school.


yea... the Government can fix everything... go for it
 
2011-11-03 04:47:36 PM  

WizardofToast: goorange: Laws are for crimes, its not a crime to be a bully

Deal with it

Course it's all fun and games until the gay kid is found hung in his closet by a belt.


I don't think you fully comprehend how low the GOP is these days. They know bullying can and has lead to many suicides among gay teens. They want to keep it that way.
 
2011-11-03 04:47:58 PM  

jake3988: "This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."
---------------------------------------------------------------

So could I, as an atheist, go up to christian and call them a cocksucking jesus-prick? Somehow I get the feeling that we're going to have bullying like this and they'll amend it again.


Atheists have neither religious beliefs, nor moral convictions, so it wouldn't be protected.
 
2011-11-03 04:49:19 PM  

sprawl15: meat0918: sprawl15: meat0918: Issue every bullied child one of these.

[www.thewolfhouse.net image 570x359]

Bullying will cease

I fail to see how providing bullies with young girls will cause people to stop bullying.

Haven't seen "Let the Right One In", have you?

No, I'm not into Pokemon.


Hint, she's a very protective vampire.
 
2011-11-03 04:49:24 PM  
Don't you guys see, this applies equally to gay students. It would in fact prohibit any administrator from stopping a child acting gay. So if a kid comes in wearing a t-shirt that says, "I like to touch other boy's penis'" then it is perfectly legal. \

I would say that your sexual preference is a strongly held moral conviction....

//Only somewhat serious....this is a travesty...
 
2011-11-03 04:50:20 PM  

meat0918: sprawl15: meat0918: sprawl15: meat0918: Issue every bullied child one of these.

[www.thewolfhouse.net image 570x359]

Bullying will cease

I fail to see how providing bullies with young girls will cause people to stop bullying.

Haven't seen "Let the Right One In", have you?

No, I'm not into Pokemon.

Hint, she's a very protective vampire.


So providing bullies with harems of underage women is OK if they are vampires?
 
2011-11-03 04:50:55 PM  
What I'm getting from this thread is that people seem to think that enforcing existing laws that cover the illegal facets of bullying should be sufficient protection.

If you jackasses really believe that hauling little kids to court is the way to go, then by all means please proceed. It will be a wondrously efficient use of time and money.
 
2011-11-03 04:57:57 PM  

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: Because the laws are already in schools, and certainly aren't being introduced by this law.

Wait, so if I murder someone in school, the law applies and I might get in trouble?! Apparently I was unaware of this!

Philip Francis Queeg: Helicopter Parent A is going to lawyer up and go to court arguing that the school has no legal basis for acting against Precious Snowflake A.

Really? How often do you think these lawsuits are actually going to occur? And how successful do you think they really will be?

Seriously, you're whole argument here is just plain dishonest. Care to try again, with honesty this time?


They happen. There's this website that has links to stories about them fairly regularly. You might have heard of it. It's called Fark.

Parents Defend 12-Year-Old's Bullying, Sue School (new window)

Parents sue school over discipline (new window)

It doesn't take a vast number of suits to make a difference.
 
2011-11-03 04:58:00 PM  

sprawl15: So providing bullies with harems of underage women is OK if they are vampires?


No, the vampires aren't for the bullies - they're for the bullied kids.
 
2011-11-03 04:59:46 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Seeing as this legislation can't possibly supersede one's 1st Amendment rights, why would it need to be inserted in the legislation at all?


But it can. We've already seen an erosion of 1st Amendment rights in schools, especially on the religious and political fronts. What makes you think this law will be any different from any other piece of legislation that has been passed to protect our children from themselves?
 
2011-11-03 05:00:13 PM  

Biological Ali: sprawl15: So providing bullies with harems of underage women is OK if they are vampires?

No, the vampires aren't for the bullies - they're for the bullied kids.


We have enough whiny sparkly vampires without these kinds of shenanigans.
 
2011-11-03 05:00:26 PM  
Color me unsurprised by this. Republicans do, after all, have a fine tradition of protecting bullies. At this point, it's kind of their raison d'être.
 
2011-11-03 05:02:15 PM  

sprawl15: Biological Ali: sprawl15: So providing bullies with harems of underage women is OK if they are vampires?

No, the vampires aren't for the bullies - they're for the bullied kids.

We have enough whiny sparkly vampires without these kinds of shenanigans.


She's the burst into flames when exposed to sunlight, rip your throat out kind of vamp though. Which may be a problem unless you live in Sweden where it is dark for much longer.
 
2011-11-03 05:02:21 PM  
Republicans. Not bigots, but number one WITH bigots.

Ahh, who am I kidding? They're bigots.
 
2011-11-03 05:02:24 PM  

DrBenway: Color me unsurprised by this. Republicans do, after all, have a fine tradition of protecting bullies. At this point, it's kind of their raison d'être.


so have the Gov protect them? Form a Nanny State?
 
2011-11-03 05:03:37 PM  

KiltedBastich: And here we have an idiot engaging in exactly the kind of petty legalistic defense of harassment I was talking about. Thank you for so effectively demonstrating that the problem I was mentioning isn't a hypothetical.


I'll give you a break since you are not a native American and therefore don't understand the concept of the absolute right to say whatever the hell you want regardless of how it might hurt someones feelings or sensibilities.
 
2011-11-03 05:04:15 PM  
www.cartoonesque.com

We're talking about lots of stuff.
 
2011-11-03 05:06:43 PM  

meat0918: sprawl15: Biological Ali: sprawl15: So providing bullies with harems of underage women is OK if they are vampires?

No, the vampires aren't for the bullies - they're for the bullied kids.

We have enough whiny sparkly vampires without these kinds of shenanigans.

She's the burst into flames when exposed to sunlight, rip your throat out kind of vamp though. Which may be a problem unless you live in Sweden where it is dark for much longer.


Ah. I approve of this, then. If you're bullied, have the balls to stand up to your bully or we'll lock you in the boo box with a creature that wants to suck all your blood out and may burst into flames if that takes too long to accomplish.
 
2011-11-03 05:08:27 PM  
I'm sure the sort of person who thinks there should be a religious exception to bullying is the kind of person who's like the former assistant pastor at my old church who is constantly blogging about showing love to gay people but who in reality treated my (straight) brother like crap because he thought my brother dressed gay.
 
2011-11-03 05:09:21 PM  

GhostFish: What I'm getting from this thread is that people seem to think that enforcing existing laws that cover the illegal facets of bullying should be sufficient protection.

If you jackasses really believe that hauling little kids to court is the way to go, then by all means please proceed. It will be a wondrously efficient use of time and money.


You can't argue that bullying causes death (the whole motivation for this is that it "causes" suicide) and then argue that it's not serious enough to get juvie involved. That would be the most retardedly inconsistent and arbitrarily self-serving set of priorities since my last conversation with a creationist.

If it's not worth getting the legal system involved, then why are you supporting a law addressing it, exactly?
 
2011-11-03 05:10:27 PM  
As a Michigander, can I request Fark sign this petition to the governor to get him to veto this? (new window)?

Every time someone signs, two lesbians kiss.

i3.squidoocdn.com
 
2011-11-03 05:10:56 PM  

KiltedBastich: This legislation specifically designates this behaviour as not bullying, a loophole which means if those parents and friends get involved now, they are interfering with an individual who can claim their behaviour is legally acceptable by statute and not harassment, and that therefore attempting to interfere with it could itself be considered harassment.


Legally acceptable and socially acceptable are two very different things, and this insert does not stop teachers, parents or friends from stepping in and correcting the bully in his actions by letting him know that they are not socially acceptable. True, there can be abuses on both sides of this debate, you might have some bullies escape punishment by claiming religious freedom, and like wise, you might have over reactionary school systems that punish kids for simply speaking their mind without intent to bully. Personally I'd rather err on the side of free speech over criminalizing it.
 
2011-11-03 05:13:03 PM  

Jim_Callahan: GhostFish: What I'm getting from this thread is that people seem to think that enforcing existing laws that cover the illegal facets of bullying should be sufficient protection.

If you jackasses really believe that hauling little kids to court is the way to go, then by all means please proceed. It will be a wondrously efficient use of time and money.

You can't argue that bullying causes death (the whole motivation for this is that it "causes" suicide) and then argue that it's not serious enough to get juvie involved. That would be the most retardedly inconsistent and arbitrarily self-serving set of priorities since my last conversation with a creationist.

If it's not worth getting the legal system involved, then why are you supporting a law addressing it, exactly?


The law empowers school districts to deal with bullying.
 
2011-11-03 05:14:34 PM  
Michigan's motto is Si Quæris Peninsulam Amœnam Circumspice, "if you seek a pleasant peninsula, look around you." With this piece of shiat bill, they should really reconsider modifiying the motto... Any suggestions?
 
2011-11-03 05:15:31 PM  

Paris1127: Michigan's motto is Si Quæris Peninsulam Amœnam Circumspice, "if you seek a pleasant peninsula, look around you." With this piece of shiat bill, they should really reconsider modifiying modifying the motto... Any suggestions?


FTFM
 
2011-11-03 05:15:31 PM  

skullkrusher: I'd say most bullying happens at school since that's where kids are around their peers for most of the day. You call your teacher a "fat dyke" you're probably going to be disciplined. Is that an unacceptable limit on the first amendment?


I would never equate a school punishing a kid with a judge/police officer punishing a kid. I would never equate a school rule with a government law.

I'm cool with giving detention to a student for calling his teacher a fat dyke. Not so cool with calling the cops and hauling a kid who called his teacher a fat dyke in front of a judge.
 
2011-11-03 05:15:34 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: I'll give you a break since you are not a native American and therefore don't understand the concept of the absolute right to say whatever the hell you want regardless of how it might hurt someones feelings or sensibilities.


And I will point and laugh at you because that right has never been absolute, not even for Americans. Try shouting death threats to the President on the White House lawn and see how long you last.

Harassment laws exist for a reason. Your right to say what you like ends when it harms someone else, and no amount of Texan ideological derping on your part will ever change that.
 
2011-11-03 05:15:56 PM  
So, does this law still allow the children of bigoted right-wing extremist assholes to be bullied for their parents' political views? I'm pretty sure political views aren't a protected class.


/not that any kids should be bullied, for any reason. It's the adults who create shiat legislation like this who need a good thumping.
 
2011-11-03 05:17:42 PM  

goorange: Laws are for crimes, its not a crime to be a bully

Deal with it


Actually it is, If an adult did it there are various crimes they could be charged with, even if its something little like criminal harassment.
 
2011-11-03 05:19:21 PM  

lennavan: skullkrusher: I'd say most bullying happens at school since that's where kids are around their peers for most of the day. You call your teacher a "fat dyke" you're probably going to be disciplined. Is that an unacceptable limit on the first amendment?

I would never equate a school punishing a kid with a judge/police officer punishing a kid. I would never equate a school rule with a government law.

I'm cool with giving detention to a student for calling his teacher a fat dyke. Not so cool with calling the cops and hauling a kid who called his teacher a fat dyke in front of a judge.


This bill does NOT criminalize bullying. It requires schools to have policies to discipline bullying.
 
2011-11-03 05:19:44 PM  

Need Help Soonish: timujin: Diogenes: Cool! I have a moral conviction to kick gingers.

Bring it.

How you doin???


My day wasn't going so well, but it's certainly looking up now
 
2011-11-03 05:20:10 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: They happen. There's this website that has links to stories about them fairly regularly. You might have heard of it. It's called Fark.


Oh snap, you sure told me! This website called fark, that we are both currently on, links stories that directly refute my point and does so regularly. If you were to post some examples I would surely be told!

Philip Francis Queeg: Parents Defend 12-Year-Old's Bullying, Sue School (new window)


Uh oh, that's example number one! Crap, I'm currently being told!

Philip Francis Queeg: Parents sue school over discipline (new window)


Yikes, that's example number two! I think I just got told! Wow, this Fark.com is sure full of those stories regularly isn't it! Why, those stories are probably from like this week or something, right?

Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Link (new window)

Jul 1, 2010 3:40 PM
Link (new window)

Oh, awkward.
 
2011-11-03 05:21:17 PM  
Fark you, Michigan. Fark you so much.

I just can't defend you anymore.
 
2011-11-03 05:23:46 PM  

CanisNoir: Legally acceptable and socially acceptable are two very different things, and this insert does not stop teachers, parents or friends from stepping in and correcting the bully in his actions by letting him know that they are not socially acceptable. True, there can be abuses on both sides of this debate, you might have some bullies escape punishment by claiming religious freedom, and like wise, you might have over reactionary school systems that punish kids for simply speaking their mind without intent to bully. Personally I'd rather err on the side of free speech over criminalizing it.


My point is that this legislation, as written, is clearly an attempt to create a loophole whereby specifically harassing behaviours can be excused and protected. Rather than tightening things and infringing on free speech, that clause subverts this legislation to weaken existing protections for a specific class of speech, one that (not so) coincidentally is a favorite for many homophobes. Also, it In effect declares that one form of speech is more legitimate and therefore better or special in comparison with other kinds of speech, which I think that any defender of free speech should find highly dubious on the face of it.

There's already links upthread that consist of specific cases where parents tried to sue their precious snowflakes out of responsibility for their bullying. This legislation enshrines and normalizes that defense, which I think is unconscionable. The nature of one's speech should have no impact on whether one is held accountable for the consequences for one's speech, in my opinion. Does your speech constitute harassment due to its effects on others? Then expect legal consequences, because your right to say what you like does not extend to actually harming others - and no, I do not consider one statement harm. You don't have the right to not be offended. On the other hand, you do have the right to be protected from a systematic campaign of harassment.
 
2011-11-03 05:24:20 PM  

CanisNoir: We've already seen an erosion of 1st Amendment rights in schools, especially on the religious and political fronts. What makes you think this law will be any different from any other piece of legislation that has been passed to protect our children from themselves?


Children are legally assaulted every day. As of yet, they simply don't have the rights other people have.
 
2011-11-03 05:24:22 PM  

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: They happen. There's this website that has links to stories about them fairly regularly. You might have heard of it. It's called Fark.

Oh snap, you sure told me! This website called fark, that we are both currently on, links stories that directly refute my point and does so regularly. If you were to post some examples I would surely be told!

Philip Francis Queeg: Parents Defend 12-Year-Old's Bullying, Sue School (new window)

Uh oh, that's example number one! Crap, I'm currently being told!

Philip Francis Queeg: Parents sue school over discipline (new window)

Yikes, that's example number two! I think I just got told! Wow, this Fark.com is sure full of those stories regularly isn't it! Why, those stories are probably from like this week or something, right?

Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Link (new window)

Jul 1, 2010 3:40 PM
Link (new window)

Oh, awkward.


Yeah, those lawsuits totally don't exist since they are a few years old. You sure told me.

Have you stopped ranting long enough to read what this law actually does yet?
 
2011-11-03 05:26:45 PM  

sprawl15: That's the most grizzled liberal plant I've seen since Kathy Bates did full frontal.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-11-03 05:26:47 PM  

KiltedBastich: And I will point and laugh at you because that right has never been absolute, not even for Americans. Try shouting death threats to the President on the White House lawn and see how long you last.


Got 20 minutes? Have a listen and then tell me what's more important. The freedom to express yourself or the desire to be sheltered from that which you wish not to hear.
 
2011-11-03 05:27:08 PM  

The Dog Ate The Constitution: jake3988: "This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."
---------------------------------------------------------------

So could I, as an atheist, go up to christian and call them a cocksucking jesus-prick? Somehow I get the feeling that we're going to have bullying like this and they'll amend it again.

Atheists have neither religious beliefs, nor moral convictions, so it wouldn't be protected.


0/10
 
2011-11-03 05:28:52 PM  
WTF is that all about?

Did I miss a memo?
 
2011-11-03 05:30:10 PM  

The Bruce Dickinson: WTF is that all about?

Did I miss a memo?


It is serious thread.
 
2011-11-03 05:32:51 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: They happen. There's this website that has links to stories about them fairly regularly.


Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, those lawsuits totally don't exist since they are a few years old. You sure told me.


Wow. Make sure to bend at your knees, Philip.

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2011-11-03 05:34:00 PM  

Rent is too damn high: Atheists have neither religious beliefs, nor moral convictions, so it wouldn't be protected.


Who was telling me the other day that The Dog isn't a shiatbird troll?
 
2011-11-03 05:34:05 PM  

sprawl15: It is serious thread.


More like SUPER serial...
 
2011-11-03 05:34:38 PM  

Rent is too damn high: The Dog Ate The Constitution: jake3988: "This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."
---------------------------------------------------------------

So could I, as an atheist, go up to christian and call them a cocksucking jesus-prick? Somehow I get the feeling that we're going to have bullying like this and they'll amend it again.

Atheists have neither religious beliefs, nor moral convictions, so it wouldn't be protected.

0/10


Well he has a point, how can you have beliefs or convictions if you don't even have a soul?

Yeah, think about that for awhile.
 
2011-11-03 05:35:45 PM  

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: They happen. There's this website that has links to stories about them fairly regularly.

Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, those lawsuits totally don't exist since they are a few years old. You sure told me.

Wow. Make sure to bend at your knees, Philip.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x248]


Ohh told again! I feel so much shame!

Have you figured out yet that the law isn't what you've been claiming it is? Or are you going to keep ignoring that fact?
 
2011-11-03 05:36:14 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Got 20 minutes? Have a listen and then tell me what's more important. The freedom to express yourself or the desire to be sheltered from that which you wish not to hear.


Hey, dum-dum, let me explain the difference to you between being offended by a casual statement, which you are not protected against, and a systematic pattern of harassment, which you are protected against.

See, one statement? That's offensive, but it is covered by free speech, so the most you can really do is be offensive in return.

Now, when it is multiple similar statements, repeated over time, often by multiple people, saying the same thing, with an intent to ostracize, demean and humiliate? That is harassment, and it can cause profound psychological harm up to and including major depression, self-mutilation and even suicide. You do not get to use the first amendment to legitimate that kind of bullshiat.

Free speech isn't an absolute, no matter how much you want it to be. You're never going to change that, and your ideologically driven attempts to pretend it is just make me want to point and laugh at you some more.

This legislation attempts to define one class of statements as not harassment or bullying, regardless of other considerations, which is a gross departure from existing statutes that cover harassment. That is why this clause of the legislation is wrong. The general goal of requiring schools to have policies to deal with harassment is probably a good idea, because no one is telling them they have to violate freedom of speech, just that they can't ignore minor-on-minor harassment, a.k.a. bullying, as is currently all too often the case, especially with children identified (rightly or wrongly) as gay.
 
2011-11-03 05:36:59 PM  
My vote is for full discrimination on all levels against GOPers. Treat them like the worst scum of the earth daily, everywhere.
 
2011-11-03 05:37:19 PM  

MSFT: Rent is too damn high: The Dog Ate The Constitution: jake3988: "This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."
---------------------------------------------------------------

So could I, as an atheist, go up to christian and call them a cocksucking jesus-prick? Somehow I get the feeling that we're going to have bullying like this and they'll amend it again.

Atheists have neither religious beliefs, nor moral convictions, so it wouldn't be protected.

0/10

Well he has a point, how can you have beliefs or convictions if you don't even have a soul?

Yeah, think about that for awhile.


I dunno, I ask that about district attorneys all the time.
 
2011-11-03 05:37:50 PM  

JerkyMeat: My vote is for full discrimination on all levels against GOPers. Treat them like the worst scum of the earth daily, everywhere.


According to this new provision I can, as long as I make some bullshiat excuse about it being part of my religion.
 
2011-11-03 05:42:24 PM  

Antimatter:
I dunno, I ask that about district attorneys all the time.


It's probably the only reason I feel comfortable killing prostitutes, them not having a soul.....
 
2011-11-03 05:43:21 PM  
"These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don't give a (Colorful Expletive) about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of.

They go on and on with all this (Colorful Expletive) about 'sanctity' - don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."

-Clint Eastwood

Sanitized for sensitive eyes...
 
2011-11-03 05:43:34 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Have you figured out yet that the law isn't what you've been claiming it is? Or are you going to keep ignoring that fact?


Have you figured out I support the law as is and I'm arguing against subby/Democrats quoted in the article/etc?
 
2011-11-03 05:45:32 PM  

lennavan: ...



why is it that you're always carrying water for the worst bigots around? whenever it comes to religion you suck up to the most despicable worst of them


but the reason of the time you're reasonable. how do you reconcile this hateful douchebag loving religious side of you (that's TOTALLY unchristian) to the rest of the time when you're a reasonably intelligent person.
 
2011-11-03 05:46:11 PM  

CanisNoir: We should not be legislating for an entire state based upon a scenario that will most likely never occur.


Voter ID.
 
2011-11-03 05:47:15 PM  

MSFT: Well he has a point, how can you have beliefs or convictions if you don't even have a soul?

Yeah, think about that for awhile.


Well an atheist might in fact agree that there's a soul (or spirit or essence) but not that it's a supernatural thing.
 
2011-11-03 05:48:56 PM  

lennavan: Have you figured out I support the law as is


so you're perfectly ok with people using it as a shield to hide behind harassing someone because of different religious beliefs?

ok then, that means it's ok for me to call you a "pathetic sack of human shiat who doesn't have the mental fortitude to be done with childish fairy tales" every time i see you. after all, that's a "sincerely held moral conviction" of mine.


you pathetic sack of human shiat who doesn't have the mental fortitude to be done with childish fairy tales.
 
2011-11-03 05:49:32 PM  

Rent is too damn high: MSFT: Well he has a point, how can you have beliefs or convictions if you don't even have a soul?

Yeah, think about that for awhile.

Well an atheist might in fact agree that there's a soul (or spirit or essence) but not that it's a supernatural thing.


Or can even believe in a supernatural soul that eternally reincarnates before attaining a spiritual perfection while still maintaining strict atheism.
 
2011-11-03 05:49:41 PM  

Rent is too damn high: Well an atheist might in fact agree that there's a soul (or spirit or essence) but not that it's a supernatural thing.


WRONG.

the concept of "a soul" is explicitly supernatural. and equally lacking in evidence.
 
2011-11-03 05:51:06 PM  

Paris1127: Michigan's motto is Si Quæris Peninsulam Amœnam Circumspice, "if you seek a pleasant peninsula, look around you." With this piece of shiat bill, they should really reconsider modifiying the motto... Any suggestions?


"Praestat tacere et stultum habere quam edicare et omnium dubium removare."

It is better to be silent and appear stupid than to speak and remove all doubt.
 
2011-11-03 05:52:48 PM  

Kazan: ok then, that means it's ok for me to call you a "pathetic sack of human shiat who doesn't have the mental fortitude to be done with childish fairy tales" every time i see you. after all, that's a "sincerely held moral conviction" of mine.


Actually, it means you can call a child that every time you see him/her in a public school, with impunity.
 
2011-11-03 05:52:50 PM  

Kazan: lennavan: Have you figured out I support the law as is

so you're perfectly ok with people using it as a shield to hide behind harassing someone because of different religious beliefs?

ok then, that means it's ok for me to call you a "pathetic sack of human shiat who doesn't have the mental fortitude to be done with childish fairy tales" every time i see you. after all, that's a "sincerely held moral conviction" of mine.


you pathetic sack of human shiat who doesn't have the mental fortitude to be done with childish fairy tales.


Dude... chill. That law would require schools to enact policies to combat bullying. It is a new law. The GOP inserted language that exempts religiously motivated speech or "deep moral conviction" or whatever bullshiat from this bullying law. It's not like this law exists and protects people against bullies unless those bullies are religiously motivated.
 
2011-11-03 05:56:30 PM  
FTFA: "The First Amendment and other free speech protections do just that, protect free speech, not bullying. And students, like all other Americans, are free to verbally express their opinions - including religious and moral views - without fear of government repression or persecution, including under anti-bullying or harrassment laws."

I would just like to note how idiotic this statement is.
 
2011-11-03 05:57:07 PM  

Kazan: lennavan: Have you figured out I support the law as is

so you're perfectly ok with people teachers using it as a shield to hide behind harassing someone students because of different religious beliefs?


This is what this law allows. It's not just minor on minor harassment.
 
2011-11-03 05:57:21 PM  
skullkrusher

he's defending the the bigots neutering the law to protect people like themselves acting on their bigotry. that doesn't strike me as a very moral thing, let alone one holding with the high ideals that americans are supposed to aspire to.
 
2011-11-03 06:01:18 PM  

KiltedBastich: Hey, dum-dum


Well bless your heart.

Did you watch any of it? Seeing as you replied within 10 minutes of me posting it, Ima go with "no you didn't". Take the time...the 8:00 - 10:30 time frame asks some questions which I would like you to address.

Yes, I will wait.
 
2011-11-03 06:05:59 PM  

Kazan: Rent is too damn high: Well an atheist might in fact agree that there's a soul (or spirit or essence) but not that it's a supernatural thing.

WRONG.

the concept of "a soul" is explicitly supernatural. and equally lacking in evidence.


ok I guess. I was thinking of psyche or essence, but you're right, most conceptions of the soul is that of an incorporeal version of a person.
 
2011-11-03 06:07:19 PM  

Splinshints: sprawl15: Farkin' first amendment, how do they work?

Your rights do not extend to the right to deny any other person of their rights or to harass or intimidate any other person. You have no more right to bully anybody for any reason than you do to haul off and punch them.

By the way, our argument is done and I've won it, so feel free to save yourself the further embarrassment of trying to form a cogent retort. You can't because the basic facts of the issue are stacked entirely against you and have been for more than two centuries now.


Actually you haven't. The courts have squarely taken the side of the Westborough Baptist A-Holes every step of the way. And if their speech is protected, as awful as it is, then it must all be protected, as much as it pains me to say. As long as you don't threaten violence, you are golden.

Protected and Not Bullying: It's too bad your gay, gays go to hell.

Not protected and definitely bullying: Hey peter puffer (doea anyone use that one any more?) i'm gonna whip your homo arse!

What would be nice, is if people would teach their kids to judge people based on their character, not of one aspect of someones skin color, sexual preference, religion, weight, what have you. But you can't count on good parenting.
 
2011-11-03 06:08:04 PM  

Kazan: skullkrusher

he's defending the the bigots neutering the law to protect people like themselves acting on their bigotry. that doesn't strike me as a very moral thing, let alone one holding with the high ideals that americans are supposed to aspire to.


one of those high ideals is the freedom of speech and religion. If the law as currently proposed would prohibit students from making their opinions known - even if making that opinion known is a dickish thing to do - I think it is in accordance with our ideals. Protecting speech we find disagreeable and that sort of thing.

I think the whole notion of legislating this sort of thing is pretty questionable. Bullying should not be tolerated by school officials and kids should not be subjected to harassment for any reason. That said, when you get the legislature involved the wiggle room becomes much more narrow.
 
2011-11-03 06:09:15 PM  

Rent is too damn high: Kazan: Rent is too damn high: Well an atheist might in fact agree that there's a soul (or spirit or essence) but not that it's a supernatural thing.

WRONG.

the concept of "a soul" is explicitly supernatural. and equally lacking in evidence.

ok I guess. I was thinking of psyche or essence, but you're right, most conceptions of the soul is that of an incorporeal version of a person.


Fark once told me that it is possible to be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural. I thought that was dumb although technically true.
 
2011-11-03 06:10:56 PM  
Does anybody else see the 14th amendment violation in this? This legislation gives people with religious prejudices to be above the law. It's preferential to one specific group and discriminatory against another specific group. Across the board legislation which makes harassment illegal doesn't discriminate against anybody. No loophole for spiteful fundies should exist in this bill.

I hope somebody takes it to SCOTUS. I hope that if they do, the justices will actually try to uphold the constitution for once.
 
2011-11-03 06:11:04 PM  
If the GOP had their way, I'm sure this would be a common way to deal with those gay kids...

gentleislam.com
 
2011-11-03 06:12:12 PM  

skullkrusher: If the law as currently proposed would prohibit students from making their opinions known


no it wouldn't. it would prevent them from harassing someone.


skullkrusher: I think the whole notion of legislating this sort of thing is pretty questionable. Bullying should not be tolerated by school officials and kids should not be subjected to harassment for any reason. That said, when you get the legislature involved the wiggle room becomes much more narrow.


i think it's addressing something that is already addressed by harassment and assault laws. that being said so many schools do a horrendous job of dealing with bullying and 99.99% of the time blame the victim.

skullkrusher: Fark once told me that it is possible to be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural. I thought that was dumb although technically true.


i don't think i would consider that person an atheist per denotation. believing in the supernatural fits the definition of theism as far as i'm concerned
 
2011-11-03 06:12:59 PM  

Felgraf: Interesting.

So if a muslim, say, seriously believes that all christians are apostates and, while perhaps they shouldn't be put to the sword, their lives should at least be made a living hell, would he be allowed to bully Christians and Jewish people under this law? And the GOP would be cool with that?


No, because Islam is not a relgion, it is a cult and therefore Muslims cannot hold moral convictions.

/This is what Republicans actually believe
 
2011-11-03 06:18:11 PM  

KiltedBastich: Dancin_In_Anson: I'll give you a break since you are not a native American and therefore don't understand the concept of the absolute right to say whatever the hell you want regardless of how it might hurt someones feelings or sensibilities.

And I will point and laugh at you because that right has never been absolute, not even for Americans. Try shouting death threats to the President on the White House lawn and see how long you last.

Harassment laws exist for a reason. Your right to say what you like ends when it harms someone else, and no amount of Texan ideological derping on your part will ever change that.


Who makes that decision? Hurting my feelings is not the same thing as harming me. I can't imagine a world where no one ever hears something that doesn't offend them in some manner. We need that, we need to hear other people's ideas. Sometimes we need to hear things that offend or hurt us to make us understand.

I couldn't live in a world where someone couldn't make a joke at my expense, or me at theirs. You need these things to learn about yourself as you grow. Otherwise you end being an awful, whiney, petulant adult that no one wants anything to do with.
 
2011-11-03 06:22:48 PM  

skullkrusher: Fark once told me that it is possible to be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural. I thought that was dumb although technically true.


Technically yes. but practically, not really. I mean the Raelians are atheists, but they're not exactly what we associate with mainstream atheism (not saying they're not atheists! Just that they aren't your average skeptic/rationalist atheist). Atheists could technically believe in a soul (because soul/=god) but your average skeptical atheist isn't going to buy it.
 
2011-11-03 06:23:21 PM  

sprawl15: Well an atheist might in fact agree that there's a soul (or spirit or essence) but not that it's a supernatural thing.

Or can even believe in a supernatural soul that eternally reincarnates before attaining a spiritual perfection while still maintaining strict atheism.


IMO you guys are talking about skeptics, not atheists. Atheism: Not believing in gods. Full stop.

/as if this thread wasn't already in a tailspin
 
2011-11-03 06:23:32 PM  

Jackson Herring: i.imgur.com


My God, that image is awesome beyond belief.
 
2011-11-03 06:24:50 PM  

jaybeezey: Sometimes we need to hear things that offend or hurt us to make us understand.


Adults, sure. By other adults. But maybe not children from EVERYONE around them, child and adult.

Gay and lesbian children don't often get support from their parents, do not get support from their peers, and many teachers and faculty don't do anything as is. Imagine particularly bigoted teachers who just sat by and did nothing before but now can join in and say "Hey, it's my religious belief to tell this kid he's going to hell when he has absolutely no way to get away from me for the 45 minutes he's in my class 5 days a week."

That kind of inundation towards LGBT youth crosses the line from everyone's free speech to deliberate bullying and harassment.

Otherwise you end being an awful, whiney, petulant adult that no one wants anything to do with.

Christian?
 
2011-11-03 06:27:14 PM  
Can't wait for the history books' take on this one in 50 years. Nice work MI.

/I have a deep moral compulsion to try to make out with a homophobe until he cries and/or jumps in front of a bus...is that ok?
 
2011-11-03 06:30:06 PM  

jaybeezey: Actually you haven't. The courts have squarely taken the side of the Westborough Baptist A-Holes every step of the way. And if their speech is protected, as awful as it is, then it must all be protected, as much as it pains me to say. As long as you don't threaten violence, you are golden.


If I recall correctly, the WBC's antics weren't interpreted as harassment (or something that they could otherwise be held liable for) because their targets didn't constitute a captive audience - that there was nothing keeping them there, essentially. I'm not sure whether you could extend that same argument to kids in a school.
 
2011-11-03 06:30:22 PM  

jaybeezey: Hurting my feelings is not the same thing as harming me


doing it repeatedly/regularly does constitute harm, however.
 
2011-11-03 06:31:25 PM  

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: Have you figured out yet that the law isn't what you've been claiming it is? Or are you going to keep ignoring that fact?

Have you figured out I support the law as is and I'm arguing against subby/Democrats quoted in the article/etc?


Really ? Was it Subby or the Democrats in the article that resulted in this statement from you? I don;'t see any of them talking about arresting kids and hauling them in front of the judge, do you?


.

lennavan: I would never equate a school punishing a kid with a judge/police officer punishing a kid. I would never equate a school rule with a government law.
I'm cool with giving detention to a student for calling his teacher a fat dyke. Not so cool with calling the cops and hauling a kid who called his teacher a fat dyke in front of a judge

 
2011-11-03 06:43:32 PM  

Kome: jaybeezey: Sometimes we need to hear things that offend or hurt us to make us understand.

Adults, sure. By other adults. But maybe not children from EVERYONE around them, child and adult.

Gay and lesbian children don't often get support from their parents, do not get support from their peers, and many teachers and faculty don't do anything as is. Imagine particularly bigoted teachers who just sat by and did nothing before but now can join in and say "Hey, it's my religious belief to tell this kid he's going to hell when he has absolutely no way to get away from me for the 45 minutes he's in my class 5 days a week."

That kind of inundation towards LGBT youth crosses the line from everyone's free speech to deliberate bullying and harassment.

Otherwise you end being an awful, whiney, petulant adult that no one wants anything to do with.

Christian?


Often times, yes! Especially home schooled kids that have never been forced to interact with people until they turn 18.
 
2011-11-03 06:50:19 PM  
If you can't harass or bully gay kids then this just isn't 'Murica.
 
2011-11-03 07:00:03 PM  

jaybeezey: KiltedBastich: Dancin_In_Anson: I'll give you a break since you are not a native American and therefore don't understand the concept of the absolute right to say whatever the hell you want regardless of how it might hurt someones feelings or sensibilities.

And I will point and laugh at you because that right has never been absolute, not even for Americans. Try shouting death threats to the President on the White House lawn and see how long you last.

Harassment laws exist for a reason. Your right to say what you like ends when it harms someone else, and no amount of Texan ideological derping on your part will ever change that.

Who makes that decision? Hurting my feelings is not the same thing as harming me. I can't imagine a world where no one ever hears something that doesn't offend them in some manner. We need that, we need to hear other people's ideas. Sometimes we need to hear things that offend or hurt us to make us understand.

I couldn't live in a world where someone couldn't make a joke at my expense, or me at theirs. You need these things to learn about yourself as you grow. Otherwise you end being an awful, whiney, petulant adult that no one wants anything to do with.


So it should be legal to create a hostile work environment? You do realize that you can sue if it's your boss doing it, If it's a fellow employee then the boss can choose to fire them for doing that.

Yet you want kids to be given special treatment.

If an adult did this to a fellow adult this would be grounds to at the very least a restraining order if not criminal harassment. If a kid commits criminal harassment then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

"being in school" is not an excuse to break the law. The criminal law still applies inside the school as much as it does outside.
 
2011-11-03 07:00:20 PM  

lennavan: And by bullying they mean making religious statements.

Seriously subby, Democrats, etc - on this one you're all farking retarded. Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to be too harsh, don't go commit suicide now. Maybe we should make it illegal for me to inform you of how retarded you are via the internet next?


There is a fundamental difference between attacking someone for their socio/political views vs. attacking them for their race/gender/sexuality/etc.... Not that either one is ok but the first is a difference of opinion while the second is saying: "I'm better than you because I was born better than you." That gives it a lot more weight.

/false equivalencies make you look like a dickcheeseburger (see that was rude and not exactly appropriate, but it's not like I called you a horse-farking cracker)
 
2011-11-03 07:04:12 PM  

Diogenes: Cool! I have a moral conviction to kick gingers.


And I have a moral obligation to toss dwarfs, and screw female midgets
 
2011-11-03 07:10:42 PM  

coeyagi: Just when I thought the GOP couldn't be more evil, they always bring me a new instance of them being more evil.

I am not sure what has no bounds:
a) evilness of GOP
b) wealth gap of 1% and 99%
c) both


The answer is actually a. If b was without any bounds, it would mean that money would have no actual value, because the gap would be defined as infinity. If that were the case, there wouldn't actually be a wealth gap.
 
2011-11-03 07:14:10 PM  

Kazan:
skullkrusher: Fark once told me that it is possible to be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural. I thought that was dumb although technically true.

i don't think i would consider that person an atheist per denotation. believing in the supernatural fits the definition of theism as far as i'm concerned


I consider myself an atheist and believe in the supernatural/paranormal, but I think of the supernatural as natural phenomena that will eventually be explained by science (string theory/M-theory/11 dimensional physics), not something that's evidence of any type of deity.

As far as this thread topic goes, the fact that the American Family Association supports the wording of the exemption tells me that people are probably right to be wary of it, but I don't think either the law or the exemption will have much affect on anything. It strikes me more as a "Look, we're helping, yay us!" gesture.
 
2011-11-03 07:18:41 PM  
Every time a Republican politician votes for something like this, it's because there's a majority of Republican voters who support it.

Remember this before you try to fool yourself into thinking that Republican voters are mostly good, well-meaning people.
 
2011-11-03 07:29:07 PM  
The full language of the insert is: "This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."

As long as that covers "You're a farkin' douchebag!" I'm cool with it.
 
2011-11-03 08:20:13 PM  

MSFT: Antimatter:
I dunno, I ask that about district attorneys all the time.

It's probably the only reason I feel comfortable killing prostitutes, them not having a soul.....


that and you get your money back.
 
2011-11-03 08:34:15 PM  

Hershey Highway Patrol: Time to bring up that "How to bully a Christian kid" website.


I googled that. And I got a website saying that bullying is caused by watching tv. First it was really interesting, talking about how hating your brother while pretending to be righteous is just as bad as sinning, etc. And the author referred to them as "educationists", which I'm assuming means "not christfag homeschoolers."
No, I'm not kidding. See for yourself. Link (new window)

This is something I don't understand. Why do these retards think gays want to "recruit" children? Can they really be so biased as to compare any minority to themselves? They think being gay is some sort of club? Some sort of religion that they have to evangelize? And why would gays want little kids anyway? The vast majority of gays aren't pedophiles. They like men. Manly men. With bulging biceps and body hair and oozing testosterone. They don't like little boys. Boys aren't manly enough. It's always funny how homophobes have either never met or never talked to a gay person in their whole lives.
 
2011-11-03 08:49:09 PM  
If the legislation is anti-bullying, but makes specific exceptions for matters of religion, is it tacitly admitting that religion is an engine of hate? Because I've been saying this for 11 years.
 
2011-11-03 09:16:35 PM  
Sorry if I missed it, but does anyone have a link to the full text of the law?
 
2011-11-03 09:17:38 PM  
This is evil.

The Republican Party is evil. It works to multiply the amount of suffering, hatred, pollution, corruption and injustice in the world.

Please stop supporting evil.
 
2011-11-03 09:23:48 PM  
Cool, so if a teacher has a problem with black people he can say whatever he wants based on his "moral convictions" now, right?
 
2011-11-03 09:28:00 PM  
SB137

Sections 1-3 concern time lines for creating, making public, and implementing bullying policies. Section 4 (A-Q) outlines what must be included within bullying policies. Section 5 continues this with parts encouraged to be included within bullying policies. Section 6 protects those reporting bullying or false accusations. Section 7 allows other legal remedies to be pursued. Section 8 mentions the law not abridging the First Amendment and includes the note about "religious belief or moral conviction". Section 9 says the law applies to pupils only. Section 10 provides definitions. Section 11 names the law "Matt's Safe School Law".

What is relevant about Section 8 is the insert is redundant if protecting freedom of speech and free exercise as the preceding sentence of Section 8 states: "This section does not abridge the rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under Article I of the State Constitution of 1963 of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian." Aside from laws being unable to abridge those rights, the section explicitly protects freedom of speech and free exercise. The only reasons to insert the language is for blanket protection of bullies acting on religious or moral convictions or pointless pandering continuing this religious persecution in schools narrative.
 
2011-11-03 09:46:42 PM  

timujin: Need Help Soonish: timujin: Diogenes: Cool! I have a moral conviction to kick gingers.

Bring it.

How you doin???

My day wasn't going so well, but it's certainly looking up now


Glad I could help with that ;)
 
2011-11-03 10:07:15 PM  
Stop passing laws to outlaw random crap and start repealing laws that hamstring teachers. Allow teachers to beat your children and maybe they'll start behaving since you can't be bothered to raise your own kid.
 
2011-11-03 10:16:49 PM  
If you're a Republican, fark You.
 
2011-11-03 10:53:47 PM  

goorange: Laws are for crimes, its not a crime to be a bully


Look up the definition of assault some time. Also look up assault and battery.

winterwhile: yea... the Government can fix everything... go for it


Bully can qualify as assault, assault is a crime....
 
2011-11-03 11:01:40 PM  
The full language of the insert is: "This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."

Does this mean Republicans will be okay with it if a school employee who is a Muslim fundamentalist preaches violence against Christians and Jews?
 
2011-11-03 11:02:11 PM  
My moral conviction says I need to bully Christians and Conservatives. Try to fight back this time, you sniveling pussies.
 
2011-11-03 11:05:13 PM  

Fizpez: Looking at this legislation in the absolute BEST possible light it basically says that if I say "I think you being gay means you're going to hell for you're morally reprehensible behavior based on my religious beliefs" then I am not, in fact, bullying that person.

What is means in every other light is it gives legal cover for people to act like douchebags....


So? Acting like a douchebag has never been against the law and I see no reason to make it so now.
 
2011-11-03 11:07:47 PM  

Ghastly: I wonder if they realize they've just made it okay for Muslims to bully Christian kids on the grounds of religious belief.


Well, they are true believers. Christians don't blow themselves up for their God. This must mean that Muslims have stronger moral convictions, so I guess they can do what they want.
 
2011-11-03 11:30:13 PM  

Putter: That's just me though.


And a sympathetic modmin, perhaps? ;-)

To Michigan, the land of my ancestors: WTF?!
 
2011-11-03 11:47:01 PM  

monkeyman3875: Stop passing laws to outlaw random crap


They are not outlawing anything with this. Schools are required to create procedures regarding bullying. Schools already have rules against bullying, but those are enforced inconsistently, and, as bullying is a pattern of behavior, those require documentation to construct a pattern. This helps to enforce those rules consistently and document.

ignacio: Acting like a douchebag has never been against the law and I see no reason to make it so now.


Who is making this against the law now? I suppose being an administrator who allows bullying is acting like a douchebag, but I doubt this is what you're referring to.
 
2011-11-03 11:48:11 PM  

cryinoutloud: Ghastly: I wonder if they realize they've just made it okay for Muslims to bully Christian kids on the grounds of religious belief.

Well, they are true believers. Christians don't blow themselves up for their God. This must mean that Muslims have stronger moral convictions, so I guess they can do what they want.


Christians also cry at funerals. "Oh boo hoo hoo, Aunt Patty is going to paradise, that makes me so sad...!" ?

It's really hard to take their "beliefs" seriously.
 
2011-11-04 12:35:39 AM  
I am morally outraged at christians. Can I kick the crap of some?
 
2011-11-04 01:27:33 AM  

KiltedBastich: Hey, dum-dum, let me explain the difference to you between being offended by a casual statement, which you are not protected against, and a systematic pattern of harassment, which you are protected against.

See, one statement? That's offensive, but it is covered by free speech, so the most you can really do is be offensive in return.

Now, when it is multiple similar statements, repeated over time, often by multiple people, saying the same thing, with an intent to ostracize, demean and humiliate? That is harassment, and it can cause profound psychological harm up to and including major depression, self-mutilation and even suicide. You do not get to use the first amendment to legitimate that kind of bullshiat.

Free speech isn't an absolute, no matter how much you want it to be. You're never going to change that, and your ideologically driven attempts to pretend it is just make me want to point and laugh at you some more.



So by your analysis, wouldnt any group protesting against any class of people (gays, bankers, politicians, Big Pharma, etc) be guilty of harassment? The protest is to single out and draw attention to "bad" behavior of the protested. This seems like a form of humiliation and ostracism with rhetoric that is often demeaning explicitly and/or implicitly. On top of this the goal of the protest is to change the "bad" behavior. This seems like a form of bullying.
 
2011-11-04 01:33:44 AM  

SquiggelyGrounders: So by your analysis, wouldnt any group protesting against any class of people (gays, bankers, politicians, Big Pharma, etc) be guilty of harassment? The protest is to single out and draw attention to "bad" behavior of the protested. This seems like a form of humiliation and ostracism with rhetoric that is often demeaning explicitly and/or implicitly. On top of this the goal of the protest is to change the "bad" behavior. This seems like a form of bullying.


Did you miss the part where I mentioned, several times in this thread now, how it had to be directed at an individual, as opposed to the general public or society at large? It's a rather fundamental difference.
 
2011-11-04 02:45:36 AM  
Wow. And this is in Michigan, too. Mississippi I would have expected, but Michigan?

Republicans really are an evil race.
 
2011-11-04 04:34:45 AM  
lennavan: Why the hell do we need to insert laws and cops and courts into schools. The school should deal with it.
Hm...

Well given amount of hardwork gay kids are putting into being suicide world champions, I'd say the schools aren't dealing with it and that's what prompted the legislation.

That's just me though.
 
2011-11-04 05:05:55 AM  

Putter: lennavan: Why the hell do we need to insert laws and cops and courts into schools. The school should deal with it.
Hm...

Well given amount of hardwork gay kids are putting into being suicide world champions, I'd say the schools aren't dealing with it and that's what prompted the legislation.

That's just me though.


What about all the laws and rules in place that prevents schools from doing any kind of discipline?

There used to be a time less than 70 years ago when teachers could literally beat the kids. Bullying is one thing, but a time tested cure is to teach bullies there's always a bigger stick out there. Or just removing bullies completely with expulsion.

But there's also the side when no one can fight all your battles for you. Eventually you have to learn to stick up for yourself, bullying or not. Part of that is choosing your fights and learning not to make yourself a target. No matter who is "responsible" on paper, it's still the fact that rules and ideals can't save you from animals, and bullies are animals. Just chimps in T-shirts.

So part of the problem could be legislation, but mostly it's a generation of parents brainwashed by childless people's idealism who don't remember what it was like to be a kid in the bad old days of high school. For those of us who remember, we know how bad it can get. We also know MORE laws and rules are not the answer.
 
2011-11-04 07:43:16 AM  

GWLush: Aren't we supposed to be progressing as a species?


Not in Michigan. That state has been in decline for decades.
 
2011-11-04 08:26:49 AM  
I don't want to live in this state anymore.

The Republicans here have just gone batshiat crazy. Abortions bills, pro-bullying legislation, tax cuts for the rich at the expense of education funding...I used to think the worst part about Michigan were the roads. Well, they are the worst part...that's because Republicans won't fix them.

\I hate my state...
\\Time to move to PDX where I belong, methinks...
 
2011-11-04 08:46:45 AM  
"This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian."

if a school employee or volunteer feels they are required to say something by their religion that is offensive then their religion makes them unsuitable for the job and they should quit.

Parents really shouldn't be making any statements at school.

Pupil, hmm, I don't know.
 
2011-11-04 09:06:26 AM  

WhyteRaven74: goorange: Laws are for crimes, its not a crime to be a bully

Look up the definition of assault some time. Also look up assault and battery.

winterwhile: yea... the Government can fix everything... go for it

Bully can qualify as assault, assault is a crime....


its a crime to talk to someone?
 
2011-11-04 09:16:07 AM  
t0.gstatic.com
 
2011-11-04 09:43:18 AM  

vernonFL: I don't see why we need anti-bullying legislation.

If this is happening in school, its a matter for the school admins and parents.

If its happening off school grounds, its a matter for parents, and police, in the case of threats, harassment or violence, police and courts already have the tools to address this.


Interesting. Are you suggesting that laws don't exist in schools and all issues should be handled internally? I've often held the belief that "bullying" is another name for "harassment", and that if I'm harassing a co-worker, I lose my job, and possibly face fines or some kind of settlement. Continual, repeated harassment over the course of several years would likely net me jail time, or at least a restraining order. All these legal avenues exist to prevent a situation from escalating from harassment, which is wrong, to assault or murder or suicide, which is farking wrong. These laws mitigate the risk that these situations come to an even more destructive conclusion.

I've never quite understood, in my adult life, why we treat harassment differently when it's children. I'm not saying we throw kids in jail over it, I'm saying "why don't we allow kids to get restraining orders on other kids?" or even more generally, "adults can be shiatty too, but we don't tolerate it. Why do we tolerate it amongst children?"

/Full disclosure: The schools I went to didn't really have a bullying problem.
 
2011-11-04 10:13:42 AM  

winterwhile: WhyteRaven74: goorange: Laws are for crimes, its not a crime to be a bully

Look up the definition of assault some time. Also look up assault and battery.

winterwhile: yea... the Government can fix everything... go for it

Bully can qualify as assault, assault is a crime....

its a crime to talk to someone?


Harassment / bullying =/= "talking to someone"

It should be a crime to be as stupid as you are, but we'd have to lock up far too many right wing shills, the prisons would explode.
 
2011-11-04 10:24:00 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: My moral conviction says I need to bully Christians and Conservatives.


So I should start worrying that a bunch of unarmed, effeminate men are going to try to slap me to death?
 
2011-11-04 10:44:06 AM  

doglover: So part of the problem could be legislation, but mostly it's a generation of parents brainwashed by childless people's idealism who don't remember what it was like to be a kid in the bad old days of high school. For those of us who remember, we know how bad it can get.


This (thinking is backwards and destructive)!
 
2011-11-04 10:50:03 AM  
What people with strong moral convictions might look like:

image.guardian.co.uk

www.sullivan-county.com

godhatesfundamentalists.com
 
2011-11-04 11:38:01 AM  
You know, it occurs to me that religion is more of an artificial designation than homosexuality. At least science supports the idea of homosexuality being a natural variation. Religion is only cultural, and which one you get is largely determined by where you are born. You can also choose to stop being religious.
 
2011-11-04 12:01:10 PM  

sheilanagig: You know, it occurs to me that religion is more of an artificial designation than homosexuality. At least science supports the idea of homosexuality being a natural variation. Religion is only cultural, and which one you get is largely determined by where you are born. You can also choose to stop being religious.


Are you suggesting religion is a lifestyle choice?

I like the cut of your jib.
 
2011-11-04 12:20:31 PM  

KiltedBastich: SquiggelyGrounders: So by your analysis, wouldnt any group protesting against any class of people (gays, bankers, politicians, Big Pharma, etc) be guilty of harassment? The protest is to single out and draw attention to "bad" behavior of the protested. This seems like a form of humiliation and ostracism with rhetoric that is often demeaning explicitly and/or implicitly. On top of this the goal of the protest is to change the "bad" behavior. This seems like a form of bullying.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned, several times in this thread now, how it had to be directed at an individual, as opposed to the general public or society at large? It's a rather fundamental difference.


So protesting Casey Anthony, Bernie Madoff, or a convicted sex offender moving into you neighborhood is off limits?
 
2011-11-04 01:02:16 PM  

SquiggelyGrounders: So protesting Casey Anthony, Bernie Madoff, or a convicted sex offender moving into you neighborhood is off limits?


Are you doing so purely to attack them as a person for no reason beyond dislike? Then yes, it's off limits. Like it or not, they are people with rights. Being convicted of a crime does not change that. If all they are doing is moving in to a new location to live, then you have no legitimate grounds for complaint. The most you could do is make sure the sex offender abides by any ongoing restrictions imposed by their sentencing.

You don't have to like them. You do have to refrain from harassing them. It's really very simple.
 
2011-11-04 02:35:35 PM  

Paris1127: Michigan's motto is Si Quæris Peninsulam Amœnam Circumspice, "if you seek a pleasant peninsula, look around you." With this piece of shiat bill, they should really reconsider modifiying the motto... Any suggestions?


"If you seek a pleasant penis boy, watch your back"
 
2011-11-04 08:34:58 PM  

Devolving_Spud: sheilanagig: You know, it occurs to me that religion is more of an artificial designation than homosexuality. At least science supports the idea of homosexuality being a natural variation. Religion is only cultural, and which one you get is largely determined by where you are born. You can also choose to stop being religious.

Are you suggesting religion is a lifestyle choice?

I like the cut of your jib.


Why yes, yes I am. I just don't like the idea of giving the religious a pass to pick on people. Even worse is the idea that they get a pass to pick on kids who don't conform to their idea of "right".
 
2011-11-06 12:37:26 PM  

Kazan: why is it that you're always carrying water for the worst bigots around?


Why do I believe in the first amendment? Cuz it's kinda important.

Kazan: whenever it comes to religion you suck up to the most despicable worst of them


Have an example or are you completely making this up?

Kazan: how do you reconcile this hateful douchebag loving religious side of you (that's TOTALLY unchristian) to the rest of the time when you're a reasonably intelligent person


I'm not Christian. I'm not even religious. How do you reconcile that with your made up narrative about me?

Kazan: ok then, that means it's ok for me to call you a "pathetic sack of human shiat who doesn't have the mental fortitude to be done with childish fairy tales" every time i see you. after all, that's a "sincerely held moral conviction" of mine.


Fair enough. Hey, I think you're also pathetic sack of human shiat who doesn't have the mental fortitude to be done with childish fairy tales. But I don't sincerely hold that moral conviction. I'm just being a dickhead to you for shiats and giggles.

Now sit down for this - even this type of speech of yours/mine is protected. I can say whatever the fark I want. It's almost like there's some sort of right that protects speech.

The difference between you and me Kazan, is I don't want to force or impose my beliefs upon other people. You do. I get it, you're atheist. So am I. But I don't want to force atheist beliefs on the tards who are religious, I want to let them continue to be religious. You don't. It is what it is.
 
2011-11-06 12:41:28 PM  

YouAreItNoTagBacks: /false equivalencies make you look like a dickcheeseburger (see that was rude and not exactly appropriate, but it's not like I called you a horse-farking cracker)


Are you bullying me? If we were in school, should I be able to call the cops on you for this?
 
2011-11-06 03:46:11 PM  

lennavan: Are you bullying me? If we were in school, should I be able to call the cops on you for this?


Yes, actually, if you are being bullied in school to the point that it legally constitutes harassment, you should indeed be able to call the cops. After all, minors already get lenient treatment from the courts specifically to account for their diminished responsibility. Actually turning a blind eye to harassment sends the message that if you strong or popular you can get away with pushing people around without consequence. That's not the lesson you want a minor who shows a propensity for social aggression learning.
 
Displayed 311 of 311 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report