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  
•       •       •

6704 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Nov 2011 at 3:27 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



311 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 311 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report