Students Kicked Off US School Campus For Wearing US Flag [modified]
-
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html[^] This is just screaming lawsuit.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
modified on Thursday, May 6, 2010 5:18 PM
You want to hear something even more ridiculous than the start of the story...look here: Students Rally In Morgan Hill After Flag Flap[^] or American Flag Clothing Sparks New Protest[^] Basically, a large group of Mexican-American students (conflicting reports of between dozens and 200) walked out of class yesterday to demand to speak to the mayor and request that the amerian flag-wearing students be suspended. Amazingly, even in as liberal and illegal immigrant friendly as San Francisco is, according to the NBC Bay area website viewers, 93% are furious over it (though it doesn't say which side they are no...though the majority of comments that I saw are in favor of the American flag)
-
You know, I woulda been mad at them wearing the flag because, They aren't supposed to![^] Somebody is cheapening our flag to make a buck. Selling one of those shirts would be a misdemeanor in DC...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
Well, technically, none of them were wearing the flag. They had red, white, and blue and one guy had a shirt that looked like the flag but the stars were positioned incorrectly (as in 8 across the top row) or didn't have enough stars. The others just had red, white, and blue colors.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The unknown can scare people.
I think you hit the nail on my head. :wtf: (that hurt) But the hew and cry, by and large, is from 'greens', and I am not convinced that hurting us hurts the environment.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
No, hurting us would probably IMPROVE the environment. The problem is that most temperature changes that would hurt us, would also change the environment. Parts of it would be damaged, and other parts would flourish. Some species may be wiped out entirely, and others would spread to new regions. The ecosystem would adapt and continue in some manner, whether or not we're still here.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Well, technically, none of them were wearing the flag. They had red, white, and blue and one guy had a shirt that looked like the flag but the stars were positioned incorrectly (as in 8 across the top row) or didn't have enough stars. The others just had red, white, and blue colors.
The code covers using parts of the flag incorrectly too. ;) They were pretty hard assed about that. Have you ever read the history of the national anthem? Those guys were hardcore.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
No, hurting us would probably IMPROVE the environment. The problem is that most temperature changes that would hurt us, would also change the environment. Parts of it would be damaged, and other parts would flourish. Some species may be wiped out entirely, and others would spread to new regions. The ecosystem would adapt and continue in some manner, whether or not we're still here.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
The problem is that most temperature changes that would hurt us, would also change the environment.
So, my point: The environment has been changing for 4 billion years. Other then us, what is so special about the current environment? Why shouldn't it change? It is natural for it to change.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
You know, at one point I joked with my wife about moving there to get away from it all... like common sense, rationality, or running water... grats on leaving!
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
grats on leaving!
The wifey gets the credit for this one, not me. She landed a position at (CSS, you're going to love this... ;) )a federal research facility in New Mexico. Hell of a score. One of the perks is a 3 bdrm, 1 1/2 bath house with all utilities, for $250 per month. It won't exactly have the acreage we've gotten used to, but it's just the opportunity we need to recoup after the pounding we took on the house and property here.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
grats on leaving!
The wifey gets the credit for this one, not me. She landed a position at (CSS, you're going to love this... ;) )a federal research facility in New Mexico. Hell of a score. One of the perks is a 3 bdrm, 1 1/2 bath house with all utilities, for $250 per month. It won't exactly have the acreage we've gotten used to, but it's just the opportunity we need to recoup after the pounding we took on the house and property here.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
Nice! Grats
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The problem is that most temperature changes that would hurt us, would also change the environment.
So, my point: The environment has been changing for 4 billion years. Other then us, what is so special about the current environment? Why shouldn't it change? It is natural for it to change.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Other then us, what is so special about the current environment? Why shouldn't it change?
Cause we don't want to live in domed citites?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The problem is that most temperature changes that would hurt us, would also change the environment.
So, my point: The environment has been changing for 4 billion years. Other then us, what is so special about the current environment? Why shouldn't it change? It is natural for it to change.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Well, once again, they want to preserve the environment just the way it is, usually to benefit ourselves. Usually there's some sort of justification for preserving a species, whether its extinction will reduce our food supply, allow some kind of pests to flourish, or just be pretty to look at...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
Other then us, what is so special about the current environment? Why shouldn't it change?
Cause we don't want to live in domed citites?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Well, once again, they want to preserve the environment just the way it is, usually to benefit ourselves. Usually there's some sort of justification for preserving a species, whether its extinction will reduce our food supply, allow some kind of pests to flourish, or just be pretty to look at...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I think it's great to study it, if it's real study,I'm all for basic research. But I wonder why do people think it is the best the way it is? Change is constant,and the Earth has been changing for 4+billion years. How do we know keeping it the same is better than letting it change? That's a lot of either blind fear of change, or hubris.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
But I wonder why do people think it is the best the way it is?
Ever try moving population centers with millions of people? We have a number of major cities in the US alone that could wind up underwater with a bit of change in the sea levels. Given human tendencies I'd figure they'd be more likely to intentionally screw with the climate to keep things as they are rather than rebuilding entire cities somewhere safer. Or more likely yet, let the old city sink and find a way to exploit those who were stuck there.
-
See? Sometimes we can do more than just agree to disagree. :laugh:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Hey, you and fat_boy painted me as a radical environmentalist... Doesn't mean it's true. I'm a programmer... My decisions are governed by facts and logic. Same reason theism and religion don't fit into my mind.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Hey, you and fat_boy painted me as a radical environmentalist... Doesn't mean it's true. I'm a programmer... My decisions are governed by facts and logic. Same reason theism and religion don't fit into my mind.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Hey, you and fat_boy painted me as a radical environmentalist
Just fat_boy. At least in this thread, I was hacking on him, not you. My memory is too short to remember if I did in another thread. :-O
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm a programmer... My decisions are governed by facts and logic.
It could be true in your case, but it doesn't always follow. :sigh:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Same reason theism and religion don't fit into my mind.
I know you won't understand, but I came to God through engineering and physics, through a rational process. Nobody on either side seems to be willing or able to accept how it happened. Both say you can't get there rationally, but they say it for different reasons. :rolleyes: So you are in direct agreement with most Christians I know. :laugh:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
But I wonder why do people think it is the best the way it is?
Ever try moving population centers with millions of people? We have a number of major cities in the US alone that could wind up underwater with a bit of change in the sea levels. Given human tendencies I'd figure they'd be more likely to intentionally screw with the climate to keep things as they are rather than rebuilding entire cities somewhere safer. Or more likely yet, let the old city sink and find a way to exploit those who were stuck there.
Distind wrote:
Ever try moving population centers with millions of people?
Well, I tried, but it didn't work out real well, as no one listened. :laugh:
Distind wrote:
We have a number of major cities in the US alone that could wind up underwater
But that has nothing to do with environmentalism or 'green'ness, it just another selfish way to put humans first. Most environmentalists say do it for the planet, and my point is that change may be what is best for the environment. Anyone who says change is bad is either selfish or does not understand how the global environment has worked, historically, even to a first order approximation. :rolleyes: Again, let me point out that I would like it to stay the way it is, for my own selfish reasons. :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.