Students wear "Straight Pride" shirts with Bible verses calling for death

[ponderingturtle]

Conclusion: you do not have evidence at all to support your claim.

Conclusion you can't realize that 30% is enough greater than 3-5% that it really does not matter what percent of gay men practice anal sex. They are still greatly outnumbered by straight people who practice anal sex.

 

[sgtbaker]

You know, I don't think people should be proud to be gay any more then they should be proud to be straight. That's just sexual orientation.

They should be proud to not be silenced by bigotry however. That's the real accomplishment.

Well said! That's what I was getting at.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Conclusion you can't realize that 30% is enough greater than 3-5% that it really does not matter what percent of gay men practice anal sex. They are still greatly outnumbered by straight people who practice anal sex.

30% of 1,000 can be lower that 3% of 1,000,000.

Your claim is flawed.

It is not based in facts, but in a fictional premise in your mind.

 

[bikerdruid]

It is not based in facts, but in a fictional premise in your mind.

as are, seemingly, most of your claims.

 

[SnakeTongue]

as are, seemingly, most of your claims.

Why you like to answer comments that are not directed to you?

I did not receive any evidence from your which prove that my claims are not based in facts, including the claims I made in this thread.

When you will present any reference or evidence to contest the veracity of my claims?

Just resort to "Ad Hominem" will not support your "unusual figures of speech".

 

[ThunderChunky]

I've long called for mandatory school uniforms.

Having lived through uniforms in public school from the end of elementary through high school. I will simply call you a Nazi and move on.

 

[ponderingturtle]

30% of 1,000 can be lower that 3% of 1,000,000.

Your claim is flawed.

It is not based in facts, but in a fictional premise in your mind.

So you really do think homosexuals massively outnumber heterosexuals. Weird.

It talks about 30% of heterosexuals who make up at least 90% of the total population, can some how be out numbered by 3-5% of the total population, because some how total population is not a constant.

 

[SnakeTongue]

So you really do think homosexuals massively outnumber heterosexuals. Weird.

Where I exactly did say that?

It talks about 30% of heterosexuals who make up at least 90% of the total population, can some how be out numbered by 3-5% of the total population, because some how total population is not a constant.

Yet, not a single shred of evidence for your fictional mathematics.

You would to prove to me that such "30% of heterosexuals" engage in frequent anal sexual intercourse, not just in an occasional experience which just happened few times.

But without references to serious statistics, you cannot prove anything at all.

 

[bikerdruid]

But without references to serious statistics, you cannot prove anything at all.

...yet, in other threads, you do this with great regularity.

 

[MikeMangum]

Do you usually defend people who call for the death of others?

Many people do indeed defend the First Amendment rights of others. Quoting a bilibical verse does not rise to the level of a threat, and while it may it stupid and intolerant, people have a right to be stupid and intolerant. They even have a right to publicly express their stupidity and intolerance, even if someone finds it offensive.

Schools can enforce a dress code, but it must be a content neutral dress code. Punishing students for the clothes they wear based on the content of any speech conveyed simply because that content is 'disruptive' gives a veto over others' First Amendment rights to those who are willing to disrupt.

 

[themusicteacher]

Many people do indeed defend the First Amendment rights of others. Quoting a bilibical verse does not rise to the level of a threat, and while it may it stupid and intolerant, people have a right to be stupid and intolerant. They even have a right to publicly express their stupidity and intolerance, even if someone finds it offensive.

Schools can enforce a dress code, but it must be a content neutral dress code. Punishing students for the clothes they wear based on the content of any speech conveyed simply because that content is 'disruptive' gives a veto over others' First Amendment rights to those who are willing to disrupt.

Wrong. The government can and does regulate free speech rights when it may cause reasonable cause harm to others. Think of the law that makes it illegal to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded building when there is not, in fact, a fire. The price of living in a society, as we do, is that sometimes our rights are curtailed when they impose an unnecessary risk to some person/people. The same goes for public educational settings: if the dress or behavior is reasoned to be disruptive to the learning environment, it can be banned. Don't like it? Petition the government in order to change laws you think infringe on rights but it is the current fact we live under and have lived under since the inception of the USA. End of story.

 

[Babbylonian]

Many people do indeed defend the First Amendment rights of others. Quoting a bilibical verse does not rise to the level of a threat, and while it may it stupid and intolerant, people have a right to be stupid and intolerant. They even have a right to publicly express their stupidity and intolerance, even if someone finds it offensive.

I disagree. In the context of an anti-bullying event - and bullying is an activity which often (always?) rises to the level of a crime that simply isn't prosecuted - those T-shirts are absolutely a threat.

Schools can enforce a dress code, but it must be a content neutral dress code. Punishing students for the clothes they wear based on the content of any speech conveyed simply because that content is 'disruptive' gives a veto over others' First Amendment rights to those who are willing to disrupt.

Wrong again. Schools can enforce just about any dress code they want, apart from prohibiting well-recognized religious garb (no banning of burkas, yarmulkes, etc.). In fact, content is the most commonly disallowed attribute in school dress codes; no explicit language, explicit pictures, gang signs, etc. Minors don't have full rights of citizenship (including 1st amendment rights), just as they don't have full responsibilities; schools have always had a wide purview in terms of controlling student behavior.