Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Suit by Covington Catholic student against Washington Post dismissed"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous] [quote]Should have said "rigid and smiling" - the smile increases the menace as its not a real smile. He isnt happy, he isnt engaged in some joyful pursuit. That "smile" also sends a message, and not a nice one. Srriously, anyone who understands normal social clues can understand the teenager's message.[/quote] [quote]Agree completely. The kid's behavior is not respectful. [/quote] So here's the thing, folks. It's YOUR interpretation of a smile. So . . . a smile doesn't land you in jail. lol - You wouldn't last a day teaching HS students. [/quote] Yes. People who lack social graces shouldn’t be jailed. But not being a crime does not make it any less disrespectful. And we can agree to disagree. No need to resort to attacks and insults. [/quote] DP. So what would you have preferred? You’re outraged that Sandman smiled, remained silent, and maintained eye contact with Phillips. Would you have preferred he scowl and shout obscenities? Why is it, exactly, you think this kid should have done after Phillips made a beeline for him, chanting and drumming in his face, in a clear attempt to intimidate Sandman? Do tell.[/quote] Walk away and take the "high road" if he really believed he was being confrontational or was fearful (here's a hint: he didn't think that). That's the problem when you waltz into town on your religious/moral high horse, dictating how other people should act: people expect you to act like it and not just when it's convenient. Big fail on that kid and that school for not teaching or preparing them better on that front. [/quote] Oh, please. [b]He didn’t “waltz into town” on any high horse. I’m pro-choice and he had as much right to protest/march as anyone else. Kind of sounds like you’re saying only people who agree with YOU should have the right to express themselves through protest. That’s not how it works. [/b] As for how he acted with Phillips, I don’t blame him for simply standing still. Phillips claims he was heading up to the Lincoln Memorial which is clearly BS. He had a clear path up the steps to the memorial but chose instead to deliberately target the student group and specifically, Sandman. Sandman didn’t need to move - Phillips did. [/quote] I didn't say he didn't have the "right to protest" or march. Nor did I say he didn't have the right to express themselves. I'm well aware of how it works, having marched myself in other situations. HOWEVER, the basis of their protest is morality and religion. This is a position that is expressly based on right vs. wrong. So, yes, if you come into town on that premise, you should act in accordance with that. Respect for life, all life is precious, all life has meaning . . . . heard ad nauseum from the "pro life" folks. But, apparently that doesn't extend to all situations, as that kid made clear. EVEN if you think Phillips was doing something wrong (and I don't), yes, he should have walked away. He should have taken that moral high ground that he is requiring of other people. Sandman didn't "need to move" but, again, that passive hostility was evident in his fact and his actions, and the actions of his classmates. It also shows his privilege and the poor oversight by the school. By saying he didn't "have to" ignores that just b/c he didn't have to does not mean he should not have moved, diffused the situation, and taken the high road. I'm sure Jesus would have stood his ground b/c he didn't have to move, right? But, you see, the very fact that you disagree with me indicates the WaPost did nothing wrong. We are looking at the same event with different conclusions. You're flat wrong, of course. But that's fine. And does not a defamation case make.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics