OH_Homeschooler Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Sigh. I'm just not coming across, I guess. I need to go back and read the article for clarity. I'll edit then. I guess not. There is no "right" timeline for grieving at any age. And that applies to any loss of a parental relationship, not just one ending in death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Is that really all the ACLU is? It was my understanding they have a very liberal agenda. Granted, I read that several years ago and I haven't looked at them much since. But considering I'm not liberal by most definitions of the word, I would say of course I believe in the basics of our rights as American citizens, but my understanding of the ACLU is that those are not their main agenda. Many people believe fighting for a person's right to believe in a cause means that you believe in that cause too. I think they are mistaken. They frequently represent people/organizations that are more liberal. They ALSO fight for conservative groups such as pro-life groups or religious groups. BUT, the "liberal" side does not complain when the ACLU represents those groups because the "liberal" side understands the purpose of the ACLU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 You might want to look up the ACLU, too. They had a big case defending Rush Limbaugh a few years ago. It probably didn't get much press in the conservative media, though. I assume that's where you heard that the ACLU is the big bad liberals. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Is that really all the ACLU is? It was my understanding they have a very liberal agenda. Granted, I read that several years ago and I haven't looked at them much since. But considering I'm not liberal by most definitions of the word, I would say of course I believe in the basics of our rights as American citizens, but my understanding of the ACLU is that those are not their main agenda. http://www.aclu.org/about-aclu-0 The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. These rights include: Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination. Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake. Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs. The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities. The constitutional rights apply to everybody. If defending those rights even for women, people of color and homosexuals makes the ACLU "liberal", that simply shows how far our society is from equal constitutional rights for all members. Here is a list of key issues: http://www.aclu.org/key-issues If you were specifically thinking about religious issues, you might want to read this: http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression The ACLU vigorously defends the rights of all Americans to practice their religion, but because the ACLU is often better known for its work preventing the government from promoting and funding selected religious activities, it is sometimes wrongly assumed that the ACLU does not zealously defend the rights of all religious believers to practice their faith. The actions described here – over half of which were brought on behalf of self-identified Christians – reveal just how mistaken such assumptions are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Really? Have they come out in favor of the inflammatory Muslim movie and the director's right to expression? This one is just too easy. In a statement to The Daily Caller, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project Ben Wizner said, “To our knowledge, no U.S. government official has questioned the right of anyone to make this repellent film, and rightly so. We do get concerned when the federal government appears to throw its weight behind a request for self-censorship, but we don’t know the details of the government’s interactions with Google.†http://news.yahoo.com/aclu-concerned-white-house-request-youtube-review-anti-230405403.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Many people believe fighting for a person's right to believe in a cause means that you believe in that cause too. Yes. Exactly. I think the WBC have every right to hold their signs. I also think they're vicious thugs and I hope there's a special pit in hell for them to burn in. I don't see these beliefs as mutually contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Yes. Exactly. I think the WBC have every right to hold their signs. I also think they're vicious thugs and I hope there's a special pit in hell for them to burn in. I don't see these beliefs as mutually contradictory. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 we don’t know the details of the government’s interactions with Google.†:lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Yes. Exactly. I think the WBC have every right to hold their signs. I also think they're vicious thugs and I hope there's a special pit in hell for them to burn in. I don't see these beliefs as mutually contradictory. :iagree: If the asinine and deranged did not have the right to wave around their signs, how would we readily know where to send the rubber trucks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeacefulChaos Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 You hate the ACLU and you don't even know what they are or what they do? :001_huh: Apparently not. The last I saw of them they were all pro-radical feminist and pedophile. So yeah, maybe I had the wrong idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeacefulChaos Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I guess not. There is no "right" timeline for grieving at any age. And that applies to any loss of a parental relationship, not just one ending in death. Read the post. Not saying that to be snarky - just saying that I edited and I didn't say that. I never said that, actually. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 The last I saw of them they were all pro-radical feminist and pedophile. . Huh? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 The ACLU has defended the free speech rights of the American Nazi Party and the Westboro Baptist Church, and fought against the government's seizure of Rush Limbaugh's medical records in his drug abuse case. Not exactly "liberal" causes. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Read the post. Not saying that to be snarky - just saying that I edited and I didn't say that. I never said that, actually. :) Yes, I read your edits. You did say something about a 13 year old needing to suck it up while it would be okay for an 8 year old to cry, or whatever. I know I must seem like a weak person who never lived life even 3 decades later, but my dad dying really is not an issue at the forefront of my mind. That is until I read stuff like what's in this thread, and the memories come rushing back. My mom did a great job of raising me alone. Now that I'm a parent, I just can't imagine seeing my kids in that kind of pain. That's where I'm coming from, and that's why so many of these comments seem callous to me. Edited September 19, 2012 by OH_Homeschooler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Huh? :confused: I think she's referring to their dealings with NAMBLA. I disapprove of NAMBLA as much as I do WBC. But, they both have a right to spew whatever garbage they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeacefulChaos Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Yes. Exactly. I think the WBC have every right to hold their signs. I also think they're vicious thugs and I hope there's a special pit in hell for them to burn in. I don't see these beliefs as mutually contradictory. :lol: I sat here and thought, what's WBC? Then it dawned on me... oh, THOSE people. :ack2: http://www.aclu.org/about-aclu-0 The constitutional rights apply to everybody. If defending those rights even for women, people of color and homosexuals makes the ACLU "liberal", that simply shows how far our society is from equal constitutional rights for all members. Here is a list of key issues: http://www.aclu.org/key-issues If you were specifically thinking about religious issues, you might want to read this: http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression Thanks. I'll be looking into it. :) I may actually agree with them, as I don't agree with the 'religious right' people who want prayer back in schools and such. But I can't say that out loud IRL - I think there are some around (church, family, etc) who would disown me for saying it. ;) Huh? :confused: Yeah, apparently my research skills weren't much when I was 19 (I think that's when I took the class where I came across ACLU in something online, claiming that. Now that I think about it, I'm thinking I don't even know the source of it or anything. I may have been duped...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momma2three Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Apparently not. The last I saw of them they were all pro-radical feminist and pedophile. So yeah, maybe I had the wrong idea. I think you need to reevaluate where you get your information about current events, and maybe branch out to more factually correct sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeacefulChaos Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Yes, I read your edits. You did say something about a 13 year old needing to suck it up while it would be okay for an 8 year old to cry, or whatever. I'm sorry you read it that way. Obviously you want to see me in that light, so that's fine. What you are saying I think and what I really think are not the same thing, but I'm not going to keep rehashing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I think she's referring to their dealings with NAMBLA. I disapprove of NAMBLA as much as I do WBC. But, they both have a right to spew whatever garbage they want. :iagree: To quote what is often attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The Bill of Rights does not discriminate between well thought, sensible speech I happen to like and nutcase ramblings. (Even though this would sometimes be really nice ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeacefulChaos Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I think she's referring to their dealings with NAMBLA. I disapprove of NAMBLA as much as I do WBC. But, they both have a right to spew whatever garbage they want. Yes! That's the one!! Though (and as I said, I was 19 and taking a college class - I actually got an A, which in retrospect I'm wondering about :lol: ) at the time I wasn't aware that it was the norm for them to defend everyone. Whatever website it was that I found it on listed NAMBLA in particular. And no, it wasn't FoxNews or anything like that. :lol: I honestly have no clue what it was. It could have been complete fiction for all I remember or know now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeacefulChaos Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Yes, I read your edits. You did say something about a 13 year old needing to suck it up while it would be okay for an 8 year old to cry, or whatever. I know I must seem like a weak person who never lived life even 3 decades later, but my dad dying really is not an issue at the forefront of my mind. That is until I read stuff like what's in this thread, and the memories come rushing back. My mom did a great job of raising me alone. Now that I'm a parent, I just can't imagine seeing my kids in that kind of pain. That's where I'm coming from, and that's why so many of these comments seem callous to me. Oh, my, no, I never want to see my kids in pain like that. It would be awful. I can't even bear to think about it. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 :iagree:To quote what is often attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The Bill of Rights does not discriminate between well thought, sensible speech I happen to like and nutcase ramblings. (Even though this would sometimes be really nice ;-) One of my favorite instances of nutcase ramblings? When Tim Robbins was ON TV griping about being "censored." HOW STUPID!!!! This is why I can't be president. I would want to censor stupid people, which would shut down entire tv stations, probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Yes! That's the one!!Though (and as I said, I was 19 and taking a college class - I actually got an A, which in retrospect I'm wondering about :lol: ) at the time I wasn't aware that it was the norm for them to defend everyone. Whatever website it was that I found it on listed NAMBLA in particular. And no, it wasn't FoxNews or anything like that. :lol: I honestly have no clue what it was. It could have been complete fiction for all I remember or know now... No, it was probably someone who wrote down a list of all of the really ugly causes they've defended in the name of freedom of speech and left off the ones where you would've said 'Well duh, of COURSE they should be able to do that.' I really admire you, BTW, for having the courage to investigate long-held beliefs. There are many people who won't even think about something because they *know* it to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 One of my favorite instances of nutcase ramblings? When Tim Robbins was ON TV griping about being "censored." HOW STUPID!!!! This is why I can't be president. I would want to censor stupid people, which would shut down entire tv stations, probably. TV, newspapers, and a lot of political discourse, for a given value of stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momma2three Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 No, it was probably someone who wrote down a list of all of the really ugly causes they've defended in the name of freedom of speech and left off the ones where you would've said 'Well duh, of COURSE they should be able to do that.' I really admire you, BTW, for having the courage to investigate long-held beliefs. There are many people who won't even think about something because they *know* it to be true. :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 So, as far as I can gather from those who object to the RI decision: 1. Father-daughter dances are cherished traditions that create moving experiences and lovely memories. It spoils things for everyone and ruins everyone's good time if father-daughter dances cannot occur, because they are just. That. Special. 2. Excluded kids should just suck it up and move on. It's just a dance. It's nothing to make a big deal about - so some kids can't go, whatever, who cares. It can't be both ways at once, y'all. :lol::lol::lol::iagree::iagree::iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I agree that the problem would have been solved by a parent/child dance. I just can't understand why a school board would rather the ACLU get involved then make changes on their own (unless they were not approached to begin with). So now there is no dance for anyone. So we just assume they weren't approached? Because school boards always do the reasonable and logical thing. And news outlets never leave out stuff to make a piece more sensational. Therefore it MUST be the mom's fault. So, as far as I can gather from those who object to the RI decision: 1. Father-daughter dances are cherished traditions that create moving experiences and lovely memories. It spoils things for everyone and ruins everyone's good time if father-daughter dances cannot occur, because they are just. That. Special. 2. Excluded kids should just suck it up and move on. It's just a dance. It's nothing to make a big deal about - so some kids can't go, whatever, who cares. It can't be both ways at once, y'all. :iagree::iagree: Apparently not. The last I saw of them they were all pro-radical feminist and pedophile. So yeah, maybe I had the wrong idea. :lol::lol::lol: Um yeah. Maybe a little. Part of the issue the ACLU runs into is that they support EVERYONE's rights.. So groups that want to attack them always have fodder, because there's always some god-awful group that is still permitted free speech no matter how abhorrent their platform is, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 TV, newspapers, and a lot of political discourse, for a given value of stupid. Most of the western world, really, if one really censors all the stupid. It would be quieter though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeacefulChaos Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 No, it was probably someone who wrote down a list of all of the really ugly causes they've defended in the name of freedom of speech and left off the ones where you would've said 'Well duh, of COURSE they should be able to do that.' I really admire you, BTW, for having the courage to investigate long-held beliefs. There are many people who won't even think about something because they *know* it to be true. Well, thanks. As the thread has continued and I've found myself befuddled, I've been feeling more and more like kicking myself. :tongue_smilie: Oh, well. This always happens to me on these threads. On one hand I end up thinking, wow, I should shut up, or wow, I shouldn't have said anything to begin with... but then I guess I end up learning something new out of it, and I can't really find any harm in that, right? Though I often make a complete (and I don't cuss, but this is really the only word I can think of to describe it) @$$ of myself in the meantime. Lord have mercy. :svengo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Well, thanks. As the thread has continued and I've found myself befuddled, I've been feeling more and more like kicking myself. :tongue_smilie: Oh, well. This always happens to me on these threads. On one hand I end up thinking, wow, I should shut up, or wow, I shouldn't have said anything to begin with... but then I guess I end up learning something new out of it, and I can't really find any harm in that, right? Though I often make a complete (and I don't cuss, but this is really the only word I can think of to describe it) @$$ of myself in the meantime. Lord have mercy. :svengo: You have never done that in any thread I have read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeacefulChaos Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 You have never done that in any thread I have read. Well, my friend, I feel like I do. Thanks, though. :) On the upside, with all the new info I'm gathering and the new perspectives I'm getting on life and such from the WTM board, I will make one less ignorant conservative Christian out there. :D :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 So, as far as I can gather from those who object to the RI decision: 1. Father-daughter dances are cherished traditions that create moving experiences and lovely memories. It spoils things for everyone and ruins everyone's good time if father-daughter dances cannot occur, because they are just. That. Special. 2. Excluded kids should just suck it up and move on. It's just a dance. It's nothing to make a big deal about - so some kids can't go, whatever, who cares. It can't be both ways at once, y'all. It CAN be both ways. Everything joyous in life will cause someone else pain. EVERYTHING. My husband and daughter enjoyed these dances when she was little. There is nothing wrong with them having that memory. You catch joy when you can. The girls without fathers went with grandpa or uncles. Some of the girls WITH fathers didn't attend. Had a mother said 'I need the bring my daughter so she can attend' the answer would be 'Of Course you may bring her.' Including the girl, mother and all, is the way to go. Cancelling the event excludes everyone. There will always be something someone can't do. My son stopped walking by age 10. My family doesn't demand that publically funded sports be eliminated from our community. We don't picket soccer games and go on about how it pains my son to see other children running. Of course it's hard, but you cannot begrudge others that experience. You make every reasonable accommodation and you do it knowing that there is no such thing as including EVERYONE. The answer isn't to cancell everything. The best we can do is make sure we aren't deliberately and unreasonably excluding people. I don't know WHY the event was cancelled instead of letting the mother bring her daughter. It feels like there is more to the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Marple Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 :iagree: This thread is a symptom of the "culture of rage" that depends on unreality and distorting of the truth of situations to maximize anger. When one reads the real story, it is ho hum. Father Daughter dances were not banned in Rhode Island. Rather it was deemed inappropriate for a school district to sponsor such events. Big difference, and the correct policy IMO. Bill :iagree: Are my DH and I the only ones here who find the whole institution of "father/daughter dances" slightly weird and creepy? I'm right there with you. Weird and creepy :tongue_smilie: But I know plenty of really nice people and families who participate in those functions. But for me, blech! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary in VA Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 To play devil's advocate (and as someone who lost her father at age 10), I could sort of understand. THIS made me sad: It just makes me sad that this girl and many like her, whose fathers are not around because they are deceased, deadbeats, or whatever, is further alienated from her peers. It's like a slap in the face to be told "Hey you don't have a dad and that means you're not good enough to have fun with us." That's just my perspective on this. ETA: I still remember how stigmatizing it was when I was in school, when people asked about my dad and I had to tell them he died. I felt so different and alone because so few kids went through that. Fortunately my school district did not have such dances but I can only imagine how hurt I would have been to see all my friends preparing to go to one. My dad died when I was 13. I understand how it hurts and how hard it is when someone asks about your father. I hated that question because my answer always resulted in the questioner feeling terrible and an awkward silence. But my opinion differs. In my opinion the fact that every girl doesn't have a father is no reason that the vast majority of people should miss out on wonderful occasions. Obviously there should be sensitivity and leeway in who is allowed to take the young lady, but banning is overkill. One of the best lessons my mother ever taught me, "Life is not fair." She was right, and so many of the crazy rules and laws of today are the ones trying to make absolutely EVERYTHING fair. It's impossible. Just my 2 cents, Mary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trinchick Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 My dad died when I was 13. I understand how it hurts and how hard it is when someone asks about your father. I hated that question because my answer always resulted in the questioner feeling terrible and an awkward silence. But my opinion differs. In my opinion the fact that every girl doesn't have a father is no reason that the vast majority of people should miss out on wonderful occasions. Obviously there should be sensitivity and leeway in who is allowed to take the young lady, but banning is overkill. One of the best lessons my mother ever taught me, "Life is not fair." She was right, and so many of the crazy rules and laws of today are the ones trying to make absolutely EVERYTHING fair. It's impossible. Just my 2 cents, Mary :iagree: My father died when I was four. Father/daughter events did make me feel awkward and different. Once or twice I brought an uncle as a substitute, but found that it made me feel even more different and drew attention to an area of my life that I didn't necessarily want people to focus on. Like the pp said, life isn't fair. You can't make everyone feel good and special and included all the time. Kids have to get used to all different aspects of their lives and should not grow up expecting the world to conform to their situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 It CAN be both ways. Everything joyous in life will cause someone else pain. EVERYTHING. My husband and daughter enjoyed these dances when she was little. There is nothing wrong with them having that memory. You catch joy when you can. The girls without fathers went with grandpa or uncles. Some of the girls WITH fathers didn't attend. Had a mother said 'I need the bring my daughter so she can attend' the answer would be 'Of Course you may bring her.' Including the girl, mother and all, is the way to go. Cancelling the event excludes everyone. There will always be something someone can't do. My son stopped walking by age 10. My family doesn't demand that publically funded sports be eliminated from our community. We don't picket soccer games and go on about how it pains my son to see other children running. Of course it's hard, but you cannot begrudge others that experience. You make every reasonable accommodation and you do it knowing that there is no such thing as including EVERYONE. The answer isn't to cancell everything. The best we can do is make sure we aren't deliberately and unreasonably excluding people. I don't know WHY the event was cancelled instead of letting the mother bring her daughter. It feels like there is more to the story. :iagree: It's reverse discrimination against girls who have fathers. I didn't have a father growing up. He and mom divorced by the time I was 3. I am not a victim, I don't dwell on what I couldn't do, I didn't think it was unfair. Life is not fair. Ever. First lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 It CAN be both ways. Everything joyous in life will cause someone else pain. EVERYTHING. My husband and daughter enjoyed these dances when she was little. There is nothing wrong with them having that memory. You catch joy when you can. The girls without fathers went with grandpa or uncles. Some of the girls WITH fathers didn't attend. Had a mother said 'I need the bring my daughter so she can attend' the answer would be 'Of Course you may bring her.' Including the girl, mother and all, is the way to go. Cancelling the event excludes everyone. There will always be something someone can't do. My son stopped walking by age 10. My family doesn't demand that publically funded sports be eliminated from our community. We don't picket soccer games and go on about how it pains my son to see other children running. Of course it's hard, but you cannot begrudge others that experience. You make every reasonable accommodation and you do it knowing that there is no such thing as including EVERYONE. The answer isn't to cancell everything. The best we can do is make sure we aren't deliberately and unreasonably excluding people. I don't know WHY the event was cancelled instead of letting the mother bring her daughter. It feels like there is more to the story. I don't really care all that much about the dance but honestly, you are on a roll as this is the second post by you that I want to stand up and cheer about. Bravo. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) The debate is not over whether life is fair. The debate is over what the law says about equal access. The law says they cannot use public funds to host discriminatory events. Private organizations (PTA, churches, private individuals in their basement) can still host these events *all day long*. The whole thing is more of the misleading "the sky is falling" falderal that we've, sadly, come to expect from the media. Pathetic. Edited September 19, 2012 by Mrs Mungo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 The debate is not over whether life is fair. The debate is over what the law says about equal access. The law says they cannot use public funds to host discriminatory events. Private organizations (PTA, churches, private individuals in their basement) can still host these events *all day long*. The whole thing is more misleading "the sky is falling" falderal that we've, sadly, come to expect from the media. Pathetic. This is the crux of the matter in a nut shell. Whether anyone thinks this type of dance is wholesome, not wholesome, or somewhere in between, the federal law is that the school cannot use public monies for such an activity. It's a matter of following the law which is why it was shut down. They had been hosting these kinds of social events in the past in violation of the federal law which is now being appropriately applied. Many states have these kinds of laws as well. Nothing is stopping a private entitity from choosing to sponsor this kind of social function. Faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danestress Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Really? Have they come out in favor of the inflammatory Muslim movie and the director's right to expression? http://news.yahoo.com/aclu-concerned-white-house-request-youtube-review-anti-230405403.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 This is the crux of the matter in a nut shell. Whether anyone thinks this type of dance is wholesome, not wholesome, or somewhere in between, the federal law is that the school cannot use public monies for such an activity. It's a matter of following the law which is why it was shut down. They had been hosting these kinds of social events in the past in violation of the federal law which is now being appropriately applied. Many states have these kinds of laws as well. Nothing is stopping a private entitity from choosing to sponsor this kind of social function. They were actually violating state law, according to the article, but I agree otherwise. :) And if true, I find that disturbing. :glare: What aspect is disturbing? That the government asked youtube to check whether the video violated their ToS or that the ACLU would be concerned about such a request? The truth is, people in other countries *do not get* the fact that people in the US can do what they want. The government is neither sponsoring such videos nor forbidding them. To their mind, it must be one or the other. The ACLU's job is protecting free speech, even when that speech is abhorrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 It's reverse discrimination against girls who have fathers. Really? Please explain what "girls who have fathers" are being denied that other students are receiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 My dad died when I was 13. I understand how it hurts and how hard it is when someone asks about your father. I hated that question because my answer always resulted in the questioner feeling terrible and an awkward silence. But my opinion differs. In my opinion the fact that every girl doesn't have a father is no reason that the vast majority of people should miss out on wonderful occasions. Obviously there should be sensitivity and leeway in who is allowed to take the young lady, but banning is overkill. One of the best lessons my mother ever taught me, "Life is not fair." She was right, and so many of the crazy rules and laws of today are the ones trying to make absolutely EVERYTHING fair. It's impossible. Just my 2 cents, Mary Yeah yeah, life isn't fair. But not every girl has to miss out on a father-daughter dance. They are still held by private organizations. No one is trying to stop that. If you were living in Rhode Island and were so upset about this, then you could certainly rent out a ballroom and invite people to your Father-Daughter Dance. Do you get that? I don't think you would get any protests. THE TRADITION CAN STILL BE CARRIED ON. But when you are a kid sitting in your public school class, forced to be there, and all your classmates are talking about the dance that you cannot go to, and you see signs up all over the building advertising it, that is way different than hearing that the Campfire Girls or whatever club is hosting the dance. You don't like it, don't join Campfire Girls. You are not required to be a member of Campfire Girls. Children are generally required to attend school (unless of course they are HSed but many girls in this situation probably have moms who do not have the resources to HS). But as many have pointed out, this isn't about how some people play the victim and just need to learn that life isn't fair. It's about the fact that these publicly-funded dances provided a gender-specific opportunity and excluded half the population from participating. Again, to reiterate what others have said, what if they only funded science classes for boys? Yeah, that would be an uproar. But, but...that's not the same thing. Science is so much more important, right? Well IMO, it is. But the way some of you are carrying on, it's like you wouldn't have had the same opportunities in life if you just couldn't go to the dance with your dad. Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 And if true, I find that disturbing. :glare: Why disturbing? I think YouTube should pull the video, as it is inflammatory hate speech with no redeeming value (as far as I'm concerned), and the sort of thing that should not be allowed dissemination under "terms of service" restrictions. The White House asked YouTube to review whether the video complied with their TOS. That is proper. Here is what the ACLU said: "To our knowledge, no U.S. government official has questioned the right of anyone to make this repellent film, and rightly so. We do get concerned when the federal government appears to throw its weight behind a request for self-censorship, but we don’t know the details of the government’s interactions with Google.†There has been no prior restraint. The government (as the ACLU acknowledges) has not tried to question the free speech rights of making repellent films. The area of *concern* is that an Administration *could* (which is not to say they have) use their power in illegitimate ways to intimidate private companies to censor speech against the will of that private company. For example, if an Administration said, "pull the video or every executive in your company better prepare for an IRS audit," then that sort of behavior would be a legitimate area of *concern* But a president can use his "bully pulpit" to try to influence companies like YouTube and Google on issues like the one at hand. The ACLU is valuable because they the stand for civil rights not being infringed even when the "cause" being protected is an unpopular one. If one thinks about it the threat to our common civil rights is not going to come from popular causes or groups being suppressed. No, it is the rights of "the fringe" that are most likely to be infringed. The ACLU knows this, so they defend unpopular causes. Not because they agree "with the cause," but because they understand if the rights of unpopular speech are not secure then no free speeches secure. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Really? Please explain what "girls who have fathers" are being denied that other students are receiving. Thank you, I didn't even know where to start with that comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 http://news.yahoo.com/aclu-concerned-white-house-request-youtube-review-anti-230405403.html That I can actually get behind. Free speech, is free speech, period. Go ACLU! :tongue_smilie: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I don't want you to be the first person I put on ignore. So, though I see that you've quoted me, I am refusing to engage you. :confused: It seemed like a perfectly valid question to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I imagine the Youtube folks already did it though. And if it's not on Youtube, that doesn't stop it from being somewhere else. And Youtube is private. They can determine if they want the video on there or not. It's not the government's business to tell Youtube anything unless it violates laws or the constitution. Government officials can make suggestions all day long. THEY have a right to free speech too. Unless they are actively using government influence to threaten companies or *insist* on pulling the video, then it's fine. This is not to say I like the idea of the video (can't say if I like the video I did not see it), but I do believe in freedom of speech. Plus, I don't believe for one second the video is at the heart of the protesting. It's just an easy excuse. While I agree hate speeches stink, who gets to decide what is hate and what is just opinion and what is a person's right to freedom of speech? I'm an atheist and I'm sure people take offense to that fact. What if I talk about my atheism and someone has a problem with that and deems it hateful? It seems like a slippery slope. And again, do you honestly believe the video is "the" problem here? Exactly. If there is free speech we gotta sometimes put up with speeches we don't like or are hateful. It's not free speech except XYZ topics. You and I (and, I think, Bill) are all agreed on these points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 While I agree hate speeches stink, who gets to decide what is hate and what is just opinion and what is a person's right to freedom of speech? I'm an atheist and I'm sure people take offense to that fact. What if I talk about my atheism and someone has a problem with that and deems it hateful? It seems like a slippery slope. And again, do you honestly believe the video is "the" problem here? If memory serves, it was Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who (when facing a similar question about what is or is not "pornography") said "I know it when I see it." Anyone who seen any of this video (which I do not recommend) would know it is hate-speech. Not a close call. And yes, I think the video is a problem. A big problem. Are there forces who seek confrontation and violence, and see this as a useful spark that can be fanned into a conflagration? Absolutely. There are people successfully manipulating anger for their own ends. But that does not mean the film is not offensive. It is the lowest order of smut and plays right into the hands of the extremists. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 And Youtube is private. They can determine if they want the video on there or not. It's not the government's business to tell Youtube anything unless it violates laws or the constitution. YouTube can yank a video of its own volition that violates its TOS, but it runs the risk of losing safe harbor status under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act if it monitors content beyond that. Blame congress, RIAA, and the MPAA for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts