flyingswoosh Wrote:i've gotten the siss before and that's all it is. It's not like you see something that's inappropriate in the magazine. Schools allow people to wear abercrombie, but they can't bring this to school. What a load of crap, this stuff isn't harful in any way.

What does wearing Abercromibe have to do with anything?

"It's not like you see anything inappropriate"? Please, tell me what you're smokin. Besides the fact that the magazine contains almost entirely nude women, this magazine is not inappropriate for school. :rolleyes:

flyingswoosh Wrote:god forbid he bring he magazine to school.

I don't understand your logic here. If it isn't a big deal for him to bring the magazine to school (which is not my position), what's the harm in telling him to leave it at home.

God forbid the school system instructs the kid to not bring non-educational items to school (education in a conventional sort, of course :D ).

T-Monay820 Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:i've gotten the siss before and that's all it is.  It's not like you see something that's inappropriate in the magazine.  Schools allow people to wear abercrombie, but they can't bring this to school.  What a load of crap, this stuff isn't harful in any way.

What does wearing Abercromibe have to do with anything?

"It's not like you see anything inappropriate"? Please, tell me what you're smokin. Besides the fact that the magazine contains almost entirely nude women, this magazine is not inappropriate for school. :rolleyes:

abercrombie is relevant because girls dress like sluts all the time (not like i have a problem), and the schools never say anything about that.

What i'm smokin? it's women in bathing suits, big deal. Even if they aren't in swimsuits, there's nothing wrong as long as they're covered up.

PurplePeopleEater Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:god forbid he bring he magazine to school.

I don't understand your logic here. If it isn't a big deal for him to bring the magazine to school (which is not my position), what's the harm in telling him to leave it at home.

God forbid the school system instructs the kid to not bring non-educational items to school (education in a conventional sort, of course :D ).

i never said there was anything wrong with them asking him to leave it at home.

It has nothing to do with "non educational" items. The school called the magazine "sexually suggestive." What is sexually suggestive? does it suggest sex? NO. My point is that the school wasn't mad because he brought in "non educational" material. They were mad because a kid brought in a magazine that is by no means detrimental, and they flexed their governmental muscles by suspending him.

flyingswoosh Wrote:abercrombie is relevant because girls dress like sluts all the time (not like i have a problem), and the schools never say anything about that.

What i'm smokin? it's women in bathing suits, big deal. Even if they aren't in swimsuits, there's nothing wrong as long as they're covered up.

1) What are you talking about? Our school has a dress code that doesn't allow girls to show their stomachs, were skirts that are shorter than their fingers can reach, and other stuff. I've seen plenty of teachers enforce these rules.

2) Its women in barely there outfits that are artificially beautified, in an educational environment that I don't want my child seeing. There is something very wrong with that.

flyingswoosh Wrote:i never said there was anything wrong with them asking him to leave it at home.

It has nothing to do with "non educational" items. The school called the magazine "sexually suggestive." What is sexually suggestive? does it suggest sex? NO. My point is that the school wasn't mad because he brought in "non educational" material. They were mad because a kid brought in a magazine that is by no means detrimental, and they flexed their governmental muscles by suspending him.

Almost naked chicks. Nah, nothing sexually suggestive about it. I'm sure the kid is just merely interested in being a fashion designer.

:drink: Keep chuggin' buddy.

I agree that a suspension is overboard, but the rationale must be to overpunish in an attempt to deter future occurences. Of course, I'm sure we can all recall how rebellious most of us were in school (I swear, I had nothing to do with stealing that speaker out of the intercom system!).

Guess we just disagree on the premise that the magazine is sexually suggestive (or in your case isn't).

T-Monay820 Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:abercrombie is relevant because girls dress like sluts all the time (not like i have a problem), and the schools never say anything about that.

What i'm smokin?  it's women in bathing suits, big deal.  Even if they aren't in swimsuits, there's nothing wrong as long as they're covered up.

1) What are you talking about? Our school has a dress code that doesn't allow girls to show their stomachs, were skirts that are shorter than their fingers can reach, and other stuff. I've seen plenty of teachers enforce these rules.

2) Its women in barely there outfits that are artificially beautified, in an educational environment that I don't want my child seeing. There is something very wrong with that.

what are you talking about, no teachers enforce the dress code

tysramm1 Wrote:what are you talking about, no teachers enforce the dress code

All six of my teachers, Ms. Brice, Mr Thaden, Coach Hartsfield, and a lot of other office administrators have enforced the code.

[quote="tysramm1"] [quote="T-Monay820"] [quote="flyingswoosh"] abercrombie is relevant because girls dress like sluts all the time (not like i have a problem), and the schools never say anything about that.

What i'm smokin?

T-Monay820 Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:abercrombie is relevant because girls dress like sluts all the time (not like i have a problem), and the schools never say anything about that.

What i'm smokin?  it's women in bathing suits, big deal.  Even if they aren't in swimsuits, there's nothing wrong as long as they're covered up.

1) What are you talking about? Our school has a dress code that doesn't allow girls to show their stomachs, were skirts that are shorter than their fingers can reach, and other stuff. I've seen plenty of teachers enforce these rules.

2) Its women in barely there outfits that are artificially beautified, in an educational environment that I don't want my child seeing. There is something very wrong with that.

who cares if they're artificially beautified? it has no bearing on this argument.

Your ****** kid doesn't have to look. And if he does, you can punish him. Are you planning on allowing your children to go to the beach, watch TV, etc.?

PurplePeopleEater Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:i never said there was anything wrong with them asking him to leave it at home.

It has nothing to do with "non educational" items.  The school called the magazine "sexually suggestive."  What is sexually suggestive?  does it suggest sex?  NO.  My point is that the school wasn't mad because he brought in "non educational" material.  They were mad because a kid brought in a magazine that is by no means detrimental, and they flexed their governmental muscles by suspending him.

Almost naked chicks. Nah, nothing sexually suggestive about it. I'm sure the kid is just merely interested in being a fashion designer.

:drink: Keep chuggin' buddy.

I agree that a suspension is overboard, but the rationale must be to overpunish in an attempt to deter future occurences. Of course, I'm sure we can all recall how rebellious most of us were in school (I swear, I had nothing to do with stealing that speaker out of the intercom system!).

Guess we just disagree on the premise that the magazine is sexually suggestive (or in your case isn't).

When you say "future occurences," it sounds like they've committed a crime.

My overall point is that it's just a magazine comprised mostly of hot women in bikinis.

also, what does sexually suggestive mean?

flyingswoosh Wrote:My overall point is that it's just a magazine comprised mostly of hot women in bikinis.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

It has no business being in a school. My teachers didn't let me bring Transformers and GI Joe's to class in 6th grade - and I was told if I brought them in again they would either be commandeered or I could face suspension. Same thing in my book.

flyingswoosh Wrote:who cares if they're artificially beautified? it has no bearing on this argument.

Your ****** kid doesn't have to look. And if he does, you can punish him. Are you planning on allowing your children to go to the beach, watch TV, etc.?

It matters because it can give false perceptions of reality. That all women look like this.

It doesn't matter if they look or not. The fact is that children are sent to school to further their education, not to be surrounded with material that is not appropriate for school. That's what parents expect when their children go to school. To learn. Not that their children may be exposed to almost softcore porn. Going to the beach is a choice that I would accept and decide knowing that their could be scantily clad women. When I send my children to school, I don't have a choice.

PurplePeopleEater Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:My overall point is that it's just a magazine comprised mostly of hot women in bikinis.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

It has no business being in a school. My teachers didn't let me bring Transformers and GI Joe's to class in 6th grade - and I was told if I brought them in again they would either be commandeered or I could face suspension. Same thing in my book.

you really are having trouble understanding what i'm saying aren't you? I don't care if the teachers threaten suspension or confiscation because of something disrupting class. That's totally cool. I have a problem with people being offended by this magazine, which isn't in any way offensive.

T-Monay820 Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:who cares if they're artificially beautified?  it has no bearing on this argument. 

Your ****** kid doesn't have to look.  And if he does, you can punish him.  Are you planning on allowing your children to go to the beach, watch TV, etc.?

It matters because it can give false perceptions of reality. That all women look like this.

It doesn't matter if they look or not. The fact is that children are sent to school to further their education, not to be surrounded with material that is not appropriate for school. That's what parents expect when their children go to school. To learn. Not that their children may be exposed to almost softcore porn. Going to the beach is a choice that I would accept and decide knowing that their could be scantily clad women. When I send my children to school, I don't have a choice.

you really do think kids are morons don't you? They aren't going to think all women look like this. Though i can't tell when they're fake or when they aren't, but w/e.

Do you really think that this kid was stopping a ton of other kids from learning? I would have a problem with this if my child was disrputed, but don't say the magazine is detrimental to kids' perceptions just because it disrupts them from learning.

Are you people having trouble understanding what i'm saying? should i state it again for you?

flyingswoosh Wrote:you really are having trouble understanding what i'm saying aren't you? I don't care if the teachers threaten suspension or confiscation because of something disrupting class. That's totally cool. I have a problem with people being offended by this magazine, which isn't in any way offensive.

No, you're really having a problem with not understanding that your determination of what is and is not offensive has no bearing on what is or is not offensive to someone else.

I don't think school prayers are offensive, but some people do. Thus, school-sponsored prayer isn't allowed in a public school. See the correlation here?

PurplePeopleEater Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:you really are having trouble understanding what i'm saying aren't you?  I don't care if the teachers threaten suspension or confiscation because of something disrupting class.  That's totally cool.  I have a problem with people being offended by this magazine, which isn't in any way offensive.

No, you're really having a problem with not understanding that your determination of what is and is not offensive has no bearing on what is or is not offensive to someone else.

I don't think school prayers are offensive, but some people do. Thus, school-sponsored prayer isn't allowed in a public school. See the correlation here?

i see a problem in your logic. School sponsored prayer is mandatory, looking at a magazine isn't. Please tell me i'm wrong. I would love to hear more ignorance.

flyingswoosh Wrote:i see a problem in your logic. School sponsored prayer is mandatory, looking at a magazine isn't. Please tell me i'm wrong. I would love to hear more ignorance.

There's no problem with the underlying logic there from the standpoint of offensiveness.

Of course, since you completely skipped over the part about how you are acting as judge/jury for eveyone else when it comes to their individual levels of tolerance, I'll leave the ignorance portion of the show to you. That shows me enough of your mindset over this whole issue and why you clearly don't get it.

Should this not get bumped to the Spin room so JBR and Dio and Kev can join in the "fun"?