One for Hyde

[No-name]

I did think Mike wanted your input on this... I certainly would be interested in what you think...is that a bad thing?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Thank yoooooooooooou, SVF-san! Seriously, Mike, you did not have to put my name in the title. Putting it there is clearly a bait to get me to reply.

Yes, he could have made a title without your handle on it and then he could have just PMed to ask you your opinion on it if he wanted it. There was no need to put your handle on the title to get you to respond and if I were to put a "mod`s" handle on a title with a link to "forum censorship" or a "Christian`s" handle on a thread title with links to "anti-Christian stuff," it wouldn`t be tolerated. The only way I could see if there is no hypocracy would be for a mod, once they see this thread title, would be to go back and strike your name from it.

Let`s see if they do. I am prophesying that they won`t. But, I do hope I am a bad prophet.

 

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

I did think Mike wanted your input on this... I certainly would be interested in what you think...is that a bad thing?

If that is the case then I guess he missed an important news flash from me.
If he wanted my impute he could have put something in his post not the title. That's just tacky and plain bad taste and it is calling the person out which is rude.

Yes, he could have made a title without your handle on it and then he could have just PMed to ask you your opinion on it if he wanted it. There was no need to put your handle on the title to get you to respond and if I were to put a "mod`s" handle on a title with a link to "forum censorship" or a "Christian`s" handle on a thread title with links to "anti-Christian stuff," it wouldn`t be tolerated. The only way I could see if there is no hypocracy would be for a mod, once they see this thread title, would be to go back and strike your name from it.
Let`s see if they do. I am prophesying that they won`t. But, I do hope I am a bad prophet.

Again, thank you.

 

[No-name]

Sounds fair enough.

My name has been used in thread titles and it doesn't bug me. Your suggestion is probably better.

 

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

Well, I'm glad that it doesn't bother you personally.

 

[Kinsao]

Having to "deal with it" does not mean it is right or even justifies it. Sometimes violating something that is an unjust thing is the best way to destroy that which is unjust.

Exactly. We shouldn't have to grit our teeth and take it just because "that's the way it is"

I commend that attitude. However, I have no problem with schools making their rules that students are not allowed to wear clothes with sexually-related slogans on them (even if the slogans don't contain explicit language). It is the freedom of choice of the head teacher to decide what clothing they allow within their school. Obviously, this is an infringement on the 'freedom' of the pupils, but that is part of society, that while people are under a certain age, they are expected to be subject to some authority. I'd be the first person to admit that I hate submitting to authority; I'd be the first person to say that when I was at school of course I would wear things outside of what was permitted by the rules (and, shock, horror! my school had a uniform!! What a dastardly infringement on my human rights! ). That's perfectly normal. No-one likes obeying rules, particularly when they seem unnecessarily restrictive, and especially when it seems like it's only because of your age that they are imposed on you.

School rules are generally more restrictive than the 'unwritten rules' of general society out of an attempt to keep a discipline among a large group of young people (a difficult task, so probably teachers find it necessary to keep a tighter rein than otherwise) and to protect the pupils; 'sexually-related' slogans come under the latter category, as there are often such clothes worn by kids younger than 16 years, and which contribute to the sexualisation of children/minors, let's just say in that case sometimes having your freedom curtailed in some ways is better for you, like not having the 'freedom' to go put your hand in the fire, not having the 'freedom' to invite trouble.

I'm blethering a lot... ^^... to put it in a nutshell, yes, schools have the right to make their own rules, and yes, it is OK to have to deal with it. It is just a bit of hard luck you're having, to be imposed on by school rules, and it's more mature to 'deal with it' rather than whinge. kashii:

Now if the rules were cruel, discriminatory or otherwise 'unjust' I would say of course you have to fight against it. But in this case it appears not to be a question of discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation, but enforcing certain rules that apply to everyone equally.

Footnote: actually, much as I love Mike, I do think that the title of this thread was unnecessary. Granted that the topic might interest Hyde, there is no reason to suppose it would be of more interest to her than to anyone else on the forum with an interest in gender equality issues... or even in the design of quirky t-shirts! I think it was unnecessary to single her out in this case.

 

[Mike Cash]

In what way did I "bait" you?

Can you point to something I've said on JREF or anywhere else to indicate I have anything against people who happen to be other than heterosexual?

I saw some commonalities between yourself and the young woman in the article and thought you might find it of interest. I am less fond of PMs than I am of starting new threads, so I presented it in a thread.

If it bothers you, I won't say I'm "fond" of you. But I have cleaned and dusted a formerly unused corner of my heart and made a little place for you there.

I wish you had the maturity and inner peace to recognize that my disagreements with you have been based on principle and not personal antipathy. Lose the chip.

 

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

Wow, you are full of it.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Mike - I know you prefer threads to PMs, but I think if you guys want to carry this on, PMs would be the proper place

 

[bossel]

Thread locked.