MySpace intrusion

[George A.]

I know this isn't anything related to Voice Acting, but since this is "The Lounge", I want to ask for your opinions on something that is affecting our town.

My highschool's big craze, like most things, is MySpace. A lot of people have shirtless pictures, some of them showing off make up, clothing styles, and well basically themselves. They also love to express their hate for our Vice-Principal, Mr. Moyle, and also for other teachers they dispise.

This is the news that occured on Friday.
A group of girls, who are underage I believe, went off to PA for their Winter Vacation took pictures of themselves smoking, drinking, and a bunch of other things. Mr. Moyle and officer McCormick had the girls suspended for the pictures. Now, after the suspension, both our Vice Principal and Officer McCormick registered a MySpace username to look at other pictures of students and reading their MySpace blogs (people are stupid enough not to use the "friends only" or "private" feature).

Another issue that occured in our Middle School.
Tons of little sluty underage girls have millions of pictures of themselves in revealing clothing for their age. They love to rant, tYPe lIkE thIs, add friends and people they don't personally know. The "MySpace whores" thing, lures them into being added and meeting a 40 year old guy that can possibly rape them. Officer McCormick has been trying to make sure that no one gets abducted by MySpace users and such. But that's not what I feel is wrong.

I feel that being punished for the material on your MySpace is WRONG. MySpace is like having your own website, you post what you want on it and your pictures and express your opinions. The opinions posted on those MySpaces are not the ones expressed by our school, faculty, teachers, etc. Although Moyle and McCormick feel it is. It's an invasion of privacy, and goes against the rights and amendments of the students (of expression).

I will try to speak to both of them, but i'd like to know. What do you guys think about this situation?

[Tony]

Well, I wouldn't think there should be any reasonable expectation of privacy on MySpace, or anywhere on the web, for that matter. If you make the information public, then anyone with access to the internet can possibly access that information. I think the real issue here is that whether or not students should be punished for behavior outside of the school. That argument is a LOT trickier.

[Nikki Wright]

Since this is a semi-serious topic, I'll be moving this to the To Be Or Not To Be area.


You know what else is wrong? Underage porn.

[CristieJ]

I don't think that people should be punished for things on their myspace's. It didn't happen in school so the school should not have the power to punish the children for something that they didn't do in school. For example, when I was a freshman in high school I got into a fist fight with some girl at a park off school grounds. Well, the girl wanted a rematch the next day at school and so when we were taken into the office the principal and everyone found out the story about the day before. However, they were only able to suspend us for a day each based on our confrontation on school grounds alone. I don't think those girls should be punished for anything they did on vacation UNLESS their "vacation" was during school hours. But I don't think that's the case so the school shouldn't have a say. If they find incriminating evidence they should leave it to the police and the parents. What is suspending these girls going to do besides deprive them of a few days of education??

HOWEVER, the thing about girls in middle school is a big issue. Usually, by the time you graduate middle school you are 13. Many websites on the computer require you to be atleast this age in order to register without parental consent. If these girls are still in middle school, then chances are they aren't 13 and definitely don't have their parents permission. I think if they were found then the law, not school, should step in and get them help because they either:
1) Don't have parental consent
2) Have parental consent because their parents don't care
3) Or, need some mental guidance if they are exploiting themselves and degrading themselves in that manner. They probably have some issues.

If these girls are underage, I don't think its right to call them myspace whores. They obviously have some self-esteem/ attention issues and need some help.

CristieJ.

[George A.]

I think the real issue here is that whether or not students should be punished for behavior outside of the school. That argument is a LOT trickier.

Whoops, that's the issue I tried to press on.


You know what else is wrong? Underage porn.

What I meant when I said topless was "shirtless" and reffering to the boys. Whoops. But yet again, there are a few girls who appear topless in their pictures and yet MySpace has done nothing.


I don't think its right to call them myspace whores. They obviously have some self-esteem/ attention issues and need some help.


MySpace whores are what most of them call themselves, not that they are actual "whores".

[Nikki Wright]

What I meant when I said topless was "shirtless" and reffering to the boys. Whoops. But yet again, there are a few girls who appear topless in their pictures and yet MySpace has done nothing.
MySpace has millions upon millions of accounts. When one uploads a picture, it doesn't tell the database exactly what the picture is. The only way MySpace can do anything about it is if someone reports it to them.

Pictures of underaged children in a pornographic setting, even if it's softcore, is still illegal. :/

[soundcage]

The rules of Myspace.com clearly note that a person who registers must be sixteen years or older and cannot post any photos that may be revealing as far as nudity. I personally believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however, this situation poses a real question of morality. Should these kids have been suspended? Who knows, it really depends on what was said and how extreme or revealing these photos are. Should a forty something year old man be looking at pictures of his female students posing in an inappropriate manner? Definatly not. There is a thin line here, since these students clearly violated the rules of myspace and posted slander in a public domain, they are legally able to be suspended, and depending on the severity of what was said about this man, can be held liable and charged. Then there is the situation regarding a vice-principal who actively searches for his students on a web community that is clearly intended for a younger age group and then punishes these kids because they hurt his feelings. Boo hoo.

What sucks here is that you are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions, but you are liable for the affects they have on its target...

[Amby Leigh]

I don't think those girls should have been punished for material on their myspace’s… AT THE SCHOOL.

It has nothing to do with the school in anyway. The school has no legitimate cause for punishment... UNLESS these girls are flashing the pictures around during school hours and if the pictures really can be counted as "underaged porn." In that cast, it’s a different matter.

Many schools have polices on the viewing porn on school grounds. If the girls that are in the picture are the ones viewing the pictures during school hours, then yes being suspended is a perfectly understandable punishment for them. BUT if it's someone ELSE viewing these girls pictures, then they are the ones that should be punished, the girls cannot for they were not in fact breaking a school rule. They were not viewing the porn on school grounds.

Unless the school has some bizare school rule about posing for your own personal pictures. I don't think many schools have that one right about now.

However I would see it understandable and reasonable for the school to contact the girls parents about the pictures.

OUTSIDE of school however… punishment away! They are clearly breaking the terms and conditions of myspace.com and a few federal laws as well.

[Jing]

For my opinion, I think that the people punished should not have been.
They should been smarter though: MySpace has the private feature; it's much easier NOT to get caught... not that I've done anything like that.

This is a great topic by the way: It gives a good point and strong backing info.

[ClymAngus]

Teenagers (and more increasingly those slightly younger) try and act like adults (or what they beleve "adult" to be). In the past this wasn't so much of a problem, as they didn't have access to a broadcast medium for their thoughts, images and (most worryingly) addresses.

I have little sympathy for those caught online. To err is human, to record it is dumb. That said, it is a bit thought police to vet the comments of people when their outside the schooling system. Yet we do legally nail people for slander. It is tricky, everyone is at fault here. The students, the teachers the service providers. It's fronteer territory. If your worried about your comments being read then lock down your account.

Nikki, I concur. So its that much more strange, when it's the children themselves posting the pictures. I feel however in this instance that there is no intent there, it's what peoples intentions are viewing those images. Sometimes in a broadcast medium it's best not to broadcast in the first place! There are a lot of freaks out there.

Nikkita, I always like your draconian solutions very Victorian. Yet tinged with a subtle poetic irony. Don't go changing, honesty however harsh the measure, is in such short supply these days. :)

Heres a solution; How about the School getting in contact with the my space providers and saying "get our underage students off your website or we'll have all the press from a tri-state area coming down on you like a ton of hot minty bricks for supplying pedos with t*** material".

Everyone comes out smelling of roses, job done. :)

[George A.]

Wow, strong opinions. Although a lot of these are good points, I also have to add a few things.

Our Media Center, Libraries, and Computer Labs have MySpace blocked. There's no possible way to access it, unless you're a hacker.

A few bulletins have spread on MySpace recently giving us information that Moyle (vice-principal) and McCormick (officer of our town) have created accounts and are checking other accounts. Mr. P (our Principal) has asked the suspended girls to remove the images from their MySpaces and he asked them to spread bulletins about deleting pictures of others doing underage drinking, smoking, doing illegal substances such as marijuanna.

The girls who were suspended didn't make porn, it was those middle school girls that made their pictures slutty like, with very little clothing. The girls that were suspended were underage, drinking and smoking and doing a bunch of other stuff too.

I believe that the middle school girls should just wait to be 16. The girls who were suspended shouldn't have been for an activity they did two states away from the school.

[Nikki Wright]

Our Media Center, Libraries, and Computer Labs have MySpace blocked. There's no possible way to access it, unless you're a hacker.


That's untrue. There are sites you can go to that, by typing in the URL of the site you want to get to, you can get around blocks and stuff. I know this because when my school had LJ blocked, I used certain sites to get around the blocks so I could check my friendspage, update and whatnot. :/

[Fiona C]

That's untrue. There are sites you can go to that, by typing in the URL of the site you want to get to, you can get around blocks and stuff. I know this because when my school had LJ blocked, I used certain sites to get around the blocks so I could check my friendspage, update and whatnot. :/

Ditto. My school had LJ blocked, but I could still access the VAA via school computers. ^.^

In the case of these girls, I'd say that they had to be taught a lesson. By sounds of things, they don't understand the dangers of the internet. Being caught and disciplined may well be the only way for these young ladies to learn about that. Furthermore, doing drugs/drinking/etc and being underage... that puts the image of your school at risk. The Principal is probably also looking out for your school's public image. *nods*

Sorry to sound like your parents, but the Principal is not punishing them for the heck of it. It's for their own good. They will, with any luck, learn from it -- learn to exercise caution, and learn that doing drugs or drinking and etc is NOT smart.

~Fif

[Jessica Adnee]

Nikki's right. (I almost said "Wright". Wow, I'm dumb today)

I use those sites too.

Also, you have to understand that these girls damaged the reputation of the school. What they do reflects upon the school and if they were to just say, "Oh, well, nothing we can do! Whatever!" Then I'm POSSITIVE people would have gotten mad.

I'm sure the parents are perfectly okay with this, it's only the students that have problems with the suspention.

Honestly, see this as if you were running a school and you found out that students had been drinking. It's natural that you try and put a stop to it.

Also, they might have been worried about the students as well. Despite popular belief, school faculty isn't a bunch of satan worshiping klan members. :/

[Jessica Adnee]

OMG!!! Can you tell me what those special websites are? Pweeese?

PM her, don't post, kthanxbye.

And, also, as far as the middle school girls posting photo's of themselves being... provocative... techniqually, there's nothing wrong with that.
If you saw things you shouldn't have then it's against the rules of the site and is illegal.
Also, it really depends on what you call provocative.

[Tom]

I don't think the girls should have been suspended. Having images of drinking and smoking up on the internet is completely unrelated to school affairs. Catch them doing that stuff on school property/time, then I can see punishing them for it. But what they do on their own vacation and post on their own MySpace page should be beyond the power of the school principal.

[SeiyruRenaih]

If I caught my (future) daughter posting revealing images of herself, images of her smoking or doing drugs, I'd be perfectly okay with a suspension, though I'm sure she'd gladly go back to school after she spent some time with me on the matter of what she did. :P

I'm agreeing with Nikkita on this one. When you post pictures of yourself, and information about yourself online, you're at risk no matter what. After all, it IS the real world, and things CAN happen, whether you think they will or not. I'm not going to say that the girls who did that were stupid. No. They just lack a little common sense. Why would you post images of your underaged self in a revealing outfit, and more off, WHY would you post pics of yourself doing drugs illegally? Not ONLY can the school's report you, but even people in the police can find these things. Personally, I think the staff was just looking out for those girls, and their decision is right.

[Drake]

I think those girls are idiots. Why would you post up evidence of yourself doing illegal things?

However, I don't agree with the people saying that those girls have no right to badmouth their teachers just because it'll hurt their reputation. That's like saying that no one should speak out against president Bush because it'll damage his reputation. Ever heard of the first amendment?

Besides, sometimes teachers deserve to not only have their reputations tarnished but to be fired. If these kids are saying bad things about their teachers, it's for a reason. If teachers don't want kids to hate them, they should change. They need to change for the kids, not the other way around. After all, these teachers' salaries are coming out of their students' parents' pockets.

[Icypopcorn]

Ugh. This shit ToT;
This is the same deal at my middle school/my sister's high school. Except it was xanga, and now everyone's converted to Myspace where they put on 'friends only'.
Okay those stupid girls who drank and smoked is one thing, because that's illegal. Even being slutty is one thing, but I SO do not think you should get in trouble for badmouthing principles on your MySpace. My theatre teacher tried to get every theatre student off of xanga because too many people were talking shit about her on there. Oooh-ho, big whoop, that has nothing to do with school. I cussed alot on my xanga and got in big trouble with my gay drama teacher. wtf?! I was cussing because I'd had a bad day, and my braces hurt. I think shit like that is wrong. We have the right to say what WE want to about who we want to, talking crap about other people online has NOTHING to do with school ToT;

Now for those girls drinking and smoking, okay, I don't think it was right for them to be suspended. Being fined would've been better. Why? Because it's illegal, but it had nothing to do with the school, wasn't done on school grounds, and wasn't done to piss off the school. So why should they be suspended? They should've just fined them or something, because suspension doesn't make sense. That's like if I got in a fight with the kid across the street during summer, I'd get detention. What the heck? That's retarded.
And as for those slutty girls, I can understand the school being concerned, but really, I don't think they should go into their business either. It's not like they're gonna enforce dresscode outside of school. Apparently their parents don't care that they have low collared shirts and low cut jeans with thongs hanging out. I mean, if your daughter was wearing that, you'd notice. My stupid theatre teacher doesn't want students going out with other students in the drama department because of a little bit of shit that came up on xanga. She has no right to but into OUR business that's outside of school and has NOTHING to do with theatre. T_T; And the principal suspended some girl for saying that the fricken Chior teacher is biased. Which she is, biased as all hell. _o_;

Sorry, I'm ranting and letting out my anger. But I really don't like this. Warning us/Strongly advising us to get off of xanga/MySpace/anything else like that is one thing, and I believe it's perfectly fine. But butting into our personal lives, and getting us in trouble for having online journals is not. _o_; And sometimes they just go a little overboard. I mean, seriously. If you have your first name, picture, and city, they are NOT going to be able to track you down. T_T Even if you have a common last name. I know four Jessica Nguyens in Houston ALONE. All of them have MySpaces. T_T; That IS going a little overboard...

[Nikki Wright]

First amendment has laws too: You are guaranteed free speech so long as you aren't breaking any laws, or infringing upon the rights of others.

Myspace is stupid anyway.

[George A.]

I don't think the story George posted was the full story,

Actually it's not the full story, I'm going to interview the Vice Principal and others involved to confirm the things that are here. The middle schoolers and the case with the girls in PA have been confirmed true.


If these kids are saying bad things about their teachers, it's for a reason.

Not really. You are both right and wrong there.

[Drake]

I completely agree with Icypopcorn. Teachers and principals need to get their big noses out of people's business. So some students are talking shit about them. That's life. They have no right to suspend them for that. They can cry me a river and drown in it.

[Komichi]

To prevent such scandalous behaivor, the government to raise taxes to fund constant monitoring of all citzens.

[Drake]

You can rant and rave about how the school "has no right"... but they are a private organisation: they have *EVERY* right if there is reasonable doubt that this could affect or harm another student, or the image of the school.

Umm, public schools aren't private organizations.

[Drake]

I correct myself: however, Catholic schools are. As well, public schools have the freedom to outline their own guidelines which are to be followed. I signed a piece of paper basically stating I agreed to the rules, and breaking them resulted in a suspension/punishment. Just because it is a public school, doesn't entitle you to think you're above their rules. Because you still aren't!
I understand how you might have to sign something like that in a private Catholic school, but public schools don't have guidelines saying you have limited freedom of speech outside of school grounds. I mean, as long as you're not like going to the police and fabricating a story about how your teacher raped you, you're not breaking any laws or guidelines by talking shit about teachers who may or may not deserve it.

[Drake]

Wow. You still don't get it, do you?

It's called: common sense. If you start a rumour about a teacher that is enough to raise concern, they will get concerned about it and follow it through to protect their ass. Even if it is about another student, they will follow it through.

Also, your freedoms end, when another's begin. FYI: "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean trash talking, gossiping, or degrading another person.

No, I do get it! I understand they'll try getting revenge. That's human nature. I'm just saying they have no right to suspend you for telling people your opinion of them, especially if it's off school grounds.

About the FYI: If that's true, then millions of people need to be punished for talking shit about Bush (and of course people have trash talked, gossiped, and degraded him). 1984, anyone?

[Drake]

When I said "revenge", I was talking about the teachers getting the students back for talking shit about them.

Well, I still think people have the right to talk shit about a teacher who deserves to be fired, but whatever. You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's just leave it at that.

[Nanuri]

When I said "revenge", I was talking about the teachers getting the students back for talking shit about them.

Well, I still think people have the right to talk shit about a teacher who deserves to be fired, but whatever. You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's just leave it at that.
I beg to disagree.

The teachers aren't suspending kids for talking shit about them. They are suspending the kids for engaging in (in 90% of these kinds of cases) libel... aka LIES about teachers that are damaging to their reputations. Also, they are suspending kids for keeping a public record of illegal actions-- it is their government-given responsibility to keep kids safe until they are out of our public school system.

Human nature doesn't even factor in here, except human stupidity.

[Drake]

I beg to disagree.

The teachers aren't suspending kids for talking shit about them. They are suspending the kids for engaging in (in 90% of these kinds of cases) libel... aka LIES about teachers that are damaging to their reputations. Also, they are suspending kids for keeping a public record of illegal actions-- it is their government-given responsibility to keep kids safe until they are out of our public school system.

Human nature doesn't even factor in here, except human stupidity.

Libel is "A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation." As far as I know, the girls who icypopcorn and george were talking about were only expressing their opinion on certain teachers, such as saying they're bias. You cannot classify that as false. It is an opinion. Also, I never said anything about the kids being suspended for drinking and stuff other than that it was very foolish of them to post up evidence of themselves breaking the law.

Edit: In response to Nikkita's last post: >.< I never said I think I should decide who gets fired at my school. I just think it's my business if I want to tell my friends that I think one of my teachers is bias, unfair, mean, etc.

[Nanuri]

Libel is "A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation." As far as I know, the girls who icypopcorn and george were talking about were only expressing their opinion on certain teachers, such as saying they're bias. You cannot classify that as false. It is an opinion. Also, I never said anything about the kids being suspended for drinking and stuff other than that it was very foolish of them to post up evidence of themselves breaking the law.

Yes, but if you read my post more clearly I said IN MORE THAN 90% OF THESE CASES, they are being suspended for libel. Also if you read my post more clearly I gave a definition of libel which is exactly the same as yours, only shorter. Did you need to check MSN's Encarta dictionary to make sure I defined it right?

Also it might interest you to know that by publicly trash-talking the teachers and principals on MySpace, as Nikkita says, everyone associated with the school or who was accused by a student (likely one failing their class) of deserving a pink slip or the like DOES have to become involved. In general, they're not just going to wantonly suspend people unless there are repeat offenses, warnings have been given, and/or the rumors and "bitching" are false and injurious to a career.

Of COURSE there will be extreme cases, because the law is open to interpretation. But these are exceptions, not the norm.

Also, is it so hard to make your emo whining about teachers and stuff private? Then you don't have to worry about it. I post my livejournal entries publicly KNOWING that if my boss or government teacher ever read it, I would be fully accountable for what I have written there.

It's a matter of maturity and responsibility, which obviously most of these kids aren't ready to deal with yet. Not the school's problem.

[Nikki Wright]

First amendment has laws too: You are guaranteed free speech so long as you aren't breaking any laws, or infringing upon the rights of others.
Let me elaborate:

You're entitled to free speech, yes. Freedom of opinions, yes. However, the second the things you say have the potential to damage a person, their career, or the life they've created for themselves. That's when you're not entitled to it. That's breaking the law. Let's be repetitive: You're entitled to free speech so long as you aren't going to be slanderous towards people. Slander, libel.. those things are against the law. The second you break the law, you're breaking your first amendment right. If you're opinion is "I hate Mr. Teacherman because he's a stupid child molesting asshole," That's going to create a problem. It could be your opinion that he is a "stupid child molesting asshole," but that'd send Mr. Teacherman right into lawsuit city, intersecting with hobo town.

[Drake]

Did you need to check MSN's Encarta dictionary to make sure I defined it right?

Also, is it so hard to make your emo whining about teachers and stuff private? Then you don't have to worry about it.

1) No actually it was dictionary.com. XD

2) Fine, you may be right about the public posting of insults.

3) No, I'm not emo, and I do keep my opinions about the bad teachers in my school private.

4) Wow, I've spent way too much time here. I'm done, bye.

[Nanuri]

1) No actually it was dictionary.com. XD

2) Fine, you may be right about the public posting of insults.

3) No, I'm not emo, and I do keep my opinions about the bad teachers in my school private.

4) Wow, I've spent way too much time here. I'm done, bye.
To clarify, that "you" was used in the generalist sense, not personally.

In French, it would have been the "vous" conjugation.

Yeah, see you around :P

[Tom]

I don't know... if the school is going to punish them, what good is suspending them where they are prevented from going to school for things they did off school? It just doesn't seem appropriate to me. Give them a month of detention or Saturday school or SOMEthing. But suspension seems a bit off to me, all for pictures of things they did on a vacation.

[CristieJ]

Suspension is all they pretty much CAN do. You can't force the student to go to detention if they don't want to -- same with weekend classes. I remember the threats of detention -- I've also had detention for talking in class, etc... and I skipped it each time. Nobody did a thing, and it never appeared on my record. I do agree, suspension is a vacation, especially where the parents don't care, however, it's not as though the school can actually do anything else, either. Now, expulsion on the other hand...

I have to side with Tom on this. Like I said earlier on in this thread, suspending them will only deprive them of more quality class time. That's assuming that class had done anything for them in the first place. Most people I know who've been suspended would just spend the day(s) off engaging in illegal activities such as pot while there parents are away. But our school never got to suspend us for things we did off school grounds on our private VACATIONS.

I don't think the school should have ANY say at all in their punishment as far as the drugs and alcohol are concerned. If their parents don't care enough to punish them, then they won't care that those things are probably what they plan on doing while they are suspended and their parents are at work. The school should let the law deal with those issues. The officer should put them on diversion or probation... but suspending them isn't going to do a damn thing. Now where the offensive comments are concerned, it has already been told to us that EVERYONE participated in talking about the school administration. But they aren't punishing EVERYONE, they are punishing the girls with the photos and they shouldn't be allowed to do that. It's really none of their (the school's) business.

[Autumn]

The parents have a right to be notified by the principal.

But if it's happening off school grounds, then I don't believe the administration has the right to go to such measures as suspension or expulsion.

[Drake]

Deprive them of quality class time? Good. Maybe they'll learn that passing their year and catching up with work, is better than repeating the same class 500 times because they'd rather drink their life away. Of course, with the way things are now all they actually have to do is cry a river to their parents and have the school give them the credit anyway.

Hey, just because someone drinks underage doesn't mean he or she is a blithering idiot. I drink, and I'm in the top 10% of my class. >D;;; I get really high SAT scores, too. (I'm not trying to show off. I just don't what you to think I'm some delinquent who spreads "false rumors" about some of his teachers out of spite.


Apparently, all you have to do is half-ass it, and you'll still make it in to university, or college along with the other people who genuinely put a lot of effort and care in to their work to pass the grade.

Sure, students who put half-assed efforts into school will get into a college...one that's garbage and not half as good as the colleges that kids with good grades will get into. >D

[Matt Alan]

Hey, just because someone drinks underage doesn't mean he or she is a blithering idiot. I drink, and I'm in the top 10% of my class. >D;;; I get really high SAT scores, too. (I'm not trying to show off. I just don't what you to think I'm some delinquent who spreads "false rumors" about some of his teachers out of spite.



Sure, students who put half-assed efforts into school will get into a college...one that's garbage and not half as good as the colleges that kids with good grades will get into. >D


I'm embarrassed to be the same age as you. Underage drinking DOES make you a blithering idiot, its ILLEGAL and SHOULD be enforced, but sadly, its not.

With the rise of the internet, and popular sites such as Myspace rising to promience, the legal system has not been able to catch up yet. We've entered a gray area of the legal system. Nikkita and Nanuri are right, the kids commited the crime of libel, but as far as I know, besides the fact that they're underaged and this is a civil matter, not a criminal AND that its conducted online, the Law can't touch them.

What state do these kids go to school? Different states have different rules for how much leeway a teacher can and can't have. I'd like to hear the full story.

I sense a big lawsuit coming from this, maybe, just MAYBE, this event will get those judges in D.C. off their ass and they'll write new law.

[Icypopcorn]

Libel is "A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation." As far as I know, the girls who icypopcorn and george were talking about were only expressing their opinion on certain teachers, such as saying they're bias.

Exactly :3 What you say is true. These people are stating their opinions on teachers, not spreading false rumors. When it develops into a false rumor, a SERIOUS false rumor, then I suppose they could take these kinds of actions. It's different at a private school than a public school.


So, um, yes. Bitching in your blog about teachers, even giving full names violates their rights, and can damage their career, and ultimately, involves the school in the end should those students be caught.
I know this is probably not what you intended to say, but right now it sounds like 'Don't voice your opinion. Don't have a voice period. Or an opinion. Just go along with whatever bullshit your teachers give you.' I know you could say 'Then go address it with this specific teacher', but that doesn't exactly work either. I've tried it. They say 'Don't talk back to me!' or 'Are you trying to question the way I teach? Did YOU go to school for 4 years and do YOU have a degree?' and you can't reply with something like 'Uh... yeah, I AM questioning the way you teach' or else they'll give you detention or something. ToT; There IS a such thing as an arrogant teacher...


Also, is it so hard to make your emo whining about teachers and stuff private? Then you don't have to worry about it. I post my livejournal entries publicly KNOWING that if my boss or government teacher ever read it, I would be fully accountable for what I have written there.

Well, they're stupid :3 That's why everyone now has a MySpace where they put on 'Friends Only'. Although, personally, I don't believe in talking crap behind someone's back. If you've got something to say, say it to their face. Of course, alot of annoying people won't listen to you, or teachers, so you simply write it on an online journal, (ex. Xanga or Myspace) and let them come READ what you have to say about them. It works, apparently. Well, I tried it before all the teachers started sticking their noses into people's personal lives. I suppose if I did that NOW, I'd get suspended! :P I dunno, I don't do online journals anymore (too annoying ToT)


I remember the threats of detention -- I've also had detention for talking in class, etc... and I skipped it each time. Nobody did a thing, and it never appeared on my record.
Uhh, same here. I've never gone to a single detention or on-campus suspension (DMC) that I've gotten o_o I never got a file in the office, and I never got excluded from extracurricular activities or got any extra detentions. They've got too many actually really bad kids to deal with to worry about kids who were just talking in class or something. I guess suspension IS all you really can do, but it doesn't really help. XD; Nothing the school can do is really gonna help. xDDD

Cristie, you took the words right out my mouth. XD; Exactly what I was trying to say.


I sense a big lawsuit coming from this, maybe, just MAYBE, this event will get those judges in D.C. off their ass and they'll write new law.
That would be convinient. :D

The thing that concerns me is that teachers are taking action for students simply voicing their opinions-- about ANYTHING, not just the school-- or using profane language-- about ANYTHING, not the school-- on a site that has NOTHNG TO DO with the school. It's not like these kids are doing anything illegal. T_T; I mean, sure, if kids are drinking and crap, that's one thing, but saying you 'OMG DON'T LIKE HOW BECKY WEARS THOSE LOW-TOO SLUTTY SHIRTS ALL THE TIME!111' doesn't mean you should get punished for that. People have said worse stuff AT SCHOOL, so how come they're not punished there?

I'd like to bring something up. Recently a girl at our school made a xanga account just to post up a hate list of everyone she hated. (And whoo boy, I was on the list ToT) Alot of different girls were accused, and in the end they found out who she was. (Surprisingly I hadn't talked to her since sixth grade... o_0; Who wouldda thought...) She ended up getting three days of on-campus suspension.
Do you think this is right? I mean, it's not illegal, but it had nothing to do with the school... personally, I don't know what to think of it :\

[Tom]

Recently a girl at our school made a xanga account just to post up a hate list of everyone she hated. (And whoo boy, I was on the list ToT) Alot of different girls were accused, and in the end they found out who she was. (Surprisingly I hadn't talked to her since sixth grade... o_0; Who wouldda thought...) She ended up getting three days of on-campus suspension.
Do you think this is right?

No, she shouldn't have gotten punished for that. That's bullshit. Way to censor our youth, yippy.

[Tom]

Oh, and by the way, Nikkita, when I mentioned detention, I was really talking about something else--it's been a few years since I was in high school and I forgot what the actual punishment I was thinking of was called. In my school, we had something called 'ISS', or 'In-School Suspension'. It's where you are required to go to an 'ISS' room where all the rest of 'ISS' students are, for the whole day you are at school. You are seperated by cubicles and your teachers send all the assignments to you and you have to do them by yourself, in that room, under heavy supervision, with no period breaks, and you and the rest of the 'ISS' students go to lunch after everyone else in the school has. It's basically a strict form of detention that lasts the whole day, for however many days you are assigned, and is miserable for your typical, social teenager.

I think something like that would be better than out-of-school suspension. I personally just think that out-of-school suspension (as punishment for whatever) is a pretty lousy punishment. Kids get suspended for the dumbest reasons--like skipping school. What good will it do, then? That's just giving them what they want!

So, yeah.. I'm all for something like ISS!

[Tom]

I was under the impression that all detention was an ISS

No, my school had detention and ISS. Detention was.. nothing. It's something teachers would hand out to students, obligating them to come in an hour early to school to sit in class, or something. O_O ...yeah...didn't mean much.

Oh, and, if students assigned ISS are just going to skip school anyway, then out-of-school suspension isn't really doing anything in the first place. At least with ISS, it's a more helpful punishment, even if just in philosophy. Anyway, I also think it's wrong for parents to just force the school to excuse their children from punishment. :\ That's awful. So many forces working against everything in this subject.

[Nikki Wright]

know this is probably not what you intended to say, but right now it sounds like 'Don't voice your opinion. Don't have a voice period. Or an opinion. Just go along with whatever bullshit your teachers give you.' I know you could say 'Then go address it with this specific teacher', but that doesn't exactly work either. I've tried it. They say 'Don't talk back to me!' or 'Are you trying to question the way I teach? Did YOU go to school for 4 years and do YOU have a degree?' and you can't reply with something like 'Uh... yeah, I AM questioning the way you teach' or else they'll give you detention or something. ToT; There IS a such thing as an arrogant teacher...

I like how no one is actually *Reading* what we're saying.

She's saying that you can have your opinion, but if that opinion is something that can potentially damage one's career, then there's a problem and you deserve to get punished for making someone's life difficult, almost getting them fired, or sending them to jail, or put up on trial, or just creating an issue for your life.

If someone in your community wrote something like, "That Icypopcorn is such a bitch. She's just a stupid druggie who does nothing but spend her time in whore houses, 'cause that's the kind of slut that she is. I swear, she's the kind of person who goes behind the big green board at school and gives guys oral sex, that's how stupid she is!" ...and say some parent ['cause adults do use the internet, omgz], member of your school, or whatever reads that. They'd probably tell your principal. And you'd probably be called in to have some questions asked and, generally, end up ruining your reputation. It would get twisted to the point where you were doing all sorts of terrible things on school grounds, and your reputation would be ruined.

Now, is that right? No. Does that person who started it deserve to get into some trouble? You bet your ass.


For the third time: Freedom of speech, yes, but freedom of speech only works when you are not infringing upon the rights and freedoms of others. When you're not setting people up for libel. You can have opinions, just not something that would potentially create a problem for someone.


EDIT:

Also, Nikkita: Detention, for us, was always, like... during lunch, or an hour after school. ISS was something that occured throughout the day. Also, when I was in middle school, if you were late without an excuse, instead of getting a detention, you had to pick up trash during lunch. They gave you this big claw-picker-up-thing and a bucket.. and you went around picking up everyone's trash. If you ended up getting a "truant" or whatever, you'd have to scrape gum off of the benches, pavement, walls, etc.

Yum.

Edit 2: And, yeah, underaged drinking is stupid.

[Matt Cruea]

I like how Nikkita is pretty much ruling this thread.

Though there are some other valid points. Suspension might not've been the best route. The photos, however, are very much evidence that could lead to legal actions such as probation. The blogs are just admission of guilt.

It is well within the school's rights to, say, have Myspace take the page down. However, the suspension wasn't really a good response. I like Tom's idea of ISS.

These kids are losers anyway and probably deserve to be suspended for any number of other offenses. So, personally, I don't mind the suspension, but professionally, it was the wrong way to go about it. I would've rather seen these kids get probation or sent to juvie.

Underage drinking is illegal, and by doing something blatantly illegal, you are an instant idiot.

[Matt Cruea]

On a similar note, dig this (which may deserve its own topic):

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

Trolling made illegal!

[Matt Alan]

On a similar note, dig this (which may deserve its own topic):

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

Trolling made illegal!

We need a virtual jail for repeat offenders of the "DO NOT ANNOY" law, for people like Drake and GrantM.

"GrantM, I find you guilty of violating the DNA Act under article 42 of the Internet Stature, please surrender your ISP and keyboard for incarcaration at a facility of Myspace to be determined at a later date by a forum of your peers."

[Drake]

I'm embarrassed to be the same age as you. Underage drinking DOES make you a blithering idiot, its ILLEGAL and SHOULD be enforced, but sadly, its not.

*sighs, shakes head sadly*

That's a huge generalization. I've drank since I was a freshman. At the same time I've maintained a grade point average of 3.8. I'm not boasting but trying to make a point.

I am aware that there are tons of idiots in high school who drink, do tons of drugs, etc. and fuck themselves over in the process by having car accidents and whatnot. They're the ones you read about in the paper. However, there are those of us who you don't read about in the paper. We drink responsibly. I know several other "preps" in my school who also drink and yet are at the top of their class. They are not blithering idiots. In fact they are much smarter than many people who've got their noses way up in the air because they supposedly never "party".

Yes, underage drinking is illegal, but that law exists because our planet is highly populated with morons who can't handle it. The smart ones are able to drink without harming themselves or getting caught by the cops (that's why you don't know about us). Please don't use stereotypes. That's very unwise and unfair.

[Matt Alan]

*sighs, shakes head sadly*

That's a huge generalization. I've drank since I was a freshman. At the same time I've maintained a grade point average of 3.8. I'm not boasting but trying to make a point.

I am aware that there are tons of idiots in high school who drink, do tons of drugs, etc. and fuck themselves over in the process by having car accidents and whatnot. They're the ones you read about in the paper. However, there are those of us who you don't read about in the paper. We drink responsibly. I know several other "preps" in my school who also drink and yet are at the top of their class. They are not blithering idiots. In fact they are much smarter than many people who've got their noses way up in the air because they supposedly never "party".

Yes, underage drinking is illegal, but that law exists because our planet is highly populated with morons who can't handle it. The smart ones are able to drink without harming themselves are getting caught by the cops (that's why you don't know about us). Please don't use stereotypes. That's very unwise and unfair.

No, the law exists to protect the citizens who uphold it. Having a high GPA, the common man would ASSUME that that person would have enough sense to know that no matter how "responsible" they are in drinking responsibly, if you're underage and you're drinking period just PROVES you're not behaving responbly, and no matter how you want to spin it, you are in fact, breaking the law.

And the ones "with their noses up in the air because they never party", myself included, may come across as pricks because you drink and they disagree are the ones who are REALLY behaving responsibly.

It only takes ONE time, to not be thinking so responsibly that your actions do harm to another.

[Nikki Wright]

*sighs, shakes head sadly*

That's a huge generalization. I've drank since I was a freshman. At the same time I've maintained a grade point average of 3.8. I'm not boasting but trying to make a point.

And you, sir, are completely missing the point. He's saying those who do illegal things are idiots. You did an illegal thing. That makes you an idiot. And, let's be honest here, some of your replies have been a bit less-than intelligent.

And what Matt A. said is true: It only takes one time. You may think you have it under control, but when you're 15, you still can barely take care of yourself, regardless of what you think. Teenagers, Drake, are just like any other human being: they're not invincible. I had two friends die in an alcohol related car accident last year, because they both thought they had things under control, were able to act responsibly and could drink.

Laws aren't set up to prevent "morons who can't handle things" from doing them. Laws are set up to keep people safe, for the most part, and this is one of them. For someone to not realize that is a moron who obviously can't come to terms with getting a grip on reality.

[Drake]

No, the law exists to protect the citizens who uphold it. Having a high GPA, the common man would ASSUME that that person would have enough sense to know that no matter how "responsible" they are in drinking responsibly, if you're underage and you're drinking period just PROVES you're not behaving responbly, and no matter how you want to spin it, you are in fact, breaking the law.

And the ones "with their noses up in the air because they never party", myself included, may come across as pricks because you drink and they disagree are the ones who are REALLY behaving responsibly.

It only takes ONE time, to not be thinking so responsibly that your actions do harm to another.

What I meant by drinking responsibly was drinking like one glass of wine, not getting so drunk that you start beating the shit out of people. My group of friends (who are all very successful academically) and I have drank responsibly all throughout high school and we have never harmed ourselves or anyone else.

And how am I trolling the boards and being similar to Grant M? Just because I'm disagreeing with you doesn't mean that I'm trolling and should be put in a "virtual prison". I'm having a discussion. Please stop directly attacking me.

[Mat Growcott]

I think if a teacher finds something, no matter how they find it out, that could potentially (sp?) damage another students education or a teachers career then it should be acted on. I'm sure as hell that if these girls went on myspace and found their maths teachers account with millions of pictures stating "Here's me, snorting coke and slappin ma bitch up" it'd be a whole 5 minutes before that teacher was fired and never allowed to work again.

I'm sure someone would say "But they're teachers. They should know better!" I know my school said "Don't do drugs" to me repeatedly. Doesn't that mean i should know better as well?

Personally, i think this is a matter that neither side of the arguement can win. 90% of the ones who'll defend the girls are the ones who either do these things themselves and are scared of getting suspended or have friends who break the law's.

[Icypopcorn]

(In response to Nikkita's post because it's too long to quote)
I didn't mean whiney little problems like 'OMG I'M NOT STOOPID' or anything, nor did I mean problems like discrimination (Though it's happened before ToT) I mean stuff like teachers going a little too overboard with thier authority. There are teachers who believe they are not to be corrected because THEY are the teacher. Geez, if the teacher thinks that 1/8 is .18 as a decimal, then you're sure as hell gonna correct her. Any dipshit can go to college and get a degree, didn't you say so yourself? Teachers aren't PERFECT. If a teacher does something like be rude or biased, are you not allowed to bring that up with the teacher? Are you not allowed to say "Mrs. Bob, I noticed you blah blah blah"? It's not like I go up to teachers and go "Nigga PUH-LEEZ. Why do YOU gotta go be HATIN' on US?!!!!" or anything. And I'm not saying every teacher is like that. I have had plenty (and have) good teachers that listen to what I have to say, clear up things, and don't think they are the ultimate authority in the world. I mean, if a teacher can't respect her students or listen to what they have to say, what kid of crap is that?

Nikki- And no one's reading what I'M saying, either. ANY opinion can damage someone's career to some extent. However, there's a bit of a difference between 'That Mr. Bob is a masturbating man whore who f---ed that girl who stays after every day supposedly for her math project!' and 'Mr. Bob is rude and biased T_T Today he <insert story here>'. An opinion CAN damage his career/repuation, ANY negative opinion can, to some extent. Which would basically mean we can't mention any negative opinions. Yes, if someone said that about me (Actually... I probably wouldn't mind much... I'd probably laugh my ass off but that's not the point) they should get in trouble. But if anyone said that about a teacher, they should also get in trouble. I didn't say anyone said a teacher was a child molester or anything, I said some people thought teachers were unfair, ect. ect. ect.

[EDIT] Drinking a glass of wine a couple of times during high school doesn't make you a drinker T_T Alot of kids have tried wine. Most of my friends have, but they're not crazed drinkers 'cause they tried a little bit of wine once XD;

BTW, We have ISS and Detention, too. Except it's called DMC and D-Hall. :3 By our third year, going to DMC isn't really that big of a deal either, and D-Halls are like practically nothing. XD; Now ALC (which is off-campus suspension, where you learn at this place which is like a prison O_O) is something different...

[Tom]

Now ALC (which is off-campus suspension, where you learn at this place which is like a prison O_O) is something different...

Whaaaaat?! Tell us about that.

[Icypopcorn]

Whaaaaat?! Tell us about that.
If you do drugs or shoot someone or something really bad on campus they take you to ALC (I forgot what it stands for) Where for like a month you go to this other school where you have to dress in uniform (black pants, black shoes, and black collared dress shirt. REALLY original) and you just do work all day and you sit in a classroom by yourself and practically eat shit for lunch XD;
My dumbfuck friend went to ALC for being with this pothead that was doing pot T_T (Though he didn't do it himself) He told us about it >_O; It sounded awful...
My other friend tried to stab her ex, so she went to ALC for a year o_o; Crazy kid...

[Drake]

Some of you seem to think that teachers, principals, etc. are these perfect creatures who can do no wrong. And how dare a student express a negative opinion about any of them! Well, I have an example of a bad teacher (well, he was actually the head of the technical department or something) from my school. He basically jeopardized a student's entire future in order to save his own ass.

It goes like this: Harvey (a made-up name, of course) was browsing through the share folder on the school network. After a while, he stumbled upon the personal information of several students (social security numbers to be exact). He immediately told his friend about it, asking him why this kind of information was openly available to anyone in the school district. Someone overheard him and told a school authority. When the person who is in charge of security in our school network learned of his blunder, he made up a story about how Harvey hacked into the system. He would've probably lost his job if people found out that he was putting students' personal information at risk. Harvey was suspended and and he was in the paper the next day. When the school board finally found out the truth, the head of the technical department was fired anyway.

If this teacher had gotten away with this, Harvey (who had done nothing wrong) would have never graduated or gotten accepted into a decent college.

You just read a true story about a school authority making up false lies about a student and harming his reputation. How you like them apples?

[Mat Growcott]

Some of you seem to think that teachers, principals, etc. are these perfect creatures who could do no wrong.

One of my teachers (from when i was 7) turned out to be a pedophile. I don't look at every teacher as a pedophile.

I don't think anyone thinks teachers are "perfect creatures who can do no wrong". But they're human, the same as anyone else.

Your story is invalid :D.

Edit: And to add to that. Theres alot more students then there are teachers. And most teachers get into teaching to help kids. Students are alot more likely to have the "I'll do what i want for a laugh, then deny it" attitude then teachers.

[Icypopcorn]

You just heard a true story about a school authority making up false lies about a student and harming his reputation. How you like them apples?

He deserved it D: But that's not what these people in the thread are saying. They think that a teacher deserves it just as bad as a student if they do the same thing. :D (Just saying it before they start bashing you or something)

Although it IS the truth. Teachers aren't perfect, and they DO do things wrong.
Man, shocking, huh?

[Drake]

One of my teachers (from when i was 7) turned out to be a pedophile. I don't look at every teacher as a pedophile.

I don't think anyone thinks teachers are "perfect creatures who can do no wrong". But they're human, the same as anyone else.

Your story is invalid :D.

Edit: And to add to that. Theres alot more students then there are teachers. And most teachers get into teaching to help kids. Students are alot more likely to have the "I'll do what i want for a laugh, then deny it" attitude then teachers.

I never said that all teachers are bad. I'm just saying they're not all perfect.

My actual story (not the part where I try to make a point) did not contain any arguments. I was simply telling you about events that happened in my school. Therefore, how can it be invalid?

[Mat Growcott]

Therefore, how can it be invalid?

I figured you were using it as a "See. TEACHERS CAN BE BAD" arguement.

Sorry :P

[ClymAngus]

And you, sir, are completely missing the point. He's saying those who do illegal things are idiots. You did an illegal thing. That makes you an idiot. And, let's be honest here, some of your replies have been a bit less-than intelligent.

I always love it when I hear you debate in a calm, quite and lady like way that's so becoming of your gentel nature. When you take on board members views with a calm demenor yet without insulting them in any way slowly bring them round to your way of thinking. Mmmmm.

There are in this world laws that are for the good of all. There are in equal measure laws that need to be debated. The perception of which laws are cast in stone and which are open to negociation depends greatly on the culture in which you find yourself in. Fighting a law you don't believe to be just isn't idiotic as a matter of course. That said I see no eveidence in this instance that the people involved were doing this. I don't see Drakes comments as "a bit less-than intelligent" they inspire heated debate true, he could be accused of needing better formulation. A touch harsh me thinks.



And what Matt A. said is true: It only takes one time. You may think you have it under control, but when you're 15, you still can barely take care of yourself, regardless of what you think. Teenagers, Drake, are just like any other human being: they're not invincible. I had two friends die in an alcohol related car accident last year, because they both thought they had things under control, were able to act responsibly and could drink.

A reasonable point that could be applied to so many situations, some involving drink and some without. That said drinking has a nasty habit of taking other people with you when things go wrong. Which I think was the main point you were trying to bring across, yes?



Laws aren't set up to prevent "morons who can't handle things" from doing them. Laws are set up to keep people safe, for the most part, and this is one of them. For someone to not realize that is a moron who obviously can't come to terms with getting a grip on reality.

Quit flattering him Nic your making him blush.

I could go on to mention "small beer" among other historical facts but that would just inflame an argument that's already looking pretty derailed. This topic is fast becoming a trainwreck.

[Tom]

I'm not pointing fingers, taking sides or telling anyone they're wrong about anything.. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.. but:

Breaking laws doesn't always make you an idiot. Being an idiot is what makes you an idiot. Not every law, the reasoning for them, the people who pass them or the motivation behind them are shining examples of intelligence or intelligent philosophies.

...Just sayin'.

OK, I'm done.

[Icypopcorn]

I'm not pointing fingers, taking sides or telling anyone they're wrong about anything.. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.. but:

Breaking laws doesn't always make you an idiot. Being an idiot is what makes you an idiot. Not every law, the reasoning for them, the people who pass them or the motivation behind them are shining examples of intelligence or intelligent philosophies.

...Just sayin'.

OK, I'm done.
Yeah. x3; I mean, after all, the sale of videogames to anyone under 17 is illegal in California. Now is anyone under 17 who buys a videogame an idiot? No. :D Breaking the drinking law is one thing (I mean, if you're like seven and drinking that's bad O_O) but breaking this retarded videogame law doesn't make you an idiot.
Depends on which law I guess o_o; I mean, think about speeding. We ALL speed. >_>; I've never gotten in a car with someone who doesn't go atleast 5 miles over the limit (haha) their speed limits are just set ridiculously low :\

[Tom]

I mean, think about speeding. We ALL speed. >_>; I've never gotten in a car with someone who doesn't go atleast 5 miles over the limit (haha) their speed limits are just set ridiculously low :\

O_O Well... I don't think I'd go so far as to say that all speeding laws are ridiculous. I am a veeeeeeeery careful driver. Can't be too careful! I wish more people would obey the driving laws, actually.

[Tony]

O_O Well... I don't think I'd go so far as to say that all speeding laws are ridiculous. I am a veeeeeeeery careful driver. Can't be too careful! I wish more people would obey the driving laws, actually.

... and I, for one, wish people would drive a little faster. :twisted:

[Drake]

... and I, for one, wish people would drive a little faster. :twisted:

Me too! Don't you just hate it when there's this long line of cars being held up because the driver in front decided to drive like 10 mph under the speed limit? >D;;;

Edit: Oh, and I'm glad to see that at least some people see my point of view of the government and all its laws not being god.

[Matt Cruea]

But to knowingly break a law, whether you think it is unjust or not, is a stupid thing to do. Drake's "and not get caught" line only furthers the image that I think some of us have in our heads (that of a 15 year-old with a leather jacket, a cigarette hanging from his unshaven yet unhairy maw, and a curfew of 8:00).

No one is saying teachers can do no wrong, Drakester. I never read any replies of that nature. If there is any bias inherent, it's in your corner as you obviously, from your boasts of underage drinking and other comments, have a problem with authority, and perhaps authority figures in general. Of course, we could just chalk that up to teenage rebellion and get on with our lives.

Whoever posted about some sort of out-of-school detention facility, that's what I would've liked to have seen, but not related to the school. More of a local law enforcement agency.

[Nanuri]

You just read a true story about a school authority making up false lies about a student and harming his reputation. How you like them apples?

I see no apples. Only bullshit.

Also, to reiterate what was said earlier, your grades are not evidence of common sense or intelligence. Besides, unless we know what classes you're taking, a 3.8 is not necessarily that impressive. I'm dumber than a rock when it comes to common sense (though I've enough not to drink consistently before my brain is developed enough to withstand the barrage that alcohol can perform upon it), and I have a 4.72 GPA between five AP classes and two professional-level journalism classes. I also have a perfect track record of 5s on my AP tests.

I also don't know the difference between my left and my right, I never remember where I left things and I'll miss something that's right in front of my face-- not exactly the brightest crayon in the box. So your argument is moot.

How about THEM apples?


I'll catch up on the rest of this thread when I'm in the mood for more fuckwittery. I've had my dose for now.

Edit: Oh, also.


A bunch of bullshit about how Nikki debates.
Irrelevant, irreverent and at best a piece of crap. Stop sucking up to the admins--what, are you trying to win friends and influence people here?--and actually express your OWN opinions for once. Thanks.

[Tony]

Slander, libel.. those things are against the law. The second you break the law, you're breaking your first amendment right. If you're opinion is "I hate Mr. Teacherman because he's a stupid child molesting asshole," That's going to create a problem. It could be your opinion that he is a "stupid child molesting asshole," but that'd send Mr. Teacherman right into lawsuit city, intersecting with hobo town.

However, what IS interesting, is that if you only say that "Mr. Teacherman is a sanctimonious asshole," that would actually not be libelous. So remember, kids, that when you're out insulting people, just make sure to stop short of making up facts.

[ClymAngus]

haver

\Ha"ver\, v. i. [Etymol. uncertain.] To maunder; to talk foolishly; to chatter. [Scot.] --Sir W. Scott.



Irrelevant, irreverent and at best a piece of crap. Stop sucking up to the admins--what, are you trying to win friends and influence people here?--and actually express your OWN opinions for once. Thanks.

Oh darn you've seen through me, that's exactly what I did this morning I woke up and thought. My god! I really must impress some teenager luvvies today!

For the love of god please follow this link, read understand and inwardly digest.......

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ironic

I won't ask for an appology, it would be demeaning on your part.

You want an opinion? Ok.

When you understand the term "ironic", you may wish to reflect upon your some what precarious position, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones my dear. Calling yourself. "The Miss VAA Runner-Up?" Why don't you clean their teeth for them whilst your up there. Molars first of course :)

I told you this thread was a trainwreck.

[Nanuri]

Some more bullshit.
Instead of resorting to personal attacks, since you are clearly far more mature and intelligent than myself (and- gasp- can use a dictionary!), why don't you give your opinion on the THREAD TOPIC, which was what I asked to begin with.

Also, if you look closely at Nikki's custom title, you will see that she is "THE Miss VAA." So, as an IRONIC little tribute to my having actually very little talent, I wrote that I was the Miss VAA Runner-Up. Hardly necessary to post a forum reply about it, but that's what you specialize in. Very long-winded replies that say absolutely nothing.

The only person making this thread a trainwreck (at present) is yourself.


BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND,

I still believe that the majority of those still irate at this decision (on this thread at least) are totally misinterpreting my position. If a teacher is a jackass and "deserves to be fired," by all means, take the proper action to get him/her fired if you are truly convinced.

However, resorting to paltry attacks via livejournal or myspace won't accomplish anything except get you in trouble for making those remarks with blatant disregard for who reads them. Once you make it private, you (by default) remove it from the 'public' sector, which is where the controversy is. By attacking someone else and making others think more poorly of them, you are indeed hurting their reputation... and it can lead to worse, such as lawsuits.

If teachers aren't allowed to post or make comments about their students in public, we can extend the same courtesy to them.

[Matt Cruea]

So THAT'S what "haver" means!?

I always WONDERED whatever the fuck haver meant.

[Matt Cruea]

Kind of a let down, really.

[ClymAngus]

Instead of resorting to personal attacks, since you are clearly far more mature and intelligent than myself (and- gasp- can use a dictionary!), why don't you give your opinion on the THREAD TOPIC, which was what I asked to begin with.

Also, if you look closely at Nikki's custom title, you will see that she is "THE Miss VAA." So, as an IRONIC little tribute to my having actually very little talent, I wrote that I was the Miss VAA Runner-Up. Hardly necessary to post a forum reply about it, but that's what you specialize in. Very long-winded replies that say absolutely nothing.

The only person making this thread a trainwreck (at present) is yourself.


But I like personal attacks....and you don't appear to be exactly shying away from them earther. Oh shucks your no fun. Serious then. Ho hum OK....

If you seriously wish to continue this folly then please do so over PM as I'm not going to play meaningless point scoring games with an 18 year old. I doubt you will, but there we are.

Matt, what did you expect bells and whistles? :p



BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND,

I still believe that the majority of those still irate at this decision (on this thread at least) are totally misinterpreting my position. If a teacher is a jackass and "deserves to be fired," by all means, take the proper action to get him/her fired if you are truly convinced.

However, resorting to paltry attacks via livejournal or myspace won't accomplish anything except get you in trouble for making those remarks with blatant disregard for who reads them. Once you make it private, you (by default) remove it from the 'public' sector, which is where the controversy is. By attacking someone else and making others think more poorly of them, you are indeed hurting their reputation... and it can lead to worse, such as lawsuits.

If teachers aren't allowed to post or make comments about their students in public, we can extend the same courtesy to them.

But this is an over simplification, as I said in my posts earlier both the pupils and the teachers are at fault, yes in a perfect world no one would ever post anything nasty about anything or anybody, and the internet would be full of fluffy bunnies, goodness and sweeties for all. Not Going to Happen. By the teaching staff entering the site they started to play the game of teacher bating at the students level. When what they should have done is get in contact with the service provider. The pupils shouldn't be regestered at the site PERIOD.

[Drake]

Drake's "and not get caught" line only furthers the image that I think some of us have in our heads (that of a 15 year-old with a leather jacket, a cigarette hanging from his unshaven yet unhairy maw, and a curfew of 8:00).
I'm 17, people! Stop saying I'm 15! XD Yes, I realize I look young for my age in my profile pic. Get over it. And I don't own any leather jackets, don't smoke, and don't have a curfew (unless you're talking about a legal curfew, in which case it's 11:00). If you actually met me in person, your impression would be anything but the little rebel you described.

If there is any bias inherent, it's in your corner as you obviously, from your boasts of underage drinking and other comments, have a problem with authority, and perhaps authority figures in general. Of course, we could just chalk that up to teenage rebellion and get on with our lives.
I specifically stated that I was not boasting but trying to prove a point that the act of drinking doesn't automatically transform you into a dumbass. I don't just have this big "problem with authority", only a problem with people such as the corrupt, dishonest, selfish school authority that I described earlier. And people aren't necessarily idiots for breaking certain laws. The government isn't God.

Besides, unless we know what classes you're taking, a 3.8 is not necessarily that impressive...I have a 4.72 GPA between five AP classes and two professional-level journalism classes.
In my school the maximum possible grade point average is a 4.0. :P

I'll miss something that's right in front of my face
You mean like this whole thread you've been reading?

"A bunch of bullshit about how Nikki debates." - Clymangus

Irrelevant, irreverent and at best a piece of crap. Stop sucking up to the admins--what, are you trying to win friends and influence people here?--and actually express your OWN opinions for once. Thanks.
Wow. He was doing anything BUT sucking up to the admins. You really do miss things that are right in front of your face. e_e

[CristieJ]

Nanuri-

You may be discussing the topic at hand but you also took the time out in your own post to insult someone (Clymangus and Drake). Why don't you guys take your personal matters to private messaging? I'd like to see at least ONE thread contain an intelligent discussion and not be closed because of bickering.



That said…

I have to agree with you on the fact that grades have NOTHING to do with intelligence. Honestly, I half-assed high school. But I still made it into all AP and Honors classes and got the highest grade on almost every test I took. I didn't get in to my school of choice, but that also has a lot to do with the community I grew up in and the people around me. It was my personal decision to do a half-ass job and I got what I deserved by having to attend a community college. NOW, I have a 4.0 in college and will be transferring to Cal Berkeley soon. I'm not saying that justifies their choice to drink, but I don't think that the school should be involved in their private decisions.



And, at the same time that I think grades have nothing to do with intelligence, I have to say that we cannot judge these girls and call them idiots for drinking. I drink. I'm not an idiot. I'm underage. I'm 19. I'm an adult. I live on my own, go to school full time and work full time. What I do on my vacation time is my business. I was more adult than half the adults I knew when I was 16! If they went on vacation and drank, oh well. They obviously were responsible enough to not do it on school grounds or on a school night or to go and drive drunk; and this is an assumption based on the fact that the photos are the only evidence the school has.



If the principal AND an officer are involved, my opinion stands that the officer should have handled the situation and not the school. Here is my attempt at an example:

If I held a job at a department store and I went over a friend's house and stole $100 bucks out of his/ her wallet, should that department store be allowed to suspend me from work or fire me? No. Okay, what if that friend happened to be a co-worker, and that coworker told my boss. They still couldn't punish me because it has nothing to do with work- unless the party was a work-related celebration or the money was stolen AT work.

The vacation those girls took, from my understanding, was NOT school related nor did it happen during school hours. It did not interfere with the school’s ability to provide education to these girls. It is a civil matter. Period.

[Jessica Adnee]

I'm 17, people! Stop saying I'm 15! XD Yes, I realize I look young for my age in my profile pic. Get over it. And I don't own any leather jackets, don't smoke, and don't have a curfew (unless you're talking about a legal curfew, in which case it's 11:00). If you actually met me in person, your impression would be anything but the little rebel you described.

I specifically said that I was not boasting but trying to prove a point that the act of drinking doesn't magically transform you into a dumbass. I don't just have this big "problem with authority", only a problem with poeple such as the corrupt, dishonest, selfish school authority that I described earlier. And people aren't necessarily idiots for breaking certain laws. The government isn't God.

In my school the maximum possible grade point average is a 4.0. :P

You mean like this whole thread you've been reading?

Wow. He was doing anything BUT sucking up to the admins. You really do miss things that are right in front of your face. e_e


Now, you're point about not all laws being good laws is a valid point. True, some laws aren't good, however, we aren't discussing laws. We're discussing THIS law.

THIS law, is a good law. THIS is a law that should be followed.

Also, the whole thing isn't about what laws should be followed and which ones shouldn't... it's about the fact that these girls were doing illegal things and posting recorded evidence of it.

Now, they may not have been doing it on school property, but the fact that there is, in fact, recorded evidence of it allows the school the grounds to punish these girls as if they had committed the crime (yes, Drake, CRIME) on campus or during school hours.

[Matt Cruea]

Aw, crap. We're dissecting posts now.


I'm 17, people! Stop saying I'm 15! XD Yes, I realize I look young for my age in my profile pic. Get over it. And I don't own any leather jackets, don't smoke, and don't have a curfew (unless you're talking about a legal curfew, in which case it's 11:00). If you actually met me in person, your impression would be anything but the little rebel you described.

You mistake my aside for fact, when I was obviously going for the easy and cheap sinking of your anti-establishment battleship. While you're not 15, you don't own a leather jacket, don't smoke, and don't have a curfew, you are certainly still coming off like that idiot kid I described, no?

17 and 15 are not too far from one another. But debating ages doesn't get one anywhere, as a 12 year old could possibly out-debate a 17 year old (see this thread!).


I specifically said that I was not boasting but trying to prove a point that the act of drinking doesn't magically transform you into a dumbass. I don't just have this big "problem with authority", only a problem with poeple such as the corrupt, dishonest, selfish school authority that I described earlier. And people aren't necessarily idiots for breaking certain laws. The government isn't God.

You can specifically say that you don't hate black people all day, but if you talk proudly about how you get away with burning crosses in their yards, I think you hate black people.

That was sort of a metaphor being used to prove a point. I wasn't actually accusing you of being racist, Drake. I hope you didn't think that.

The "corrupt, yadda yadda yadda, free Mumia, yadda yadda yadda," whatever isn't the topic at hand. Are you saying the school in the original post is corrupt? That the principal is corrupt? Who cares about your story that you told three pages ago that didn't really prove any point at all.

The government is not God. But you're not awesome because you think that, either, my little Che Guevara. If you break the law, you're an idiot because you are obviously bringing unwanted consequences upon yourself that you could've easily avoided. If I step in a bear trap, thinking that "the hunter who laid it here is not the boss of me!", I'm still an idiot because I lost a foot.

[Icypopcorn]

[EDIT] Okay, now it's not so bad... when I posted this it was beginning to turn into a flame war. XD;
Once again, Cristie took the words outta my mouth...

WHOA... OKAY. I'm not a mod, but...
THIS IS BEGINNING TO GET OUT OF HAND. XD;
Because now we are BASHING EACH OTHER instead of making points. X3;

Oh, and by the way, it's not like teachers don't talk about thier students. Of course they don't go 'OMG THAT PERSON IS A EFFIN MOFO' or anything, but they DO 'discuss' their students. And yes, I've heard a teacher say to another that a particular student was 'rude'. I went to a Lunch detention once and the room I was in was a spare room that teachers went to during lunch, and I knew most of those teachers and I'm a generally mature student, at least compared to everyone else, so I think that's why they didn't hesitate to 'discuss their students' infront of me (I was the only student there.) One of them was talking about some little delinquent they had that kept throwing paper airplanes or something, and then talked back in a disrespectful manner. And she said he was rude. Now is that something to fire her for? No. xD; So why should a kid get in trouble for calling a teacher rude based on some past experiences they've had with them?

[Jessica Adnee]

WHOA... OKAY. I'm not a mod, but...
THIS IS BEGINNING TO GET OUT OF HAND. XD;
Because now we are BASHING EACH OTHER instead of making points. X3;

Oh, and by the way, it's not like teachers don't talk about thier students. Of course they don't go 'OMG THAT PERSON IS A EFFIN MOFO' or anything, but they DO 'discuss' their students. And yes, I've heard a teacher say to another that a particular student was 'rude'. I went to a Lunch detention once and the room I was in was a spare room that teachers went to during lunch, and I knew most of those teachers and I'm a generally mature student, at least compared to everyone else, so I think that's why they didn't hesitate to 'discuss their students' infront of me (I was the only student there.) One of them was talking about some little delinquent they had that kept throwing paper airplanes or something, and then talked back in a disrespectful manner. And she said he was rude. Now is that something to fire her for? No. xD; So why should a kid get in trouble for calling a teacher rude based on some past experiences they've had with them?

Because, my dear, you're missing the point.

They were discussing at lunch, amongst themselves (and you, apartently). They weren't posting something or making things up.

They didn't log onto a pubilc LJ account and post, "My student, Girl McWoman, is a whore and slept with quite a few older boys." THAT would be slander and... well... not good.

Now, these girls might just post, "Mr. Man is a bad person and he checks out his students." And that is bad enough, but it could escalate to something more.

I'm not saying that talking about people behind their back is bad (well, it is, but only morally) but when you make up lies that could ruin someone's career and reputation, then it's against the law.

If you still don't get what I mean, watch Mean Girls.

[Icypopcorn]

I've watched Mean Girls. I love that movie :O
Yes, I suppose that's true. But the thing is-- the people I mentioned didn't SPREAD false rumors. They simply stated their opinions of people based on experiences they had with them. They didn't run around saying that Mr. Man checked out girls. The people George mentioned didn't even do ANY of that (atleast the slutty middle schoolers... the high school girls were just retarded.) There WAS no talking behind anyone's back or ABOUT anyone.

[EDIT] Also, I posted that up there to inform whoever posted that teachers weren't allowed to talk about their students that they actually DID.

[Jessica Adnee]

I've watched Mean Girls. I love that movie :O
Yes, I suppose that's true. But the thing is-- the people I mentioned didn't SPREAD false rumors. They simply stated their opinions of people based on experiences they had with them. They didn't run around saying that Mr. Man checked out girls. The people George mentioned didn't even do ANY of that (atleast the slutty middle schoolers... the high school girls were just retarded.) There WAS no talking behind anyone's back or ABOUT anyone.

[EDIT] Also, I posted that up there to inform whoever posted that teachers weren't allowed to talk about their students that they actually DID.

Yes, but the middle school girls weren't punished by the school.

The ones that had evidence of them drinking were punished.

[Icypopcorn]

Alright, but I still don't think they should've been punished by the SCHOOL, 'cause it had nothing to do with that... (Now this is something completely different from what we were just talking about XD)

[CristieJ]

Yes, but the middle school girls weren't punished by the school.

The ones that had evidence of them drinking were punished.

*Points to her last reply*

I don't think my reply was seen because everyone posted at once.

But, I think... even if they CAUGHT the girls while they were out on vacation, I don't think the matter should be handled by the schoool. Evidence or not. I agree with Icypopcorn. It is out of their jurisdiction.

[Jessica Adnee]

Alright, but I still don't think they should've been punished by the SCHOOL, 'cause it had nothing to do with that... (Now this is something completely different from what we were just talking about XD)

Yes, this is different, but it's what the thread is actually about.

Anyway, as I stated earlier, the school had every right to punish them. It's their job to make sure these girls stay safe and grow up to be happy, healthy adults.

The fact that these girls were drinking left the school with the choice to ignore it and pretend it didn't happen (which could very well get them in trouble with the parents) or to stop it with a punishment.

Frankly, I think the second one will benefit them more in the long run, don't you agree?

[Drake]

You are wrong.

Now, you're point about not all laws being good laws is a valid point. True, some laws aren't good, however, we aren't discussing laws. We're discussing THIS law.

THIS law, is a good law. THIS is a law that should be followed.


Now, if you had actually read this thread, you would know that we began discussing laws in general. So no, you're wrong, miss.

And a law isn't good just because you say it is. Why not try backing up you're arguments like I did instead of just saying "THIS IS TRUE, PERIOD." Think a little, hmm?


If you break the law, you're an idiot because you are obviously bringing unwanted consequences upon yourself that you could've easily avoided. If I step in a bear trap, thinking that "the hunter who laid it here is not the boss of me!", I'm still an idiot because I lost a foot.

The whole basis of your argument is that people are idiots for breaking laws because of the consequences they will suffer by doing so. But I wrote whole posts explaining how all throughout high school I have had NO consequences for drinking underage because I have done so responsibly. And I'm not going to reiterate entire posts.

[Icypopcorn]

Yes, punishing them was the right thing to do. But not with a SUSPENSION. They should've reported them to the police or something. It still had nothing to do with the school, whether they wanted to punish them or not.

[Jessica Adnee]

Now, if had actually read this thread, you would know that we began discussing laws in general. So no, you're wrong, miss.

And a law isn't good just because you say it is. Why not try backing up you're arguments like I did instead of just saying "THIS IS TRUE, PERIOD." Think a little, hmm?

The whole basis of your argument is that people are idiots for breaking laws because of the consequences they will suffer by doing so. But I wrote whole posts explaining how all throughout high school I have had NO consequences for drinking underage because I have done so responsibly. And I'm not going to reiterate entire posts.

Okay, read before you post. I DID make a point.

And yes, there was a consquence for you to be drinking in high school. You lost quite a few braincells, as we can all tell. OH SNAP.

I won't go into long stories but I know what I'm talking about. Drinking when underage and IN HIGH SCHOOL is against the law.

I'll say this once more: if you break the law and the school has evidence of it, they can punish you.

A few years ago there were kids at my high school that AFTER SCHOOL HOURS and OFF CAMPUS lit a moltov cocktail and threw it into a van. They were expelled from the school?

Do you consider that wrong? It's just the same as this situation... they broke and law and therefore should be punished.

Were there to be more evidence, like them catching the girls drinking, I'm sure the authorities would have been brought into it. However, with the amount of evidence they have, I think the punishment suits the deed.


EDIT: Also, Drake, just because you didn't get caught doesn't mean it was right. People dont' get caught for shop lifting all the time, so I guess it's okay, right?

[CristieJ]

The whole basis of your argument is that people are idiots for breaking laws because of the consequences they will suffer by doing so. But I wrote whole posts explaining how all throughout high school I have had NO consequences for drinking underage because I have done so responsibly. And I'm not going to reiterate entire posts.

When I was 17, I drank. I agree with you... do it responsibly. If the school finds evidence, I think they should turn it over to the police or my parents. I don't think if I went on vacation and had myself a drink, that the school should punish me weeks later and make me miss quality class time for it. However, if I'm dumb enough to take pictures of it I think that it should be turned over to my parents or the law. That's part of drinking responsibly... not getting caught or showcasing that you're breaking laws. That's just dumb.

[Icypopcorn]

Do you consider that wrong?
Uh, yeah. That's what we're all saying here. XD; Is that a rule? If it is, then that doesn't mean we can't disagree with it. xD; And what about the parents? Why don't they just inform the parents and let them take care of it? And if they don't care, tell the police. But it's got nothing to do with school, PERIOD. So the school shouldn't punish them.

[Tom]

Anyway, as I stated earlier, the school had every right to punish them. It's their job to make sure these girls stay safe and grow up to be happy, healthy adults.

I disagree with you there. That is the _parents'_ job, not the schools. Their safety is the priority of the school when they are _in_ school. The job of the school is to educate the young ladies. If this were on school property, then I could see giving them a school-related punishment. But this was something that occured on vacation. That is beyond the realm of the principal. S/he should have reported the girls to their parents and the proper authorities, acting as a concerned invidual, and not a school principal.

[CristieJ]

Okay, read before you post. I DID make a point.

And yes, there was a consquence for you to be drinking in high school. You lost quite a few braincells, as we can all tell. OH SNAP.


I find a lot of offense in the things you;re sying to Drake. I drank on occasion when I was underage. A lot of it was cultural with my family and it wasn't anything hardcore... but I mean, drinking doesn't make you an idiot and I don't think you should be insulting Drake with such personal remarks.



I won't go into long stories but I know what I'm talking about. Drinking when underage and IN HIGH SCHOOL is against the law.

I'll say this once more: if you break the law and the school has evidence of it, they can punish you.

A few years ago there were kids at my high school that AFTER SCHOOL HOURS and OFF CAMPUS lit a moltov cocktail and threw it into a van. They were expelled from the school?

Do you consider that wrong? It's just the same as this situation... they broke and law and therefore should be punished.

Were there to be more evidence, like them catching the girls drinking, I'm sure the authorities would have been brought into it. However, with the amount of evidence they have, I think the punishment suits the deed.


Actually, it is completely out of their jurisdiction. The only reason they get away with it is because people let them. Just like how the police need a search warrant to enter your house, if you allow them to come in then you give up your rights.

[Jessica Adnee]

Uh, yeah. That's what we're all saying here. XD; Is that a rule? If it is, then that doesn't mean we can't disagree with it. xD; And what about the parents? Why don't they just inform the parents and let them take care of it? And if they don't care, tell the police. But it's got nothing to do with school, PERIOD. So the school shouldn't punish them.

Do you even understand how liabel the school is? Parents complain to the school about everything.

Also, I think you missed my point about the whole moltov cocktail thing...

The point I was trying to make is that if you break a law outside of school the school must do something as well.

Those boys broke a law, they got in trouble.
These girls broke a law, they got in trouble.

[CristieJ]

I disagree with you there. That is the _parents'_ job, not the schools. Their safety is the priority of the school when they are _in_ school. If this were on school property, then I could see giving them a school-related punishment. But this was something that occured on vacation. That is beyond the realm of the principal. S/he should have reported the girls to the authorities and their parents, acting as a concerned invidual, and not a school principal.

Exactly what I've been trying to say this entire time. Are my posts invisible? lol. j/k

[Icypopcorn]

Parents complain to the school about everything.
The point I was trying to make is that if you break a law outside of school the school must do something as well.

Yeah, they do. But that's about SCHOOL-RELATED things.
Okay, I STILL don't understand WHY the school must do something. Dude, it's outside of school. If the school could punish kids for everything they did wrong then there'd be no need for Juvenille.


Exactly what I've been trying to say this entire time. Are my posts invisible? lol. j/k
Not to me... I'm reading them... XD;

[CristieJ]

Yeah, they do. But that's about SCHOOL-RELATED things.
Okay, I STILL don't understand WHY the school must do something. Dude, it's outside of school. If the school could punish kids for everything they did wrong then there'd be no need for Juvenille.

The school shouldn't be allowed to PUNISH them, but I do think they should do SOMETHING about the situation. For example, bring the issue to light for the proper authorities.

[Drake]

Hey Jessica, ad hominem attacks = bad arguments.

And yes, blowing up someone else's van is of course wrong and should be punished. But responsibly drinking a glass of wine here or there where you don't harm yourself or others is not wrong except in the eyes of the law and is no one else's business. If you're stupid enough to get caught doing it, that's another thing.

[Jessica Adnee]

Hey Jessica, ad hominem attacks = bad arguments.

And yes, blowing up someone else's van is of course wrong and should be punished. But responsibly drinking a glass of wine here or there where you don't harm yourself or others is no one else's business. If you're stupid enough to get caught doing it, that's another thing.


It doesn't matter if you harm someone else... it's still breaking the law. What about that don't you get?

[Drake]

It doesn't matter if you harm someone else... it's still breaking the law. What about that don't you get?

All you've been saying this whole time is BREAKING THE LAW = WRONG EVIL STUPID NO MATTER WHAT without backing yourself up with reasoning. I understand it's breaking the law but....*sigh* I'm not even going to bother repeating myself yet again. Go back a few pages and read my arguments. Also see Cristie's arguments. It's not that hard.

And Cristie, I've also been reading your posts. I agree with you. ;-)

Edit: "When I was 17, I drank. I agree with you... do it responsibly. If the school finds evidence, I think they should turn it over to the police or my parents. I don't think if I went on vacation and had myself a drink, that the school should punish me weeks later and make me miss quality class time for it. However, if I'm dumb enough to take pictures of it I think that it should be turned over to my parents or the law. That's part of drinking responsibly... not getting caught or showcasing that you're breaking laws. That's just dumb."

- CristieJ

Good example of my point of view.

[Jessica Adnee]

All you've been saying this whole time is BREAKING THE LAW = WRONG EVIL STUPID NO MATTER WHAT without backing yourself up with reasoning. I understand it's breaking the law but....*sigh* I'm not even going to bother repeating myself yet again. Go back a few pages and read my arguments. It's not that hard.

And Cristie, I've also been reading your posts. I agree with you. ;-)

Ah, my dear Che, understand that those laws are there for a reason.

People end up hurting themselves or others when intoxicated and more often than not, when underage. I've seen many people hurt because of drinking when underage.

Now, I know it's because they were drinking irresponsibly, however, more often than not, teenagers drink irresponsibly. The law is in place to try and limit that.

That law is in place for a reason. If you had an ounce of common sense you'd have figured that out by now.

[Tom]

It doesn't matter if you harm someone else... it's still breaking the law. What about that don't you get?

So is fandubbing, though, and we all do that, here. I think what Drake, in his own little way, is saying is that just because you break a law, that doesn't mean you're inferior, or an idiot, or evil or wrong. Yes, underaged drinking is against the law--but if you break it and you don't harm anyone, then what's the problem, other than possibly getting yourself into trouble? I think it's a good thing that people can think for themselves without bowing down to every single thing that authority commands us to do. Sometimes, laws are faulty, too.

Anyway, I really don't think either side in this 'responsibly breaking the law' discussion is actually going to get anywhere. O_O Why don't we go back to discussing the school's action toward the girls' behavior on vacation.

[CristieJ]

On a positive note:
Good thing those girls didn't decide to go out and drive drunk. huh? Perhaps if they had, this discussion may not have been possible due to THOSE consequences. Anyways. I don't think breaking all laws is dumb. I mean, if you KNEW half of the laws that America has that AREN'T enforced because they were made back in the Puritan days or during times of mass hysteria.

[Icypopcorn]

Uh yeah. I agree this is getting a LITTLE off topic here XD;; Oh well, still a good discussion.
Anyways~ The thing is, no one got arrested for drinking a little underage. So it obviously doesn't matter so much because they didn't harm themselves and didn't harm anyone else, either.

[Mat Growcott]

We should clear a couple of things up. First, by drink, i think the majority of people meant Binge Drinking or drinking to excess. A glass of wine isn't going to hurt you, in fact it can actually benefit you and help protect against several dangerous diseases and afflictions later on in life. While drinking to excess CAN and WILL screw you up in some way.

Secondly, i don't know the laws in america, but in england it's legal to drink, in your house with your parents permission, from the age of 6. I believe from the age of 12 you can drink in a pub with a meal. And from 15 or 16 you can drink if your parents buy and accompany you. I've never been to yankland (sounds wrong >_>) and i don't know the laws there. Probaly very different.


School has direct juristiction until you get home. After that i'm preety sure that it's power stretches until you threaten the education of other students (i mean, who wants a drunk drug addict sitting next to you in english?) or mention the school in some way.

Oh, and read the posts, people. Libel has been described several times (i think by Nikki) and alot of other people have come up with valid points, Like Matt Cruea, that you can't really argue with. If you break a law, you're an idiot. Whether you agree with that law or not. The underage drinking one probaly is less harsh then some people in the topic are making it out to be. I'm sure theres a limit on how many units you can drink in a week. But i doubt having a glass of wine can get you in trouble.

And as i said in my earlier post, those girls should have been punished. Let's face it, you'd have to be preety naive as a parent if you didn't know what those girls would have got up to. The school has a right to get rid of them, IN CASE they do it on school grounds. I hate this idea of giving people a chance to commit a crime. In a more extreme case, its like letting a serial killer out on the grounds that he's changed.
I don't think we should look at the girls who got suspended "unfairly". We should look at the ones who could have been affected by them if they hadn't got suspended.

[Mat Growcott]

So is fandubbing, though, and we all do that, here

Good point. But thats a copyright law...It's not going to get your face smashed in (unless it's really really REALLY bad).

Legally, fandubbing is stupid. The creator can sue you, but whats the point? If you're doing a fandub the chances are you don't have the money to do your own anime so they'd lose money in the case.

On the other hand, there have been times when people have translated things online and provided them for free and still had the company come down on them like a ton of bricks. RPG Maker's translator for a start. Also, SquareEnix (and several others) frequantly shuts down Fan Games.

I don't fandub :D. But its a different kettle of fish all together...

Sorry for the double post >_<

[Drake]

We should clear a couple of things up. First, by drink, i think the majority of people meant Binge Drinking or drinking to excess. A glass of wine isn't going to hurt you, in fact it can actually benefit you and help protect against several dangerous diseases and afflictions later on in life. While drinking to excess CAN and WILL screw you up in some way.

Exactly. Why did certain poeple not listen when I said "a glass of wine here and there"?

*Yawn* This thread has me exhausted. So, um, what ClymAngus said, what Icypopcorn said, what Tom said, and what CristieJ said. Two thumbs up. :-)

[Matt Cruea]

I think fandubbing is stupid, too.

It's too early to respond to any other posts.

[Drake]

I just realized something. Now, I don't want to start a whole new discussion, but...

If people never questioned the laws in this country, we'd still have slaves, segregation, limited women's rights, virtually no black rights, etc.

Some of you have explicitely stated that people who break the law (no matter which law) are idiots simply for doing something illegal. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man, she was doing something ILLEGAL. *gasp* Therefore, according to some of you (and you know who you are), Rosa Parks is an idiot.

[Matt Cruea]

Just because she did something brave and good, doesn't mean it wasn't stupid.

I find it laughable that you're comparing underage drinking to the civil rights movement.

[Mat Growcott]

If i said i don't know who Rosa Parks is will i be shot at for being an idiot?

To be fair, in a majority of places the gender's still aren't equal. Neither are the races. T'is just the way of the world. It is a shame really, but racism and sexism still exist. It's just not such a big deal because now everybody is supposedly equal. Even some feminists who claim to want equal rights are more in favour of Women being more important in society then men.

I don't think there was ever a law concerning slavery, until someone banned it.

Segregation was the result of an ignorant society and built on slavery.

I don't think right now there are many laws that i know of, that're heavily enforced, that we'll look back on an think "We were really stupid"

i've probaly missed something. So sorry if my post is more stupid then usual :D

[Drake]

Just because she did something brave and good, doesn't mean it wasn't stupid.

I find it laughable that you're comparing underage drinking to the civil rights movement.

Sorry, but you can't get out of this one, especially not by pretending to misunderstand my post. I didn't even mention underage drinking. I was talking about laws in general and referring to how you and others said that people who break any laws for whatever reason are idiots.

And calling what Rosa Parks did stupid? That's just distasteful.

Edit: Black dagger, segregation was a law. Of course, it's okay that you don't know the history of a foreign country.

[Mat Growcott]

segregation was a law

Still, it was a law made by an ignorant society. It doesn't change what i was saying too much.

[Matt Alan]

Sorry, but you can't get out of this one, especially not by pretending to misunderstand my post. I didn't even mention underage drinking. I was talking about laws in general and referring to how you and others said that people who break any laws for whatever reason are idiots.

And calling what Rosa Parks did stupid? That's just distasteful.

Edit: Black dagger, segregation was a law. Then again, I wouldn't expect you to know that since you're not from this country.

How you can compare the unjustness of underage drinking to something as horrific as slavery just blows my mind. I never thought I'd actually see the two subjects in one paragraph. Wow. This really takes the cake.

Man, someone's had a little too much to drink.

[Tom]

Jeez, people. Haven't you guys ever heard of an analogy? Analogies never attempt to make two differing ideas the same; they show similarities in certain aspects between two things that are otherwise completely different. That's what an analogy is. While under-aged drinking and segregation are two completely different things, Drake is relating them in one fashion by revealing that at one point in time, going against the laws of segregation was considered illegal, while at the same time was not fundamentally a bad thing. That's where his statement of similarity (which DOES exist) between the two ideas begin, and that's where it ends.

It's a valid analogy. Quit picking on him just because he provokes your conservative views on things. It's one thing to debate with him on his inference, but all I see is a bunch of you guys standing around acting like shocked old timey geezers. I may not agree with everything he says, but I will at least recognize when he makes a valid argument.

[Drake]

How you can compare the unjustness of underage drinking to something as horrific as slavery just blows my mind. I never thought I'd actually see the two subjects in one paragraph. Wow. This really takes the cake.

Man, someone's had a little too much to drink.

You blow my mind. You completely ignored the very post you were quoting. Here's what you missed:

"I didn't even mention underage drinking. I was talking about laws in general and referring to how you and others said that people who break any laws for whatever reason are idiots."

Next time you might want to actually read what you're quoting.

e_e

Oh, and thank you, Tom.

[Nikki Wright]

Edit: Black dagger, segregation was a law. Then again, I wouldn't expect you to know that since you're not from this country.Watch it, kid.

[Drake]

Watch it, kid.
...^^;;;

I think you misinterpreted the connotation behind that line. Black dagger said that he hopes he isn't stupid for not knowing who Rosa Parks is. He was also incorrect about segregation. All I was saying is that he isn't stupid for not knowing the history of a foreign country.

[ClymAngus]

As blackdagger will agree we have some stupid laws in the UK. I think it comes from being a backward little nation that used to own the world and is still suffering withdrawal symptoms from having it all taken away between the periods of WW1 and WW2, also late bending over backwards to be a part of europe. That's a bit of a diversion, but an important one.

Did you know that it's illegal to sell in UK shops a carrot that's under a certain length? Now that's just stupid. If you have misgivings about the segregation analogy then I'm quite sure no one is going to take offence at the carrot analogy. Matt? Do you think you could cosy up with a good carrot analogy?

Anyway...... as I was saying earlier before things got a little bit "aherm" cartoon comedy. Some laws need to be questioned, there are may ways to fight an unjust law, but in the end if you can't live with or change the law of the land, then you leave the land with the law.

[Electrokel]

Been reading over this thread, some of it is interesting, other parts less so. In any case, by now you guys are discussing a substantially different topic than when you started out. It seems to me one of you should start a new topic and proceed from there, if you wanted to continue. Something like "Laws:The Substance that Binds Society Together or Rules that Limit Absolute Freedoms?"

Or something like that.

[Matt Cruea]

Rosa Parks' actions led to her being persecuted by the police in her local area for many weeks following until her eventual invulnerability brought on via her status as a figurehead of the civil rights movement. She knew the consequences of her actions and did it anyway.

Brave, yes. In this case, a good cause.

But it was still stupid. Doing something considered wrong by society that you know will result in negative consequences is pretty stupid, at it's most base definition. That's the point I've been making to you, Drake.

[ClymAngus]

Been reading over this thread, some of it is interesting, other parts less so. In any case, by now you guys are discussing a substantially different topic than when you started out. It seems to me one of you should start a new topic and proceed from there, if you wanted to continue. Something like "Laws:The Substance that Binds Society Together or Rules that Limit Absolute Freedoms?"

Or something like that.

I would have to agree. The original was more of a case study. It's kind of focused in on one small point and elaborated on that. Mind you don't you think this is always going to be a problem with, a subjective issue like this? It is very difficult to retain focus.

[Electrokel]

Mind you don't you think this is always going to be a problem with, a subjective issue like this? It is very difficult to retain focus.

Well, yes, maintaining focus can be difficult, and depends on everyone involved in the discussion to not stray from the initial topic. To me it seems that when the discussion strays, either people have pretty much finished discussing the specific topic, or else someone really wanted to talk about something else anyway, and sort of commandeered an existing thread. If the latter is true, I think that they should just start a new thread.

[Matt Cruea]

I don't really like that unspoken message board rule. That just because a topic changes in the midst of a discussion, that it needs to be taken elsewhere. Think of each thread like a conversation. You might jump from one thing to three or four other things. What's wrong with that?

[ig.]

Far be it from me to disrupt the Feung Shui of the thread.

Or is it Fong Choy?

...Psyduck?

[ClymAngus]

I don't really like that unspoken message board rule. That just because a topic changes in the midst of a discussion, that it needs to be taken elsewhere. Think of each thread like a conversation. You might jump from one thing to three or four other things. What's wrong with that?

Indeed there is always going to be a certain fluidity that goes with any discussion. The slight problem of starting numerous threads is whom decides what's off topic and how far must things go before it becomes so? This debate moved from "lecturer punishments for acts outside school" to "the psychology of law breaking" they are fairly closely associated within the context of the example given.

In my earlier post I did say that on any single example, with so many different angles to it, that it is difficult to stay focused. Although as Matt suggests, is focus nessessary one of the main unbending rules of a discussion such as this?

bok choy, ig without fear of contradiction........ indisputably bok choy. Mmmm leafy.

[Drake]

Rosa Parks' actions led to her being persecuted by the police in her local area for many weeks following until her eventual invulnerability brought on via her status as a figurehead of the civil rights movement. She knew the consequences of her actions and did it anyway.

Brave, yes. In this case, a good cause.

But it was still stupid. Doing something considered wrong by society that you know will result in negative consequences is pretty stupid, at it's most base definition. That's the point I've been making to you, Drake.

So, according to you, it's stupid to stand up for what you believe in simply because you'll get in trouble for it? :neutral: And do you really think that equal black rights are "negative consequences"? Okay, fine, she didn't know that her act would help spur the civil rights movement (which resulted in equal rights for blacks), but she was still standing up for what she believed in.

[Nikki Wright]

So, according to you, it's stupid to stand up for what you believe in simply because you'll get in trouble for it? :neutral: And do you really think that equal black rights are "negative consequences"? Okay, fine, she didn't know that her act would help spur the civil rights movement, but she was still standing up for what she believed in.
You don't know much about history, do you? She didn't do it because she was tired. That's the tale that we're all told in school, yes. That's what's in our history books, yes, but they're a bit romanticised: She was one of MANY people to do it, as she was apart of a group that was against segregation. However, her story was the most widely recognized because of the commotion it had caused.

He didn't say fighting equal rights were negative consequences [That doesn't even make sense]. He said that all that happened to her [and all that could have potentially happened] because of the actions she took were negative consequences. Reading comprehension, Drake; you're missing it throughout this entire thread.

I love it when people completely miss truly valid points, showing that they're not using the wonderful skill of reading comprehension [or perhap's one's too stubborn to even open their mind a fraction of an inch to see that they could be, oh no, wrong about something] and then have the audacity to say that they're the winner and no way getting out of "this one." Especially so when people miss the point, AND they make base assertions of people without fully reading what was said.

Anyway, I'm done posting in this thread. I'm sick of going in circles, trying to get people to understand the points I'm trying to make and, instead, having them fall onto deaf ears. Kudos to Matt Cruea for putting up with talking to brick walls.

[Drake]

You don't know much about history, do you? She didn't do it because she was tired. That's the tale that we're all told in school, yes. That's what's in our history books, yes, but they're a bit romanticised: She was one of MANY people to do it, as she was apart of a group that was against segregation. However, her story was the most widely recognized because of the commotion it had caused.

He didn't say fighting equal rights were negative consequences [That doesn't even make sense]. He said that all that happened to her [and all that could have potentially happened] because of the actions she took were negative consequences. Reading comprehension, Drake; you're missing it throughout this entire thread.

I love it when people completely miss truly valid points, showing that they're not using the wonderful skill of reading comprehension [or perhap's one's too stubborn to even open their mind a fraction of an inch to see that they could be, oh no, wrong about something] and then have the audacity to say that they're the winner and no way getting out of "this one." Especially so when people miss the point, AND they make base assertions of people without fully reading what was said.

Anyway, I'm done posting in this thread. I'm sick of going in circles, trying to get people to understand the points I'm trying to make and, instead, having them fall onto deaf ears. Kudos to Matt Cruea for putting up with talking to brick walls.

Why do some people feel they must spend large portions of their posts insulting people instead of saying anything of substance? Believe me, I feel the exact same way about certain others who have posted in this thread, but I resist the temptation to spend two paragraphs telling them why I think they're idiots. You accomplish absolutely nothing that way.

I too feel like I'm "going in circles, trying to get people to understand the points I'm trying to make and, instead, having them fall onto deaf ears". But I don't think anyone in this thread lacks the ability of reading comprehension. We just have different interpretations of what people are really trying to say. Just like you frequently misinterpret what I'm trying to say. For example:

"He didn't say fighting equal rights were negative consequences [That doesn't even make sense]." - Nikki Wright

No, he didn't say that, and neither did I accuse him of saying that. I felt like he was implying that the final result (equal rights) of her actions were negative consequences. And how is this a result of her actions? You said it yourself, what she did caused a big comotion. This, in turn riled up other people opposed to segregation. This brought on the civil rights movement, which in turn brought on equal rights for blacks.

"She was one of MANY people to do it." - Nikki Wright

I said she helped spur the civil rights movement. Maybe you missed that word. It's understand, though. I also skim sometimes and unfortunately miss important details as a result.

[Nikki Wright]

and neither did I accuse him of saying that.


And do you really think that equal black rights are "negative consequences"?

Yes, you did.

[Drake]

Yes, you did.

You said that I said that fighting equal rights was a consequence (which doesn't make sense). I actually said that equal rights themselves were consequences.

You see, we're both not understanding each other. It isn't a one-sided thing.

[Matt Cruea]

Now a Rosa Parks debate is totally dumb, because that's not the point Drake was making with that example. My point against that was that the example was invalid, as it was against the point I was attempting to make earlier.

LAYERS, PEOPLE.

Rosa Parks did something right by breaking the law. Is underage drinking right? I'd hazard a guess as to what the majority of the nation would say. But then, that brings on the argument of morals and whatnot that we've all gone over a trillion times in the past two years, which is pretty dumb.

The point is that the law is there. Whether you agree or disagree with it is moot. By breaking a law, even the carrot law, you are bringing negative consequences upon yourself. It's stupidity.

And back onto the original topic, recently a girl who attended a private school was suspended for kissing another girl in her home. It reminded me of this situation when I saw the story. Now there are differences, for sure (it took place in a Christian private school, the parents had signed a contract that stated their daughter would uphold the school's morals inside and outside, etc.), but it was just a funny coincidence, with two similar happenings occurring fairly close to one another.

I can't find a link to that story, though. : /

[Matt Cruea]

Equal rights were not a direct consequence of Rosa Parks' actions. Direct consequences included her subsequent jailtime, abuse by racist white members of her community, and a hefty fine.

[Drake]

Equal rights were not a direct consequence of Rosa Parks' actions. Direct consequences included her subsequent jailtime, abuse by racist white members of her community, and a hefty fine.

Sure those are bad consequences, but at least she refused to be put in her place by a bunch of racists. And personally I think that standing up for what you believe despite the subsequent punishments is anything but stupid.

And for the record, my Rosa Parks analogy never had anything to do with underage drinking. As I said before, I was using it (the Rosa Parks analogy) to support my point that sometimes laws are unjust and that you're not an idiot for breaking an unjust law.

I think I'm going to give up. I probably don't understand what you're really trying to say, and vice versa, so, whatever.

[Matt Cruea]

Oh, I get it.

I completely disagree with your insinuation that underage drinking laws are unjust. I fail to see how they are not completely warranted. Any physiologist or pshycologolist could tell you why they're needed.

We were debating about two different things: the validity of laws and the validity of laws.

[Drake]

Oh, I get it.

I completely disagree with your insinuation that underage drinking laws are unjust. I fail to see how they are not completely warranted. Any physiologist or pshycologolist could tell you why they're needed.

We were debating about two different things: the validity of laws and the validity of laws.

No, you don't get it.

The whole debate over underage drinking ended a long time ago. We were most recently debating on whether someone is an idiot for disobeying unjust laws, not on whether underage drinking is an unjust law.

"And for the record, my Rosa Parks analogy never had anything to do with underage drinking. As I said before, I was using it to support my point that sometimes laws are unjust and that you're not an idiot for breaking an unjust law." - me

I'm sorry if I was unclear. The "it" that I highlighted refers to the Rosa Parks analogy, not the underage drinking law.

[Matt Cruea]

LAYERS, Drake. You are missing the LAYERS.

I regret to inform you that as of yet, you have made no point whatsoever.

Because you are neglecting the LAYERS of this discussion.

[Drake]

I'm not missing any layers. All you've been saying so far is "OH HOW DARE YOU USE ROSA PARKS TO JUSTIFY UNDERAGE DRINKING!!!! OMFG, THAT'S SO STUPID, WTF?" when I've done no such thing. I didn't "insinuate" it, either.

Look, you're not going to convince me that it's stupid to stand up for what you know is right, and I obviously can't convince you that it's not stupid. Therefore, this debate is pointless, so I'm not going to post here anymore unless you say something really messed up that I can't resist responding to.

[Matt Cruea]

You have neglected the higher layer that I was debating on. You were on a new, lower layer. By the time I realized it, however, it was too late.

Here's the deal. Throughout this entire thread I have never debated anything about this point: OH HOW DARE YOU USE ROSA PARKS TO JUSTIFY UNDERAGE DRINKING!!!! OMFG, THAT'S SO STUPID, WTF?

I was debating the merits of underage drinking and how it relates to the upholding of law. You brought up unjustice and I kindly ignored it.

Is the Tangent Train coming to a stop, yet?

[Drake]

Well, that's definitely not how I see it, but, whatever. I'm really, really going to try not posting here anymore. :-D

[Matt Cruea]

I have confused you into submission!

[Matt Alan]

I have confused you into submission!

I think I've finally seen the light.

I disagree with the war in Iraq and I think I should put an end to it by standing up for what I believe in and beat up Bush. No one else has done that yet, thats what has to be done! Its the just thing to do! I believe the war is wrong and will do/say anything to make it end, because goshdarnit, its just the American Way!

Onions have layers.

[ClymAngus]

I think I've finally seen the light.

Onions have layers.

You've completely missed the main thrust of my point which I made back on post 132........
Which was; "Matt? Do you think you could cosy up with a good carrot analogy?"

Well do ya?

[Jessica Adnee]

Well, that's definitely not how I see it, but, whatever. I'm really, really going to try not posting here anymore. :-D

Haha! I'm back for more arguments that go in circles! Woot! : D

First of all... WHITE POWER! WHITE POWER! WHITE POWER!*

Was that the answer you were expecting from me, Drake? ;D

And on the topic of not all laws having to be followed, yes, there are some laws that aren't entirely necessary. Good job for you, Drake! You have a little bit of common sense!

However, I wasn't saying that one is an idiot for fighting against something like the patriot act... I was saying that one is an idiot for breaking a law like against underage drinking.

Really, I'm only half satanic. :twisted:


*= I'm not ACTUALLY for white power. Let's not start no drama now, folks.

[Drake]

I lied. I'm posting again. ;D

I BINGE DRINK EVERY SATURDAY! I GET HORRIBLE HANGOVERS THE NEXT DAY! WOOT!

No, actually I don't. Anyway, I agree that there should be an underage drinking law, because lots of dumb people my age would do the above (oh wait, they do it anyway, but that's beside the point). However, I personally think it's ok for me to break it because I don't overdo it. I only drink a glass of wine on special occasions.

Uh oh, I have a feeling this thread is starting to go in circles again. Oh wait, it never stopped going in circles.

Note: This post is completely unrelated to my Rosa Parks analogy so don't start mixing them, lol.

[Jessica Adnee]

I lied. I'm posting again. ;D

I BINGE DRINK EVERY SATURDAY! I GET HORRIBLE HANGOVERS THE NEXT DAY! WOOT!

No, actually I don't. Anyway, I agree that there should be an underage drinking law, because lots of dumb people my age would do the above (oh wait, they do it anyway, but that's beside the point). However, I personally think it's ok for me to break it because I don't overdo it. I only drink a glass of wine on special occasions.

Uh oh, I have a feeling this thread is starting to go in circles again. Oh wait, it never stopped going in circles.

Note: This post is totally unrelated to my Rosa Parks analogy so don't start mixing them, lol.

Yes, it's okay for you. Because you're intelligent, smart, and just an overall great guy!

Screw society! Screw the rules of biology and the human body!

YOUR brain cells won't die! Nooo.

And yes, they do drink anyway, however, if the law weren't in place, there would be more of it.

Think of all the people that don't drink because it's against the law. There are some out there. It's saving them from killing themselves.

[Drake]

Yes, it's okay for you. Because you're intelligent, smart, and just an overall great guy!

Screw society! Screw the rules of biology and the human body!

YOUR brain cells won't die! Nooo.

And yes, they do drink anyway, however, if the law weren't in place, there would be more of it.

Think of all the people that don't drink because it's against the law. There are some out there. It's saving them from killing themselves.
Why are some little kids so ignorant?! LOL.

I like how Black Dagger put it:

"A glass of wine isn't going to hurt you, in fact it can actually benefit you and help protect against several dangerous diseases and afflictions later on in life. While drinking to excess CAN and WILL screw you up in some way." - Black Dagger

*insert naive ditzy girl voice* "Umm, like, OMG, in health class, my teacher like, said that if you drink any alcohol at all, you'll die! Like, OMFG, that's totally not cool, I so do not wanna die! He also said that if you like, bang someone, you'll die the next time there's a full moon! Like woah, I think he's right!" - Pixie

*pats Pixie on the back* It's ok, it's ok. Maybe you'll be smarter in a few years! ;)

[Autumn]

Holycheesemonkeys, what has this thread turned into?

I thought it was about issues with MySpace and underrage users... not LITERAL underrage users and alcohol abusers. >.>

[Drake]

I'm an orange kettle. ;D

[Nikki Wright]

No, you're a dip.