[Ansteorra] just read the link

[Dave Wise]

Hi all,

>And in this particular case, it might just be.  My understanding,
>though, is that there have been plenty of other instances where
>yearbook pictures of students with guns were disallowed.  I'm not sure
>if precedent will hold any sway, but I'm thinking a court wouldn't see
>a major difference between a sword and a gun. A weapon is a weapon.
>
A weapon is not a weapon. In this instance, there was no weapon being 
brought to school, there was a picture of a weapon.  So, what was really 
being banned was the 'idea' of a weapon.  The whole problem of 'zero 
tolerance' laws is that they are a way for those in a position of 
responsibility to abdicate that responsibility to exercise sound 
judgment. In this case, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the 
school to prohibit the kid from bringing his broadsword to school.  But 
to say that the kid couldn't bring the 'idea', in the form of a picture, 
of a kid armed with a broadsword to school is patently ridiculous.

>The only real problem with any of this is the inevitable backlash. 
>Once you allow the reasonable, educated kids to pose with their gun
>club weapons and medieval reenactment swords, there *will* be kids who
>push the envelope by bringing pics sporting assault rifles and knives. 
>To use an extreme example, gang kids would prefer their pics to be in
>gang colors, displaying the toughest weapons they have.  Without being
>discriminatory, how do you allow one and not the other?
>  
>
My whole point is that you are accepting the premise that discrimination 
is bad.  Discrimination is exactly what is called for.  It has been made 
politically incorrect to 'discriminate', yet we do it all the time.  Why 
do you eat at Wendy's, instead of McDonald's, because you think the food 
is better.  You wear blue, instead of green,  because you like it more.  
These are everyday decisions where your decisions reflect your personal 
experiences.  To apply this to a school setting, the kid who gets all 
"A's" might get a lunch pass to eat outside (at least at my daughter's 
school).  This is a form of discrimination, yet nobody complains about 
Billy, who never gets A's, who doesn't get to eat outside.   Life 
doesn't occur in a vacuum, 'we all know' that gangs promote violence.  
So, if you have a kid who wants to come in gang colors, why in the world 
would anyone refuse to take that into account?  I don't see how a 
picture of a kid holding a sword compares.  If anything, it shows the 
kid has taken the time to learn a little history, a rare enough occasion 
these days.  So, in this instance, the application of a zero tolerance 
policy to a kid who is obviously showing off his interest in looking 
'like a medieval knight', defies reason and common sense.  It is  
lamentable that people are so afraid to exercise their own common sense 
under the fear of being labeled discriminatory.  I know the argument 
goes, 'if we discriminate, the parents will sue'.  Okay, so what?  If 
the decisions are sound, they should be upheld.  If they aren't sound, 
then they won't.  If we allow the fear of litigation to cause us to 
abandon common sense, we won't have a society worth fighting over.

>Was it really so awful back when senior pics had to be taken in
>graduation robes or drapes?  Oh, the horror of squashing each child's
>delicate sense of individuality...  
>  
>
I'm not opposed to squashing any kid's sensibilities, in fact I think it 
should happen much more often than it does.  But, the problem is that 
most parents expect the school or someone else to do it for them, 
instead of taking the time to raise their kid properly.  In this case, 
by all accounts, the kid wasn't a troublemaker and appears to enjoy his 
hobby.  Within those parameters, he should be free to express himself.  
If, on the other hand, he was a problem child at school, then he should 
be dealt with accordingly.  Let each kid (and parent) get what their 
actions merit, instead of 'dumbing down' the rights of everyone.

Don't mean to pick on anyone personally, just that when we collectively 
accept the loss of our freedoms to account for the lowest common 
denominator, we deserve what we get.

With regards,
Alexis

p.s. who's mascot was a Spartan holding a sword :-)