Grey Templar wrote: How is a picture of a gun either a display of profanity or violence? Or a discriminatory message? Its certainly not alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs.
How is advocating for a basic constitutional right any of the above things?
Right, because that's what it is. Advocating.
Spoiler:
If it was literally just a picture of the NRA's logo with "PROTECT YOUR RIGHT"? There likely would not have been any issue.
If you are really going to sit there and try to say that "PROTECT YOUR RIGHT" with a rifle above it is simple "advocating", then we should stop this line of discussion now because that's garbage logic and you are (I hope) better than that.
He was arrested because of both the Zero Tolerance crap, and that fact that the teacher escalated the confrontation in front of other students. The teacher should've known better and at the very minimum, non-descreptively asked the student to go to the administrative office to work this out.
Oh, so because it was in front of other students it is the teacher's fault?
He was asked to remove the t-shirt or turn it inside out. He refused. End of story.
Common sense would dictate that a shirt with a rifle and "PROTECT YOUR RIGHT" isn't exactly advocating for peace, now is it?
Wow... your common sense is telling you that protecting your rights connotates violent response?
My common sense tells me that if someone is wearing a t-shirt for a group like the NRA, with a rifle above the line "PROTECT YOUR RIGHT"?
Yes. It is suggesting a "violent response".
Whatever happened to simply advocacy?
What happened to "simple advocacy" is that it has no business being done in a middle school.
You've listened to the NRA's rhetoric over the years, right...?
There is a reason that there is a gun over the tagline of "PROTECT YOUR RIGHT". And that reason is not because firearms are legal representatives in Constitutional cases.
Grey Templar wrote: How is a picture of a gun either a display of profanity or violence? Or a discriminatory message? Its certainly not alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs.
How is advocating for a basic constitutional right any of the above things?
Right, because that's what it is. Advocating.
Spoiler:
If it was literally just a picture of the NRA's logo with "PROTECT YOUR RIGHT"? There likely would not have been any issue.
If you are really going to sit there and try to say that "PROTECT YOUR RIGHT" with a rifle above it is simple "advocating", then we should stop this line of discussion now because that's garbage logic and you are (I hope) better than that.
Doesn't matter what it was in your mind. It broke no school rules about things forbidden to be displayed on t shirts. You already proved you didn't know what you were talking about on the free speech angle, it was the kid's right to wear it.
The article you linked states there were no problems until a teacher got uptight about the shirt well into the school day , turned it into an issue, then escalated the situation to where the kid was arrested.
Grey Templar wrote: How is a picture of a gun either a display of profanity or violence? Or a discriminatory message? Its certainly not alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs.
How is advocating for a basic constitutional right any of the above things?
Right, because that's what it is. Advocating.
Spoiler:
If it was literally just a picture of the NRA's logo with "PROTECT YOUR RIGHT"? There likely would not have been any issue.
If you are really going to sit there and try to say that "PROTECT YOUR RIGHT" with a rifle above it is simple "advocating", then we should stop this line of discussion now because that's garbage logic and you are (I hope) better than that.
Doesn't matter what it was in your mind. It broke no school rules about things forbidden to be displayed on t shirts.
So if this had been a black kid wearing a "Black Lives Matter; Protect Yourself" t-shirt with crosshairs over a police officer's badge--you would say it is just advocacy as well?
You already proved you didn't know what you were talking about on the free speech angle, it was the kid's right to wear it.
Where did I prove that?
The only "right" the kid has in this situation is to an education--not to be disruptive.
The article you linked states there were no problems until a teacher got uptight about the shirt well into the school day , turned it into an issue, then escalated the situation to where the kid was arrested.
...Being asked to remove/reverse the shirt is "turning it into an issue, then escalated the situation"?
Man. If I had known that was the case when I was told to reverse a Games Day t-shirt that was just the old Empire Knightly Orders box art(guys on horseback waving hammers around), I too could have been an advocate for students' rights!
Oh, so because it was in front of other students it is the teacher's fault?
Absolutely.
Many of my family members are teachers or work at schools. For years, if teachers had to confront a student, they're trained to descalate.
Deescalate.
Outright challenging that student in front of other students is NOT what the school wants,
Who says it was a "challenge"? It could have simply been an offhand comment of "You need to change that shirt", the kid gets uppity and it escalates from there.
*also, I'm kinda surprised that pictures of guns isn't on that dress code policy.
It really was/is though.
clothing and accessories that display profanity, violence, discriminatory messages or sexual language, along with ads for alcohol, tobacco or drugs.
Guns aren't exactly known for their peaceful actions now are they?
The difference between simply advocating for the 2nd amendment and a crosshair over a police badge is the latter is advocating violence against a specific target. A gun is just an object, one which we happen to have a constitutional right to own.
Advocating for the right to bear arms is not inciting violence, nor is an image of a gun advocating violence. What would need to be present for it to be so would be an image showing the use of that gun on someone or something.
@ Kan:Here's where you demonstrated your ignorance of student rights:
"Except free speech can be curtailed while on the grounds of a school.
You understand that, right? Your purpose at a school is to learn, not to make a Constitutional Rights issue out of you not getting to wear your flippin' NRA t-shirt."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: The difference between simply advocating for the 2nd amendment and a crosshair over a police badge is the latter is advocating violence against a specific target. A gun is just an object, one which we happen to have a constitutional right to own.
Advocating for the right to bear arms is not inciting violence, nor is an image of a gun advocating violence. What would need to be present for it to be so would be an image showing the use of that gun on someone or something.
Agreed. There are legal ways to protect rights, such as lobbying your Reps., among others. Crosshairs over a badge is deliberately advocating cop killing.
In the cases of Ahmed and the NRA t shirt wearer, both disagreed with school authority, both got arrested.
I'm glad you managed to tie it in right at the end there Relapse, good to see, but we have been languishing off topic for a while now and I feel further discussion of the shirt/food cases will just send us back there. So let's drop it and either discuss the case directly or let it die down
motyak wrote: I'm glad you managed to tie it in right at the end there Relapse, good to see, but we have been languishing off topic for a while now and I feel further discussion of the shirt/food cases will just send us back there. So let's drop it and either discuss the case directly or let it die down
Very well. It was the angle that was coming up earlier in the thread that if the kid had not been a minority, he would have gotten off I was addressing. There are any number of examples of over reaction on the part of schools in various instances. Ahmed is just one of them. Kan's reaction to the t shirt kid is actually reflective of the school's reaction to Ahmed's clock. Both read it as some kind of violence advocacy or deliberate disruption.
The point I was trying to make is Ahmed is not unusual in getting caught up in administrative stupidity, but it got caught in a tangent.
The fact remains the two cases, which could be included with others, have a core theme, which is schools overstepping their limits or taking rules to ridiculous lengths.
It appears there might be a groundswell in the making so cases like Ahmed's and others don't happen in the future:
Kanluwen wrote: You are right that Ahmed "got caught up in administrative stupidity", but equating it to the whole "NRA t-shirt arrest scandal!" is ludicrous.
Cleaning up, motyak
Well, when you're right, you're right.
The NRA T-Shirt arrest was far more egregious and covered by the media far less. I doubt that kid received any trips to Facebook HQ or the White House.
I hear that happens when the plight of an individual doesn't necessarily fit the narrative the media wants to push.
Can't say much about the NRA shirt but, at least when I was in school, articles that overtly promoted a political ideology or such were banned. You could have guns on your shirt or jacket or whatever (GNR were big then, it was the late 80s...) but not something advocating a political position, party or anything of the sort, whether current or historical (no swastikas and such, for example).
That said, the biggest thing with the clock to me is the cop saying words to the effect of "Yeah, I thought it was that kid" when Ahmed was first brought into the room, because it implies an already-present ethnic bias on the behalf of the police. Never mind the fact that the entire situation was not at all handled like any police department anywhere handles a bomb scare/threat.... if it had been an actual bomb, they'd likely all be dead.
So, of course, when the situation turns out to be something that isn't what they thought it was, the police and school, of course, apologize, admit they fethed up, and go on with their lives.
Hahaha, no, no, of course they didn't. They suspended the kid from school and filed charges they basically made up on the spot and knew weren't going to stick, because how dare this kid of Arabian descent make the school and police look like asses?
whembly wrote: Security: After a Muslim teen was arrested for bringing what looked like a bomb to school, police were ripped for "overreacting." Supporters insisted he "invented" a clock for a "project." But his only invention was the story.
Turns out that 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed of Irving, Texas, never invented a clock, and had no reason to bring the suspicious-looking device to school. But everyone from Mark Zuckerberg to President Obama was fooled by what appears to have been a hoax designed to muster sympathy for Muslims accused of terrorism, while putting police on their heels and undermining the "see something, say something" directive for citizen vigilance. Here's the real story:
• There was no "school project" or science assignment to justify Mohamed bringing the device to school .
• Just three weeks into his freshman year, Mohamed was no "science whiz well-known by high school teachers for tinkering."
• The "clock" wasn't made from scratch but just the guts of a mass-manufactured digital clock, complete with AC cord and 9-volt backup battery connection.
Sounds like he was a n00b that wanted to show off. That kid is an equivalent of someone who thinks he's a computer scientist because they can install windows and upgrade a computer. Sadly, apparently tons of people are indulging his fantasies.
whembly wrote: • With its exposed wires and lack of a face, the gutted clock looked like a bomb. It also sounded like a bomb: The alarm was set to go off during English class; the beeping startled the teacher who called police.
Err... The point of bombs is to blow up, not to beep. I suspect that in a homemade bomb, the wire that is normally connected to an alarm speaker is connected to a detonator. So, I'd speculate that such a bomb would be unable to beep at all.
He'd probably thought that some people could think it's a bomb if it would be closed, so his solution to that problem was having it open so that it would be visible that there are no explosives inside.
whembly wrote: Everything here stinks to high heavens here...
Well, that's why everyone on the internet used to hate n00bs. They are generally annoying. Sadly, in the Facebook era certain things got forgotten...
Kanluwen wrote: Also, you understand that "Islamophobia" is not the same thing as "racism", right? Someone can be an Islamophobe without being a racist. So not quite sure why you try to act as though it's the same thing...
And quite frankly?
Yes. It is Islamophobia. If his name had been John Black and he was Spanish(as in "From Spain" Spanish) or Portugese but privately converted to Islam, do you really think that this would have been a thing?
No. Islamists don't have monopoly on school killing. The default profile of a school shooter is an intelligent white male teen. If Ahmed was white and non-Muslim, it would still happen, because he'd fit the profile (assuming he was profiled and it wasn't a matter of the clock alone).
Sounds like he was a n00b that wanted to show off. That kid is an equivalent of someone who thinks he's a computer scientist because they can install windows and upgrade a computer. Sadly, apparently tons of people are indulging his fantasies.
One could argue that a person needs to start somewhere. Being both a computer scientist and someone who builds trivial electronic gak, I can say that doing "impressive" stuff requires at least as much drive and excitement as it does natural talent. Given that he's doing something more sophisticated than managing to gnaw his food into pretend weapons and acting like he's murdering his peers, I think the hate and love he's receiving are unsurprising given who they're coming from and for what reasons.
t's why everyone on the internet used to hate n00bs. They are generally annoying. Sadly, in the Facebook era certain things got forgotten...
"Leetspeak" is generally considered annoying too. Often by the same people.
No. Islamists don't have monopoly on school killing. The default profile of a school shooter is an intelligent white male teen. If Ahmed was white and non-Muslim, it would still happen, because he'd fit the profile (assuming he was profiled and it wasn't a matter of the clock alone).
This is the thing that keeps bouncing around in my head. It's really hard to say. Given the circumstances, I don't think we'll ever know for sure.
That said, the biggest thing with the clock to me is the cop saying words to the effect of "Yeah, I thought it was that kid" when Ahmed was first brought into the room, because it implies an already-present ethnic bias on the behalf of the police. Never mind the fact that the entire situation was not at all handled like any police department anywhere handles a bomb scare/threat.... if it had been an actual bomb, they'd likely all be dead.
To be fair, it might have also been because he was the only kid with a NASA shirt on in the police station, though I think you're right.
That said, the biggest thing with the clock to me is the cop saying words to the effect of "Yeah, I thought it was that kid" when Ahmed was first brought into the room, because it implies an already-present ethnic bias on the behalf of the police. Never mind the fact that the entire situation was not at all handled like any police department anywhere handles a bomb scare/threat.... if it had been an actual bomb, they'd likely all be dead.
To be fair, it might have also been because he was the only kid with a NASA shirt on in the police station, though I think you're right.
The police officer said it when the kid was brought into the principals office, not the police station, if I remember correctly.
Ti've been reading in other places that he had a history of discipline issues, but it's not in anything I would trust. Although some of them cite the Dallas Morning News as a source, I haven't found any mention there. Maybe someone with better skills than me can find something if it's true.
Oh yeah, he was a real hardened criminal. He once got in trouble for blowing soap bubbles in the school bathroom, and was a real chatty cathy. I'd be hesitant to link to that too, if my available choices were A.) The right-wing derposphere trying to sadly, desperately, pathetically make a villain out of that kid yet, or the left wing sources rightfully pointing out how embarrassingly sad the outlets that are running this angle are.
At some point the water's too sour for even the most dedicated foot soldier to carry. I'm actually pleased to see that at least after x number of nonsense, Jimmy O'Keefe style "journalism" incidents, we're starting to not just believe whatever gets cranked out now
The original story from the Dallas Morning Herald is here, if you (or anyone else) wants more than just the most damning parts that Brietbart and the other usual poopwizards excerpted.
Ouze wrote: Oh yeah, he was a real hardened criminal. He once got in trouble for blowing soap bubbles in the school bathroom, and was a real chatty cathy. I'd be hesitant to link to that too, if my available choices were A.) The right-wing derposphere trying to sadly, desperately, pathetically make a villain out of that kid yet, or the left wing sources rightfully pointing out how embarrassingly sad the outlets that are running this angle are.
At some point the water's too sour for even the most dedicated foot soldier to carry. I'm actually pleased to see that at least after x number of nonsense, Jimmy O'Keefe style "journalism" incidents, we're starting to not just believe whatever gets cranked out now
The original story from the Dallas Morning Herald is here, if you (or anyone else) wants more than just the most damning parts that Brietbart and the other usual poopwizards excerpted.
That's why I didn't bother posting any links. I thought they were a waste and I couldn't find anything in the legitimate news source they cited. I figured though, there was a very slim chance it might explain the cop's comment about them figuring it was that kid and hoped someone would come forward that could confirm or put to rest what's going around.
Many thanks for the clarification.
Wait so it isn't equally sad how the leftwing media is frothing at the mouth to heap praise on a proven fraud? The kid literally took the case off his alarm clock and put it in a suitcase.
Where is the praise for the teacher who saw something and said something?
cincydooley wrote: Whole lotta conjecture there on your part. Well done.
Yes, it is conjecture, but only because I wasn't physically present. As I am related to teachers, and am friends with Crisis Management professionals and have previously worked in building security (corporate offices), I am, at least, generally aware of the proper procedures when dealing with a bomb-scare situation.
The first rule? GTFO the building where the suspected bomb is. That is also Rule #2 through 47. GTF away from the bomb, everybody.
The school did not do this, which tells me that either a) They are incompetent or b) they knew it was not a bomb going into the situation.
SickSix wrote: Wait so it isn't equally sad how the leftwing media is frothing at the mouth to heap praise on a proven fraud? The kid literally took the case off his alarm clock and put it in a suitcase.
I still don't know why people are assuming that automatically off of one picture. I also don't know why everything that everyone did afterward became justified by the fact that he had a clock with him in class, no matter how much of it he made himself or otherwise. I mean, if they thought it was a bomb threat, they didn't treat it like a bomb threat, which sounds like negligence. If they smacked the kid down because it felt good, well, that's kinda wrong too.
Out of curiosity, how much of it would he have had to make himself for you to be impressed?
Where is the praise for the teacher who saw something and said something?
Held with baited breath while waiting for the teacher to do something actually praiseworthy I guess. There was no threat. They knew there was no threat, otherwise there would be a bomb squad and the school would have been evacuated, and probably not in that order. There was no hoax bomb, unless you're arguing that anything 'scary' deserves harsh reaction because of 'feelings'. That's not your argument, is it?
The kid's dad put him up to it, knowing what the likely response would be, in order to have a legal basis to sue the school and draw attention to "discrimination and islamophobia" blah blah. Its an OLD activist tactic.
Peter Wiggin wrote: The kid's dad put him up to it, knowing what the likely response would be, in order to have a legal basis to sue the school and draw attention to "discrimination and islamophobia" blah blah. Its an OLD activist tactic.
There, I said it.
And even if that were true - or, indeed, anything beyond conjecture - how would that make any part of the way the kid was treated or the way the school reacted to the supposed 'bomb' okay?
Seems to me that there WERE things that needed some attention drawn. Blah blah and so forth.
SickSix wrote: Wait so it isn't equally sad how the leftwing media is frothing at the mouth to heap praise on a proven fraud? The kid literally took the case off his alarm clock and put it in a suitcase.
I still don't know why people are assuming that automatically off of one picture. I also don't know why everything that everyone did afterward became justified by the fact that he had a clock with him in class, no matter how much of it he made himself or otherwise. I mean, if they thought it was a bomb threat, they didn't treat it like a bomb threat, which sounds like negligence. If they smacked the kid down because it felt good, well, that's kinda wrong too.
Out of curiosity, how much of it would he have had to make himself for you to be impressed?
SickSix wrote: Wait so it isn't equally sad how the leftwing media is frothing at the mouth to heap praise on a proven fraud? The kid literally took the case off his alarm clock and put it in a suitcase.
I still don't know why people are assuming that automatically off of one picture. I also don't know why everything that everyone did afterward became justified by the fact that he had a clock with him in class, no matter how much of it he made himself or otherwise. I mean, if they thought it was a bomb threat, they didn't treat it like a bomb threat, which sounds like negligence. If they smacked the kid down because it felt good, well, that's kinda wrong too.
Out of curiosity, how much of it would he have had to make himself for you to be impressed?
How about ANY of it.
Oh, I did that analysis on page 6 too. I'll repeat the main point I said back on page 6:
I mean, there's a lot of things here that could sway how hard it actually was that we're just not privy to at this point. I'm going to sidestep the question by saying that it SHOULDN'T be hard for a 9th grader to make something like this, but remembering most of my peers at 14, they probably wouldn't have been able to do this if you did give them all the working parts from a single clock, and nor would they have had the motivation to do so. Which I think is more important than how difficult the task actually was. He was motivated to do this, on his own. If he keeps that drive, that'll move him closer to doing genuinely impressive things as he expands his knowledge.
At this point, I'm also going to state that for all any armchair experts (inlucding myself) know, he also repaired any number of things (or even none) on the boards themselves. That's that whole "we're not privy to at this point" part I talk about above. I don't know. I don't claim to know. That is not something your guy in the first video would have been able to tell from that picture, but that's okay because he seems more set on proving a point than actually understanding fully the situation. All I'm asking is that we don't jump to conclusions without facts, and you can't get all those facts from this picture, no matter how much someone on youtube seems eager to want to.
As a side not, anyone who says people don't make things that use AC power hasn't been making things very long.
I'll ask again, how much of something does one have to make to "invent" something? I'll also ask again, why do you support the negligence of the police and school?
According to Apple, you would have as long as your air filter had rounded corners on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But seriously though, anyone who's calling him a fraud really needs to define what an invention is. Not having it well defined makes it hard to judge whether or not he is.
Automatically Appended Next Post: At least, for me, anyway. I'm at the same time trying not to get hung up on his use of the word because he's a 14 year old boy that I good-naturedly assume is like every other intelligent 14 year old boy who is still painfully stupid (but in different ways) and gets overexcited about things he is enthusiastic about. I wonder what it was like for other people at that age, sometimes.
He's a 14 YO. I used to think that I was really clever at being able to take things like radios apart and put them back together, even though it only requires a screwdriver and a memory. It's the same thing.
The gallery has people building models from scratch and having amazing paint jobs, and also people putting together snap-lock models with crappy paint jobs, and then one life models that were dipped. Some of them are frauds using the criteria in this thread.
Of course none of that has anything at all to do with the actions by the school. Even if this whole thing was a elaborate trap to showcase the expected reaction from the school, it would have been a useless showcase of the school wouldn't have reacted like it did.
But whatever makes everyone sleep better at night I guess. Taking stuff apart and putting it back together is the first step to learn a lot of things. Dakka OT if filled by prodigal geniuses I guess.
