PDA

View Full Version : What do you liberals think of this nonsense



mario_spaghettio
09-17-2010, 02:26 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rel_piercing_church

Paint_It_Black
09-19-2010, 04:31 AM
If it's nonsense why do you care?

The girl and her family are clearly right in this. It doesn't matter that their religion is retarded. All religions are retarded. If the school allows exceptions to their dress code for religious reasons they need to allow this.

This is so obvious that I don't even see what there is to discuss really.

IamSam
09-19-2010, 09:32 AM
This is so obvious that I don't even see what there is to discuss really.

There really is nothing to discuss. It is pretty cut and dried. Black and white.

mario_spaghettio
09-19-2010, 07:44 PM
If it's nonsense why do you care?

The girl and her family are clearly right in this. It doesn't matter that their religion is retarded. All religions are retarded. If the school allows exceptions to their dress code for religious reasons they need to allow this.

This is so obvious that I don't even see what there is to discuss really.BULLSHIT. This so called religion was created to manipulate and mock the system. This girl and her slut mother who got pregnant with her at 17 are nothing but troublemakers and trash. Odds are that this girl will be knocked up before she graduates and odds are even better that she doesn't graduate at all.

IamSam
09-19-2010, 08:09 PM
How. All this hatred over a nose ring.

mario_spaghettio
09-19-2010, 08:24 PM
The nose ring and so called "Church Of Body Modification" are just vehicles to stir up trouble. For people like this and the ACLU perverts who defend them, it could just as easily be the "Church Of Urinating On The Toilet Seat" They get a kick out of starting trouble but what they really need is a kick in the ass.

IamSam
09-19-2010, 09:13 PM
You don't see a problem with banning nose rings?

Paint_It_Black
09-19-2010, 09:15 PM
BULLSHIT. This so called religion was created to manipulate and mock the system. This girl and her slut mother who got pregnant with her at 17 are nothing but troublemakers and trash. Odds are that this girl will be knocked up before she graduates and odds are even better that she doesn't graduate at all.

Try to be relevant. None of that actually matters. The rules are clear. The school dress code allows for religious exceptions. You can't specify "only religions we consider to be respectable". That would be illegal. That's why this case is clear. Nobody is saying you have to like it, but your personal feelings are irrelevant.

If you actually want a discussion I'd say the only thing really worth discussing here is whether allowing exceptions for religion at all is right or not. I would argue against having any exceptions. Rules are pointless unless they apply to everybody.

I'm hoping for a Church of Nudity next. Let's see students try to go to school naked. I'd love to see that go to the Supreme Court.

mario_spaghettio
09-19-2010, 09:31 PM
I'm hoping for a Church of Nudity next. Let's see students try to go to school naked. I'd love to see that go to the Supreme Court.that's the point. People are just making religions up so they can do stuff like this for the sole purpose of shitting on the system. This "religion" SHOULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED. It's clearly BOGUS. The motive is OBVIOUS. The involved parties are TRASH.

Paint_It_Black
09-19-2010, 10:04 PM
Perhaps. But all religions were "made up" at some point. Whether it feels ridiculous or not there's no legitimate reason to treat this one any differently than the others. Just because something has been around a long time and you're used to it doesn't make it less ridiculous.

If the system allows itself to be shit on perhaps the system needs to be changed. I think this would be better than just criticizing the shitter. If they want a strict dress code simply make it so there can be no exceptions. If you allow any exceptions you might as well just scrap the dress code. One rule for all or no rules.

Mario, what is your stance on exceptions to the dress code for religions that you might consider more legitimate? Do you approve of those or agree with me that there should be one rule for everybody?

I remember a while back there was some stuff in the news about Sikh kids (or something like that) having daggers in school because they are required by their religion to wear them at all times. You can't say that was a "made up" religion with the sole purpose of screwing the system. So what's your opinion on that? It's going to be tough to say those kids can have DAGGERS but this girl can't have her nose ring.

This is why you need one rule for everybody. Exceptions get messy and ultimately can be taken to a level of sheer silliness that exposes the silliness inherent in a system that doesn't have just one rule for everybody. And personally I'm in favor of exposing that silliness because it could potentially lead to a better system.

Outerspaceman21
09-19-2010, 10:19 PM
I'm with Paint it Black on this one. That exception to the rule protects her, which is why the rules need to be redone with no exceptions. As soon as we allow exceptions, people are going to take advantage of it and exploit the holes in the system. Regardless of how we feel about the religion, this is the core issue here.

mario_spaghettio
09-19-2010, 11:06 PM
I agree with that, no exceptions should be made.

Retard
09-20-2010, 12:58 PM
mario you gotta calm down man... all that anger is bad for your heart.

Paint_It_Black
09-22-2010, 04:13 AM
This somehow became one of the most reasonable discussions I've ever had here.

AllIn All It's Not So Bad
09-22-2010, 07:24 AM
that's the point. People are just making religions up so they can do stuff like this for the sole purpose of shitting on the system. This "religion" SHOULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED. It's clearly BOGUS. The motive is OBVIOUS. The involved parties are TRASH.

Aren't all religions bogus?

mario_spaghettio
09-22-2010, 08:08 AM
Aren't all religions bogus?Yes, but the followers of the more traditional religions at least believe it themselves, unlike this nonsense which was created soley to cause trouble.

Retard
09-25-2010, 10:32 PM
What religion was made up to cause trouble now?

Static_Martyr
09-26-2010, 01:00 AM
Yes, but the followers of the more traditional religions at least believe it themselves, unlike this nonsense which was created soley to cause trouble.

I have a serious question. On the one hand you say you're anti-religious (apparently vehemently so), but on the other hand this makes you angry? I don't understand that. If you're anti-religious then this should be a good thing for you --- especially if you think they're not being serious about it and are only doing it to cause trouble. Isn't this basically a mockery of religion or religious belief? And if it *is* done "solely to cause trouble," who do you think it's causing trouble for? It's only causing trouble for the religious (and by proxy the school administration, but even then only conditionally).

My point being, after you add up all the math, it boils down to a mockery of religion as a whole ("if they can get exemptions for believing in Jesus or Muhammed, then maybe I can get exemptions for believing in piercings!"). It's just reductio ad absurdum in practice --- which will ultimately lead to forcing the administration to either ban this "religion" but allow others, or to either allow all religions or ban all religions.

If the idea of someone's stated religious beliefs being secretly insincere bothers you, then that's fine, but that's not legal grounds on which to base a policy of discrimination --- there's nothing in the law that says your religious beliefs have to be sincere. As long as you can satisfy the legal definition of what constitutes a "religion," there's no harm done from a legal standpoint. Which is what the school board is having to deal with --- if they don't allow this person's actions based on their "religion," then they are setting up a case against them for discrimination. If they allow exceptions for this "religion," then they are accepting it as "equally valid" as other "real" religions from a legal standpoint, which (if the beliefs are truly insincere) constitutes a mockery of religion as a whole.

So as I see it, this is just one of those things that will work itself out, rendering my opinions on it pretty much irrelevant. There's no need for all of us to go get on a bus, drive out there and protest or anything.

Retard
09-26-2010, 01:52 AM
It's A MOCKERY OF A SHAM OF A MOCKERY OF A SHAM!

The Talking Pie
09-26-2010, 04:01 AM
Yes, but the followers of the more traditional religions at least believe it themselves, unlike this nonsense which was created soley to cause trouble.

How do you know that? You're making the stupid mistake of confusing religion and [blind] faith (both of which this church admit they have no interests in) with spirituality.

Anyway, the same First Amendment that protects her right to feel spiritual at school (which, let's face it, is the one place most people need to be able to feel good about themselves, with how shit other kids are) is exactly the same First Amendment that protects your right to be a complete cunt. And who's doing things just to cause trouble, really? A girl who feels good about herself by wearing a small stud in her nose or you, with your incessant intolerance?

mario_spaghettio
09-26-2010, 01:46 PM
What religion was made up to cause trouble now?The Church Of Body Modification

mario_spaghettio
09-26-2010, 01:51 PM
If the idea of someone's stated religious beliefs being secretly insincere bothers you, then that's fine, but that's not legal grounds on which to base a policy of discrimination --- there's nothing in the law that says your religious beliefs have to be sincere. True, at this point I'm just hoping that she gets a really bad infection from the piercing that leaves her permanently scarred and disfigured.

Little_Miss_1565
09-26-2010, 02:45 PM
True, at this point I'm just hoping that she gets a really bad infection from the piercing that leaves her permanently scarred and disfigured.

Why does her making up a religion have anything to bear on your life? Serious question.

mario_spaghettio
09-26-2010, 05:05 PM
Why does her making up a religion have anything to bear on your life? Serious question.People like her, who cause trouble just to get attention or make a point usually ruin something for others. In this case the school will probably enforce a strict dress code with no exceptions because one smart mouthed brat had to cause a stir over nothing.

The Talking Pie
09-26-2010, 05:21 PM
Seriously?

She caused a stir over getting kicked out of school. That's a pretty legitimate and substantial thing to raise an issue about.

The school, on the other hand, actually caused the controversy by employing double-standards with the exceptions to their dress-code rules.

I really hope that you have some form of mental retardation or are just plain being a troll, because it's honestly painful to think that someone with a normal mental capacity could hold such fucking stupid opinions in the face of such overwhelming common-sense evidence to the contrary.

mario_spaghettio
09-26-2010, 05:30 PM
Seriously?

She caused a stir over getting kicked out of school. That's a pretty legitimate and substantial thing to raise an issue about.
She caused the stir by intentionally violating a stated dress code policy.

The Talking Pie
09-26-2010, 05:35 PM
No, she didn't. The dress code clearly allowed exceptions on religious grounds.

FTFA: "the school system is ignoring its own dress code policy, which allows exemptions on religious grounds".

Your entire argument has been about them making up a religion (which the article also states is not something they've done) in order to take advantage of exceptions to the rules. How can you now do a complete u-turn and claim that rules were violated?

mario_spaghettio
09-26-2010, 06:59 PM
No, she didn't. The dress code clearly allowed exceptions on religious grounds.

FTFA: "the school system is ignoring its own dress code policy, which allows exemptions on religious grounds".

Your entire argument has been about them making up a religion (which the article also states is not something they've done) in order to take advantage of exceptions to the rules. How can you now do a complete u-turn and claim that rules were violated?They latched on to a drummed up religion for the sole purpose of causing the incident that's going on now. If you can't see that then you're an idiot, period. Should someone start the Church Of Public Urination so they can piss in the classroom trashcan? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Static_Martyr
09-26-2010, 08:16 PM
People like her, who cause trouble just to get attention or make a point usually ruin something for others. In this case the school will probably enforce a strict dress code with no exceptions because one smart mouthed brat had to cause a stir over nothing.

So basically, the school might not allow special exemptions for religious kids anymore (thus making it so that religious students have the same privileges as the rest of the student body, and no special rights)....and you consider this a *bad* thing?

I'm having a hard time squaring that with your apparent hatred of Muslims and "religion" in every other circumstance.

mario_spaghettio
09-26-2010, 09:42 PM
So basically, the school might not allow special exemptions for religious kids anymore (thus making it so that religious students have the same privileges as the rest of the student body, and no special rights)....and you consider this a *bad* thing?

I'm having a hard time squaring that with your apparent hatred of Muslims and "religion" in every other circumstance.I don't hate all Muslims, just radical muslims who are hell bent on blowing people up and destroying the country I live in. I don't hate religion, I just think it's nonsense. I don't have a problem if a female muslim student wears a burka for true religious purposes that she actually believes in. Why would anybody want to trample on that? I do have a problem with this trouble making brat and her wench mother trying to make a mockery of and exploit the system. Maybe they need to be diagnosed with terminal cancer. I wonder how important this issue would be to them after that? I wonder what importance the Church Of Body Modification would hold in their lives if they had real problems to deal with? Fucking scoundrels.

WebDudette
09-26-2010, 11:03 PM
People like her, who cause trouble just to get attention or make a point usually ruin something for others.

Is that some irony?

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a145/SystemSloth/Rage-against-the-machine.jpg

I wore the shirt Zack De La Rocha is wearing to school once. A teacher freaked out about it. She was trying to force me to take it off and sent me to the counselors office. She said it offended her because it is vaguely familiar to a Nazi shirt. Nothing came of it, because she is fucking stupid and got offended for no reason, but I feel it is slightly related.

IamSam
09-26-2010, 11:32 PM
Religion:
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


There is nothing wrong with having your own religion.

Outerspaceman21
09-27-2010, 02:04 AM
I'm the kind of person who will only judge someone on the contents of their character. I don't know this girl. I don't her, her mother, or her religion and I will not make assumptions about any of that. She could be a real bitch or the nicest person I'll ever meet. I wont know that until I meet her and get to know her.

So, with that said, I have to say that it is difficult to make these accusation without fully knowing the religion in of itself. From Mario standpoint, I believe his argument is that the religion's soul purpose is to bend the system to their will.

However, how is it doing that? A non-theistic religion based on body modification. Some tribes (south american, native american, African, you pick) believed that body modification was a rite of passage and self expression. There was no shock value or attempts to break the system (granted, there was no system to break).

By today standards, some use it as a form of shock value. However, there are those small few whom find a spiritual bond with body modification. Whose to say that this religion is that chosen few? These people could be honest people trying to find spiritual belonging in the alteration of their body.

I guess, in the end, what I am trying to say is who are we to judge.

mario_spaghettio
09-27-2010, 11:29 AM
There is nothing wrong with having your own religion.Of course not, but that does not give everybody the right to practice their own religious rituals wherever they see fit. Again, what about the Church Of Public Urination? Should people be allowed to piss wherever they please under the protection of religious expression?

mario_spaghettio
09-27-2010, 11:32 AM
I guess, in the end, what I am trying to say is who are we to judge.She can wear her nose ring thing anywhere she likes outside of school. Her school has a dress code that specifies NO FACIAL PIERCINGS. There is no debate here. She is in the wrong. If she can't handle the rules that come with school, she should stay home and have her mother home school her.

Little_Miss_1565
09-27-2010, 12:13 PM
Of course not, but that does not give everybody the right to practice their own religious rituals wherever they see fit. Again, what about the Church Of Public Urination? Should people be allowed to piss wherever they please under the protection of religious expression?

The general rule with the extent of civil rights is that one person's rights end where another's rights begin. There is no violation of another person's rights by some 15 year old girl thinking she's communing with a higher power by having a nose ring. There are, however, major violations of other people's rights by having a bunch of people urinating in public. Public nuisance and the like, what with the attraction of rodents, the fomentation of disease, etc. So much for your straw man, sorry dude :(

mario_spaghettio
09-27-2010, 01:06 PM
The general rule with the extent of civil rights is that one person's rights end where another's rights begin. There is no violation of another person's rights by some 15 year old girl thinking she's communing with a higher power by having a nose ring. There are, however, major violations of other people's rights by having a bunch of people urinating in public. Public nuisance and the like, what with the attraction of rodents, the fomentation of disease, etc:(School rules specifically forbid facial piercings. There is no argument here. She is in violation.
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/651/6a00d09e5a4f5abe2b00e39.jpg

Outerspaceman21
09-27-2010, 01:27 PM
But the schools own policy allows for religious exemptions. If her religion is Body Modification, whether or not the school believes in it, the school must honor it's own policy. If they truly want to prevent her from wearing the nose ring, then they need to remove the exemptions.



Of course not, but that does not give everybody the right to practice their own religious rituals wherever they see fit. Again, what about the Church Of Public Urination? Should people be allowed to piss wherever they please under the protection of religious expression?

It doesn't. This issues has already risen when Mormons came under fire for practicing polygamy. Any religious practice that violates the social order is against the law. Therefor, someone whose religion calls for public indecency is not protected because it violates the social order.

Little_Miss_1565
09-27-2010, 02:02 PM
You could found the church of trolling, Mario!

The Talking Pie
09-27-2010, 02:17 PM
Mario, this rarely happens but you've exhausted my will to argue. You evade every valid point raised against you and change your stance based on who you're talking to and how much you seem to respect their opinion (which itself seems to have a strong correlation with how careful they've been to tread lightly when responding to your nonsense).

So I give up. To take a page out of your book (which hey, must be right); I hope you get cancer.

Like, really.

mario_spaghettio
09-27-2010, 02:50 PM
Mario, this rarely happens but you've exhausted my will to argue. You evade every valid point raised against you and change your stance based on who you're talking to and how much you seem to respect their opinion (which itself seems to have a strong correlation with how careful they've been to tread lightly when responding to your nonsense).

So I give up. To take a page out of your book (which hey, must be right); I hope you get cancer.

Like, really.



http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/651/6a00d09e5a4f5abe2b00e39.jpg....................... ............

Llamas
09-27-2010, 03:07 PM
Seriously. Any proof of whether or not this could be bighead? Cause he talks just like him and makes the same kind of arguments. I feel like both of these threads just should be locked/deleted due to the fact that both are just full of him trolling and a few people continually responding to it.

WebDudette
09-27-2010, 05:55 PM
As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's not disturbing the class room, it's no big deal. The only reason this is a disturbance is because of the school, no one is going to care if some girl has a nose ring.

WebDudette
09-27-2010, 06:36 PM
What do you think of this one, Mario?
(http://proudatheists.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/arlington-student-wears-god-is-dead-shirt-for-photo/)

ARLINGTON — As debate club president and a top student, Arlington High School senior Justin Surber has studied the constitutional rights of free speech.

Surber, 18, recently took a stand that will keep him from appearing in his club’s yearbook photo.

Once a week, Surber wears a black T-shirt featuring the 19th-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s take on religion. In block letters, the shirt reads “GOD IS DEAD.”

Nobody has told him he can’t wear the shirt to school. He wears it to provoke debate, he says, and that’s why he wore the shirt the day the debate club photo was taken for the yearbook.

Now Surber believes his T-shirt prompted the school’s yearbook adviser to ask for a retake of the photo, without the T-shirt.

“I feel I am a victim of censorship,” Surber said.

When a student yearbook staff member came to take a second photo of the debate club a few weeks ago, Surber’s friend Reed Summerlin asked for an explanation.

The yearbook staffer indicated she had been asked by the yearbook adviser not to tell Surber the reason for the retake, Summerlin said. “She said it was about Justin’s shirt.”

“Given that photos of students in clothing with Christian messages are allowed in yearbook, one has to wonder if they are taking too much power into their hands with the whole discretion thing.”