|
That's an odd shape for a phallus... (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sand Leaper |
I just found it hilarious that the complaint actually lists COUNSELLING SESSIONS as a criterium for lessening the girls' punishment! :stongue: Boy, I can just picture how those sessions would go down:
"Sucking on lollipops like that is wrong, mmkay? This is not a part of a healthy, wholesome sexual relationship between two married people. Now watch this video."
*cue PSA-video with tv movie-music and voiceovers about the "dangers" of pre-marital sex* |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
^
Yeah, something along those lines. |
|
|
| Ania_xox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Demoted
You're asking how do girls have time to take stupid compromising pictures of themselves when you somehow find time to phonesex internet plebs.
You see now? |
Not really.
Sometimes when two people are dating and they are not together physically, they talk on the phone to feel closer to eachother. Then sometimes they get horny. It's not quite the sexual crisis situation you imagine. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| what was the principal doing on their myspace page in the first place... |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
...phallus-shaped lollipop... |
Fixed! ;) |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
I can't decide which is more stupid: that a ing school is so self-obsessed it has to censor its students Myspace pages to preserve its own image, or that the parents seriously think not being allowed to play for the school team is an unjust punishment worth financial compensation.
Conclusion: this whole story is ing stupid from top to bottom. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| In American public schools, sports rule. All that academic stuff is a secondary concern at best. :-) |
|
|
| Slylee |
| yup. and i would imagine that the parents were probably really hoping for a sports (or whatever extra cirricular activities they were associated with) scholarship for their little slut princesses and now that's out the door lol |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
i just don't see what the problem is about a school wanting students who play on sports teams and REPRESENT said school (outside of school mind you, when they go on away game trips) to abide by a code of conduct whether they are in school or out of school. most extra cirricular activities at schools have A LOT of activiites outside of the school and school hours.
to me, it's no different than girl scouts or something like that. if you want to be a part of it and be chosen to represent that group/school/company, act like a mature respectable teenager. if you don't, you're off the team. this happens all the time. guys getting kicked off the football team because they were caught drinking at parties or even got in trouble w/ the law outside of school. the school has a right to pick who gets to represent them and who doesn't. sucking dick shaped lollipops with dollar bills hanging out of your underwear on myspace is more like representing the local strip club. they didn't kick the girls out of school for good, they just can't play sports and had to publicly apologize to their coaches for letting them down (which is exactly what they did).
what's so hard to understand about that? lol |
I think there's a pretty significant difference between a private organization, which has no obligation to include anyone to begin with, choosing not to exclude people for arbitrary reasons and a public school, the services of which the girls are entitled to under state law, choosing to exclude them for an arbitrary reason.
In like vein, it is one thing for the state, after fulfilling the requirements of due process, to suspend or limit students' participation at school on the basis of violations of the state's criminal law and for a low-level bureaucrat, acting entirely on his own, to limit students' participation at school on the basis of nothing more than his bare declaration that their conduct "reflects discredit" upon the school.
Even if I were to think that, in this particular case, these girls deserved to be subject to some sort of sanction for their conduct, it does not at all follow that it is appropriate for their school principal to be playing the role of judge, jury, and executioner on the basis of nothing more than his own personal interpretation of a standard so vague and subjective as to place no practical limit on his discretion. |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I think there's a pretty significant difference between a private organization, which has no obligation to include anyone to begin with, choosing not to exclude people for arbitrary reasons and a public school, the services of which the girls are entitled to under state law, choosing to exclude them for an arbitrary reason.
In like vein, it is one thing for the state, after fulfilling the requirements of due process, to suspend or limit students' participation at school on the basis of violations of the state's criminal law and for a low-level bureaucrat, acting entirely on his own, to limit students' participation at school on the basis of nothing more than his bare declaration that their conduct "reflects discredit" upon the school.
Even if I were to think that, in this particular case, these girls deserved to be subject to some sort of sanction for their conduct, it does not at all follow that it is appropriate for their school principal to be playing the role of judge, jury, and executioner on the basis of nothing more than his own personal interpretation of a standard so vague and subjective as to place no practical limit on his discretion. |
i see. and what message do you think this whole situation is going to send to the girls? to the other kids at that school? what will it accomplish? and will it be positive? |
|
|
| Darkarbiter |
| Doing things the wrong way to send the right messege=not good. |
|
|
|
|
