Astralinre

You raise a good point. I was thinking last night, What if they did say that she was making out with another student, trying to avoid revealing the information to her parents? Wouldn't the parents be curious who it was? After all, they most likely would have known she doesn't have a boyfriend, and since they didn't know she was homosexual, they'd have no idea she had a girlfriend. If they're normal parents, then it only would have been natural for them to ask with whom their daughter was making out. So really, the school may have had no choice but to reveal the information. However, this is pure speculation, since I have no idea how the school's conversation with the parents took place.

No i dont see. She chose to display her affection on school property, which is not public. Dont know about you, bu tall schools (even highschools) have a policy that if your going in and your not 1. a student 2. a staff memeber, you must cheak in with the office to make sure you have special access, and to clear you. thie means it was public in the school grounds, but not in the general public. Non the less, where is it written that her information can be given everywhere? I hate to resort to this, but A school may private property, but what goes on is still in public, that is, in front of people. An action is no longer private when it is done in front of people. And it doesn't matter if "it is written" that her information can be given or not, she chose to make it public, therefore it is no longer private information. If I post my credit card number in the hallway at school, do I have the right to complain if people use it? Anyway, this debate is going in circles, I'm tired, and I have exams this week. I'm going to bed.

Wow this is pathetic... you really make me want to kill myself. "Your daughter was caught making out with her boyfriend today during school, this is why she is suspended" "Your daughter was caught making out with her girlfriend today during school, this is why she is suspended" omg DISCRIMINATIONSSSS ACLU PLZ SAVE US I really dont know what your getting at... What im saying is the principles could of done this "Your doughter was making out with another student today, this si why she is suspended". Now, does this realese any private information, nor not tell the parents what was going on. no. Perahsp its just my way of thinking, but i think privacy is a right, not privilige. They released the information to her parents! If she has no problem with publically displaying her affection with her girlfriend in front of everyone at school, then she has NO basis for keeping that information private from her parents, who have raised her, probally love her more than anyone else does, and have every right to know what she's doing. She lost her right to privacy the moment she did these things in public. Sorry for the large font, but this is driving me crazy. And where is it written that she lost these rights? If you do something in PUBLIC, it's no longer PRIVATE. See?

Wow this is pathetic... you really make me want to kill myself. "Your daughter was caught making out with her boyfriend today during school, this is why she is suspended" "Your daughter was caught making out with her girlfriend today during school, this is why she is suspended" omg DISCRIMINATIONSSSS ACLU PLZ SAVE US I really dont know what your getting at... What im saying is the principles could of done this "Your doughter was making out with another student today, this si why she is suspended". Now, does this realese any private information, nor not tell the parents what was going on. no. Perahsp its just my way of thinking, but i think privacy is a right, not privilige. They released the information to her parents! If she has no problem with publically displaying her affection with her girlfriend in front of everyone at school, then she has NO basis for keeping that information private from her parents, who have raised her, probally love her more than anyone else does, and have every right to know what she's doing. She lost her right to privacy the moment she did these things in public. Sorry for the large font, but this is driving me crazy.

Now what have you been teaching this guy? Heh, and I always thought it was Jesus Christ. :P Excited, ain't he? Rofl, once more.

Once more, what in the world is wrong with them giving personal information to the girl's parents? Surely the two people who have raised her and likely love her like they love themselves have every right to know her personal information - she's their daughter!

Its perfectly reasonable for a school to say "Your daughter was seen partaking in some extreme displays of affection with another girl" just as I have often heard of it being said "Your daughter was seen partaking in some extreme displays of affection with a boy." In this case, it is obviously a very touchy situation. If she was, after all, breaking the rules, then the school should exercise their rights and punish her, and, if need be, inform her parents. However, when a controversial factor such as homosexuality is present, care must be taken, and the school should do their best to avoid invading her privacy. They could have just as easily said it was with another person and not a girl; thus avoiding informing her parents of something they may not know. Since when do parents not have the right to know such important things about their children? Don't they have every right to know what their daughter is doing and how she feels? If she has no problem with strangers at school knowing, she shouldn't have any problem with the two people who love her most knowing.

Great bot. :P Edit: Nice... :lol:

I did not misread it...look at it again. He blatantly says these passages refer to Christ when they refer to a completely different person. Let's look at it again. He said That's one example from the Bible. Exactly WHO is "the Prophet" this passage is referring to, if not Christ (pbuh) nor Elijah (pbuh)? I say Muhammad (pbuh). You wrote: So yes, you did misread it.

Please dont use such big words to sound all important. What you just said didnt make sense, and was complealty conterdictory. Your asking me if torturing a kid is evil. And your saying there is absolute evil. But that conterdicts eachother. How is that possible when there is soem people in the world who see that as good, and not doing that to the child for their own reasons, would be the evil thing to do. What's wrong with using big words? If they're the best way for him to clarify what he's talking about, let him use them. And "Is this evil?" and "There is absolute evil" don't contradict each other at all. In fact, you can't answer the question unless the statement is true. And since when does perception determine reality? Allow me to quote what I said earlier, which was completely ignored: That makes no sense at all. If perception and beliefs are used to justify or minimize our actions, then your saying there is absolute, but that cant be, because those things do exist, and they are what creat the diffrences in the world. It is possible to argue the esitance of evil, but impossible to argue the existance of percetpions and beliefs, becuase to do so would be ironic and conterdictory. Why can't it be? And when did he argue against the existence of perceptions and beliefs? All he said was that we sometimes use our perceptions to justify our evil actions.

I've noticed several people on this thread make a certain assumption - that perception determines reality. (e.g. Since people disagree as to what evil is, there must not be one set standard of evil.) If I believe that I can walk into the middle of a busy highway and all the cars will just pass through me instead of hitting me, does that make it true? If I perceive a car as being just as valuable as a human, is it?

Thanks its comforting to know that God has a reason for my friends tragic death in excruciating pain last year. Go God :D I know that was sarcasm, but, sarcasm aside, you just supported his statement very well. What's more comforting, to think that he suffered horribly for no reason at all, or to know that ultimately some good will come of it?

Barihawk: You completely misread his post. He said that John that Baptist was neither Christ, Elijah, or the Prophet. TS: I do have a question about #11 though. When you referred to Christianity becoming corrupted, were you speaking of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ and Trinity, or the political corruption of the Church after it became wealthy, or both?

We had to watch one of them in fourth grade, and I still bear the scars from it years later. Did you also know that the main character in Lewis's Space Trilogy, Dr. Ransom, was based on Tolkein? I love all the links there are in the world of literature. :P As for the movie, I can hardly wait to see it. From what I can tell, the movie will actually do the book justice. :)

Don't worry; you've got a better US History teacher than my school. He "teaches" regular and AP, so there's no escaping him. He spends the class playing Solitaire on the computer; sif any teaching is done in the class, it's because he makes the students teach. In my opinion, if he's going to make the students do his job, he ought to give the students his paycheck. And if you've still got a B despite having a teacher like that, you're doing pretty well. Like Bubsa said, take it up with a higher authority, and hopefully something will be done about it.

You misunderstood me; the first paragraph was me rambling on about what I would like to imagine, not what the case actually is. As it is, the universe is apparently isotropic and it would be safe to assume the laws of physics is indeed the same everywhere. Also the whole discussion is hypothetical, obviously a pre-requisite for knowing if god exists is a device to actually measure god. Whole sections of science (such as statistics, astronomy, physics, mathematical induction etc) all go on the assumption of an isotropic situation and my question was why god detection couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be any different. Ok, that's for clarifying. I basically agree with you then - in that case, it would be possible to disprove God's existence. Do you ever plan on learning to type?....any day now.... I already sent him a PM warning him about that and linking him to Rick's grammar guide. ;)

You haven't read his other threads have you? Nope. And I don't really feel like clicking on all those links, so I'll just take you at your word - they're bad. But still, I prefer to encourage someone to change and give him advice rather than flame him into oblivion. All I've seen of him are his recent posts in OT, so those are all I have to base my opinion of him on.

Abyssal, don't worry about it. If you post something that people don't like, then they may insult the topic and you, but don't let it upset you. Worse things have happened. Just learn from your mistakes and move on. :)

If the messages only effect people younger than nine, and Pokemon has only been around for a few years, then how can they be responsible for the addiction of thirty-year-old gamers? I could just as easily claim that Runescape has subliminal messages, since so many people play it constantly and appear to be addicted to it. Why can't people just accept the fact that some kids and even some adults enjoy the game?

Actually, Purgatory is a place, in Catholic belief, where Christians who died with unrepented sins are sent to be purged of their guilt, after which they continue on into heaven. That may not be the best definition of it, but it's certainly closer than "nothingness." :P

The purpose of the Iraqi war was to oust the government and secure oil. The American troops there are fighting against insurgents. The war isn't a genocide against the Iraqis at all. I don't see how you could even compare it with the Holocaust.

Well, that's the question, so what's your answer? My view is this. Music is one of the most powerful tools we have for communication. It goes straight to the heart, past the defenses of reason, therefore can be either very beneficial or very harmful. It ought to have melody, harmony, rhythm, and beat. But what separates good music from the rest? I'd say that good music is composed well, sounds good, and contains harmony, melody, etc. But there's something deeper than that - good music communicated truth, beauty and goodness. So what's your view? Is it about what sounds good? Is it about the message, lyrics, or beat? Is screamo music? Is rap music/ Is country western music? Is rock music? Is classical music really music? What are your thoughts? Oh, and I don't mean for anyone to answer each individual question; I'm just trying to begin some trains of thought.

Maybe because it is really bad. Maybe because it's not music. But then again, that all depends on what your definition of music is. ;)

I voted country. Heh, I'm definitely in a minority here. Country, in my mind, has the same appeal that classical music and opera do - it draws you into itself. Good country can make you feel any range of emotions, from joy, to sadness, to loneliness, to anger, to goofiness. (Then against, any good music can do that, regardless of the style, but I find it more common in country.) Also, country has some of the best lyrics I've ever heard - they're clever, thought-provoking, and very often are quite funny (see Johnny Cash's "A Boy Named Sue"). And, of course, it's also my own personal preference - I've grown up in the south listening to country, and I like the sound of it.