Posted on 01/07/2012 4:12:02 PM PST by Lmo56
A Colorado teenager whose yearbook picture was rejected for being too revealing is vowing to fight the ban with her high school’s administration, but the editors of the yearbook insist it was their decision alone on the photo.
The five student editors of the Durango High School yearbook in Durango, Col., told the Durango Herald they were the ones who made the call not to publish a picture of senior Sydney Spies posing in a short yellow skirt midriff and shoulder-exposing black shawl as her senior portrait.
“We are an award-winning yearbook. We don’t want to diminish the quality with something that can be seen as unprofessional,” student Brian Jaramillo told the paper on Thursday.
Spies was joined by her mother, Miki Spies, and a handful of fellow Durango High students and alumni in a protest outside the school Wednesday after, she said, administrators informed her the photo would not be permitted because it violated dress code.
“I feel like they aren’t allowing me to have my freedom of expression,” Spies told the Herald. ”I think the administration is wrong in this situation, and I don’t want this to happen to other people.”
The five editors, who said their decision was unanimous, said Spies’ blame was misplaced, in both targeting the administration, and believing that it was a dress code issue.
They also offered her an opportunity to include the photo in the yearbook, just not as her senior photo.
(Excerpt) Read more at gma.yahoo.com ...
So, you think conservatives want a government powerful enough to control our behavior if we don't act properly? Interesting.
Conservatives want as much freedom as possible with voluntary restraint so that some governing authority doesn’t control our behavior for us.
You don't understand libertarian philosophy at all (big or small L). Libertarians want people to determine ethics and morality based on their own faith, education, and family values. They don't believe that "some governing authority" has the inherent right to control our behavior except when it impinges upon another person's rights. This belief is consistent with that of the Founders. For those of us who believe in God, the source of our code of ethics is our faith. It certainly isn't some bureaucrat in Washington.
In this particular instance, libertarian philosophy strongly supports the right of free choice in association, and the right of individuals, businesses, and organizations to set the conditions under which they engage in transactions. There is no basis whatsoever under libertarian philosophy for the girl to argue about the rejection of her picture - it doesn't meet the requirements set by the yearbook committee, and they are therefore fully within their rights to reject it. Of course if she wants to publish her own competing yearbook with whatever kind of pictures she wants to put in it she is welcome to do so.
The existence of a compulsory government school is what leads to the legal challenge that the student may make. If she didn't attend a government school she would have no basis whatsoever to bring any legal claim about the yearbook policies.
A reasonable person will understand that there is are many points between a burkha and half-naked.
Unfortunately, the person you responded to does not seem reasonable.
That was my first reaction: What is the matter with her mother (AND father!)?
That was my first reaction: What is the matter with her mother (AND father!)?
My first reaction was, “Well, she is sure going to be remembered. I’m not sure exactly HOW she is going to be remembered, but she darn sure will be remembered”
I can’t wait for the 10 Year Reunion pics
Reminds me of when I went to my 20 yr. high school reunion with my husband and I pointed out our homecoming queen. His comment was “Boy, they sure fall hard, don’t they?”.
I have no idea how you managed to read the complete opposite of what my words state, but you did.
And here’s the other point you libertarians consistently miss.
Anarchy is always and will always be followed very quickly by totalitarianism.
In the vacuum of control, the powerful will take control.
Conservatives keep power in check by allowing the masses as much freedom as possible while ruling ourselves. That enables us to rule the rulers. That is completely lost in a society where there is no voluntary restraint (anarchy and its manifold forms).
It’s always amusing when someone disagree with you to hear them say, “You don’t understand blah blah at all.”
I do understand libertarianism.
And I understand, perhaps better than you do, that it is closer to liberalism and leftism than it is to what our Founding Fathers implemented...a system that allowed the most freedoms in a framework where the morality was maintained by Judeo-Christian religion and anarchy and license were held in check by a populace that willing controlled their behavior so that others wouldn’t demand a strong government to do so.
she’’l be doing porn in 2 years and make more than all of us put together . I’m sure her parents are wackos too.
Your strawman attempt to equate libertarianism with anarchy proves you don't. Or you do, but are unable to refute it without being intellectually dishonest.
a system that allowed the most freedoms in a framework where the morality was maintained by Judeo-Christian religion and anarchy and license were held in check by a populace that willing controlled their behavior so that others wouldn’t demand a strong government to do so.
And apparently, you would be first in line to demand a strong government to control people doing things you think are wrong. This is the difference between a libertarian and a statist like yourself: a libertarian wanting to change a person's behavior would do it with logic and rhetoric, not through government force. I am personally one of the most socially conservative people you could find. And, I would love for everyone to have my same morals and ethics and beliefs. But they must do so of their own volition; not out of fear of violation of the state.
There is a difference between a “strawman argument” (one of the top 10 most overused and misused terms on the Internet) and the concept of logical extremes.
The ideology of libertarianism means that one group cannot impose a set of restrictions on another. You may deny it, but that is at its core.
Once that core is established, there are no restrictions. An absence of restrictions is a form of anarchy.
That is the logical extremes of the liberaltarians.
I’ve stated my case. It is airtight and logical and commits no fallacies.
I have also described the critical divide between conservatives and libertarians and why I will never vote for a libertarian and why, though we are united in our fight against big government, we are essentially and critically opposed to one another.
And speaking of strawman arguments, you committed a nice one in this post yourself.
I already stated that I do not want a strong central government dictating behavior. You then erected my alleged desire for just that to attack.
Just to reiterate so those that are not as attuned to logical fallacies will not be fooled by your illogic, here is what I stated.
A group of people comes together. They agree on a certain set of rules that they all live by. The establish a government that enforces those rules and no more. This enables them to live in complete freedom as long as they are within that set of rules. As long as this followed, no stronger government is necessary other than that which enforces the rules that have been agreed to. This is what our Founding Fathers established with the US Constitution. This is what has been abandoned throughout the 20th centuries. The abandonment was put into effect mainly by people hostile to the US Constitution, either because they wanted no restrictions or wanted to tear it down so that they would have the power to enforce whatever restrictions they desired.
Conservatives want to return to what our Founding Fathers established.
"To 'attack a straw man' is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
You can't refute libertarian beliefs, so you replace it with anarchy and then refute it. Despite your attempts to equate them, libertarianism is not anarchy.
The ideology of libertarianism means that one group cannot impose a set of restrictions on another. You may deny it, but that is at its core.
Here lies your error. Libertarianism does not oppose all restrictions. Perhaps the old 'my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose' rings a bell. Since your premise is false, the rest of your argument falls apart. And, since libertarianism is, therfore, not anarchy, your argument is the perfect example of a straw man.
An absence of restrictions is a form of anarchy.
An absence of restrictions sounds more like the definition of freedom, not anarchy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.