Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Prince Rilian · 01-09-2012 01:33 PM

(01-09-2012 01:31 PM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:
(01-09-2012 01:26 PM)Derchin Wrote: But why do they have to desecrate their yearbook to suit her desires?

Desecrate is clearly an opinion based on prudes. Thing is is Rilian no one else is allowed to do different photos. I think a yearbook should allow it that'd be cool. Different poses and shit.

Well, I've never been a senior in high school, but I thought they each got their own picture taken however they wanted and submitted it to the yearbook, as opposed to the standard pictures they do in the earlier grades.

UnschoolShqiponjë · 01-09-2012 01:37 PM

In my senior year and five other schools (that friends went to) both public and private they had the same pictures as every other student. A photographer came in and took a picture of you.

Desu · 01-09-2012 01:56 PM

(01-09-2012 01:31 PM)Prince Rilian Wrote: They have to include the niggers, too, no matter how much it offends their pure-blood sensibilities.

I didn't pay 75 bucks to look at NIGGERS.

Aya · 01-10-2012 12:25 AM

(01-09-2012 01:09 PM)Prince Rilian Wrote: So, since it's her yearbook also, she gets a say in what goes in it. And that say is her picture.

Just because she has a say doesn't mean she gets to over ride the decision of her peers. Yearbook is a group project representing everyone in her class. The group is the one to decide what's appropriate and what's not, not the individual.

Quote:It's totally fuck unfair that she can get kicked out of the yearbook that's just as much hers as anyone else's. If other people don't like her picture, they can cover it up or tear out that page after they get their copy.

And what about other photos that are on that page? Why should those be destroyed just to get rid of her trashiness?

Prince Rilian · 01-10-2012 04:22 AM

I said they could just cover up her picture.

If they really wanted it to be a group decision, they would figure something out they all like, instead of just throwing her out of the group. 'Majority rules' is fucking stupid.

Aya · 01-10-2012 05:55 AM

So in other words to get their yearbooks, students should have to

A: Pay for a photo that the majority agreed was not appropriate for the yearbook
B: Make alterations to what should be a finished product.

How the hell is that fair? You're completely disrespecting the rights and wishes of nearly 300 seniors in order to make sure one person 'is not thrown out of the group' Even though that one person is not thrown out of the group and is more than welcome to submit another, more appropriate photo for her senior portrait.

Prince Rilian · 01-10-2012 06:42 AM

(01-10-2012 05:55 AM)Ayliana Wrote: So in other words to get their yearbooks, students should have to

A: Pay for a photo that the majority agreed was not appropriate for the yearbook
B: Make alterations to what should be a finished product.

How the hell is that fair? You're completely disrespecting the rights and wishes of nearly 300 seniors in order to make sure one person 'is not thrown out of the group' Even though that one person is not thrown out of the group and is more than welcome to submit another, more appropriate photo for her senior portrait.

Why are you in love with the majority? What if the majority really really didn't want this one guy to have his picture in because he was really disgustingly ugly?

Aya · 01-10-2012 07:22 AM

Don't compare apples and oranges. She's not being completely banned from the yearbook and she's not being banned for something that she cant change about herself such as physical appearance.

gore goroth · 01-10-2012 07:24 AM

(01-10-2012 07:22 AM)Ayliana Wrote: Don't compare apples and oranges. She's not being completely banned from the yearbook and she's not being banned for something that she cant change about herself such as physical appearance.

She could eat a bunch of chocholate bars and get fat. LOL

zagix · 01-10-2012 07:43 AM

Imagine if they put a goatse like picture in the yearbook...

It's all a matter of perception people

Prince Rilian · 01-10-2012 08:32 AM

What if she were wearing a buddhist swastika in her picture and "the majority" got offended?

It's all just people getting offended.

Aya · 01-10-2012 08:58 AM

That has got to be the most retarded thing I have read from you.

1. SHES NOT BUDDHIST
2. Religious symbols =/= skimpy clothes
3. Just because you have freedom of religion does not mean you have right to bare certain symbols in a public building. That's why Shieks and Muslims aren't allowed to carry their ceremonial daggers with them and some schools have banned crosses because of local gang affiliations. If a religious symbol is viewed as offensive or dangerous it can ( and has) be prohibited from a public school.

Desu · 01-10-2012 12:55 PM

I honestly agree with Ayliana,

but then again I think she's hot and I would fuck her. Maybe she should do a photoshoot without that silly top on. LOLOL

Prince Rilian · 01-11-2012 01:44 AM

(01-10-2012 08:58 AM)Ayliana Wrote: That has got to be the most retarded thing I have read from you.

1. SHES NOT BUDDHIST

It's a fucking analogy, retard. The point being, how in love with the majority are you? What kinds of things can the majority ban because they are offended by them?

"offended" is never a good reason.

Aya · 01-11-2012 06:42 AM

(01-11-2012 01:44 AM)Prince Rilian Wrote:
(01-10-2012 08:58 AM)Ayliana Wrote: That has got to be the most retarded thing I have read from you.

1. SHES NOT BUDDHIST

It's a fucking analogy, retard. The point being, how in love with the majority are you? What kinds of things can the majority ban because they are offended by them?

"offended" is never a good reason.

I'm not in love with the majority. Stop accusing me of that. All I'm saying is that, just as the majority doesn't have a right to restrict the freedoms of the individual, the individual doesn't have the right to push her agenda on the majority. If this were an issue of the majority ruling over the individual she would've never been allowed the opportunity to submit a photo in the first place. But she was allowed that opportunity as well as an additional opportunity to submit other, more appropriate photos. They have done more than they needed to do in order to respect her rights and freedoms as an individual.

This is not an issue of a group ruling over an individual, but of an individual trying to push her agenda onto a group.

McGee! · 01-11-2012 06:55 AM

(01-09-2012 03:07 AM)Desu Wrote:
(01-09-2012 03:06 AM)Elfy Wrote:
Quote:I am happy to see that 99% (give or take) of the comments here are against this picture being published in the yearbook as her senior portrait. I ask that you all who are saying you are "sick and tired" of us "righteous people" being uptight...please...be sick and tired of us. We want you to be. We will not go quietly. We like to think we can protect our girls from peds like yourself.

I raged so fucking hard.

I fucking raged.

>I have no face when.

Fist and foremost, and it bears repeating, fuck most of the people who comment and such on Yahoo. The ABC thing just made me headdesk. And honestly, even if you think you can "protect" someone just by a fewe standards...I honestly think that it would be very likely your child(whatever flippin' gender) could have a marriage that could fit all your 'standards' on the outside and still be abusive, and you would blind yourself based on your standards.

LOON_ATTIC · 01-11-2012 07:33 AM

...I'd say that I don't give a shit about the yearbook but what they're doing, lol who gives a shit about a pic that has a bit of sexuality? This shouldn't be causing that big of a deal but I guess some people take yearbooks too seriously... meh.

aCol · 01-11-2012 08:10 AM

It's America, they are just prude.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode ...We ALL have to play by the rules...
Author	Message