Political Discussion

RenegadeMonster said:
www.cnn.com

Parents, students angered after 80 yearbook photos of female students are altered to mask cleavage | CNN

Flipping open a yearbook for the first time is normally a moment full of excitement -- but at one Florida high school, some students were left in shock after seeing that their yearbook portraits had been edited.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

View attachment 100628

In the example above this outfit was one of this girls go to outfits for school. She has worn it to school on many occasions and has never been questioned by any staff that the outfit might be a violation of dress code. But when it comes to wearing it for her yearbook photo. It was deemed to by a violation of dress code and immodest and therefore digitally altered.

80 students had their yearbook photos edited in total. All 80 of the portraits edited were girls and they all had their chest covered up more.

The article goes on to talk about how dress codes are antiquated and how girls are target to protect "boys from being boys". It also talks about how these dress codes shame girls in a time of their life where they are going through being body shamed and most susceptible to these types of comments / messages.
Click to expand...
The question of altering these photos aside, but what happened to the overall quality of these photos during the editing process? Was this dun with pen and glue and photocopying the foto 100 times?
 
Jan said:
The question of altering these photos aside, but what happened to the overall quality of these photos during the editing process? Was this dun with pen and glue and photocopying the foto 100 times?
Click to expand...

The one on the left is the original portrait. The one on the right is a picture of the printed yearbook portrait.

The editing was done digitally by someone who doesn't have a lot of skill, lol. But what you are calling out I think is the result of a low resolution printing that's not color accurate. Then a picture being taken of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jan
Indymisanthrope said:
for anybody who doesn't trust my links
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Chucktshoes said:
... I can’t support a requirement for training or state licensure. I view self defense as a human right, and that means having the tools to effectively defend yourself from those that wish to do you harm. Therefore I place permits on the same level as poll tests to vote.
Click to expand...

Comparing the licensing/permitting of guns to poll tests is a false equivalence and the basis for a bad faith argument. Though I’m sure that kind of statement goes over pretty well with your friends on the other board.
 
Carl said:
Comparing the licensing/permitting of guns to poll tests is a false equivalence and the basis for a bad faith argument. Though I’m sure that kind of statement goes over pretty well with your friends on the other board.
Click to expand...
If you have a point, it’s not the one you think and only because one isn’t an enumerated right in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
 
Carl said:
Oh I think you understood my point, as my aim is true.

Originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment, it’s a cowardly argument that stops all debate.

I don’t play chess with pigeons.
Click to expand...
It’s also the correct one no matter how much you strut around and shit on the chessboard.
 
Carl said:
Are you practicing for your other board with that weak sauce?

Does the “I’m not you are!” argument work over there?
Click to expand...
Since you never brought an actual argument, I’m just basically killing time. If you wanna discuss the issue we can do that. But you’re gonna have to drop the the bullshit for me to even give a fuck.

If you want to play the game a scoring points, which is all I’ve seen you go for here, I’m not gonna give it much effort. Mainly because I’m not here to convince anyone of anything. I’ll present my view, I discuss that in more detail if legitimate questions are raised, but I’m not gonna really argue over it. There’s no point.

It’s what ruined this place for me last time before I left, I’m not going to choose to allow that to happen again.
 
Chucktshoes said:
Since you never brought an actual argument, I’m just basically killing time. If you wanna discuss the issue we can do that. But you’re gonna have to drop the the bullshit for me to even give a fuck.

If you want to play the game a scoring points, which is all I’ve seen you go for here, I’m not gonna give it much effort. Mainly because I’m not here to convince anyone of anything. I’ll present my view, I discuss that in more detail if legitimate questions are raised, but I’m not gonna really argue over it. There’s no point.

It’s what ruined this place for me last time before I left, I’m not going to choose to allow that to happen again.
Click to expand...

There is no point to make beyond the one I’ve already made. I’ll take the W.

I don’t want to debate you, there’s no point. You made your beliefs clear, and there’s no changing a devout cultist like yourself.

If you can’t handle a little heat for your backwards belief and slow-con attempt to indoctrinate anyone dumb enough to give a thought like a passing breeze to your militant ideology, then maybe you should take a brake. Go stroke something.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I'm aligned with the positions you appear to hold, but can I humbly suggest that you're coming in a little hot at a time when we've pretty successfully lowered the temperature in this thread recently? Chuck is

And it has been proven over and over that it's a futile exercise to make him a stand-in for a Republican perspective.

Is there any way to do this other than with brown rays drawn at ten paces?
Click to expand...

I run hot. Tough meat, chew harder.

And, no one is being made in to a “stand-in” for anyone or anything. If a pigeon flaps it’s wings and says “I’m a pigeon”, well then I’m going to believe it.
 
Last edited:
Carl said:
There is no point to make beyond the one I’ve already made. I’ll take the W.

I don’t want to debate you, there’s no point. You made your beliefs clear, and there’s no changing a devout cultist like yourself.

If you can’t handle a little heat for your backwards belief and slow-con attempt to indoctrinate anyone dumb enough to give a thought like a passing breeze to your militant ideology, then maybe you should take a brake. Go stroke something.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with @Chucktshoes on many things, but he does present his side in detail and doesn't shit on anyone in the process.

............. @Carl, I "think" we're on the same side, but I wouldn't want you as my spokesperson.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I'm aligned with the positions you appear to hold, but can I humbly suggest that you're coming in a little hot at a time when we've pretty successfully lowered the temperature in this thread recently? Chuck is

And it has been proven over and over that it's a futile exercise to make him a stand-in for a Republican perspective.

Is there any way to do this other than with brown rays drawn at ten paces?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the attempted intervention. I’ve put my brown note ray away and have made use of the ignore button for the first time since my return.

I recognized it was a bad faith shot almost from the start and I shouldn’t have engaged at all. I’m sorry y’all. That’s on me.
 
Carl said:
There is no point to make beyond the one I’ve already made. I’ll take the W.

I don’t want to debate you, there’s no point. You made your beliefs clear, and there’s no changing a devout cultist like yourself.

If you can’t handle a little heat for your backwards belief and slow-con attempt to indoctrinate anyone dumb enough to give a thought like a passing breeze to your militant ideology, then maybe you should take a brake. Go stroke something.
Click to expand...
Hi Carl! It's nice to see a new member here.
I'm cool with disagreements, but they should be respectful. Please refrain from telling someone to "stroke something" or sling around accusations of backwards beliefs. Debate is encouraged but hurdling insults is not debate--and you are largely hurdling insults in this post.
 
Memo said:
*squints*

See's a pigeon like bird on profile picture.
Click to expand...

Ok.
AnthonyI said:
I don't agree with @Chucktshoes on many things, but he does present his side in detail and doesn't shit on anyone in the process.

............. @Carl, I "think" we're on the same side, but I wouldn't want you as my spokesperson.
Click to expand...

Well that’s good, since I didn’t offer my services.

He presents no detail, just regurgitates talking points for a dead-end way of viewing the second amendment. But by all means, rally around his hurt feelings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top