WTF, Abercrombie & Fitch???Follow

re: `dating back from November`

Y'all might want to fire up the Wayback machine for this one.

http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/22/news/companies/abercrombie/


Controversy is free advertising.

I think you're reading a bit much into it. She works in a city school full of minorities and sees gang and drug violence that largely affects minorities. It's not as if Chicago is full of Anglo gang violence. The students who are constantly immersed in this stuff and who are soaking it into their every day lives are largely the minority students and those are the ones she was talking about.

Trying to paint some reverse-racism charge onto this is just silly.

I have absolutely no problem with the shirts. So kids are wearing them. I am sure they dont have a job or a car to go out and buy them at the store. We should be ripping the parents a new one for allowing their children to wear material like this not the stores that sell them.

There are studies to back this up. Go read them. What do you have, just your total ignorance of the subject and your oh-so-sassified opinion? Got it. Real credible.

Glorify, sure, but how exactly to these shirts facilitate the illegal activites they depict? Do they make it any less illegal to possess or use cocaine? Did they have instructions on them for building a meth lab in your basement?

My point was that she was never justified for harrassing someone who produced a legal product that the public had an interest in buying. (again, I know the product here was not exactly legal due to the trademark infringement, but that wasn't her main problem with the shirts)

Her assertion that the t-shirts lead to lower test scores is without merit. Yes, staying after school to tutor kids who were struggling in her class would have been a far more effective use of her time than going to the mall to blame the guy selling t-shirts. I've known many teachers who have gladly done that sort of thing. Sadly, none of them got an article in the paper about it.

That may be true, but how many of those other people are middle class, live in the suburbs, and aren't already acquainted with someone who has already turned to a life of crime?

It's the "another nail in the coffin" principle of the thing. These kids are already at risk for drug use and gang violence due to their socio-economic situation. Is it not possible that somewhere in the mix of seeing this kind of activity every day on their streets and even in their school corridors, and then coming home and seeing it on TV, that maybe, just maybe, somewhere inside the kid has internalized the message that gang violence and drug culture ain't all that bad? Especially if they're being raised by a single parent too busy working two full-time minimum wage jobs just to put food on the table, who doesn't have the time to sit them down after they've watched the latest gangsta video and say, "Look, I want you to understand why this is a bad thing..."



Not directly, no. But, yes or no question here, is it not possible that someone who is already at risk AND is being inundated with signals glorifying gangsta culture, is more likely to turn to drugs and gang life than someone who hasn't been inundated with those messages?

Why add kerosene to an already smoldering stack of kindling, and then plead innocence when the result is a big fire?

Facilitate the lifestyle. By making it more openly acceptable by, instead of saying "hey, these guys are criminals", saying "Lookit how cute Big Bird is as a gang member!"Of course she was. She was a member of the consumer public looking to change something she found offensive. She wasn't throwing bricks through a storefront window or putting a bomb under his car -- she said "these items are offensive and I believe you shouldn't market them".
And you know she doesn't do this because...?

Edited, Mon Apr 17 16:39:57 2006 by Jophiel

It is a valid conclusion that other internal factors in the cabbage, when exposed to infra-red light, cause a pink coloration and that, if you don't want pink cabbage, you're best off not exposing them to infra-red light where those other factors may take effect.

Unless you have a base group of 100 cabbages NOT exposed where 5% also turn pink, that is.

If you really don't want the 5% of your cabbages to turn pink, then you are best off working on eliminating that internal factor that is the real cause of the problem. Because really, after they leave your lab, you have no control over whether or not they get exposed to infrared light.

As for the base group not exposed to the light, I don't think anyone could argue that there was a certain percentage of the popuation predisposed to being violent long before mass media existed.



What's being proposed here is outlawing kerosene, rather than simply not leaving piles of smoldering kindling laying around.

Why should the 95% not be allowed UV exposure just because 5% of them have problems with it? After all the 95% were unharmed.

You're suggesting getting rid of blacks and hispanics?

Your brain doesn't handle nuance very well, does it?What is the control group had a 1% incidence of skin cancer? Would you agree then that UV exposure was a major factor in developing skin cancer even though it alone doesn't provide 100% assurance of developing cancer?

Edited, Mon Apr 17 19:10:56 2006 by Jophiel