Funny Pictures Thread. It begins again
- Thread starter CrimsonSoul
- Start date
If Lucas is right and that restoring balance meant that the Sith had to be eliminated... then Anakin still completed that prophecy when he was redeemed by his son, which made him kill the Emperor in Return of the Jedi. Technically anyway... Luke gets half credit for redeeming his father instead of killing him. So ether way the prophecy was involved and Anakin had a hand in it.
I always saw the unbalancing as coming from both sides. Qui-Gon hated the Jedi Council because he saw them as becoming increasingly unbalanced in their shying away from emotion, and this unbalance led to their polar opposite, the Sith, making their return and clouding the force so badly that they started to lose their connection of it. Annakin led to the destruction of BOTH, and the Jedi order founded by Luke after no longer forbade emotion, seeking a balance between the light and dark.
I thought it had been accepted that Luke was really the one the prophecy was about.
Although when I watch the movies, there is no prophecy, because I ignore anything and everything from the prequel trilogy, so I'm certainly no expert.
Although when I watch the movies, there is no prophecy, because I ignore anything and everything from the prequel trilogy, so I'm certainly no expert.
fade
Staff member
I always assumed qui gon was wrong, and Luke was the child of the prophecy. After all, he's rather gray. He is trained as a Jedi but he doesn't deny his feelings. Even Obi wan calls attention to this (your feelings do you credit). My interpretation was that neither the Jedi nor the sith were correct.[DOUBLEPOST=1401317470,1401317386][/DOUBLEPOST]Also a great deal of the prequels dealt with how forcing anakin to deny his feelings backfired horribly.[DOUBLEPOST=1401317557][/DOUBLEPOST]And also the death of Yoda and the emperor marked the end of the old separate era with Luke the surviving descendent of both.
GasBandit
Staff member
Utah high school photoshops more clothes onto female student yearbook pictures:
Several students were surprised to find this week that their yearbook photos had been altered by Wasatch High School staff to appear more modest. Necklines magically rose up and once bare shoulders are now covered by Photoshop work.
The non-apology apology issued by superintendent Terry E. Schoemaker: "We only apologize in the sense that we want to be more consistent with what we're trying to do in that sense we can help kids better prepare for their future by knowing how to dress appropriately for things."
I'm thinking any english or public speaking teacher would dock points off that mess of a hedged sentence.
Here are a few more of the photos in question, courtesy of MyFox8:
Several students were surprised to find this week that their yearbook photos had been altered by Wasatch High School staff to appear more modest. Necklines magically rose up and once bare shoulders are now covered by Photoshop work.
The non-apology apology issued by superintendent Terry E. Schoemaker: "We only apologize in the sense that we want to be more consistent with what we're trying to do in that sense we can help kids better prepare for their future by knowing how to dress appropriately for things."
I'm thinking any english or public speaking teacher would dock points off that mess of a hedged sentence.
Here are a few more of the photos in question, courtesy of MyFox8:
Back in my day, they would just throw out the pics that did not fit the dress code.
That is some damn fine body policing. Way to make girls feel ashamed of their bodies.
I looked up the article and this is the stuff they wear all year and are never sent home. It's also a public school. In public schools are they allowed to apply dress codes? You can't do that here unless its something that breaks the law or crosses the whole Avalon School Board (gang symbols and the like).
I looked up the article and this is the stuff they wear all year and are never sent home. It's also a public school. In public schools are they allowed to apply dress codes? You can't do that here unless its something that breaks the law or crosses the whole Avalon School Board (gang symbols and the like).
Yes? I mean, all my public schools had one. I didn't realize other schools might not. Maybe its a district by district kind of thing.
GasBandit
Staff member
There was a dress code when I was in high school, but it mostly just specified specific pieces of clothing that can't be worn, or manditory lengths/areas of coverage. And it has a blanket discretion statement saying any teacher or administrator can send you home to change if you are found to be wearing something "inappropriate or distracting."
Like my aforementioned "Big Johnson" t-shirt.
(that's not the shirt I had, but it was in the same vein)
No faces were swapped, they just did a poor job in presenting the photos. The ones with different faces were of different girls wearing the same thing, to show that some were edited and some where not.
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't know about this school, but my school yearbook had us provide our own photos in advance, done by the studio of our choice. They would reject any that didn't meet their standards.
GasBandit
Staff member
As these photos were in color, I assumed them to be senior photos. Were they not? Do underclassman scrubs get color photos now? I tell ya, things ain't how they used to be.[DOUBLEPOST=1401409559,1401409176][/DOUBLEPOST]Honesty is the best policy, part 2: Sometimes it's just best to be up front about things.
Mine was in black and white. I think it would've been something like 10x the cost if it was color, so they didn't bother with that.
And yeah, we had to turn our senior pictures in months in advance. The real ridiculousness was that for our senior page we were not allowed to have any pictures of someone drinking. They said it was because they couldn't tell if it was alcohol or not. However, this meant that if I posted a picture of me drinking from a bottle as a baby, that would be rejected.
They were dumb about some things.
And yeah, we had to turn our senior pictures in months in advance. The real ridiculousness was that for our senior page we were not allowed to have any pictures of someone drinking. They said it was because they couldn't tell if it was alcohol or not. However, this meant that if I posted a picture of me drinking from a bottle as a baby, that would be rejected.
They were dumb about some things.
I don't understand the shoulders rules. Is any teenager seeing those and going "oh fuck yeah, I can see her shoulders, hot"?
Or is it just the faculty who shouldn't be checking out the teenagers in the first place?
Yes. (<-- that was in response to ZeroEsc's questions.)
It's just the usual "if you're showing skin, it's your fault for creating impure impulses in the boys and men around you because they are not responsible for their actions". Because those clavicles and bare shoulders, hooo!
I'm not against school dress codes, or at least dressing within appropriate guideline, but these girls (and last I checked it was only girls were 'Shopped)weren't breaking the pre-approved dress code. If they're really that worried about "dress code violations", do what I've seen a ton of high schools do: provide approved tops for the photos. I know a number of friends who when they showed up for their photos, were given the standard v-neck black top for girl and tuxedo top for the guys.
It's just the usual "if you're showing skin, it's your fault for creating impure impulses in the boys and men around you because they are not responsible for their actions". Because those clavicles and bare shoulders, hooo!
I'm not against school dress codes, or at least dressing within appropriate guideline, but these girls (and last I checked it was only girls were 'Shopped)weren't breaking the pre-approved dress code. If they're really that worried about "dress code violations", do what I've seen a ton of high schools do: provide approved tops for the photos. I know a number of friends who when they showed up for their photos, were given the standard v-neck black top for girl and tuxedo top for the guys.
No, because then they have a set uniform and it's no longer arbitrary. It's simpler than having a dress code.
What education goal is achieved by covering shoulders? It really seems like an irrelevant thing to get pissy about. I don't understand why shoulders are considered a big deal. Is this some cultural wave I'm missing out on, that shoulders are taboo? If they want to get universal, have a school uniform. If you're going to sidestep that and just have a dress code, it should make sense.
Then have a uniform.
Against shoulders? I missed that part of the Bible. I'm not getting after the school for having a dress code or for considering there should be limitations on what's acceptable; but I don't understand targeting shoulders of all things.[DOUBLEPOST=1401452054,1401451922][/DOUBLEPOST]
Yeah, that's what I don't understand. They're shoulders. I can ask 100 guys what they think is most attractive about a girl and I doubt even one is going to say "shoulders".It's just the usual "if you're showing skin, it's your fault for creating impure impulses in the boys and men around you because they are not responsible for their actions". Because those clavicles and bare shoulders, hooo!
My shoulders are visible through the window right now. Should I cover up?
Yes! Put on some close, you damned hussy! Do you want children exposed to those shoulders?!
That you consider bare shoulders to be non-sexual is personal opinion. Even ignoring "every fetish exists, somewhere", I can say from experience that different clothing traditions and cultures do add to the sexualisation of other body parts. After spending a week in a country where pretty much every woman was covered hair-to-toe, longsleeved, no pants, I found myself being turned on by eyes, feminine ankles and the occasional calve (calf? Not the animal. the body part. I forget.). Yes, yes, you don't live in Victorian London or Taliban Afghanistan. Still. Bare-shoulder ball gowns, gowns or dresses showing an open back, with the hair turned up, exposing a long white silken neckline? Yes, that can be sexy even in modern Western world situations. Offesnively so, I don't consider them to be, but who am I to impose my dressing views on others?
Dress habits and culture can lead to sexualising specific body parts or secondary gender traits. It can also lead to desensitising people towards them. We don't consider red lipstick vulgar unless it's overdone; doesn't mean it wasn't a simpbol of a slut/harlot somewhere sometime. Some cultures have considered breasts to be just another body trait of women and a way to get milk into an infant; for some reason it's probably the number one most sexualised body part in our culture. Who's right or wrong? No-one is.
Should they be enforcing such a strict clothing rule? No, I don't think so - and certainly not post-fact. I think it's horrible - they might as well photoshop everyone's face in a Stormtrooper uniform and be done with it. Just saying that "shoulders aren't sexual" is a bit off. Even in our society. You won't see an Amish woman or an orthodox Jew woman walking around with bare shoulders, either. Nor a "properly covered" woman of traditional catholicism. Same for exposed belly(-button). Covering up the whole female torso is fairly standard prudishness.
Dress habits and culture can lead to sexualising specific body parts or secondary gender traits. It can also lead to desensitising people towards them. We don't consider red lipstick vulgar unless it's overdone; doesn't mean it wasn't a simpbol of a slut/harlot somewhere sometime. Some cultures have considered breasts to be just another body trait of women and a way to get milk into an infant; for some reason it's probably the number one most sexualised body part in our culture. Who's right or wrong? No-one is.
Should they be enforcing such a strict clothing rule? No, I don't think so - and certainly not post-fact. I think it's horrible - they might as well photoshop everyone's face in a Stormtrooper uniform and be done with it. Just saying that "shoulders aren't sexual" is a bit off. Even in our society. You won't see an Amish woman or an orthodox Jew woman walking around with bare shoulders, either. Nor a "properly covered" woman of traditional catholicism. Same for exposed belly(-button). Covering up the whole female torso is fairly standard prudishness.
I am not aware of any particular subculture in the United States that considers shoulders to be sensual ... well, until now. Now I'm just perplexed because I'm curious why they feel photoshopping out shoulders is necessary. It's just bizarre. If the reasoning is because of some weird shoulder fetish, they need to get their personal issues under control.