- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
How do you get that from what is being said in this thread?
That last little bit about "double entendre" was a typo on my part. I hope it is clear to the readers that my words are those in bold Georgia font.
Well, the most glaring example in this situation would be that the liberal teacher thought it appropriate to offend the beliefs of students, that as one poster put it, to "force" them to consider those beliefs. The teacher I would think, among other things consider this as an exercise in 'free speech' as much as anything else. But, when the offended student approaches the teacher and complains, and informs the teacher that he will be lodging a complaint higher up the school chain, then the teacher files an accusation of 'threat' against the student....So, with that in mind seems to me that the teacher wants 'free speech' to be able to offend at will, and no one should speak up against it...
Think of it this way....When the guy in Michigan was at a Union rally against RTW laws being passed, and was attacked by the Union thugs, apparently 'free speech' only went one way in the minds of many liberal supporters of the union thugs actions in here. Same thing, on a different scale admittedly but still.
Neither side of most arguments genuinely want free speech. They want free speech for what they believe and they want the rest to be censored.
The only way this is wrong is if they are told they will fail if they do not step on the paper and punish anyone who acts out belligerently.
This would be religious baiting.
If this kid's final straw was that he threatened a teacher after the teacher antagonized him then the teacher completely failed his own lesson and needs to be fired along with whoever went along with it.
Do you think it applicable to apply modern social/political ideologies to a figure that existed long before those paradigms existed?
Actually, no.
so, why does stepping on a paper with Jesus' name on it have anything to do with liberalism vs conservatism?
Well, because we tend to hear today of these stories where liberal progressives are doing things like this, claiming 'free speech' or what ever, but if there is a story where a teacher wants to say, teach intelligent design along side with evolution, then the long knives come out don't they? All of the sudden, its mixing religion and science....
So maybe a better question is, why is that liberals feel it necessary to inject a religious figure into their course study so they can, ahem, "force" the student to think about their beliefs....Who are they to force anyone to challenge their religious beliefs? They should stick to teaching, and stop trying to be clever....
I believe the instructor was following the textbook.
How do you know she was a liberal?
Well, first of all, not to be snarky Ditto, but Dr. Deandre Poole is a man. Second, he is the vice chair of the W. Palm Beach democrat party...is that liberal enough? As for the textbook, maybe he should have considered, using a little of that 'critical thinking' skill so loved to be lauded by libs, what might be a better way to teach the lesson instead of some jack ass exercise that could offend someone.
Ya think?
Well, because we tend to hear today of these stories where liberal progressives are doing things like this, claiming 'free speech' or what ever, but if there is a story where a teacher wants to say, teach intelligent design along side with evolution, then the long knives come out don't they? All of the sudden, its mixing religion and science....
So maybe a better question is, why is that liberals feel it necessary to inject a religious figure into their course study so they can, ahem, "force" the student to think about their beliefs....Who are they to force anyone to challenge their religious beliefs? They should stick to teaching, and stop trying to be clever....
Deandre is a man? I know he was referred to in the feminine in this thread.
OK, so he's a Democrat. You made your point.
Of course, he could be a Republican, and still be a liberal, but then, that's another issue.
Yes, using those "critical thinking' skills so loved to be lauded by libs, would have led him to use a non religious figure for the lesson, no doubt.
Do only libs like critical thinking? If so, that explains the popularity of Rush Limbaugh.
Can I give a 3/4 like on this one? The last quip was a cheap shot...heh, heh....:mrgreen:
You're right, on a totally hypothetical level, it doesn't mean that. But, I would say that I understand the facts that we know pretty well. Your attempt here to make everything a semantic exercise is, in my view, just another attempt to dishonestly this about supposition rather than the easily understood, and clear mishandling of this situation on the part of the University, and since this mishandling resulted in the national news attention, the University is left with egg on their faces, as so often happens when liberals are caught in their sniveling little power plays.
all you are really saying is that you don't understand. the university's decision was pragmatic, not based on the fact that the student was right.
large organisations often make similar choices.
all you are really saying is that you don't understand. the university's decision was pragmatic, not based on the fact that the student was right.
large organisations often make similar choices.
They do, and I imagine most of them are based on whether they have a legal leg to stand on. Nothing wrong with a pragmatic decision that avoids litigation and continued negative publicity. FAU had already been unfavorably depicted in the press before this happened--the "truther" prof who doubted whether Sandy Hook really happened, for example.
None of us knows for sure what the university based its decision on, though.
Wait a minute....So you're saying that it is ok for the student to be punished for complaining about the exercise? Wow, how thin skinned are libs?
no. I disapprove of loud mouthed bullies holding education to ransom.
but I can understand why the University President/VC would want to shut down the issue rather than continue to attract bad publicity, especially based on some of the media reports.
So, if a ridiculous exercise, that is offensive, is proffered by a liberal teacher, and someone is offended by the lesson, that person is a "bully" if he/she speaks out? How about the 'bully' teacher that is so thinned skinned that he can't even take being informed that a complaint will be lodged for his ridiculous lesson...Interesting that the media reports on this, and all of the sudden it is a 'bully' media picking on the poor educrats....But if it were the other way around you'd be the first excusing their reports....hmmmmmm...
I stated that: this forum either
supports that argument, or the possibility that right whingers don't understand much about higher education.
so my assessment, obviously, was based on the comments of right wingers on this forum. Obviously it does not apply to all right wingers. I have known many who are quite erudite and capable of engaging in critical thinking.
just not on this forum ... or at least not on this thread....
your comments here further illustrate my point.
thanks again for the evidence.
I think you need to do a bit more reading ...
What's a "whinger" ?
Is it too much to ask such a intellectual as your self to proof read your insipid post first ?
Well, you can think what ever you like, doesn't change the facts we know.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?