The Gaming Den

I couldn't read the article I was laughing so hard at that picture.

Caliborn wrote:If anyone's actually interested I could elaborate and perhaps give you a good argument to bludgeon any close-minded friends or family over the head with.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm interested.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:

Caliborn wrote:If anyone's actually interested I could elaborate and perhaps give you a good argument to bludgeon any close-minded friends or family over the head with.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm interested.

+1

Getting into scriptural arguments is always retarded. As it happens, while most anti-gay people choose to bust out the Leviticus rants about throwing rocks at gay dudes, yet mysteriously have no problem with wearing blended fabrics - there is plenty of New Testament stuff that is pretty clear on the subject too. I am speaking of course, of Corinthians.In it, Paul says pretty straightforwardly that gay dudes will not go to heaven. Of course, he also says that people who make crucifixes will not go to heaven, and of course that people who have regular sex will also to get into heaven. Because everyone is supposed to remain chaste and pure, because the world is about to end - in approximately 100 CE!

But basically, anyone who is still a Christian after their big world ending prophesy did not happen is pretty much impervious to scriptural argument. The world was supposed to be over before the people ho saw Jesus rise from the dead were themselves dead. The fact that it isn't and 23% of the world believes this crap anyway means that a lot of people are unmoved by the actual text and are just making it up as they go along. Some of them supported here and there by random snippets of quote mining, some of them not even that.

-Username17

ITGN wrote:In which she defends gay-hatred by arguing that gayness is separable from gay people:

Oh, my fucking god.

I posted the original article because I thought the whole situation was absolutely ridiculous. I think that the cancellation of prom because two girls were going to be in the same room as a couple is such a knee-jerk reaction to the situation that it seems unreal to me. Like... People actually do that shit.

What I object to is "translating" a quote like this:

The Article wrote:"I am a little bummed out about it. I guess it's a decision that had to be made. Either way someone was going to get disappointed — either Constance was or we were," Watson said. "I don't agree with homosexuality, but I can't change what another person thinks or does."

Into a quote like this:

Starmaker wrote:"I'm a bigot. I don't like homosexuals: I am uncomfortable being around them / I won't hire one / I wish they were dead; underline the relevant."

It's not like the first was a statement that said, "I don't agree with homosexuality, but I can't change what another person thinks or does," so I'm not going to the prom because she's going to be there. Or, I think Constance should have been the one who was disappointed. Or, we're going to have my daddy throw a private dance where we can exclude her. Or, so it shouldn't be allowed.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Dear God, please confirm what I already believe.

In the beginning, Man made god in His own image.



Edited: Amended antecedent.

Sounds like the students are taking the piss like they often do to all teachers and the teacher is overreacting and seeing more than there is. Since she's overreacting the students are just ramping it up more and more.

Less a witch hunt and more kids being dicks. If the teacher was homophobic they'd have students playing gay chicken or something. The article itself doesn't agree with her about it being a hate crime. In fact the article it links says

But the district, North Carolina's largest, does have a code of ethics for employees that the school spokesman says applies to social networking. The code says employees' conduct "should be such as to protect both the person's integrity and/or reputation and that of the school system."

Teachers across the nation have been suspended or fired because of questionable material posted on their Facebook pages and other online social networking sites.

'We are public figures'

In 2008, seven Charlotte-Mecklenburg school employees were disciplined and at least one was fired because of Facebook postings. That led to a memo going to all Charlotte-Mecklenburg school staff warning that offensive postings to social networking sites are grounds for termination or disciplinary action.

Long story short: kids are dicks, a teacher overreacts and breaks the code of conduct and doing something they'd been told was grounds for suspension. They get fired.

This is not a witch hunt.

The teacher posted nothing inflamatory on her web site.

Even the comments made by OTHER posters that were found offensive, weren't really bad at all.

The behavior of the kids however WAS bad because it is Christian community endorsed anti science teaching.

Their actions are straight out of the playbook handed to them by Christian leaders with a very unpleasant agenda of deliberately disrupting basic science teaching.

And worse the anti Islamic angle of this bullshit from children AND parents is horrendously racist. The fact that the school in anyway supports that is disgusting.

If you actually read the articles relating to this the teacher herself attempted at every turn a reasonable and gentle dialogue with her students only to be betrayed at every opportunity.

If you read around a bit more you can even find comments from her students talking about how half the (already lame) allegations against her are basically entirely fabricated.

Pretending otherwise makes YOU a dick. The students, parents and administration are bordering on criminal in their religious and racial idiocy.

Parthenon wrote:This is not a witch hunt.

Yes, it is. The kids hunted her down (the Facebook page wasn't even known until after the parents' complained); the administration did not protect the teacher from harassment; the comments the teacher put on the page were not prior listed as being terms for suspension.

When a code of conduct is 'whatever we don't like after the fact' it isn't a code.

I'm wondering why Maj thinks the students think they would be disappointed if a girl was allowed to attend her own prom?

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:I'm wondering why Maj thinks the students think they would be disappointed if a girl was allowed to attend her own prom?

What?

I don't think that anyone would have given a shit. I think the whole situation is retarded. Insane. Fucked up. I think that a huge deal is being made out of a hypothetical situation that a bunch of crazy-ass school board members are trying to prevent.

How can I say that so that it's clearer? How about: The school board should go suck a barrel of cocks.

PhoneLobster wrote:If you actually read the articles relating to this the teacher herself attempted at every turn a reasonable and gentle dialogue with her students only to be betrayed at every opportunity.

At first, I thought that the teacher should have known better. Social networking sites are becoming major players in determining the outcomes of real life events - court cases, job hirings and firings, etc. You just don't put stuff out there that you don't want your boss looking at (or a lawyer, or your parents, or...).

But after reading the story over again, I think you're right - the students put that teacher in a lose, lose, lose, lose, lose scenario. Once they decided to have it in for her, there wasn't anything she could do to stop it.

Ah, I see. I'm very wrong in this case. I hadn't actually read the comments in question. I assumed that the school wasn't blatantly lying and that the comments were even vaguely bad. That changes a lot.

Yeah, the parents are complaining about nothing and she shouldn't have been suspended. But how exactly could the school have protected her from harassment (aside from not sacking her)?

The thing is, teachers nowadays are almost expected to deal with this sort of harassment. I had one new teacher just out of teacher training who was driven to tears regularly by people being dicks and not bothering to do any homework, with at one point none of a whole class of top group students doing the homework.

At another point a student hadn't done either of the two courseworks that had been due for a while, and they had a conversation of:

Teacher (wearily, as she does every lesson): Have you done the coursework yet?
Fuckhead: Which one?
Teacher (slight hope): Have you done the first one?
Fuckhead: Nope.
Teacher: Well, have you done the second one then?
Fuckhead: Nope.
Teacher: Well, why did you ask which one?
Fuckhead (smugly): To make you ask me twice 'cause it'll piss you off more.

Or he'd ask to go to the toilet then go outside the window and play football by himself right in plain sight just to piss her off. I think the only reason the harassment died down was because everyone got bored.

While that was an extreme example, teachers will get harassed and the schools can't really do much, especially if the parents support their kids.

You know, I really don't know where I'm going with this point. I'm just rambling I think.

Well aside from not sacking her (which you know, is not a minor piece of support) the school should have done the following.

1) Backed her up with actual disciplinary measures. Students who continued to misbehave should face actual disciplinary measures available to the school up to eventually getting a fail in science or even expulsion. Contrary to popular opinion these measures ARE still available to modern western schools world wide.

2) Told "concerned parents" to fuck off. It is not hard for the school to tell these parents in no uncertain terms that the school backs up their science teacher 100% on this issue, as does the school board and the law of the land.

Point two is especially important because...

Your example "similar" student misbehaviors are NOT the same as this case.

The earlier homophobia example I will ignore because really you COULD replace religion with sex in this example and it would be a) consistent, but also b) Not an example in your favor (really what the heck "oh this is no big deal I mean its exactly the sort of pseudo legitimate harassment kids drive homosexuals out of their jobs with"...?!?)

So lets pretend that example never happened and go to the new one.

Students who do not do their course work simply fail the course. That is pretty straightforward cause and effect.

But more importantly there is not a wide community effort to prevent kids from doing their work and to do so in a manner designed to disrupt the entire course for ALL students involved.

The students in this case were using methods that are being fed to them by church leaders. Really these kids and their parents are going to church and having special guest speakers telling them to pull this shit. Their church communities are actually then backing and organizing behind this activity.

Read the sub text of this story.

Students walked into class, abused their teacher for her imagined Islamic faith, and attempted to derail actual science teaching in particular on evolution, for the entire class.

On queue a suspiciously organized group of "concerned parents" of the same children turn up and pressure school and school board officials to drive the victim of this organized lynching out of employment. Because she is infringing their religious freedom by you know, being religiously abused by their kids in a manner the parents, and their church community, is encouraging.

This was an organized effort to drive both actual science and an imaginary Muslim out of the class room as an "example" to others in order to ensure that whoever replaced her would be a nice Christian who taught nice Christian "science".

That is a very, very different beast to some rebel moron failing himself out of highschool.

PhoneLobster wrote:up to eventually getting a fail in science or even expulsion. Contrary to popular opinion these measures ARE still available to modern western schools world wide.

Shh. The religious conservative group doesn't want people to know that, because they're desperately trying to get "Kids are out of control and we're powerless to stop them!" support for their "Legalise hitting kids in the head with crowbars/sodomising them" bill.

Are you trying to undo all their work?

More on topic, it would be nice to see a school actually back one of their teachers when the teacher is the victim. And "(aside from not sacking her)" is hilarious, as though that'd be a tiny thing.

Koumei wrote:it would be nice to see a school actually back one of their teachers when the teacher is the victim.

It presumably happens all the time but you don't hear about it much.

After all this "masterful strategy" used by drooling Christian anti science types is being and has been in practice basically throughout not just America but the entire western world since at least the Scopes Monkey Trial.

And it certainly escalates to at least similar levels rather regularly. But when the teacher isn't fired no one really notices much because its been like this for how many decades/centuries now?

Though very occasionally you DO hear about cases where teachers are actually supported. And THOSE cases are scary because they are the ones where the anti science attackers are SO confident in their local strength that they think they can oppose the entire local establishment and are kicking up a media stink over the entirely routine support of a teacher beset by their entirely routine bigotry.

You make some good points there.

'Top students' can clique and claim the teacher 'lost' their work.

I have read dozens of instances where teachers have walked out of the job rather than try to work under an administration like the one in this article.

It is why (for instance) Virginia and North Carolina have 'shortages' of science teachers and hire out of state (even in this recession) while a large portion of the grads capable of teaching science are suffering unemployment.

-Crissa

The teacher's last name is Hussein. Chew that over for a moment, eh?

Obama Calls for Major Change in Education Law
Of course, "concerned parents" would do their utmost to prevent any positive change, but hey, this is better than the situation in Russia where we are busily implementing the more retarded variant of No Child Left Behind.

Lukoil VP kills two people, 9 out of 10 surveillance cameras are found to be out of order.
Stupid cameras don't take bribes.

That's right robber barons, kick the peasantry while they are down.

That will work out really well for you in the long run... IN RUSSIA.

In Soviet Russia, you investigate the police?

Okay, for the two of you that are interested, and sorry for wasting everyone else's time, the argument goes like this:

Sin is rebellion against God, that's how I've heard it described by absolutely every church and Christian that has that faintest inkling of what they actually believe, and thus can be categorized fairly easily from their. Rebellion against God comes in two main flavors direct blasphemy and hurting or in some way making less a child of God, which includes every human being including yourself. Since the only direct reference to vanilla homosexual intercourse(i.e. not rape) is in the book of the law along with all the abominations and sin cleansing rituals that have little to no impact on the nature of new covenant sin, it cannot be honestly considered a direct blasphemy unless one considers failing to live up to any and all content in the book of the law to direct blasphemy. No modern Christian does this and no modern orthodox Jew I've ever heard of even does this.

Homosexual sex in a loving marriage relationship doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't belittle the participants, it doesn't cause pain or destruction to anyone, and it doesn't retard spiritual or personal growth, so it doesn't fall under the second category of sin. If someone insists that it is harmful, then I suggest you act or be legitimately interested and probe them for an explanation and then gently refute all the bullshit they try to sling your way.

Since sex is pretty clearly regarded as something sacred and special by the Bible casual sex, gay or straight, is belittling to its nature, if not the participants involved, and thus sinful. Likewise bestiality is belittling to the concept and to the person; while acts of pedophilia are obviously harmful to the child. Note that you can defend polygamous and polyandrous relationships with the above argument as well.

Apologies for starting on a separate spiel at the end there, but I felt like getting it out of the way. Now to disappear for another 2 months. Bye.

That's certainly an interesting take on it.

Of course, there will never be a total agreement on this matter by all Christians, no matter well stated the argument is. People will find whatever bit of scripture supports their beliefs the best and call it a day.

- Leviticus is quite clear on the matter (although oddly silent about lesbian relationships).

- Paul briefly mentions it in Corinthians.

- Jesus is pretty silent on the matter. Perhaps it's covered under the whole "love thigh neighbor" thing? Who knows.

In the end, it doesn't really matter because once someone has chosen their scripture of choice, they'll likely assume it's more applicable than any other section that contradicts them. This goes doubly so if any section that contradicts them is only implicit and not explicit.

Pedophlia is straight up allowed in biblical law. It's a crime to rape the wives of other people, but raping unmarried virgins carries only one penalty: the girl you raped has to marry you whether she likes it or not and regardless of how old she is ad how old you are.

Biblical law is straight up horrible. And the new covenant is in its way even more fucked up - in that raping is still not prohibited, but now you're supposed to stop reproducing, give up all your possessions to a communist theocracy, and wait for the end times. Or rather, that's what you were supposed to do back when the world still existed, because according to the New Testament, the end of the world already happened over a thousand years ago and the fact that we are having this discussion right now is a figment of our imaginations.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:Or rather, that's what you were supposed to do back when the world still existed, because according to the New Testament, the end of the world already happened over a thousand years ago and the fact that we are having this discussion right now is a figment of our imaginations.

-Username17

So is this the part where Satan is supposed to appear and tell me that I am nothing but a thought - a vagrant thought, a useless thought, a homeless thought - wandering forlorn among the empty eternities?