|
GGTemplar, pretty much everyone was arguing with what you said because it was poorly worded for what you were trying to represent. Rather than properly explain yourself, you just continued to argue the same thing over and over again.
Principle of Charity is a neat philosophical concept but it has no relevancy when my entire point was that you need to utilize discernment, and that includes how you communicate. I've been there many times and it was my fault when I was, and it led to similar backlash. You are responsible when you communicate improperly.
It's amazing that you still claim that there is no flaw in your original stance, when it's already been corrected by people numerous times. I'll try to be careful to not waste my time with you in the future.
|
On May 28 2011 07:58 ChellaPopper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 06:03 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 05:19 ChellaPopper wrote:
If he didn't want to pray, then he didn't have to pray. Trying to have it canceled for everyone else because he opposed it was a dick move. Its like American schools have forgotten to not only uphold the constitution but also forgotten to teach the constitution. Even foreigners who live in the US know more about the BoR. It was ILLEGAL for the school to sanction prayers. It was a dick move to still have the prayer and to ostracize him. Seriously what has happened to the school system in the US? Jaywalking is also illegal, but if a group of children get across a clear roadway by jaywalking, should their friend report them to the police? It IS illegal after all. In retrospect, "dick" isn't the correct word for the student. "Idiot" is more suitable. The student has every right to be offended and to want to ceremony to be executed in a different manner without school support. Threatening the superintendent with the ACLU before simply requesting that the school ends its support, or appealing to the community to have the ceremony altered, however, was ridiculous.
By your logic we shouldn't report shootings because we don't report jaywalking.
|
On May 28 2011 07:58 ChellaPopper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 06:03 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 05:19 ChellaPopper wrote:
If he didn't want to pray, then he didn't have to pray. Trying to have it canceled for everyone else because he opposed it was a dick move. Its like American schools have forgotten to not only uphold the constitution but also forgotten to teach the constitution. Even foreigners who live in the US know more about the BoR. It was ILLEGAL for the school to sanction prayers. It was a dick move to still have the prayer and to ostracize him. Seriously what has happened to the school system in the US? Jaywalking is also illegal, but if a group of children get across a clear roadway by jaywalking, should their friend report them to the police? It IS illegal after all. In retrospect, "dick" isn't the correct word for the student. "Idiot" is more suitable. The student has every right to be offended and to want to ceremony to be executed in a different manner without school support. Threatening the superintendent with the ACLU before simply requesting that the school ends its support, or appealing to the community to have the ceremony altered, however, was ridiculous.
This sounds like blaming the victim.
"He should have asked nicely before threatening with the ACLU so he is an idiot."
It really shouldn't matter, he told the school they were doing something illegal which does have ramifications. Would the school really have done anything if he just asked nicely? There are cases where the school knows about gays or suspected gays being bullied, but don't anything instead blaming the victim for acting "gay." They do however do something when they get sued.
The focus of this story should not be on the kid not thinking through the possible ramifications of telling the superintendent that he opposed the prayer. Nobody should have to worry about a complaint leading to the entire community harassing and threatening them plus their parents kicking them out of their home. His name was leaked after all, if it wasn't for that he wouldn't be harassed.
|
On May 28 2011 07:59 Taku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:55 travis wrote:On May 28 2011 07:50 Taku wrote:
The situation blew up because this one person prevented the prayer that most people wanted from happening. That is preventing everyone else from praying I'd say. Whether it was an open group prayer, a ritual prayer, or a prayer actively put on by the school, a prayer that almost everyone else wanted to do was stopped. Seems accurate to me. You're incorrect though. The problem was that a specific religion was being endorsed by the school. Everyone can still pray.
The title says he was ostracized for refusing to pray, which is NOT why he got ostracized, It's not like he was being forced to participate in the group prayer. That's what my original comment was saying and I have no clue why you guys think its inaccurate O_o All I was saying was that the title was misleading and irresponsibly inflammatory.
You are right that the title wasn't correct but what you said is inaccurate too. He didn't try to "stop everyone else from praying", he tried to "stop the school from leading a prayer". It's important to be discerning and accurate, because those 2 statements are very different. That's the thing, I fail to see how the school is endorsing a specific religion. They endorsed a specific religious act that most of the student body wanted to put on. Replace christian prayer with a song everyone wanted to sing, or some sort of chant, or even another prayer; if the majority of the students were for it, and if it wasn't contrary to school policy, I doubt the administration would have opposed it.
I don't understand how you could fail to see that they are endorsing a specific religion when they are leading a christian prayer...
Whether or not they would say a prayer from another religion is irrelevant, the entire point is they aren't supposed to do that.
With regards to your second point, wasn't it a student rather than any member of the actual school that was leading the prayer? At no time was any staff-involved person involved with putting on the prayer, correct?
I don't know, but I do know that the school has responsibility if a religion is endorsed like that during the ceremony.
|
Ugh, religion thread. Religion = the single largest basis for conflict worldwide past and present, don't want to own up to it, take a history lesson, pretty straightforward. Until everyone learns to keep it in check, it will always be a problem plain and simple. You show up on my front porch preaching, be prepared for a verbal onslaught and questions that leave you with a look like you have shit on your face. You wake me up hung over it's even worse...that infuriates me. I date your "not my religion" daughter and you harass me to convert, tell her to see a good, fruitful and "nothing to want for" life later because I will NOT change who I am for that bs, plain and simple. Am I aetheist, most definitely not. Does religion piss me off when it hits a degree....yes.
I'm all for faith but some people take it WAAAAAAY too far and piss everyone else off. I'll leave it at that. This thread will eventually get way out of control and locked....just like most other religious or political based threads do on the internet period. People can't agree to disagree, they always have to be right.
|
On May 28 2011 07:48 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:41 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you? Are you serious? Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit: "He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer." He didn't try to stop any one individual from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing the prayer. Is it really so hard for your to understand this? If every person in the room had prayed without endorsement from the representative of the school, that is perfectly legal (as long as they do not cause a significant disruption of school business). If a representative of the school acting in official capacity endorses this it is illegal. Fowler tried to stop one of these two things. Can you guess which one? How can this not be getting through to you? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I never said he tried to stop any individual from praying. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. This is stopping others from praying. Do you understand? It's rather simple and basic logic, X, Y, Z type thing. You don't need to state what would be legal or not because that is irrelevant to what he did. An illegal prayer was going to happen at a public government-paid high school graduation. He reported this so it wouldn't happen. He tried to stop it from happening. He tried to stop this prayer from happening. Is it that hard to see? He tried to stop the prayer from happening.It doesn't matter why he did it, or whether it was right or wrong, I'm saying nothing about that. I'm saying what he did, not why he did it. Either you are trolling or you are confused about the semantics of your own language. You said it yourself. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. Full stop. Period. There is not follow on from this. By the same law that prevents the government from supporting a religion the government (and its actors) are forbidden from blocking a religion also. No one can stop you or anyone else in that school from praying. Here is what your logic looks like. The city council of atlanta forced the speed of limit of 55 on the highway within the city. So they must be trying to stop Nascars at the speedway from racing.
After the full stop and period, that is entirely correct and completely compatible with "he tried to stop everyone from having their prayer" .
I think a better analogy would be if you reported everyone who drove 10 mph above the speedlimit on that highway to the appropriate legal authorities and I were to say "you wanted to stop everyone from driving above the speedlimit"
|
On May 28 2011 08:02 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:54 Tor wrote:
Why do so many people think it's okay to ostracize someone for demanding a law be followed? For demanding his rights not to be infringed upon by the state? For attempting to hold the state accountable? Why do people think he deserves what he got for fighting for a law he believes in?
Do people not learn from the past? Do people not realize that apathy and indifference leads to corruption and totalitarianism? That nazi's didn't just pop out of nowhere? Do you really want to live in an intolerant society that destroys any voice that speaks out? Do you want to live in a society where a voice that has the side of the law behind can be crushed and destroyed by a intolerant group driven only by anger and passion, whom ignore the rule of law because they are in fear their religion is being attacked (when in reality their religion was oppressing unwilling people in the first place)?
What these people are advocating is an unregulated mess where the majority of any small region can enact any form of justice they decide is arbitrarily okay with them. Just imagine pockets of KKK coming into your small town and decided what they want to be law is the way it's going to be because, well fuck, they're the majority! Hey it was your fault you got murdered for living in an area that got overrun by the KKK, you shouldn't have defended your views that are protected by the rule of law! You were asking for those KKK to curb stomp you! It pains me to see it happening, imagine if he was a she, and raped, then ostracised for speaking out. In effect, they could be compared, if you take the rape as something like hundreds of years ago when males ruled the world
Not to long ago there was a case of a 11 year old girl who was gang raped and the town instead of ostracizing the rapists, claimed that she was dressed like a 20+ year old. The same statement was printed by the NYT and as a result the girl had to move from her town because she wasn't safe. Amongst other awesome things somoene claimed that it was the fault of the mother and that the rapists have to live with what they have done (I certainly hope they don't live for long though).
So yes this happens and its the same sort of southern nut jobs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us/09assault.html?_r=1
|
On May 28 2011 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:48 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:41 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you? Are you serious? Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit: "He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer." He didn't try to stop any one individual from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing the prayer. Is it really so hard for your to understand this? If every person in the room had prayed without endorsement from the representative of the school, that is perfectly legal (as long as they do not cause a significant disruption of school business). If a representative of the school acting in official capacity endorses this it is illegal. Fowler tried to stop one of these two things. Can you guess which one? How can this not be getting through to you? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I never said he tried to stop any individual from praying. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. This is stopping others from praying. Do you understand? It's rather simple and basic logic, X, Y, Z type thing. You don't need to state what would be legal or not because that is irrelevant to what he did. An illegal prayer was going to happen at a public government-paid high school graduation. He reported this so it wouldn't happen. He tried to stop it from happening. He tried to stop this prayer from happening. Is it that hard to see? He tried to stop the prayer from happening.It doesn't matter why he did it, or whether it was right or wrong, I'm saying nothing about that. I'm saying what he did, not why he did it. Either you are trolling or you are confused about the semantics of your own language. You said it yourself. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. Full stop. Period. There is not follow on from this. By the same law that prevents the government from supporting a religion the government (and its actors) are forbidden from blocking a religion also. No one can stop you or anyone else in that school from praying. Here is what your logic looks like. The city council of atlanta forced the speed of limit of 55 on the highway within the city. So they must be trying to stop Nascars at the speedway from racing. After the full stop and period, that is entirely correct and completely compatible with "he tried to stop everyone from having their prayer" . I think a better analogy would be if you reported everyone who drove 10 mph above the speedlimit on that highway to the appropriate legal authorities and I were to say "you wanted to stop everyone from driving above the speedlimit"
Again, you're ignoring the difference between a state-endorsed prayer, and a community prayer, and not giving any adherence to the guy's own right to freedom of religion.
|
On May 28 2011 08:08 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:59 Taku wrote:
That's the thing, I fail to see how the school is endorsing a specific religion. They endorsed a specific religious act that most of the student body wanted to put on. Replace christian prayer with a song everyone wanted to sing, or some sort of chant, or even another prayer; if the majority of the students were for it, and if it wasn't contrary to school policy, I doubt the administration would have opposed it. I don't understand how you could fail to see that they are endorsing a specific religion when they are leading a christian prayer... Whether or not they would say a prayer from another religion is irrelevant, the entire point is they aren't supposed to do that. Show nested quote +
With regards to your second point, wasn't it a student rather than any member of the actual school that was leading the prayer? At no time was any staff-involved person involved with putting on the prayer, correct?
I don't know, but I do know that the school has responsibility if a religion is endorsed like that during the ceremony.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Honestly I think endorse was the wrong word to use, more accurately the school *permitted* the prayer to happen in the ceremony rather than flat out endorsing. Endorsing implies that the body actively approves and promotes what they are endorsing.
Buuuuuuuuuut back to my original comment: The title, it is wrong ಠ_ಠ
|
On May 28 2011 07:52 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +
This argument is people telling me that he wasn't attempting to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony.
Look for the upteenth time. He wasn't. He was attempting to stop the school from endorsing others praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony. There is a difference between the two. I urge you to stop this knee jerk defense of douchebaggery and think for a minute before you hit post.
"I attempted to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony"
"I attempted to stop others (which would be the school) from praying (because the school doing this would be endorsing a specific religion) through a public school ceremony"
these are exactly the same thing you're pointlessly arguing the entirely wrong thing here because I don't dispute what his reasons are for what he did.
It is all compatible with the statement that "he wanted to stop everyone from praying"
the problem is that it's just a vague statement so you're all assuming that I meant "he wanted to stop everyone from praying in any form whatsoever" because unfortunately it's compatible with that as well
On May 28 2011 07:51 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:43 rycho wrote:On May 28 2011 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you? Are you serious? Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit: "He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer." what? why would he care if anyone else prayed? he did this to stop the school from endorsing this, not because he gives a shit if anyone else prays I don't care why he did it, we all have a general assumption as to why he did it. Everyone can pretty much agree he did it for that reason except the person saying I was wrong to assume that is why he did it. This argument is people telling me that he wasn't a ttempting to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony. On May 28 2011 07:43 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:30 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:27 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
No, I'm assuming he didn't want it to happen. He didn't want it to happen. He reported it to stop it from happening.
How can you try to argue against the idea that he didn't want it to happen? Okay, so apparently I need to repeat myself. You're ASSUMING his INTENTIONS BEHIND IT. Not the actual act itself. Okay so apparently I need to repeat myself. Is that not an obvious thing to assume? Am I to assume that when he reported this activity, he actually didn't mean to report it? It seems like you're the one using semantics to try to say he didn't actually do what he did. Oh for crying out loud. Yes, he wanted to stop it from happening. He still did it for 100% legitimate, legal, constitutionally-defensible reasons. Now what? That wasn't so hard was it? Why would you argue otherwise in the first place unless you just felt like wasting both our time. I never argued against the act, I argued against your blind assumption that he did it to be vindictive. Learn to freaking read, man. You should take your own advice because it clearly isn't a blind assumption. I still have yet to hear a reason for why he wouldn't want that I claimed he wanted. Because he's not Christian and didn't want to have state-endorsed Christianity forced down his throat... Would it have made a difference to you if he was Jewish? Muslim? You didn't read my posts at all. That's why he would do it which actually further supports my idea that he didn't want it to happen. Thank you. Your little 'idea' isn't special. You haven't found the magical eureka formula that sets you apart from the pack. Everyone here understands that he didn't want a state-endorsed prayer to happen. But, at what point, do you leap to HE MUST NEVER WANT ANY PRAYER EVER ANYWHERE EVER? You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between A) state-endorsed prayer B) prayer
I never leaped to that point, you seem to think I did when I said nothing of the sort. I can see how you could believe that as one interpretation of what I said but it is definitely not the interpretation I intended others to use (for obvious reasons)
|
It's the law. That's it. There's absolutely no sense in why this person should be ostracized at all. It's beyond ridiculous actually.
I'm not atheist. Most people would call me a fundamentalist Christian. I embody so many of those retarded Christian stereotypes. Yet, this is just dumb. I can understand their desire to have a traditional prayer, and if I could, I would have that installed in every public school. But this is America. We're founded on religious freedom. We're not Italy, or Spain, in that we were founded directly on Christianity. The basis of our country is religious freedom, which is why I can respect other people's beliefs, and I want other people to respect my own beliefs. Even though it's a belief I don't agree with, it's still supported by the fact that we are free to believe in whatever we want. In the Constitution, there's a separation of church and state, and I'm glad that this kid spoke out against that prayer. I'm not an atheist, and if anything, I'd probably be the same kind of people who ARE ostracizing him. But it's just plain ridiculous.
|
On May 28 2011 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:48 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:41 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you? Are you serious? Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit: "He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer." He didn't try to stop any one individual from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing the prayer. Is it really so hard for your to understand this? If every person in the room had prayed without endorsement from the representative of the school, that is perfectly legal (as long as they do not cause a significant disruption of school business). If a representative of the school acting in official capacity endorses this it is illegal. Fowler tried to stop one of these two things. Can you guess which one? How can this not be getting through to you? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I never said he tried to stop any individual from praying. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. This is stopping others from praying. Do you understand? It's rather simple and basic logic, X, Y, Z type thing. You don't need to state what would be legal or not because that is irrelevant to what he did. An illegal prayer was going to happen at a public government-paid high school graduation. He reported this so it wouldn't happen. He tried to stop it from happening. He tried to stop this prayer from happening. Is it that hard to see? He tried to stop the prayer from happening.It doesn't matter why he did it, or whether it was right or wrong, I'm saying nothing about that. I'm saying what he did, not why he did it. Either you are trolling or you are confused about the semantics of your own language. You said it yourself. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. Full stop. Period. There is not follow on from this. By the same law that prevents the government from supporting a religion the government (and its actors) are forbidden from blocking a religion also. No one can stop you or anyone else in that school from praying. Here is what your logic looks like. The city council of atlanta forced the speed of limit of 55 on the highway within the city. So they must be trying to stop Nascars at the speedway from racing. After the full stop and period, that is entirely correct and completely compatible with "he tried to stop everyone from having their prayer" . I think a better analogy would be if you reported everyone who drove 10 mph above the speedlimit on that highway to the appropriate legal authorities and I were to say "you wanted to stop everyone from driving above the speedlimit"
I am shocked that I care enough but its friday and I am waiting for nasl to start so:
He DID NOT try to stop everyone from having their prayer. He tried to stop the school from having its prayer. There is a difference.
And it would be entirely reasonable of me to report people going over the speed limit if I could do so without breaking the law myself. And like someone said because you don't report jaywalking I guess you won't report a burglary? Or a rape or murder either?
|
On May 28 2011 08:02 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:43 travis wrote:On May 28 2011 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:32 travis wrote:On May 28 2011 07:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:23 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Blind speculation. He talked to the school, in private, to take the prayer out of the ceremony. They agreed. That would have been the end of it, until the incident was leaked out, the community caught wind, and decided to act on their self-righteousness. On May 28 2011 07:19 Birnd wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Pure speculation about his motivations and intentions ... Okay he reported it so it wouldn't happen but he actually wanted it to happen. How much sense does that make? You're assuming there was vindictiveness behind it, as opposed to not wanting to have state-endorsed religion forced down his throat. No, I'm assuming he didn't want it to happen. He didn't want it to happen. He reported it to stop it from happening. How can you try to argue against the idea that he didn't want it to happen? On May 28 2011 07:24 travis wrote:
GGTemplar, this is sad.
He reported it so that school endorsed prayer would not happen. This does not mean that personal prayer cannot happen. There could still be a period of silence for personal prayer. I agree, this is sad. I don't know what else to say. You could say that you don't actually know whether or not he cared if people had personal prayer, but instead you stubbornly repeat the same stupid opinion and ignore when people correct you. Saying that his goal was "to prevent people from praying" is like saying that preventing someone from drunk driving is "trying to prevent them from drinking". Should Obama get on the T.V. and lead the entire bible belt in prayer every night? I am sure most of them want it. Lol, it's just really ironic that you say I'm stubbornly repeating the same stupid opinion and that you're correcting me. His goal was to stop the prayer. The reasons he wanted to stop it are what you claim he wanted to stop. That is not the case, those are the reasons he wanted to stop it. It is a fact he wanted to stop others from praying. Whatever reasons he had doesn't change the fact. Please understand this time, I don't think I can explain it any clearer. It's not a fact, you just lack discernment and it's pretty sad. As it was said a million times already, he wanted to stop school endorsed prayer, not prayer altogether. Everyone at that ceremony would be able to pray regardless, he would have no ability to stop that. It's not illegal to pray. It is illegal for the school to lead a prayer. This is actually pretty simple stuff. I see you are slowly editing your post so that your stance changes. What you ought to do is just admit that there was a flaw with your original stance, and that he actually wasn't trying to prevent prayer altogether. No what is sad is that you think the following is a universal fact: He tried to stop everyone else from praying === He tried to stop others from silently praying to themselves. Those two are clearly not the same. They can be the same but in assuming that I meant that is assuming that I am taking the weakest possible argument that can be concluded from that statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity will save you from a lot of future arguments He wanted to stop a prayer. He wasn't ostracized for refusing to pray, he was ostracized for trying to stop a prayer. It doesn't matter that he wanted to stop this specific prayer because it was illegal and publicly endorsed by a school in determining what he did. He wanted to stop the prayer. The reason he did has nothing to do with what he did. Does that make it any clearer? There is no flaw in my original stance, you are just interpreting it in a way that is obviously flawed and not the way I intended for it to be interpreted. So, you're saying the ostracization is justified simply because he kicked the hornet's nest of hypocrisy and unlawful behaviour in his school?
What!?!?! That's not what I said at all..
Why would you even think that's like anything I just wrote in that post? What part of that post even gave you that idea? Please share. I said nothing about the ostracization being justified, in fact several times in this thread I have said it was unjustified and that the communities reaction to the child was terrible and wrong.
|
On May 28 2011 08:12 Taku wrote:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Honestly I think endorse was the wrong word to use, more accurately the school *permitted* the prayer to happen in the ceremony rather than flat out endorsing. Endorsing implies that the body actively approves and promotes what they are endorsing.
Buuuuuuuuuut back to my original comment: The title, it is wrong ಠ_ಠ
Well I suspect it was endorsed rather than permitted. However, if you want to replace endorsed with permitted my point would still stand 
The issue was that the prayer was during a government function and yet it represented a specific religion. Private prayer would have been fine.
|
On May 28 2011 08:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:52 redviper wrote:
This argument is people telling me that he wasn't attempting to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony.
Look for the upteenth time. He wasn't. He was attempting to stop the school from endorsing others praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony. There is a difference between the two. I urge you to stop this knee jerk defense of douchebaggery and think for a minute before you hit post. "I attempted to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony" "I attempted to stop others (which would be the school) from praying (because the school doing this would be endorsing a specific religion) through a public school ceremony" these are exactly the same thing you're pointlessly arguing the entirely wrong thing here because I don't dispute what his reasons are for what he did. It is all compatible with the statement that "he wanted to stop everyone from praying" the problem is that it's just a vague statement so you're all assuming that I meant "he wanted to stop everyone from praying in any form whatsoever" because unfortunately it's compatible with that as well Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:51 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:43 rycho wrote:On May 28 2011 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you? Are you serious? Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit: "He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer." what? why would he care if anyone else prayed? he did this to stop the school from endorsing this, not because he gives a shit if anyone else prays I don't care why he did it, we all have a general assumption as to why he did it. Everyone can pretty much agree he did it for that reason except the person saying I was wrong to assume that is why he did it. This argument is people telling me that he wasn't a ttempting to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony. On May 28 2011 07:43 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:30 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:27 Bibdy wrote:
[quote]
Okay, so apparently I need to repeat myself.
You're ASSUMING his INTENTIONS BEHIND IT. Not the actual act itself. Okay so apparently I need to repeat myself. Is that not an obvious thing to assume? Am I to assume that when he reported this activity, he actually didn't mean to report it? It seems like you're the one using semantics to try to say he didn't actually do what he did. Oh for crying out loud. Yes, he wanted to stop it from happening. He still did it for 100% legitimate, legal, constitutionally-defensible reasons. Now what? That wasn't so hard was it? Why would you argue otherwise in the first place unless you just felt like wasting both our time. I never argued against the act, I argued against your blind assumption that he did it to be vindictive. Learn to freaking read, man. You should take your own advice because it clearly isn't a blind assumption. I still have yet to hear a reason for why he wouldn't want that I claimed he wanted. Because he's not Christian and didn't want to have state-endorsed Christianity forced down his throat... Would it have made a difference to you if he was Jewish? Muslim? You didn't read my posts at all. That's why he would do it which actually further supports my idea that he didn't want it to happen. Thank you. Your little 'idea' isn't special. You haven't found the magical eureka formula that sets you apart from the pack. Everyone here understands that he didn't want a state-endorsed prayer to happen. But, at what point, do you leap to HE MUST NEVER WANT ANY PRAYER EVER ANYWHERE EVER? You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between A) state-endorsed prayer B) prayer I never leaped to that point, you seem to think I did when I said nothing of the sort. I can see how you could believe that as one interpretation of what I said but it is definitely not the interpretation I intended others to use (for obvious reasons)
What GGTemplar is TRYING to say is that preventing any sort of prayer, under any circumstances, state endorsed or not, is absolutely abhorrent and that if you try to defend your rights as a citizen of the U.S.A. then you deserve to be ostracized by the community, kicked out of your home and be disowned by your parents.
|
On May 28 2011 08:17 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:52 redviper wrote:
This argument is people telling me that he wasn't attempting to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony.
Look for the upteenth time. He wasn't. He was attempting to stop the school from endorsing others praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony. There is a difference between the two. I urge you to stop this knee jerk defense of douchebaggery and think for a minute before you hit post. "I attempted to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony" "I attempted to stop others (which would be the school) from praying (because the school doing this would be endorsing a specific religion) through a public school ceremony" these are exactly the same thing you're pointlessly arguing the entirely wrong thing here because I don't dispute what his reasons are for what he did. It is all compatible with the statement that "he wanted to stop everyone from praying" the problem is that it's just a vague statement so you're all assuming that I meant "he wanted to stop everyone from praying in any form whatsoever" because unfortunately it's compatible with that as well On May 28 2011 07:51 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:43 rycho wrote:On May 28 2011 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you? Are you serious? Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit: "He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer." what? why would he care if anyone else prayed? he did this to stop the school from endorsing this, not because he gives a shit if anyone else prays I don't care why he did it, we all have a general assumption as to why he did it. Everyone can pretty much agree he did it for that reason except the person saying I was wrong to assume that is why he did it. This argument is people telling me that he wasn't a ttempting to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony. On May 28 2011 07:43 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:30 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
Okay so apparently I need to repeat myself.
Is that not an obvious thing to assume? Am I to assume that when he reported this activity, he actually didn't mean to report it?
It seems like you're the one using semantics to try to say he didn't actually do what he did. Oh for crying out loud. Yes, he wanted to stop it from happening. He still did it for 100% legitimate, legal, constitutionally-defensible reasons. Now what? That wasn't so hard was it? Why would you argue otherwise in the first place unless you just felt like wasting both our time. I never argued against the act, I argued against your blind assumption that he did it to be vindictive. Learn to freaking read, man. You should take your own advice because it clearly isn't a blind assumption. I still have yet to hear a reason for why he wouldn't want that I claimed he wanted. Because he's not Christian and didn't want to have state-endorsed Christianity forced down his throat... Would it have made a difference to you if he was Jewish? Muslim? You didn't read my posts at all. That's why he would do it which actually further supports my idea that he didn't want it to happen. Thank you. Your little 'idea' isn't special. You haven't found the magical eureka formula that sets you apart from the pack. Everyone here understands that he didn't want a state-endorsed prayer to happen. But, at what point, do you leap to HE MUST NEVER WANT ANY PRAYER EVER ANYWHERE EVER? You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between A) state-endorsed prayer B) prayer I never leaped to that point, you seem to think I did when I said nothing of the sort. I can see how you could believe that as one interpretation of what I said but it is definitely not the interpretation I intended others to use (for obvious reasons) What GGTemplar is TRYING to say is that preventing any sort of prayer, under any circumstances, state endorsed or not, is absolutely abhorrent and that if you try to defend your rights as a citizen of the U.S.A. then you deserve to be ostracized by the community, kicked out of your home and be disowned by your parents.
Using GGs logic, i come to the same conclusion :O
|
On May 28 2011 08:16 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:02 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:43 travis wrote:On May 28 2011 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:32 travis wrote:On May 28 2011 07:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:23 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote:
[quote]
Blind speculation. He talked to the school, in private, to take the prayer out of the ceremony. They agreed. That would have been the end of it, until the incident was leaked out, the community caught wind, and decided to act on their self-righteousness. On May 28 2011 07:19 Birnd wrote:
[quote]
Pure speculation about his motivations and intentions ... Okay he reported it so it wouldn't happen but he actually wanted it to happen. How much sense does that make? You're assuming there was vindictiveness behind it, as opposed to not wanting to have state-endorsed religion forced down his throat. No, I'm assuming he didn't want it to happen. He didn't want it to happen. He reported it to stop it from happening. How can you try to argue against the idea that he didn't want it to happen? On May 28 2011 07:24 travis wrote:
GGTemplar, this is sad.
He reported it so that school endorsed prayer would not happen. This does not mean that personal prayer cannot happen. There could still be a period of silence for personal prayer. I agree, this is sad. I don't know what else to say. You could say that you don't actually know whether or not he cared if people had personal prayer, but instead you stubbornly repeat the same stupid opinion and ignore when people correct you. Saying that his goal was "to prevent people from praying" is like saying that preventing someone from drunk driving is "trying to prevent them from drinking". Should Obama get on the T.V. and lead the entire bible belt in prayer every night? I am sure most of them want it. Lol, it's just really ironic that you say I'm stubbornly repeating the same stupid opinion and that you're correcting me. His goal was to stop the prayer. The reasons he wanted to stop it are what you claim he wanted to stop. That is not the case, those are the reasons he wanted to stop it. It is a fact he wanted to stop others from praying. Whatever reasons he had doesn't change the fact. Please understand this time, I don't think I can explain it any clearer. It's not a fact, you just lack discernment and it's pretty sad. As it was said a million times already, he wanted to stop school endorsed prayer, not prayer altogether. Everyone at that ceremony would be able to pray regardless, he would have no ability to stop that. It's not illegal to pray. It is illegal for the school to lead a prayer. This is actually pretty simple stuff. I see you are slowly editing your post so that your stance changes. What you ought to do is just admit that there was a flaw with your original stance, and that he actually wasn't trying to prevent prayer altogether. No what is sad is that you think the following is a universal fact: He tried to stop everyone else from praying === He tried to stop others from silently praying to themselves. Those two are clearly not the same. They can be the same but in assuming that I meant that is assuming that I am taking the weakest possible argument that can be concluded from that statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity will save you from a lot of future arguments He wanted to stop a prayer. He wasn't ostracized for refusing to pray, he was ostracized for trying to stop a prayer. It doesn't matter that he wanted to stop this specific prayer because it was illegal and publicly endorsed by a school in determining what he did. He wanted to stop the prayer. The reason he did has nothing to do with what he did. Does that make it any clearer? There is no flaw in my original stance, you are just interpreting it in a way that is obviously flawed and not the way I intended for it to be interpreted. So, you're saying the ostracization is justified simply because he kicked the hornet's nest of hypocrisy and unlawful behaviour in his school? What!?!?! That's not what I said at all.. Why would you even think that's like anything I just wrote in that post? What part of that post even gave you that idea? Please share. I said nothing about the ostracization being justified, in fact several times in this thread I have said it was unjustified and that the communities reaction to the child was terrible and wrong.
This part:
He wanted to stop a prayer. He wasn't ostracized for refusing to pray, he was ostracized for trying to stop a prayer.
You're reasoning for the mob...you're giving them excuses for doing what they did by jumping to the conclusion that his original intent was to be vindictive again them (thereby justifying their anger).
In other words, you're saying "He wanted to stop them from doing their prayer, ergo they had every right to get angry".
|
On May 28 2011 08:03 travis wrote:
GGTemplar, pretty much everyone was arguing with what you said because it was poorly worded for what you were trying to represent. Rather than properly explain yourself, you just continued to argue the same thing over and over again.
Principle of Charity is a neat philosophical concept but it has no relevancy when my entire point was that you need to utilize discernment, and that includes how you communicate. I've been there many times and it was my fault when I was, and it led to similar backlash. You are responsible when you communicate improperly.
It's amazing that you still claim that there is no flaw in your original stance, when it's already been corrected by people numerous times. I'll try to be careful to not waste my time with you in the future.
I was unaware that you were all interpreting it in that way so I was unaware that the vague wording was the root of the misunderstanding. Had I known sooner the root of the problem I would have addressed sooner but I didn't so my apologizes for the vagueness.
Until the last page I thought everyone was just trying to reword what he actually did and deny that he was stopping a prayer (regardless of the form of the prayer being wrong or not).
There is no flaw in the original stance I made though, there is a flaw in the stance that you all interpreted I took and there is a flaw in the lack of clarity I presented as to avoid such misinterpretations, but not in my stance itself.
|
On May 28 2011 08:11 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:48 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:41 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you? Are you serious? Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit: "He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer." He didn't try to stop any one individual from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing the prayer. Is it really so hard for your to understand this? If every person in the room had prayed without endorsement from the representative of the school, that is perfectly legal (as long as they do not cause a significant disruption of school business). If a representative of the school acting in official capacity endorses this it is illegal. Fowler tried to stop one of these two things. Can you guess which one? How can this not be getting through to you? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I never said he tried to stop any individual from praying. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. This is stopping others from praying. Do you understand? It's rather simple and basic logic, X, Y, Z type thing. You don't need to state what would be legal or not because that is irrelevant to what he did. An illegal prayer was going to happen at a public government-paid high school graduation. He reported this so it wouldn't happen. He tried to stop it from happening. He tried to stop this prayer from happening. Is it that hard to see? He tried to stop the prayer from happening.It doesn't matter why he did it, or whether it was right or wrong, I'm saying nothing about that. I'm saying what he did, not why he did it. Either you are trolling or you are confused about the semantics of your own language. You said it yourself. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. Full stop. Period. There is not follow on from this. By the same law that prevents the government from supporting a religion the government (and its actors) are forbidden from blocking a religion also. No one can stop you or anyone else in that school from praying. Here is what your logic looks like. The city council of atlanta forced the speed of limit of 55 on the highway within the city. So they must be trying to stop Nascars at the speedway from racing. After the full stop and period, that is entirely correct and completely compatible with "he tried to stop everyone from having their prayer" . I think a better analogy would be if you reported everyone who drove 10 mph above the speedlimit on that highway to the appropriate legal authorities and I were to say "you wanted to stop everyone from driving above the speedlimit" Again, you're ignoring the difference between a state-endorsed prayer, and a community prayer, and not giving any adherence to the guy's own right to freedom of religion.
I'm ignoring no such difference any more than you. A prayer is a prayer and you assumed I was speaking of a type of prayer I wasn't.
|
"I attempted to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony"
"I attempted to stop others (which would be the school) from praying (because the school doing this would be endorsing a specific religion) through a public school ceremony"
They aren't the same because the school is not "others". He is a part of the school and so if the school is praying that is violating his freedoms.
There really isn't much else to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
