|
On May 28 2011 08:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:29 redviper wrote:Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. A total fabrication. Atleast one person at the school wasn't trying to have a prayer. Okay you got me with semantics, good job. Every single literal individual was not trying to have a prayer. Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:31 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:14 redviper wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. They can be the same exact thing if you interpret it was such which is what I did. You all didn't. Now that you know what I'm saying, would you still deny that "student ostracized for trying to stop public school from having it's prayer" is a better title than 'student ostracized for refusing to pray" I'm not saying it isn't a crime, but I don't consider jaywalking on the same level of crime as rape or murder and I'd hope you wouldn't either. No, because that title STILL assumes vindictive intent, as if he just did it to ruin everyone's good time, rather than protect his right to freedom from state-endorsed religion. Something more like "Student ostracized for defending the first amendment" would be more accurate. But he did try to ruin everyone's good time. I still don't see how his freedom was violated up until he started getting harassed unjustly. It's like complaining that "under God" shouldn't be in the pledge because it violates your freedom. Is that really what a violation of freedom is these days? If the alternative is not agreeable to you, what about " student ostracized for stopping public school prayer at public school ceremony which is illegal" and neither one of us can try to dumb-down or sugar-coat it because that's just telling it how it is
Yes, there's a big controversy over the "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, that's argued on the exact same level as this particular debate. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
Or how about, again, "Student ostracized for defending the first amendment", which is also just telling it how it is?
|
On May 28 2011 08:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:29 redviper wrote:Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. A total fabrication. Atleast one person at the school wasn't trying to have a prayer. Okay you got me with semantics, good job. Every single literal individual was not trying to have a prayer. Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:31 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:14 redviper wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. They can be the same exact thing if you interpret it was such which is what I did. You all didn't. Now that you know what I'm saying, would you still deny that "student ostracized for trying to stop public school from having it's prayer" is a better title than 'student ostracized for refusing to pray" I'm not saying it isn't a crime, but I don't consider jaywalking on the same level of crime as rape or murder and I'd hope you wouldn't either. No, because that title STILL assumes vindictive intent, as if he just did it to ruin everyone's good time, rather than protect his right to freedom from state-endorsed religion. Something more like "Student ostracized for defending the first amendment" would be more accurate. But he did try to ruin everyone's good time. I still don't see how his freedom was violated up until he started getting harassed unjustly. It's like complaining that "under God" shouldn't be in the pledge because it violates your freedom. Is that really what a violation of freedom is these days? If the alternative is not agreeable to you, what about " student ostracized for stopping public school prayer at public school ceremony which is illegal" and neither one of us can try to dumb-down or sugar-coat it because that's just telling it how it is
How about "Brave student stops school from breaking the law and suffers the consequence of his bravery"? How about that?
|
On May 28 2011 08:41 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:35 redviper wrote:Please stop accusing me of defending their behavior just because I think the kid didn't handle the situation differently (and in my opinion worse) than I would have handled it. I'd agree about differently. But worse? He showed courage, determination, knowledge about the law and tenancity to take action. Good qualities imo, but perhaps you prefer the ostrich algorithm? Stick your head in the sand and ignore the problems? if he's anything like me. Obviously he isn't. Thankfully. He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better. He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong.
Not more of you people! Creating a public shitstorm isn't wrong if it's for the right cause! Defending your rights isn't wrong! You think some 18 year old kid deserves to be abandoned by his parents because he was idealistic and thought he had rights worth defending? C'mon man! He's supposed to know exactly how to deal with a political bomb like this? You expect him to know exactly how to approach a hot fire issue with no real understanding of how the system works? Do you think Martin Luther King was wrong because he created protests? Do you think those people in Egypt and Libya are wrong for those big ass shitstorms they caused? That those 1000 dead people in Syria fighting for democracy DESERVED to die!?
|
On May 28 2011 08:35 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +Please stop accusing me of defending their behavior just because I think the kid didn't handle the situation differently (and in my opinion worse) than I would have handled it. I'd agree about differently. But worse? He showed courage, determination, knowledge about the law and tenancity to take action. Good qualities imo, but perhaps you prefer the ostrich algorithm? Stick your head in the sand and ignore the problems? Obviously he isn't. Thankfully.
No, I just tend to not make big deals out of little things.
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
There's much worse problems in the world right now that aren't getting the attention they deserve.
I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right?
I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated.
|
That those 1000 dead people in Syria fighting for democracy DESERVED to die!?
Well obviously. They dared to raise their voices against the dictatorship. When all it was costing them was some inconvinience. Curse them! Why do they have to ruin everyone elses fun.
|
this is really stupid tbh. i've an atheist my entire life, but i never understand it when atheists decide to make a deal out of not praying. i don't pray either, i just close my eyes and take a small nap. what's the big deal. the student got ostracized for stopping an activity that many other people were doing, they would have gotten ostracized atheist or not.
just really poor social behavior.
|
On May 28 2011 08:44 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:42 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 08:41 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 08:35 redviper wrote:Please stop accusing me of defending their behavior just because I think the kid didn't handle the situation differently (and in my opinion worse) than I would have handled it. I'd agree about differently. But worse? He showed courage, determination, knowledge about the law and tenancity to take action. Good qualities imo, but perhaps you prefer the ostrich algorithm? Stick your head in the sand and ignore the problems? if he's anything like me. Obviously he isn't. Thankfully. He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better. He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong. So, he's responsible for other people's reactions now, is he? While that is certainly putting words in my mouth... Short answer: yes. That's the way the real world works. Claiming ignorance shouldn't work on anybody past the 9th grade.
No, not really. Living in a western nation doesn't make me responsible for the behaviour of the terrorists that attack the west on principle.
It goes back to that nutjob pastor who burned a Quran in Florida, which ended up inciting some violent protests in the middle east. The only people responsible for that murderous behaviour are the protestors. Naturally his action was a catalyst for that behaviour, but this is one of the fundamental principles we live by in the west; freedom of speech/expression.
|
On May 28 2011 08:50 dreamsmasher wrote:
this is really stupid tbh. i've an atheist my entire life, but i never understand it when atheists decide to make a deal out of not praying. i don't pray either, i just close my eyes and take a small nap. what's the big deal. the student got ostracized for stopping an activity that many other people were doing, they would have gotten ostracized atheist or not.
just really poor social behavior.
You know whats poor social behaviour? Destroying people because they believe in something you don't.
|
The most fucked up thing isn't his community acting like a bunch of savages, but his own parents disowning him. I mean groups of people banding together to shit on minorities isn't exactly uncommon, but the parents thing is pretty disturbing.
|
I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated.
Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm".
I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right?
Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you.
|
There are sometimes in life where you need to suck it up and just stay silent even if the school, your professor, or whatever else people are doing things that are against the law or wrong. You don't want to be the poster child for a shitstorm.
Kid obviously didn't deserve this. But I don't think he should've made a stand on the issue either given the already volatile nature of these types of things. Parents are way out of line.
|
On May 28 2011 08:44 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:42 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 08:41 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 08:35 redviper wrote:Please stop accusing me of defending their behavior just because I think the kid didn't handle the situation differently (and in my opinion worse) than I would have handled it. I'd agree about differently. But worse? He showed courage, determination, knowledge about the law and tenancity to take action. Good qualities imo, but perhaps you prefer the ostrich algorithm? Stick your head in the sand and ignore the problems? if he's anything like me. Obviously he isn't. Thankfully. He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better. He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong. So, he's responsible for other people's reactions now, is he? While that is certainly putting words in my mouth... Short answer: yes. That's the way the real world works. Claiming ignorance shouldn't work on anybody past the 9th grade.
Them rape victims sure brought about on themselves didn't they? Shouldn't have shown any skin at all and of course they're idiots for walking alone...
The kid told the superintendent this in private a complaint. It is not his fault it was leaked and even if he did it in public this is not exactly something you can predict without looking at other examples of communities violent reactions. EVEN if he knew it still doesn't make it right for what the community did, the community is in the wrong more so then him.
|
On May 28 2011 08:46 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:29 redviper wrote:Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. A total fabrication. Atleast one person at the school wasn't trying to have a prayer. Okay you got me with semantics, good job. Every single literal individual was not trying to have a prayer. On May 28 2011 08:31 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:14 redviper wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. They can be the same exact thing if you interpret it was such which is what I did. You all didn't. Now that you know what I'm saying, would you still deny that "student ostracized for trying to stop public school from having it's prayer" is a better title than 'student ostracized for refusing to pray" I'm not saying it isn't a crime, but I don't consider jaywalking on the same level of crime as rape or murder and I'd hope you wouldn't either. No, because that title STILL assumes vindictive intent, as if he just did it to ruin everyone's good time, rather than protect his right to freedom from state-endorsed religion. Something more like "Student ostracized for defending the first amendment" would be more accurate. But he did try to ruin everyone's good time. I still don't see how his freedom was violated up until he started getting harassed unjustly. It's like complaining that "under God" shouldn't be in the pledge because it violates your freedom. Is that really what a violation of freedom is these days? If the alternative is not agreeable to you, what about " student ostracized for stopping public school prayer at public school ceremony which is illegal" and neither one of us can try to dumb-down or sugar-coat it because that's just telling it how it is Yes, there's a big controversy over the "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, that's argued on the exact same level as this particular debate. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Or how about, again, "Student ostracized for defending the first amendment", which is also just telling it how it is?
I'm not even saying ignore it to make it go away, I'm saying ignore it because it isn't a big fucking deal.
How about you actually fight for something worth fighting for, in this case the community backlash at him.
I guess my entire stance can be summed up as if you're going to fight, make it something worth fighting for and I don't think this kid chose his battle wisely at all, unless his action was provoked by prior harassment. If that's the case then I stand behind him entirely, but we don't know so it's pointless to speculate either way I suppose because it changes everything if your speculation is wrong, at least in my opinion.
On May 28 2011 08:47 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:29 redviper wrote:Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. A total fabrication. Atleast one person at the school wasn't trying to have a prayer. Okay you got me with semantics, good job. Every single literal individual was not trying to have a prayer. On May 28 2011 08:31 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:14 redviper wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. They can be the same exact thing if you interpret it was such which is what I did. You all didn't. Now that you know what I'm saying, would you still deny that "student ostracized for trying to stop public school from having it's prayer" is a better title than 'student ostracized for refusing to pray" I'm not saying it isn't a crime, but I don't consider jaywalking on the same level of crime as rape or murder and I'd hope you wouldn't either. No, because that title STILL assumes vindictive intent, as if he just did it to ruin everyone's good time, rather than protect his right to freedom from state-endorsed religion. Something more like "Student ostracized for defending the first amendment" would be more accurate. But he did try to ruin everyone's good time. I still don't see how his freedom was violated up until he started getting harassed unjustly. It's like complaining that "under God" shouldn't be in the pledge because it violates your freedom. Is that really what a violation of freedom is these days? If the alternative is not agreeable to you, what about " student ostracized for stopping public school prayer at public school ceremony which is illegal" and neither one of us can try to dumb-down or sugar-coat it because that's just telling it how it is How about "Brave student stops school from breaking the law and suffers the consequence of his bravery"? How about that?
That would be fine if this was a reaction to previous harassment he received for being an atheist but we don't know for sure so I prefer my universally true title that holds for both situations.
|
On May 28 2011 06:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Well as for the definition of truth, "being in accordance with the actual state/condition of reality" seems like a fair definition.
Yep that is reasonable definition for casual use. But note that that definition does not work for math and logic as they are (not totally, but somewhat) independent on reality. And before you could use that definition in more precise manner, you first have to decide on the way how to determine the state of reality. Scientific method is one good way  But the reason science does not use the word "truth" is that it would have to define what "in accordance means" and nothing of use would come of that definition. And many problems. Do we define "truth" for facts only or also for theories (yes, they somewhat overlap, but lets ignore that) ? How close the measurements/facts have to be to the predictions of the theory for those predictions to be considered true ? When is the whole theory considered true ? And also scientific method tries not to go too deep into the "reality" definition as that is another bag of problems. So what do we consider reality to be, the measurements or are the measurements only a projections of the "real" value, but then how do we decide if the factual statement is in accordance with reality since we cannot measure that "real" reality directly.
Science escapes solving all those questions by ignoring definition of "truth" altogether and just using the casual version on the meta level. That was what I meant by using "false" in my previous posts. Instead science deals with models of different accuracy and different descriptive power, there are better models and worse ones, but there are no true ones.
If we narrow down the domain of truth function to factual statements, then it can probably be done. So you would be able to tell if statement "Distance Earth-Sun in apogeum is X +-Y" is true or false. But you would not be able to say if E=mc2 is true or false.
On May 28 2011 06:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
The goal of science is to obtain knowledge, knowledge must be true. Therefore, when you say the question of God has everything to do with science, you are correct in that ideally science would like to answer the God question. What I mean when I say it is beyond the scope however is that there is no empirical data or evidence for or against the existence of god, therefore we cannot, at this point in time, use science as a tool to answer the question.
Second part of your statement assumes things that are not evident It assumes that we have definition of truth function that can be evaluated on all statements that could be considered knowledge. As I tried to point out above, defining truth for things like 2nd law of thermodynamics, E=mc2 or Newton's laws is not trivial and probably unnecessary and maybe impossible to do reasonably. Scientific theories have better attributes than truth for judging their value and they can actually be reasonably defined. Accuracy of predictions, scope of predictions,....
Actually if we agree to use scientific method we can use science to answer it. Occam's razor is part of the scientific method. If we consider existence of god a factual problem, then using the razor lack of evidence is enough of a reason to dissmiss the "God exists" statement. If we consider god to be a theory, than using the razor lack of need/lack of accuracy/recursive problem of causality
is enough of a reason to dissmiss the "God exists" statement.
In both cases we can say that statement "God exists" is wrong (using the casual meta definition of truth I talked about) or if you dislike that formulation "there is no reason to conclude that god exists therefore we can ignore the possibility of its existence". And that last statement is in real life used as synonymous with non-existence.
On May 28 2011 06:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Both science and logic are tools yes, but at finding objective truth, logic and math are in fact superior to science in some ways because science works through inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning does not give truth, only probability, whereas logic and math work through deductive reasoning which assures certainty and truth. Granted, science is superior to these as you mentioned in using empirical evidence and at determining the probable truth of practical matters, it builds upon the deductive foundations math and logic have laid before it.
The existence of science is dependent on math and logic, however the existence of math and logic is not dependent on science.
Again you are mixing truth definition in math with truth definition in the sense of "being in accordance with the actual state/condition of reality". They are not comparable. You cannot say that math is superior at finding objective truth as its truth definition has no relation to the other truth. Math truths are statements about artificially created formal systems (yes plural, different axiomatic systems, different sets of statements you can prove, lets even ignore relationship between things that are "true" and those that can be proven). The same goes for logic, also pick which logic do you want to use, classical one or some of the modern ones ? So yes they give you absolutes based on deduction, but are also arbitrary to big extent and not tied to reality in any definitive way. That is why I said that science uses math , because it uses math to create models or do data processing, it does not use math to determine validity of its statements. The existence of science is dependent on math only in the sense that it is important tool, you could still do science without any high level math, but the results would be very limited compared to what we have. And of course existence of math is independent of science, it is basically artificial formal system.
|
On May 28 2011 08:49 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:41 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 08:35 redviper wrote:Please stop accusing me of defending their behavior just because I think the kid didn't handle the situation differently (and in my opinion worse) than I would have handled it. I'd agree about differently. But worse? He showed courage, determination, knowledge about the law and tenancity to take action. Good qualities imo, but perhaps you prefer the ostrich algorithm? Stick your head in the sand and ignore the problems? if he's anything like me. Obviously he isn't. Thankfully. He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better. He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong. Not more of you people! Creating a public shitstorm isn't wrong if it's for the right cause! Defending your rights isn't wrong! You think some 18 year old kid deserves to be abandoned by his parents because he was idealistic and thought he had rights worth defending? C'mon man! He's supposed to know exactly how to deal with a political bomb like this? You expect him to know exactly how to approach a hot fire issue with no real understanding of how the system works? Do you think Martin Luther King was wrong because he created protests? Do you think those people in Egypt and Libya are wrong for those big ass shitstorms they caused? That those 1000 dead people in Syria fighting for democracy DESERVED to die!?
Which of those absurd questions do you actually want me to answer? I'm fine with debating this rationally, but you'd better drop the ridiculous Syria or even MLK lines pretty fast if you want anybody to take you seriously.
First off, I would argue this isn't close to the "right cause". Do I want separation of church and state? Yes, but I'm also practical as a realist when it comes to how the real world happens to function and what the idea behind that separation means. He tried to stop a traditional prayer for the graduation of students in high school. This wasn't a daily prayer said in kindergarten. It was a single prayer used directed at 18 year olds and their parents.
It simply wasn't a big deal, at all. He attempted to piss on everybody's parade knowingly. People learn to ignore things they're not interested or bombarded by constantly in daily life. Hell, it's 1/2 of what people do is find a way to shut out annoying external stimuli. He, rather than simply ignore it, chose to go about this path. He's closer to a troll than a hero.
On May 28 2011 08:51 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:44 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 08:42 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 08:41 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 08:35 redviper wrote:Please stop accusing me of defending their behavior just because I think the kid didn't handle the situation differently (and in my opinion worse) than I would have handled it. I'd agree about differently. But worse? He showed courage, determination, knowledge about the law and tenancity to take action. Good qualities imo, but perhaps you prefer the ostrich algorithm? Stick your head in the sand and ignore the problems? if he's anything like me. Obviously he isn't. Thankfully. He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better. He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong. So, he's responsible for other people's reactions now, is he? While that is certainly putting words in my mouth... Short answer: yes. That's the way the real world works. Claiming ignorance shouldn't work on anybody past the 9th grade. No, not really. Living in a western nation doesn't make me responsible for the behaviour of the terrorists that attack the west on principle. It goes back to that nutjob pastor who burned a Quran in Florida, which ended up inciting some violent protests in the middle east. The only people responsible for that murderous behaviour are the protestors. Naturally his action was a catalyst for that behaviour, but this is one of the fundamental principles we live by in the west; freedom of speech/expression.
You're mistaking your eutopian society for the real world we actually live in. When the preacher burned a copy of the Quran and ended up getting people killed in retaliation, that's what I'm talking about. Is it an appropriate response? Fuck no. But at the same time, pretending you didn't know this was a possible outcome is feigning ignorance.
edit: lol @ the rape victim analogy above me. If you want to be taken seriously, keep the ridiculousness to a minimum.
|
I guess my entire stance can be summed up as if you're going to fight, make it something worth fighting for and I don't think this kid chose his battle wisely at all, unless his action was provoked by prior harassment. If that's the case then I stand behind him entirely, but we don't know so it's pointless to speculate either way I suppose because it changes everything if your speculation is wrong, at least in my opinion.
In what world is fighting for your rights not worth fighting for? I assume you are american, your founding father fought a war to not pay taxes without representation. Not worth fighting for?
|
On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated. Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice. Show nested quote +
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm". Show nested quote +I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right? Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you.
I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none.
Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump.
And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am.
How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely.
|
He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better.
He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong.
Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.
“Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record. “How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?”
I don't see much of a difference between your comment and Ms. Harrison's.
|
On May 28 2011 09:01 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +I guess my entire stance can be summed up as if you're going to fight, make it something worth fighting for and I don't think this kid chose his battle wisely at all, unless his action was provoked by prior harassment. If that's the case then I stand behind him entirely, but we don't know so it's pointless to speculate either way I suppose because it changes everything if your speculation is wrong, at least in my opinion.
In what world is fighting for your rights not worth fighting for? I assume you are american, your founding father fought a war to not pay taxes without representation. Not worth fighting for?
Think about the situation this all stems from. He didn't want to sit silently for a minute while people around him prayed. They were not indoctrinating random youths by dragging the non-believers off to Jesus Camp. There are legitimate times that separation of church and state have to be more aggressively enforced. This? This shouldn't even be on anybody's radar.
|
On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better.
He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong.
Show nested quote +Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.
“Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record. “How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?”
I don't see much of a difference between your comment and Ms. Harrison's.
...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
