|
On May 28 2011 09:24 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:21 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:18 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:13 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote: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. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop. Your words echo that of some in the middle east, you say the rape analogy is ridiculous but it's not. If a woman is raped in the middle east while not wearing a burka, many would say it was equally her fault, because she knew full well a man would not be able to resist. She can't just walk around without a burka and expect people not to rape her. You might say every party involved is wrong. See the similarity? Just because it should be expected doesn't put the victim in the wrong. Fine, jesus christ I'll address this since apparently all you people want to talk about. Is the victim "in the wrong"? No. There are no circumstances where rape is condoned nor do I agree with his parents or society shunning him over something this ridiculous. However, people have to understand that everybody doesn't act the way you want them to. In your random ass middle east example the fact is that while only the rapists were wrong, the woman at hand certainly could have decreased the likelihood of that. It's the same idea that the cop got reprimanded in Canada for a few months back for basically telling women not to dress slutty. It's not saying "lol u dezerve it u gonna' get raped." It's saying, "We live in a really shitty world and there are ways to hopefully prevent some of the shit from hitting you in the face." I wish it weren't the case, but the real world sucks. Your original post didn't say that. "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." Look, I don't actually think you condone rape or anything but your reasoning and example was poor and I was simply showing that. So you're just one of many who wants to debate semantics and word choice instead of the underlying issue? I stand by the idea behind what I originally said vehemently. Could I articulate my points more clearly? Of course, but I also don't feel like typing up a 20 page essay defining each term I plan to use. The student can't pretend he didn't know the community would be pissed. It doesn't justify their actions, but he can't be surprised or shocked by the outcome.
I think it's understandable to expect your teachers (people who you are supposed to respect) to keep a conversation that's supposed to be private, private. The most this kid is guilty of is naivety, but is it really fair to expect him to know that the authorities would be such giant douches? No. Of course he had to know there is a chance of it getting out, but he has a right to expect confidentiality and the teachers who broke it should never be allowed back in a school.
|
On May 28 2011 09:15 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote: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. 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. If you don't defend your rights then you lose them. He fought for something he believed in. He fought for his legal rights. What you're saying is he shouldn't have them those rights? You're saying those rights aren't worth anything? He should just give them up because it bothers a few people? Where do you start and where do you end? What else should you give up to a regional majority? Maybe we should all learn Chinese if we all live near China town? Where is your bias coming from? Let's look at it from the other side. Why do you think the state has a right to force religion on to people? Why should we just sit by and let this happen? Why are our rights NOT worth fighting for?
I love how you combined the straw man fallacy with the slippery slope fallacy so gracefully.
It's almost like a snowball going down a hill except it's not a snowball it's a bullshitball (if such things exist).
I don't think the state has the right to force religion on people. Our rights are worth fighting for. Any other blind accusations you'd like to toss my way so we can avoid the point?
|
I don't think the state has the right to force religion on people. Our rights are worth fighting for. Any other blind accusations you'd like to toss my way so we can avoid the point?
Thats quite a moving goal post you have there. So our rights are worth fighting for but Fowler's right wasn't worth fighting for?
|
On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote: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. 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. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead.
How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds.
|
The consensus of this thread appears to be that Rosa Parks should have given up her seat.
|
On May 28 2011 09:29 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:24 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:18 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:13 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote: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. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop. Your words echo that of some in the middle east, you say the rape analogy is ridiculous but it's not. If a woman is raped in the middle east while not wearing a burka, many would say it was equally her fault, because she knew full well a man would not be able to resist. She can't just walk around without a burka and expect people not to rape her. You might say every party involved is wrong. See the similarity? Just because it should be expected doesn't put the victim in the wrong. Fine, jesus christ I'll address this since apparently all you people want to talk about. Is the victim "in the wrong"? No. There are no circumstances where rape is condoned nor do I agree with his parents or society shunning him over something this ridiculous. However, people have to understand that everybody doesn't act the way you want them to. In your random ass middle east example the fact is that while only the rapists were wrong, the woman at hand certainly could have decreased the likelihood of that. It's the same idea that the cop got reprimanded in Canada for a few months back for basically telling women not to dress slutty. It's not saying "lol u dezerve it u gonna' get raped." It's saying, "We live in a really shitty world and there are ways to hopefully prevent some of the shit from hitting you in the face." I wish it weren't the case, but the real world sucks. Your original post didn't say that. "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." Look, I don't actually think you condone rape or anything but your reasoning and example was poor and I was simply showing that. So you're just one of many who wants to debate semantics and word choice instead of the underlying issue? I stand by the idea behind what I originally said vehemently. Could I articulate my points more clearly? Of course, but I also don't feel like typing up a 20 page essay defining each term I plan to use. The student can't pretend he didn't know the community would be pissed. It doesn't justify their actions, but he can't be surprised or shocked by the outcome. I think it's understandable to expect your teachers (people who you are supposed to respect) to keep a conversation that's supposed to be private, private. The most this kid is guilty of is naivety, but is it really fair to expect him to know that the authorities would be such giant douches? No. Of course he had to know there is a chance of it getting out, but he has a right to expect confidentiality and the teachers who broke it should never be allowed back in a school.
Sorry boss, but there's only two men I trust. One of them's me. The other's not you.
Community is insanely at fault for sucking, it's just very unsurprising for me. I would be curious if they happen to know where the leak came from. Thread is 66 pages long and I didn't keep track of them all, but was there any information on it?
Actually, that's the topic that should be discussed most here. Confidentiality is almost completely lost in modern day society, and that's fucking tragic.
|
On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote: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. 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. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better.
Oh wow I actually agree with your response.
It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious.
You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it.
I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world.
You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better.
On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote: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. 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. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds.
It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them.
|
On May 28 2011 09:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:15 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote: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. 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. If you don't defend your rights then you lose them. He fought for something he believed in. He fought for his legal rights. What you're saying is he shouldn't have them those rights? You're saying those rights aren't worth anything? He should just give them up because it bothers a few people? Where do you start and where do you end? What else should you give up to a regional majority? Maybe we should all learn Chinese if we all live near China town? Where is your bias coming from? Let's look at it from the other side. Why do you think the state has a right to force religion on to people? Why should we just sit by and let this happen? Why are our rights NOT worth fighting for? I love how you combined the straw man fallacy with the slippery slope fallacy so gracefully. It's almost like a snowball going down a hill except it's not a snowball it's a bullshitball (if such things exist). I don't think the state has the right to force religion on people. Our rights are worth fighting for. Any other blind accusations you'd like to toss my way so we can avoid the point?
And yet the example proved my point. Cheers viper!
|
On May 28 2011 09:18 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:13 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote: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. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop. Your words echo that of some in the middle east, you say the rape analogy is ridiculous but it's not. If a woman is raped in the middle east while not wearing a burka, many would say it was equally her fault, because she knew full well a man would not be able to resist. She can't just walk around without a burka and expect people not to rape her. You might say every party involved is wrong. See the similarity? Just because it should be expected doesn't put the victim in the wrong. Fine, jesus christ I'll address this since apparently all you people want to talk about. Is the victim "in the wrong"? No. There are no circumstances where rape is condoned nor do I agree with his parents or society shunning him over something this ridiculous. However, people have to understand that everybody doesn't act the way you want them to. In your random ass middle east example the fact is that while only the rapists were wrong, the woman at hand certainly could have decreased the likelihood of that. It's the same idea that the cop got reprimanded in Canada for a few months back for basically telling women not to dress slutty. It's not saying "lol u dezerve it u gonna' get raped." It's saying, "We live in a really shitty world and there are ways to hopefully prevent some of the shit from hitting you in the face." I wish it weren't the case, but the real world sucks. Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:17 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:13 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:10 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote: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. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop. Ms. Harrison is not blaming the victim per se. She is blaming the mother, who is most certainly not 11. edit: Which is not to say that I find your statement any less deplorable. Would it have been ok if she was a 16 year old girl who dressed sexy? How about a 20 year old? At what age can we start blaming the woman for dressing sexily if she is raped? Which is a legitimate complaint. I'm not going to address it because it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. as to your edit: Never. But if you can't figure out the difference I'm not going to do it for you. Stick to the debate at hand or don't stick at all. At first I thought you were saying that the complaint I made about your statement was legitimate but with your edit it seems like you think blaming the mother is a legitimate complaint. I actually didn't think I could be more outraged than I was after reading the OP. Bravo sir. You have lowered the bar considerably. Partially to blame? You damn well better believe it.
I don't even know what to say. The mother is partially to blame because she had a daughter who was 11 and had friends that she visited? Or perhaps because she dressed in little girl clothes and put on make up? Somehow the mother should have kept an eye on her 24/7, kept her locked in the house, made her wear a burqa etc etc.
|
On May 28 2011 09:34 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:29 Slow Motion wrote:On May 28 2011 09:24 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:18 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:13 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote: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. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop. Your words echo that of some in the middle east, you say the rape analogy is ridiculous but it's not. If a woman is raped in the middle east while not wearing a burka, many would say it was equally her fault, because she knew full well a man would not be able to resist. She can't just walk around without a burka and expect people not to rape her. You might say every party involved is wrong. See the similarity? Just because it should be expected doesn't put the victim in the wrong. Fine, jesus christ I'll address this since apparently all you people want to talk about. Is the victim "in the wrong"? No. There are no circumstances where rape is condoned nor do I agree with his parents or society shunning him over something this ridiculous. However, people have to understand that everybody doesn't act the way you want them to. In your random ass middle east example the fact is that while only the rapists were wrong, the woman at hand certainly could have decreased the likelihood of that. It's the same idea that the cop got reprimanded in Canada for a few months back for basically telling women not to dress slutty. It's not saying "lol u dezerve it u gonna' get raped." It's saying, "We live in a really shitty world and there are ways to hopefully prevent some of the shit from hitting you in the face." I wish it weren't the case, but the real world sucks. Your original post didn't say that. "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." Look, I don't actually think you condone rape or anything but your reasoning and example was poor and I was simply showing that. So you're just one of many who wants to debate semantics and word choice instead of the underlying issue? I stand by the idea behind what I originally said vehemently. Could I articulate my points more clearly? Of course, but I also don't feel like typing up a 20 page essay defining each term I plan to use. The student can't pretend he didn't know the community would be pissed. It doesn't justify their actions, but he can't be surprised or shocked by the outcome. I think it's understandable to expect your teachers (people who you are supposed to respect) to keep a conversation that's supposed to be private, private. The most this kid is guilty of is naivety, but is it really fair to expect him to know that the authorities would be such giant douches? No. Of course he had to know there is a chance of it getting out, but he has a right to expect confidentiality and the teachers who broke it should never be allowed back in a school. Sorry boss, but there's only two men I trust. One of them's me. The other's not you. Community is insanely at fault for sucking, it's just very unsurprising for me. I would be curious if they happen to know where the leak came from. Thread is 66 pages long and I didn't keep track of them all, but was there any information on it? Actually, that's the topic that should be discussed most here. Confidentiality is almost completely lost in modern day society, and that's fucking tragic.
Don't you know this boy is a saint and did this out of the goodness of his heart for the sanctity of the consitution? he had absolutely no self interest in this and told NO ONE else except for the principal, and in his naivete he believed that the prayer would be cancelled and no one would notice. Poor little drummer boy.
The community sucks royally, everyone can agree, but comparing this kid to Rosa Parks is not just laughable, its demeaning to Rosa Parks.
Edit: btw, i'm eating bacon right now and its delicious.
|
On May 28 2011 09:40 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:18 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:13 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote: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. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop. Your words echo that of some in the middle east, you say the rape analogy is ridiculous but it's not. If a woman is raped in the middle east while not wearing a burka, many would say it was equally her fault, because she knew full well a man would not be able to resist. She can't just walk around without a burka and expect people not to rape her. You might say every party involved is wrong. See the similarity? Just because it should be expected doesn't put the victim in the wrong. Fine, jesus christ I'll address this since apparently all you people want to talk about. Is the victim "in the wrong"? No. There are no circumstances where rape is condoned nor do I agree with his parents or society shunning him over something this ridiculous. However, people have to understand that everybody doesn't act the way you want them to. In your random ass middle east example the fact is that while only the rapists were wrong, the woman at hand certainly could have decreased the likelihood of that. It's the same idea that the cop got reprimanded in Canada for a few months back for basically telling women not to dress slutty. It's not saying "lol u dezerve it u gonna' get raped." It's saying, "We live in a really shitty world and there are ways to hopefully prevent some of the shit from hitting you in the face." I wish it weren't the case, but the real world sucks. On May 28 2011 09:17 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:13 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:10 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote: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. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop. Ms. Harrison is not blaming the victim per se. She is blaming the mother, who is most certainly not 11. edit: Which is not to say that I find your statement any less deplorable. Would it have been ok if she was a 16 year old girl who dressed sexy? How about a 20 year old? At what age can we start blaming the woman for dressing sexily if she is raped? Which is a legitimate complaint. I'm not going to address it because it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. as to your edit: Never. But if you can't figure out the difference I'm not going to do it for you. Stick to the debate at hand or don't stick at all. At first I thought you were saying that the complaint I made about your statement was legitimate but with your edit it seems like you think blaming the mother is a legitimate complaint. I actually didn't think I could be more outraged than I was after reading the OP. Bravo sir. You have lowered the bar considerably. Partially to blame? You damn well better believe it. I don't even know what to say. The mother is partially to blame because she had a daughter who was 11 and had friends that she visited? Or perhaps because she dressed in little girl clothes and put on make up? Somehow the mother should have kept an eye on her 24/7, kept her locked in the house, made her wear a burqa etc etc.
I'm pretty sure that in cases of rape, you blame the person who raped.
|
On May 28 2011 09:40 maliceee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:34 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:29 Slow Motion wrote:On May 28 2011 09:24 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:18 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:13 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:05 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:04 redviper wrote: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. ...Except an 11 year old can feign ignorance because, well, she's fucking 11 and she's not feigning. Stop. Your words echo that of some in the middle east, you say the rape analogy is ridiculous but it's not. If a woman is raped in the middle east while not wearing a burka, many would say it was equally her fault, because she knew full well a man would not be able to resist. She can't just walk around without a burka and expect people not to rape her. You might say every party involved is wrong. See the similarity? Just because it should be expected doesn't put the victim in the wrong. Fine, jesus christ I'll address this since apparently all you people want to talk about. Is the victim "in the wrong"? No. There are no circumstances where rape is condoned nor do I agree with his parents or society shunning him over something this ridiculous. However, people have to understand that everybody doesn't act the way you want them to. In your random ass middle east example the fact is that while only the rapists were wrong, the woman at hand certainly could have decreased the likelihood of that. It's the same idea that the cop got reprimanded in Canada for a few months back for basically telling women not to dress slutty. It's not saying "lol u dezerve it u gonna' get raped." It's saying, "We live in a really shitty world and there are ways to hopefully prevent some of the shit from hitting you in the face." I wish it weren't the case, but the real world sucks. Your original post didn't say that. "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." Look, I don't actually think you condone rape or anything but your reasoning and example was poor and I was simply showing that. So you're just one of many who wants to debate semantics and word choice instead of the underlying issue? I stand by the idea behind what I originally said vehemently. Could I articulate my points more clearly? Of course, but I also don't feel like typing up a 20 page essay defining each term I plan to use. The student can't pretend he didn't know the community would be pissed. It doesn't justify their actions, but he can't be surprised or shocked by the outcome. I think it's understandable to expect your teachers (people who you are supposed to respect) to keep a conversation that's supposed to be private, private. The most this kid is guilty of is naivety, but is it really fair to expect him to know that the authorities would be such giant douches? No. Of course he had to know there is a chance of it getting out, but he has a right to expect confidentiality and the teachers who broke it should never be allowed back in a school. Sorry boss, but there's only two men I trust. One of them's me. The other's not you. Community is insanely at fault for sucking, it's just very unsurprising for me. I would be curious if they happen to know where the leak came from. Thread is 66 pages long and I didn't keep track of them all, but was there any information on it? Actually, that's the topic that should be discussed most here. Confidentiality is almost completely lost in modern day society, and that's fucking tragic. Don't you know this boy is a saint and did this out of the goodness of his heart for the sanctity of the consitution? he had absolutely no self interest in this and told NO ONE else except for the principal, and in his naivete he believed that the prayer would be cancelled and no one would notice. Poor little drummer boy. The community sucks royally, everyone can agree, but comparing this kid to Rosa Parks is not just laughable, its demeaning to Rosa Parks. Edit: btw, i'm eating bacon right now and its delicious.
Sure, I think that what Rosa Parks did was a much greater stand than took place here. I can also say that what was happening to blacks in the 50s and 60s was a hell of a lot worse than what's happening to atheists in the states right now too. That said, the more research you do to understand how the fundamentalist element is trying to turn this country into a theocracy, the better you'll understand the importance of *any* stand, even one as small as saying, "Hey, it's against the law to have this prayer, I'll report you if you do."
|
On May 28 2011 09:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote: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. 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. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better. Oh wow I actually agree with your response. It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious. You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it. I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world. You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better. Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote: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. 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. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds. It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them.
You don't understand the difference between government sanctioned prayer and prayer. People can express their beliefs in public, but a school official can't endorse one belief over the other I don't get why you can't understand that.
|
On May 28 2011 09:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote: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. 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. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better. Oh wow I actually agree with your response. It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious. You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it. I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world. You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better. Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote: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. 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. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds. It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them.
He most certainly did not oppress anyone from publicly speaking of their faith. He stopped the oppression of government forcing religion down people's throat.
You are right (though you are clearly misrepresenting what I said), some actions don't change the world for the better. But the world changes for the better only through action, not through apathy.
|
On May 28 2011 09:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote: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. 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. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better. Oh wow I actually agree with your response. It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious. You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it. I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world. You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better. Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote: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. 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. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds. It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them.
Oh see now I know you're just trolling because you're arguing against the first amendment.
|
So I'm really confused.
If having organized prayer at a public event is against the constitution.
Then isn't it also illegal to take time out of the school day to have students recite the pledge of allegiance?
Isn't it also illegal to print In God We Trust on all our money?
Where is the line drawn?
|
I don't understand, sounds like the kid's an asshole. Why didn't he just skip the event? Was it mandatory? If it was, then it makes sense.
User was warned for this post
User was warned for this post
|
On May 28 2011 09:49 xHassassin wrote:
So I'm really confused.
If having organized prayer at a public event is against the constitution.
Then isn't it also illegal to take time out of the school day to have students recite the pledge of allegiance?
Isn't it also illegal to print In God We Trust on all our money?
Where is the line drawn?
Yes, both should be removed.
|
On May 28 2011 09:50 Andross wrote:
I don't understand, sounds like the kid's an asshole. Why didn't he just skip the event? Was it mandatory? If it was, then it makes sense.
It was a graduation...
|
Lol well those are just Louisiana hicks, can't take anything those types say too seriously. XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
