This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Nastiness and Hate in the Wake of a Tragedy
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Boronidze
The issue here, though, isn't a government one. We're not saying that he shouldn't have the right to say what he wants, or that he should serve jail time, necessarily. What we're saying is that he should have been fired, because his behavior is not befitting someone who deals with children. It's the same as saying that a lawyer who is belligerent in court and as a result does not represent his clients well should be fired, or a customer service rep who is rude and disrespectful in the workplace and reflects poorly on the store. We require teachers to present a certain image to children- they can't come in and use racial slurs in the classroom, they can't tell kids that they're the wrong religion and chastise them for it (not in public school, anyway), they can't give misinformation about the world being flat or George Washington Carver being the first president of the USA, and they can't engage in drugs or excessive drinking/partying in a way that is visible to students.
We're not asking for the government to clamp down on what he has to say. We're asking for his employer to fire him for being inappropriate for the job of teaching children.
Post by
138532
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Although, I am open to any solid examples, you can provide with names, dates and Wikipedia links.
Here's one
from Amnesty International.
Here's a source
that claims women and children were killed in the protests.
Arrested for art.
Here is a
wikipedia list
of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan.
Your point about Libya is also questionable. One man's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter.
I recognise that and I believe in the concept of state terrorism. If we adopt a simple heuristic that purposefully targeting civilians is the equivalent to terrorism, then I'd argue that Libya, the US, Palestine and Israel have all been complicit in terror at times in the past. I have no real affinity to any one state, I just believe in rights for people in general.
I would like you to remind that U.S supported Bin Laden and Taliban in the war against Soviet Union. Back then they were freedom fighters, now terrorists. Why? I have no idea. (Don't bring 9/11 in here, I heard so many conspiracy theories that I believe we will never know, who, in fact, planned and executed this horrible act)
Osama Bin Laden claimed full responsibility for why he perpetrated the act along with a very rational (that is, his argument was proportioned) motive for doing so. I don't see any reason to doubt his claim. There's a difference between state funding for mercenaries for use against invading armies and perpetrating attacks on civilians. The former is dubious, the latter is inexcusable.
And sodomy. We are Muslim (not of fundamentalist kind though) and very traditional. People themselves are not very accepting of homosexuals. And homosexuals are afraid more of their families, than government, so they run silent. Yes, there is such law, but again, it is like drinking in U.S. You are not allowed to drink before 21, but most people do, they just keep their mouth shut about it.
Tradition has nothing to do with the moral validity of an action. In the United States, Thomas Jefferson proposed sodomy be met with castration but his proposal was declined and the death penalty instituted for sodomites. Anti-sodomy laws were on the books until 2003 in the United States, though I'd doubt if they were enforced. That doesn't make it any less reprehensible to celebrate or condone the death or imprisonment of someone for having anal sex. Saying "it goes on, the only ones that get caught are the fools that aren't clandestine enough" is not an argument. Either there is something hideously immoral about homosexuality and we should dance in the streets when another one claims their own life, or we have to at the very least tolerate the fact that there is nothing morally wrong with being a homosexual.
Edit: Actually just noticed I forwarded a false dichotomy here myself. One can view homosexuality as a relatively minor sin (or anywhere between complete acceptance and desire to exterminate really), but it's weird simultaneously believing it should be prosecuted and that someone opposed to homosexuality should be prosecuted too.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
OK, we are bad people. So, can you remind me of your point, please? Because, I really lost it.
Shall we quote the thread?
Less free speech is better than letting these (insert proper insult here) to speak up in cases like that.
If someone just cannot keep his/her mouth shut, then why someone has to suffer?
So, again, if government withholds something from you, it is your fault.
Google: Uzbekistan. That is where I am from. I am just saying. And this disaster thing... if it is kept secret, it supposed to stay secret.
Anyway, what argument do you have against your country? Why do you think it got that way? Do you have any evidence for that statement and where did you get that evidence? What right have you to criticise your country or anyone else's country, for that matter?
My point may have been lost here. I knew Uzbekistan had less rights than the US and I was wondering which rights you were referring to. In my opinion, in a country where the citizens can write to their representatives, elect new ones, stage protests and write freely for publications, the mechanisms for widescale overt oppression of the population are dismantled. If you did have evidence that your country has fewer rights, you'd presumably get it from some independent journalistic source, showing how important it is to be aware of these things. I truly do believe in your right to criticise even something as fundamental as free speech and I think it's absolutely
necessary
for a citizen to think critically of the actions of their own government.
So, if we keep low, we are fine.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
I also doubt enforcement of the law, you mentioned, in my country. As you pointed it out, U.S had sodomy illegal too for some time. Times change, but we are a little bit behind everyone, so you just ruined your point point.
More evidence
.
Besides, homosexuality might not be wrong morally, but perceived as such on biological, instinct-like level of cognition, they cannot procreate, thus limiting gene pool. We might be consciously fine with it, but somewhere inside, subconsciously, we are still against it.
From a secular moral perspective, especially when delineating what the state is within its right to prohibit, homosexuality is meaningless - completely amoral. Lets look at the other actions that limit procreation: heterosexual (anal, oral, manual, irrumatio..al) sex, prophylaxis, chastity and infertility. From a completely ignorant Social Darwinist standpoint (and I firmly hold the opinion that all Social Darwinism is ignorant), any obstacle to fecundity is to be repudiated. That means throwing off shackles such as monogamy, fidelity and consent however. From a slightly more refined evolutionary perspective, we note that in evolving co-operative societies, there is a correlation between increased wealth, quality of life and personal liberties (freedoms FROM as much as freedom TO, so no need to bring in the "inevitable moral decay") for the population as a sort of evolutionary stable strategy. So from the perspective of a developed society, should we suppress our gag reflex when legislating what is permitted? I think so. When I was about 11 I read that Eminem said that homosexuals should be killed and cheered. My parents were shocked and disappointed in me; I was surprised. I thought that it said in the Bible that homosexuals should be killed? They went into the whole "first to throw a rock" spiel and hating the sin but loving the sinner. I still couldn't get over the idea that someone would want to stick their penis in another person's anus, I thought it was fundamentally dirty (and to be called "gay" on the playground was the worst insult - in secondary school answering a question correctly in class was "gay"). But, diarrhoea was equally repulsive to me. Should we legislate against people that have runny crap? No. To some people, the hijab is the ugliest oppression they witness regularly. Should we force women to reveal their faces? Again, no. We shouldn't oppose things that aren't appealing to us aesthetically unless they actually cause suffering to another person.
There is another remarkably consistent approach actually, that of the Catholic Church: it states that any form of ejaculation that isn't for generative purposes is forbidden. Obviously, all homosexual sex would be proscribed under that ruling, but so would masturbation and prophylaxis and all the other stuff I listed that's generally permitted, if not explicitly, it's at least not legislated against. I think contemporary Islam just falls short of that kind of consistency, at least based on what I've read. I think abortion is permitted even under Wahabbi rulings up to the 100th day, which is when the soul is imparted to the foetus. So aborting a foetus before that time isn't really extinguishing human life, so it would be possible to have sex with someone with no intent of fathering a child. I also heard from a Muslim friend that masturbation is permitted during Ramadan as long as no fluid is ejaculated (not sure whether that's enshrined in sharia). Rather a good trick if one can climax prematurely, I guess.
I also find it incredible that you've gone from claiming that Wikileaks and homophobic comments are horrible to condoning anti-homosexual sentiment and law.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
I still do not understand why people hate gays :(
Post by
gamerunknown
Well, I don't know. It's reasonable to expect some standards from teachers, but I wouldn't trust anyone to find a good line on what they believe and what they say in private correspondence (private in the sense that it is hosted at the discretion of a private company). For example, the KKK were brought up, but can teachers be excluded based on political allegiance? I think remonstrations only come into play when they give credence to one religion over another. For example, by trying to teach religion instead of biology.
Anyway, all of the defence of freedom of speech aside (and I think it is better to err on the side of caution in terms of *defending* free speech), I think a particularly nasty remark can be more damaging than a slap but much harder to legislate against. Equally though one shouldn't condone humans rights abuses just because the victims happen to be overt rather than clandestine.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
The problem is that we should blame teachers when they say things like that in classrooms. This was said on Facebook, he is not a teacher there, he is a person. AND THAT is my problem.
It's really no different then if we saw the teacher at an anti-gay rally; he'd still come under scrutiny from that, even if it was done in his free time. There are just some people you don't want teaching your kids.
Post by
Jubilee
I think there is a difference between having contraversial view points and spewing hate speech =/
Post by
138532
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
I love how the moment I question your view, you flipped out and started yelling about how I need to open my mind.
Did I ever do anything to suggest my mind may be closed?
Hmm. My view was that Azazel did the exact same thing as the teacher in the article did. Looking at his post it is actually hard to argue that he didn't. My point is that it makes him no better than said teacher. As I think more about this I'm thinking that he was trolling the thread. Regardless, It's nice to know if I make any ignorant and closed minded comments about Koreans, Iranians or Somalians and anyone questions them that you will be there to defend me.
The sarcasm burns.
Perhaps we should elaborate, instead of trading insults?
Before we start: Note, I am American. And I agree with Azazel, Americans aren't exactly known for being tolerant (note that Europeans aren't much better, but that's a conversation for another day). However, the first thing you did, when Azazel suggested that Americans aren't tolerant, is talk about how only one side of the story is being given and that the media is to blame.
When I suggest that perhaps your views might be tainted by the media, you pull out some unrelated anecdote then flip a @#$%, followed by being extremely passive aggressive throughout the rest of the thread.
Perhaps you should try turning down the hostility.
Post by
Skithus
@ Vikey- I don't think that, legally, they should limit this guy's right to say what he wants. I'm saying that the school district has a responsibility to require a certain decorum from their teachers, so that children don't learn the wrong things. I think gloating over the death of a student is something that would make me not want that person teaching my children.
I think what constitutes "the wrong things" is completely subjective. I think any action taken by the school that is not in direct response to overwhelming parental complaint would be unjustified.
Example, if this teacher lived in a predominantly homophobic town, where his comments were the norm it is very possible that his feelings are exactly what the parents would want their children learning.
Individual's have the right to be of any sexual preference they want, but too often in today's media driven society do we forget that people often have the right to form any opinion and hold any belief, no matter how unjustified or ill-informed, about whatever they wish.
If this teacher had been rallying the gay rights flag in a very conservative town, and been fired for posting opinions that disagreed with the majority of town residents on Facebook, there would be a huge outcry about how it was a violation of his right to free speech. Well it works both ways.
I feel unless there is an overwhelming parental outcry he should not lose his job, despite the fact he's a bigot, and a troll and also an astounding idiot for not realizing posting something like this on Facebook might come back to bite him in the ass.
Bigots, trolls and idiots are still citizens, and there rights and freedoms need to be maintained.
Post by
Azazel
I love how the moment I question your view, you flipped out and started yelling about how I need to open my mind.
Did I ever do anything to suggest my mind may be closed?
Hmm. My view was that Azazel did the exact same thing as the teacher in the article did. Looking at his post it is actually hard to argue that he didn't. My point is that it makes him no better than said teacher. As I think more about this I'm thinking that he was trolling the thread. Regardless, It's nice to know if I make any ignorant and closed minded comments about Koreans, Iranians or Somalians and anyone questions them that you will be there to defend me.
Me or Funden?
And how does your view make you any better than me or the teacher in the article?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Skithus
People do have the right to hold whatever beliefs they wish. However, schools routinely have standards of behavior that they require their teachers to abide by to keep their jobs. It's not even about the fact that he's anti-gay. It's about the fact that he was mocking and causing intentional emotional distress to people about a child who had just killed themselves. A child whose friends he teaches, and whose parents will have to read that.
You do have the right to be a jerk. You don't have the right to keep a job as a teacher when you're being emotionally abusive to students, teach them to be destructive and to not respect their classmates, and to be intentionally cruel to people who are suffering.
Post by
Skithus
You do have the right to be a jerk. You don't have the right to keep a job as a teacher when you're being emotionally abusive to students, teach them to be destructive and to not respect their classmates, and to be intentionally cruel to people who are suffering.
I'm fairly sure you just described Physical Education.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.