Ask God what your grade is you fascist bastard. [modified]
-
What if the students who were offended sued because the speech was allowed to go on? I don't think the prof should have said what he did either.
-
Ah, the joys of AdBlock!
-
What if the students who were offended sued because the speech was allowed to go on? I don't think the prof should have said what he did either.
Michael Moore offends the crap out of me. Can I sue? (offended students who have the rashness to sue should, at the very least, end up paying court costs and the speech makers legal fees, although adding horse-whipping would bring it closer to a just outcome).
-
led mike wrote:
Did they abridge is freedom of speech or did they just tell him you can't say that here and now because this is a class room that all these other people have paid for and we control the subject matter if we want to.
Your point is a good one. However, we are not dealing with a private university, but a public one - supported by large sums of taxpayers' money. Imho, this means that short of proving that he was inciting to riot, the first amendment should be taken into account by that teacher who was, for all intents and purposes, a governmental employee.
led mike wrote:
if you come in my house and say something I can tell you to shut up and leave.
But you cannot tell me to shut up and leave if I parade on the sidewalk in front of your house, no matter how offensive you might find my words. And, even if you convince a policeman to come, he should - as a governmental employee -- defend, not abrogate my right to announce that "Yngvi is a louse!" on the sidewalk.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
However, we are not dealing with a private university, but a public one - supported by large sums of taxpayers' money.
I went to a public university and while my tuition may have been subsidized by taxpayer dollars, I still did pay quite a bit to go there. He still doesn't have the right to stand up and disrupt a class where I'm trying to learn something else. Let him go out on the oval where we could throw water balloons at him. :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
Oakman wrote:
However, we are not dealing with a private university, but a public one - supported by large sums of taxpayers' money.
I went to a public university and while my tuition may have been subsidized by taxpayer dollars, I still did pay quite a bit to go there. He still doesn't have the right to stand up and disrupt a class where I'm trying to learn something else. Let him go out on the oval where we could throw water balloons at him. :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
He wasn't disrupting class, he was giving a speach. Oral communications classes give you assignments on what type of speach to write and how long it should be. Then each student gives their speach to the class. If this professor was so intent on being anti-religious, he should have included that in the assignment. If he wasn't allowed to include that in the assignment, he certainly didn't have any business crapping on the kid for doing a speach on a religion subject.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
But you cannot tell me to shut up and leave if I parade on the sidewalk in front of your house
Yes that is my point. There is a difference, there is also a difference even in a public school class room. People are in charge of running them, they are responsible for what goes on in there. It's different. Again I am not saying the professor is correct in what he did, I am questioning if it is a matter of free speech as protected by the first amendment. I believe there is some doubt about it in this specific case.
led mike wrote:
Yes that is my point.
But I am not sure you understand that a public college and a public sidewalk are both subject to the First Amendment.
led mike wrote:
There is a difference, there is also a difference even in a public school class room.
There have been umpty-ump tests of the right of students to free speech in grammar, middle, high and college classrooms. To be the best of my knowledge the teacher attempting to limit the student's right to express himherself almost always loses.
led mike wrote:
I believe there is some doubt about it in this specific case.
A student told that he was required to make a public presentation on a subject of his choosing is then denied a grade and called a fascist bastard because his choice was to speak on religion? Los Angesles will settle out of court because they know they'll lose. Remember that student had the right to be there. He was not an interloper, he was the raison d'etre of the class.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
It's a good read
I thought so. However, it talks of a past seen through rose-colored glasses. I lived through the '50's - graduated from highschool in '61 - and I guarantee you that it was an unhappy time. Joe McCarthy and the American legion ran rampant over the freedom that Socrates symbolises, we came close to dropping the atomic bomb on China, Batman was pronounced a homosexual, and books were taken out of public libraries and burned. There was plenty of porn around, but you had to be a friend of the police chief or in the Elks club to get invited to a Saturday-night "smoker." Blacks were hung from trees for looking at white women and women who thought they were the equals of men in any way were condemned as dykes and whores. What made America great back then wasn't what she was, but in what she might have become. That is what I think we've lost in the last 50 years - our potential - and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the catalytic event wasn't Timothy Leary urging kids to turn on and drop out, it was Richard Nixon making our money worthless.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
What made America great back then wasn't what she was, but in what she might have become.
Agreed.
Oakman wrote:
That is what I think we've lost in the last 50 years
Agreed.
Oakman wrote:
Batman was pronounced a homosexual
That was a bad time. :omg: If he'd not taken a side-kick... Robin has always kinda given that vibe. :sigh:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
However, we are not dealing with a private university, but a public one - supported by large sums of taxpayers' money.
I went to a public university and while my tuition may have been subsidized by taxpayer dollars, I still did pay quite a bit to go there. He still doesn't have the right to stand up and disrupt a class where I'm trying to learn something else. Let him go out on the oval where we could throw water balloons at him. :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Tim Craig wrote:
He still doesn't have the right to stand up and disrupt a class where I'm trying to learn something else
Perhaps not. But the actual case under discussion is of a student who was required to make a presentation and was told that it could be on a topic of his choosing. If you were in the class and studying something other than his presentation, it would be you who was in the wrong.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Oakman wrote:
What made America great back then wasn't what she was, but in what she might have become.
Agreed.
Oakman wrote:
That is what I think we've lost in the last 50 years
Agreed.
Oakman wrote:
Batman was pronounced a homosexual
That was a bad time. :omg: If he'd not taken a side-kick... Robin has always kinda given that vibe. :sigh:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Robin has always kinda given that vibe
Don't let Nightwing hear you say that, he'll kick your butt from Keystone City to Gotham to Metropolis. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
What if the students who were offended sued because the speech was allowed to go on? I don't think the prof should have said what he did either.
wolfbinary wrote:
What if the students who were offended sued because the speech was allowed to go on?
Then their cases should be thrown out of court on the grounds of their candy asses wasting the time of the judicial system. However, I'm sure they could easily find a judge that is idiot enough to side with them. It's a sad state of affairs when free speach is curtailed by PC BS just as effectively as it would be under a police state. If they can't handle hearing somebody talk about their religion, they're going to have a hard time in this world. And anybody who would sympathize with them should rethink their view of the world too. Sounded to me that the professor and the dean made up statements of "offended students" anway. Offended? Oh goodness! :omg: What "offends" people, at least what offences make everybody stand up and take notice? Racial/sexist/homophobic slurs and anything religious Christian. What does that say about the PC movement? How are those things even remotely related?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
But you cannot tell me to shut up and leave if I parade on the sidewalk in front of your house
Yes that is my point. There is a difference, there is also a difference even in a public school class room. People are in charge of running them, they are responsible for what goes on in there. It's different. Again I am not saying the professor is correct in what he did, I am questioning if it is a matter of free speech as protected by the first amendment. I believe there is some doubt about it in this specific case.
If the student had marched into the class room and loudly denounced the teacher or disrupted the teahers attempt to teach the class, I would agree. But when the teachers criticism is limited to calling the student a facist bastard for his beliefs and denouncing people who had voted against California's Prop 8, I think its pretty clear the real problem is the teahcer.
Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
led mike wrote:
Yes that is my point.
But I am not sure you understand that a public college and a public sidewalk are both subject to the First Amendment.
led mike wrote:
There is a difference, there is also a difference even in a public school class room.
There have been umpty-ump tests of the right of students to free speech in grammar, middle, high and college classrooms. To be the best of my knowledge the teacher attempting to limit the student's right to express himherself almost always loses.
led mike wrote:
I believe there is some doubt about it in this specific case.
A student told that he was required to make a public presentation on a subject of his choosing is then denied a grade and called a fascist bastard because his choice was to speak on religion? Los Angesles will settle out of court because they know they'll lose. Remember that student had the right to be there. He was not an interloper, he was the raison d'etre of the class.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
A student told that he was required to make a public presentation on a subject of his choosing
I am not seeing that in the article. I guess the way I read it, and it doesn't say this either, was that he choose to purposely go out of bounds. I see your point and I agree. If the professor did not set any boundaries then how can he have any expectation. Especially in our current political climate. However I still hold that a professor is responsible for the class environment, he is paid to be. You agreed to attend under those conditions so free speech does not apply. In effect you agreed to give it up just like any of us do when we go work in an office. Even if that office is the Department of Motor Vehicles which is a public place. We agree to the conditions set forth by those responsible. We are free to leave if we disagree. We are not free to break the conditions. No, I don't work at the DMV. :laugh:
-
Oakman wrote:
A student told that he was required to make a public presentation on a subject of his choosing
I am not seeing that in the article. I guess the way I read it, and it doesn't say this either, was that he choose to purposely go out of bounds. I see your point and I agree. If the professor did not set any boundaries then how can he have any expectation. Especially in our current political climate. However I still hold that a professor is responsible for the class environment, he is paid to be. You agreed to attend under those conditions so free speech does not apply. In effect you agreed to give it up just like any of us do when we go work in an office. Even if that office is the Department of Motor Vehicles which is a public place. We agree to the conditions set forth by those responsible. We are free to leave if we disagree. We are not free to break the conditions. No, I don't work at the DMV. :laugh:
led mike wrote:
I am not seeing that in the article.
Aha! We are working from different datasets - here's the skinny from the first article - the one I bitched about until Boney taught me how to handle it. "Jonathan Lopez is a Christian. He is also a student at Los Angeles City College (LACC) in Los Angeles, California. During the fall 2008 semester, Lopez took an Introduction to Public Speaking (Speech 101) class. It was taught by one John Matteson. In Speech 101 there are several different speaking assignments, including a delivery speech, a culture speech, an informative speech, and a persuasive speech. For the informative speech, Professor Matteson allowed students to cover any topic and to speak between six and eight minutes with or without visual aids."
led mike wrote:
In effect you agreed to give it up just like any of us do when we go work in an office.
But there can't be different rules for Christians and non-Christians or Black and White or Men and Women. Nor can someone be terminated because the boss doesn't like his employee's religion.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
What if the students who were offended sued because the speech was allowed to go on?
Then their cases should be thrown out of court on the grounds of their candy asses wasting the time of the judicial system. However, I'm sure they could easily find a judge that is idiot enough to side with them. It's a sad state of affairs when free speach is curtailed by PC BS just as effectively as it would be under a police state. If they can't handle hearing somebody talk about their religion, they're going to have a hard time in this world. And anybody who would sympathize with them should rethink their view of the world too. Sounded to me that the professor and the dean made up statements of "offended students" anway. Offended? Oh goodness! :omg: What "offends" people, at least what offences make everybody stand up and take notice? Racial/sexist/homophobic slurs and anything religious Christian. What does that say about the PC movement? How are those things even remotely related?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Do you think Christianity is on the decline or perhaps religion as a whole?
-
BoneSoft wrote:
It's a good read
I thought so. However, it talks of a past seen through rose-colored glasses. I lived through the '50's - graduated from highschool in '61 - and I guarantee you that it was an unhappy time. Joe McCarthy and the American legion ran rampant over the freedom that Socrates symbolises, we came close to dropping the atomic bomb on China, Batman was pronounced a homosexual, and books were taken out of public libraries and burned. There was plenty of porn around, but you had to be a friend of the police chief or in the Elks club to get invited to a Saturday-night "smoker." Blacks were hung from trees for looking at white women and women who thought they were the equals of men in any way were condemned as dykes and whores. What made America great back then wasn't what she was, but in what she might have become. That is what I think we've lost in the last 50 years - our potential - and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the catalytic event wasn't Timothy Leary urging kids to turn on and drop out, it was Richard Nixon making our money worthless.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Richard Nixon making our money worthless
How did Nixon make our money worthless, I wasn't around?
-
Do you think Christianity is on the decline or perhaps religion as a whole?
Christianity is not on a decline. Religion is not on a decline, either. What's happening is the self-proclaimed "free world" government adopting stronger atheistic interests and becoming intolerant of those who don't follow along. The large majority of people around the world still believe in religion. Governments, however, have misunderstood the purpose of the separation of church and state long enough that it's become a religion of it's own.
-
led mike wrote:
Did they abridge is freedom of speech or did they just tell him you can't say that here and now because this is a class room that all these other people have paid for and we control the subject matter if we want to.
Your point is a good one. However, we are not dealing with a private university, but a public one - supported by large sums of taxpayers' money. Imho, this means that short of proving that he was inciting to riot, the first amendment should be taken into account by that teacher who was, for all intents and purposes, a governmental employee.
led mike wrote:
if you come in my house and say something I can tell you to shut up and leave.
But you cannot tell me to shut up and leave if I parade on the sidewalk in front of your house, no matter how offensive you might find my words. And, even if you convince a policeman to come, he should - as a governmental employee -- defend, not abrogate my right to announce that "Yngvi is a louse!" on the sidewalk.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
you cannot tell me to shut up and leave if I parade on the sidewalk in front of your house
Dang! My pit bull slipped off his leash and took a chunk out of your backside. Sorry about that! :)
-
Do you think Christianity is on the decline or perhaps religion as a whole?
Ya know, I really don't know for sure. But it's a good question I'd like to know the answer to. I know why the American left is using anything it can grab to attack religion, but I don't know how effective they've been in hurting it. I have noticed in recent years that you hear more and more of these kinds of stories, especially related to schools. And it wasn't too long ago that people wouldn't openly bad mouth religion, and now it's not only tolerated but the popular thing to do. Meanwhile, somebody says "fag" on a basketball court and they have to go to "rehab" and publically apologize to the country. I will say this though, the more poor and desperate people are, the more they tend to lean toward religion. And many many people will soon be joining the ranks of the poor and desperate. I hate to say it, but an economic collapse might be just what this country needs. Get a healthy reminder of what's really important in life, get some idea of what other people in the world experience every day. Imagine a world where kids have more important things to think about durring the day than what Britney is doing this week or who Brad Pitt is shacked up with this month.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
Richard Nixon making our money worthless
How did Nixon make our money worthless, I wasn't around?
wolfbinary wrote:
How did Nixon make our money worthless
When he took office, the United States was committed to exchanging gold at $35.00 @ ounce with any foreign country. We maintained a vast horde of gold in Fort Knox specifically to back our money. Unfortunately Nixon, like Johnson before him were printing money like the presses would be broken any moment. When 1970 began, we had enough gold in our vaults to buy back approximately 55% of all the dollars in circulation. By the end of that year, we had only enough to buy back 20%. There was a run on our gold supplies - some thought it might have been deliberate since France led the charge with 191 million in gold flowing into their coffers (Switzerland took another 50 million.) In response, on August 15, 1971, Nixon unilaterally imposed 90-day wage and price controls, a 10% import surcharge, and most importantly "closed the gold window," making the dollar inconvertible to gold - except on the open market, as it is today. The problem we now have is that our government no longer assigns a value to money as it did until 1970. The Government says it's legal to pay your taxes with dollars so it's legal tender, but always, always, always: when a government starts printing money the price of everything goes up. (Back before paper money, they'd mix base metals in with the gold and silver coins, but it was the same governmentally-run shell game: increase the money supply without backing it with more real value.) Soon the numbers on the bills start getting larger. (Watch for the $500 bill to reappear soon.) But since the government refuses to exchange anything of real value for the paper it prints the numbers are meaningless. It happened to France not too long ago; inflation was at least one of the primary causes of the rise of Hitler; it's reached almost laughable proportions in Zimbabwe right now; and we are well on our way to emulating these other countries. What one dollar bought in 1808, it took only 73 cents to buy one hundred years later in 1908. In other words, our money was worth more than it had been worth! But, in 1968, what would have cost a dollar in 1808, cost two dollars, eighty-six cents. And last year, in 2008, what would have cost $1.00 two hundred years earlier, now costs $17.69. So from the turn of the 19th century to just past half past the 20th our currency shrank so it was worth one third of what it had been. That's nothing to write home about, but it's not too bad. B
-
Oakman wrote:
you cannot tell me to shut up and leave if I parade on the sidewalk in front of your house
Dang! My pit bull slipped off his leash and took a chunk out of your backside. Sorry about that! :)
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
My pit bull slipped off his leash and took a chunk out of your backside.
Then I'll just have to sue until I can walk into your my house and say anything I want. ;P
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.