• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FAU Student Claims He Was Suspended For Refusing To Step On Jesus

How do you get that from what is being said in this thread?

Well, the most glaring example in this situation would be that the liberal teacher thought it appropriate to offend the beliefs of students, that as one poster put it, to "force" them to consider those beliefs. The teacher I would think, among other things consider this as an exercise in 'free speech' as much as anything else. But, when the offended student approaches the teacher and complains, and informs the teacher that he will be lodging a complaint higher up the school chain, then the teacher files an accusation of 'threat' against the student....So, with that in mind seems to me that the teacher wants 'free speech' to be able to offend at will, and no one should speak up against it...

Think of it this way....When the guy in Michigan was at a Union rally against RTW laws being passed, and was attacked by the Union thugs, apparently 'free speech' only went one way in the minds of many liberal supporters of the union thugs actions in here. Same thing, on a different scale admittedly but still.
 
That last little bit about "double entendre" was a typo on my part. I hope it is clear to the readers that my words are those in bold Georgia font.

Considering what you wrote, and the attitude taken in your response, it is clear you are not able to discuss this rationally, so I will beg off debating this with you.
 
Well, the most glaring example in this situation would be that the liberal teacher thought it appropriate to offend the beliefs of students, that as one poster put it, to "force" them to consider those beliefs. The teacher I would think, among other things consider this as an exercise in 'free speech' as much as anything else. But, when the offended student approaches the teacher and complains, and informs the teacher that he will be lodging a complaint higher up the school chain, then the teacher files an accusation of 'threat' against the student....So, with that in mind seems to me that the teacher wants 'free speech' to be able to offend at will, and no one should speak up against it...

Think of it this way....When the guy in Michigan was at a Union rally against RTW laws being passed, and was attacked by the Union thugs, apparently 'free speech' only went one way in the minds of many liberal supporters of the union thugs actions in here. Same thing, on a different scale admittedly but still.

Neither side of most arguments genuinely want free speech. They want free speech for what they believe and they want the rest to be censored.
 
Neither side of most arguments genuinely want free speech. They want free speech for what they believe and they want the rest to be censored.

Well, in some cases that is certainly a fair assessment.
 
The only way this is wrong is if they are told they will fail if they do not step on the paper and punish anyone who acts out belligerently. This would be religious baiting. If this kid's final straw was that he threatened a teacher after the teacher antagonized him then the teacher completely failed his own lesson and needs to be fired along with whoever went along with it.
 
The only way this is wrong is if they are told they will fail if they do not step on the paper and punish anyone who acts out belligerently.

Failing I don't believe this would be the case for a single lesson in the class, but punished, this kid went through it, before it was retracted.

This would be religious baiting.

More like trying to challenge the students belief system if you ask me, and the question I have in that respect is what business is it of the teacher's, if the students want to believe in God or not?

If this kid's final straw was that he threatened a teacher after the teacher antagonized him then the teacher completely failed his own lesson and needs to be fired along with whoever went along with it.

I agree, but I don't think that the student "threatened" anyone....According to the attorney of the student, he waited til after class, and approached the teacher, and told him that he didn't agree with the lesson, and would be reporting his complaint to the department head, further that he shouldn't be doing that, and he'd be back....What a wimp this vice chair of the W. Palm Beach democrat party, posing as a teacher is....But yeah, I don't think the University has any intention of bringing him back, as they made it a point of expressing that this was an un If this kid's final straw was that he threatened a teacher after the teacher antagonized him then the teacher completely failed his own lesson and needs to be fired along with whoever went along with it. But, yeah I don't think that the University has any intention of bringing the teacher back as they made it a point to point out that this was an un tenured instructor, with only a one year contract...
 
Do you think it applicable to apply modern social/political ideologies to a figure that existed long before those paradigms existed?

Actually, no.

so, why does stepping on a paper with Jesus' name on it have anything to do with liberalism vs conservatism?
 
Actually, no.

so, why does stepping on a paper with Jesus' name on it have anything to do with liberalism vs conservatism?

Well, because we tend to hear today of these stories where liberal progressives are doing things like this, claiming 'free speech' or what ever, but if there is a story where a teacher wants to say, teach intelligent design along side with evolution, then the long knives come out don't they? All of the sudden, its mixing religion and science....

So maybe a better question is, why is that liberals feel it necessary to inject a religious figure into their course study so they can, ahem, "force" the student to think about their beliefs....Who are they to force anyone to challenge their religious beliefs? They should stick to teaching, and stop trying to be clever....
 
Well, because we tend to hear today of these stories where liberal progressives are doing things like this, claiming 'free speech' or what ever, but if there is a story where a teacher wants to say, teach intelligent design along side with evolution, then the long knives come out don't they? All of the sudden, its mixing religion and science....

So maybe a better question is, why is that liberals feel it necessary to inject a religious figure into their course study so they can, ahem, "force" the student to think about their beliefs....Who are they to force anyone to challenge their religious beliefs? They should stick to teaching, and stop trying to be clever....

I believe the instructor was following the textbook.

How do you know she was a liberal?
 
I believe the instructor was following the textbook.

How do you know she was a liberal?

Well, first of all, not to be snarky Ditto, but Dr. Deandre Poole is a man. Second, he is the vice chair of the W. Palm Beach democrat party...is that liberal enough? As for the textbook, maybe he should have considered, using a little of that 'critical thinking' skill so loved to be lauded by libs, what might be a better way to teach the lesson instead of some jack ass exercise that could offend someone.

Ya think?
 
Well, first of all, not to be snarky Ditto, but Dr. Deandre Poole is a man. Second, he is the vice chair of the W. Palm Beach democrat party...is that liberal enough? As for the textbook, maybe he should have considered, using a little of that 'critical thinking' skill so loved to be lauded by libs, what might be a better way to teach the lesson instead of some jack ass exercise that could offend someone.

Ya think?

Deandre is a man? I know he was referred to in the feminine in this thread.

OK, so he's a Democrat. You made your point.

Of course, he could be a Republican, and still be a liberal, but then, that's another issue.

Yes, using those "critical thinking' skills so loved to be lauded by libs, would have led him to use a non religious figure for the lesson, no doubt.

Do only libs like critical thinking? If so, that explains the popularity of Rush Limbaugh.
 
Well, because we tend to hear today of these stories where liberal progressives are doing things like this, claiming 'free speech' or what ever, but if there is a story where a teacher wants to say, teach intelligent design along side with evolution, then the long knives come out don't they? All of the sudden, its mixing religion and science....

So maybe a better question is, why is that liberals feel it necessary to inject a religious figure into their course study so they can, ahem, "force" the student to think about their beliefs....Who are they to force anyone to challenge their religious beliefs? They should stick to teaching, and stop trying to be clever....


Maybe there are protests over teaching "intelligent design along side with evolution" is because "intelligent design" is not science, and as evolution has nothing to do with religion -- maybe, just maybe, biology teachers think they shouldn't discuss religious matters in science class.


Why are some afraid to think about their beliefs? Why are beliefs to be seen as protected non-rational matters never to be questioned?
 
Deandre is a man? I know he was referred to in the feminine in this thread.

OK, so he's a Democrat. You made your point.

Of course, he could be a Republican, and still be a liberal, but then, that's another issue.

Yes, using those "critical thinking' skills so loved to be lauded by libs, would have led him to use a non religious figure for the lesson, no doubt.

Do only libs like critical thinking? If so, that explains the popularity of Rush Limbaugh.

Can I give a 3/4 like on this one? The last quip was a cheap shot...heh, heh....:mrgreen:
 
You're right, on a totally hypothetical level, it doesn't mean that. But, I would say that I understand the facts that we know pretty well. Your attempt here to make everything a semantic exercise is, in my view, just another attempt to dishonestly this about supposition rather than the easily understood, and clear mishandling of this situation on the part of the University, and since this mishandling resulted in the national news attention, the University is left with egg on their faces, as so often happens when liberals are caught in their sniveling little power plays.

all you are really saying is that you don't understand. the university's decision was pragmatic, not based on the fact that the student was right.

large organisations often make similar choices.
 
all you are really saying is that you don't understand. the university's decision was pragmatic, not based on the fact that the student was right.

large organisations often make similar choices.

They do, and I imagine most of them are based on whether they have a legal leg to stand on. Nothing wrong with a pragmatic decision that avoids litigation and continued negative publicity. FAU had already been unfavorably depicted in the press before this happened--the "truther" prof who doubted whether Sandy Hook really happened, for example.

None of us knows for sure what the university based its decision on, though.
 
all you are really saying is that you don't understand. the university's decision was pragmatic, not based on the fact that the student was right.

large organisations often make similar choices.


Wait a minute....So you're saying that it is ok for the student to be punished for complaining about the exercise? Wow, how thin skinned are libs?
 
They do, and I imagine most of them are based on whether they have a legal leg to stand on. Nothing wrong with a pragmatic decision that avoids litigation and continued negative publicity. FAU had already been unfavorably depicted in the press before this happened--the "truther" prof who doubted whether Sandy Hook really happened, for example.

None of us knows for sure what the university based its decision on, though.

not necessarily. there are some decisions where the basis of the decision in legal terms is very grey.

other cases that I am aware of include payments made "without prejudice", or other concessions made to save face, to defuse a volatile issue or to avoid bad publicity

there are also cases where a decision is made on a goodwill basis.

in view of the fact that someone had gone to the media, and it had already attracted bad publicity, shutting it down rather than defending the action would be the more pragmatic path.

personally, I wish universities would not allow themselves to be bullied by popular opinion.
 
Wait a minute....So you're saying that it is ok for the student to be punished for complaining about the exercise? Wow, how thin skinned are libs?

no. I disapprove of loud mouthed bullies holding education to ransom.

but I can understand why the University President/VC would want to shut down the issue rather than continue to attract bad publicity, especially based on some of the media reports.
 
no. I disapprove of loud mouthed bullies holding education to ransom.

but I can understand why the University President/VC would want to shut down the issue rather than continue to attract bad publicity, especially based on some of the media reports.

So, if a ridiculous exercise, that is offensive, is proffered by a liberal teacher, and someone is offended by the lesson, that person is a "bully" if he/she speaks out? How about the 'bully' teacher that is so thinned skinned that he can't even take being informed that a complaint will be lodged for his ridiculous lesson...Interesting that the media reports on this, and all of the sudden it is a 'bully' media picking on the poor educrats....But if it were the other way around you'd be the first excusing their reports....hmmmmmm...
 
So, if a ridiculous exercise, that is offensive, is proffered by a liberal teacher, and someone is offended by the lesson, that person is a "bully" if he/she speaks out? How about the 'bully' teacher that is so thinned skinned that he can't even take being informed that a complaint will be lodged for his ridiculous lesson...Interesting that the media reports on this, and all of the sudden it is a 'bully' media picking on the poor educrats....But if it were the other way around you'd be the first excusing their reports....hmmmmmm...

I think you need to do a bit more reading ...
 
I stated that: this forum either

supports that argument, or the possibility that right whingers don't understand much about higher education.


so my assessment, obviously, was based on the comments of right wingers on this forum. Obviously it does not apply to all right wingers. I have known many who are quite erudite and capable of engaging in critical thinking.

just not on this forum ... or at least not on this thread....



your comments here further illustrate my point.



thanks again for the evidence. :)

What's a "whinger" ?

Is it too much to ask such a intellectual as your self to proof read your insipid post first ?
 
Well, you can think what ever you like, doesn't change the facts we know.

a "fact" is something thing that is indisputably the case.

you don't seem to know that.
 
Back
Top Bottom