Originally posted by Star428
I could ask u the same question about what people like u who support this teacher type.It's quite obvious that's what their doing.
Who? Teachers? You really think they're trying to indoctrinate children? Why? What possible reason could they have?
My sister hasn't tried to blow anyone up yet, and she's learning about Islam in school. Are American children more susceptible?
Originally posted by KingD19
I'd like to point out like Adam said at the top of the page, calligraphy is not comparable to cursive. Cursive is just making standard print look pretty. Calligraphy is an art form that uses letters and words as the art. You don't just write in calligraphy, like you wouldn't turn in a homework assignment written in calligraphy, unless it's specifically for calligraphy class.Also, this is f*cking stupid, and the people upset about this are f*cking stupid.
Maybe we should take a page from the book all these bigots subscribe to. Isolate them all on an island somewhere and let them live in a safe space where there's no one but good, god fearing republican white Christians.
Reported for flaming
Originally posted by KingD19
I'd like to point out like Adam said at the top of the page, calligraphy is not comparable to cursive. Cursive is just making standard print look pretty. Calligraphy is an art form that uses letters and words as the art. You don't just write in calligraphy, like you wouldn't turn in a homework assignment written in calligraphy, unless it's specifically for calligraphy class.Also, this is f*cking stupid, and the people upset about this are f*cking stupid.
Maybe we should take a page from the book all these bigots subscribe to. Isolate them all on an island somewhere and let them live in a safe space where there's no one but good, god fearing republican white Christians.
LMAO. This country was founded on Christianity. If u don't like it then you and your liberal kind are the ones that needs to move to some no-name island where you can praise the fake god "Allah" to your hearts content. White Christians are the ones who founded this country and won it's independence. If this country belongs to anyone it belongs to us. Trust me, if anyone's gonna be forced to leave it sure as Hell won't be "Republican White Christians" but instead your dumbasscratic kind. If you libs think you can force us to leave then, by all means, bring it, badass. *shows middle finger*
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Oh come on...you honestly want to play that argument?I've already stated I gave my son the choice to decide on religious studies, REGARDLESS of the religions available to choose from, REGARDLESS of my personal opinion.
Doesn't that prove I'm not biased?
This isn't about you being biased. It's about how you apply your logic about specific issues.
Indirect content of an assignment is either relevant or it is not. You claimed that the content of a certain assignment
Essentially:
Content X is not the direct reasoning for assignment Y thus reaction Z is wrong.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
But your "Jesus is God, Evolution is Fake." would be considered a biased opinion & teachers know they are not morally allowed to let their personal beliefs interfere with their teachings.
But it was an assignment on cursive.
Nothing more sinister than that.
They were not being forced to recite or learn the Catholic faith in the assignment.
You simply assumed that an agenda existed because you disagreed with the content.
Originally posted by NibedicusBut it was an assignment on cursive.
Nothing more sinister than that.
They were not being forced to recite or learn the Catholic faith in the assignment.
You simply assumed that an agenda existed because you disagreed with the content.
Dude, you're not making sense at all.
The assignment was in the art of calligraphy NOT learning how to write cursively.
Yes, there is nothing sinister about that.
That's been my basis of thought throughout this thread.
Yes, NO ONE was being forced to recite or learn ANY FAITH whatsoever.
No, I NEVER ONCE ASSUMED ANY AGENDA EXISTED...other than to teach calligraphy. I NEVER DISAGREED with the topic of teaching said-calligraphy.
Lost some content on my cut/paste.
Indirect content of an assignment is either relevant or it is not. You claimed that the content of a certain assignment (this got cut somehow) has no impact on the belief systems of students as the assignment itself was not the incorporation of the texts into their personal beliefs.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Dude, you're not making sense at all.The assignment was in the art of calligraphy NOT learning how to write cursively.
Yes, there is nothing sinister about that.
That's been my basis of thought throughout this thread.Yes, NO ONE was being forced to recite or learn ANY FAITH whatsoever.
Yes, I was simply drawing parallels between your example and mine....
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
No, I NEVER ONCE ASSUMED ANY AGENDA EXISTED...other than to teach calligraphy. I NEVER DISAGREED with the topic of teaching said-calligraphy.
............
You assumed a motive exists on MY example (Jesus is God, Evolution is fake and substituting calligraphy with cursive) that is why I quoted what you said directly above it. Sadly, you didn't notice that I simply copied what you argued practically verbatim with a few substitutions.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Lost some content on my cut/paste.Indirect content of an assignment is either relevant or it is not. You claimed that the content of a certain assignment (this got cut somehow) has no impact on the belief systems of students as the assignment itself was not the incorporation of the texts into their personal beliefs.
You've seriously lost me here.
The text in the assignment stated what the translation of the calligraphy meant & where it could be found.
How would this description affect the beliefs of the students?
It's a study on multiculturalism & nothing more.
@Nibedicus
I think your point only works if the argument is "The meaning of text that's secondary to the teaching objective does not matter". I don't think that absolute would be what anyone is arguing for. Rather people see shades of grey, and a combination of the factors of what the primary teaching objective is, whether the secondary content is questionable, whether the secondary content is put into perspective by the teacher, how hard it is to obtain non-questionable content, etc. are all taken into consideration.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes, I was simply drawing parallels between your example and mine...............
You assumed a motive exists on MY example (Jesus is God, Evolution is fake and substituting calligraphy with cursive) that is why I quoted what you said directly above it. Sadly, you didn't notice that I simply copied what you argued practically verbatim with a few substitutions.
Dude, it's 5:30 Sunday morning here.
I haven't slept in 17 hours.
You're twisting of my words to prove your point is admittedly lost on me, due to my lack of sleep.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Dude, it's 5:30 Sunday morning here.
I haven't slept in 17 hours.
You're twisting of my words to prove your point is admittedly lost on me, due to my lack of sleep.
And I'm a little drunk so I might not be able to explain it in depth the way I want to. And I might be enjoying this a little too much.
Tell you what, let's both sleep on it with clearer heads and continue the discussion tomorrow?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So all the parents were wrong and all of them over reacted. How can this be proven? Parents when grouped together generally are right when comes to a single teachers screwup.
Sweet Jesus Christ.
So sending the teacher death threats in your opinion, isn't over reacting?
Clearly you only read & saw what you wanted & ignored the facts of the article.
Originally posted by Mindship
Imo, the parents overreacted. Fears were projected ("Indoctrination!"😉, and parents couldn't see past them to the larger educational objective.
I'm honestly curious if there's any feedback from the parents once the principal gave a logical & rational explanation afterwards.
I'd also like to know if those death threats were traced back & be held accountable for. After all it is a crime to use social media as a carriage to threaten people.