If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Globe and Mail)   Not News: Teacher aids students with helpful dissection film. Fark: It's not biology class, it's history and citizenship; and the dissection film is a snuff film   (theglobeandmail.com) divider line 118
    More: Sick, current affairs, Queen's University, supply teacher, education minister, undergraduate students, obscenity  
•       •       •

13679 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jun 2012 at 2:54 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-14 01:05:12 AM
Why the hell would you show high-schoolers a video of a man being murdered, dismembered, his corpse farked, and then eaten? And what the hell is a supply teacher?
 
2012-06-14 01:11:19 AM
Is Montreal becoming the Florida of Canada?
 
2012-06-14 01:44:42 AM
The kids voted, it was a current events class.

The teacher's an idiot, but by high school? I mean they're 16 year old and Canadian. I'd say punish the teacher but don't fire him. Better the school provides such things than let the wander off the bestgore and look it up themselves.
 
2012-06-14 01:58:23 AM
This is beyond sick.
 
2012-06-14 02:49:51 AM
No Lorelle, it's college level work in a high school.

Back in the day, 14 year old boys were drumming orders and marches for soldiers getting torn to bits by miniball and cannon fire in Virginia. Humans can deal with seeing such things.

But this teacher is an idiot. If it's your teen, and they want to do this, you can let them or realize they'll be on google on their iphone soon as you turn their back. But as a teacher, you shouldn't show them anything parents could object to.

He shoulda played this like: take the vote, agree to show the video "if I can." Then come in the next day with a good movie, say "Sorry I couldn't get permission. Here's a different movie, let's watch."

But as a human, I can't muster outrage for a current events teacher showing a current event to a bunch of kids less than two years away from soldier age. It's history, hot off the presses.
 
2012-06-14 02:58:12 AM

TsarTom: And what the hell is a supply teacher?


British for substitute teacher.
 
2012-06-14 02:58:53 AM

doglover: But as a human, I can't muster outrage for a current events teacher showing a current event to a bunch of kids less than two years away from soldier age. It's history, hot off the presses.


why do they need to see that, or any other video?
 
2012-06-14 02:59:46 AM
I took a class called Deviant Behavior in college. People would leave the room to vomit. A girl fainted after he showed us a picture of a guy who committed suicide by laying down on an electric saw.

/oh, he also showed us just what Kurt Cobain looked like after he blew his head off
 
2012-06-14 03:04:00 AM

TsarTom: Why the hell would you show high-schoolers a video of a man being murdered, dismembered, his corpse farked, and then eaten? And what the hell is a supply teacher?


According to TFA, it came up in a discussion, and the students asked him to show it. He was reluctant, took a vote, gave a warning that it would be disturbing, and offered those who voted against showing it a chance to leave the room.

The students thought it was appropriate in the context of the class discussion, and are defending him.

What did this guy do wrong again?
 
2012-06-14 03:05:26 AM

proteus_b: doglover: But as a human, I can't muster outrage for a current events teacher showing a current event to a bunch of kids less than two years away from soldier age. It's history, hot off the presses.

why do they need to see that, or any other video?


Why does anyone need to learn anything?

/your question was stupid.
 
2012-06-14 03:05:27 AM
An instructor at my college showed an al-qaeda beheading video to an unsuspecting class. Wasn't in the class. Don't remember the subject, but it wasn't PoliSci or anything at all close. Chemistry maybe? Said something like "This is George Bush's fault." She was quickly let go.
 
2012-06-14 03:07:25 AM
When I was 15 in 10th grade, my U.S. History teacher showed us the video this still is from:

www.blogcdn.com

He told us to pay close attention to the blood. It shot up from the guy's head in a big fountain.
 
2012-06-14 03:08:34 AM

TsarTom: Why the hell would you show high-schoolers a video of a man being murdered, dismembered, his corpse farked, and then eaten? And what the hell is a supply teacher?


dennisjudd.com
 
2012-06-14 03:09:47 AM

proteus_b: doglover: But as a human, I can't muster outrage for a current events teacher showing a current event to a bunch of kids less than two years away from soldier age. It's history, hot off the presses.

why do they need to see that, or any other video?


Well, when having an academic discussion of current affairs, being able to see the thing you're discussion can be helpful. Same with pictures of wars. Last I checked, there are a lot of famous photos of the Vietnam War, WWII, Korea, the Civil War, and so on that show dead people or people being killed. Should we ban that too?

We're not talking kindergarteners here. These are high school students, perfectly capable of understanding the context and seriousness of the video. They made a conscious choice to view it. But that doesn't matter when we're going off on a "for the children" bit, regardless of the fact that it was the "children" who wanted to see the thing in the first place.
 
2012-06-14 03:10:51 AM

cptjeff: TsarTom: Why the hell would you show high-schoolers a video of a man being murdered, dismembered, his corpse farked, and then eaten? And what the hell is a supply teacher?

According to TFA, it came up in a discussion, and the students asked him to show it. He was reluctant, took a vote, gave a warning that it would be disturbing, and offered those who voted against showing it a chance to leave the room.

The students thought it was appropriate in the context of the class discussion, and are defending him.

What did this guy do wrong again?


Nothing

I think it is great that he is treating his students like adults. Teachers who treat their students with respect normally are idolized. If I like a professor, I put forth 110%. If I just want to pass the class I do what is needed to get 90.01%.

/seriously, wtf is a supply teacher?
 
2012-06-14 03:11:40 AM

doglover: No Lorelle, it's college level work in a high school.

Back in the day, 14 year old boys were drumming orders and marches for soldiers getting torn to bits by miniball and cannon fire in Virginia. Humans can deal with seeing such things.

But this teacher is an idiot. If it's your teen, and they want to do this, you can let them or realize they'll be on google on their iphone soon as you turn their back. But as a teacher, you shouldn't show them anything parents could object to.

He shoulda played this like: take the vote, agree to show the video "if I can." Then come in the next day with a good movie, say "Sorry I couldn't get permission. Here's a different movie, let's watch."

But as a human, I can't muster outrage for a current events teacher showing a current event to a bunch of kids less than two years away from soldier age. It's history, hot off the presses.


Dude. I usually think you wear the "manage to make weird shiat sound reasonable" hat pretty well most of the time. You're dead wrong on this. Social pressure is farking intense, particularly for teenagers. There's no way to gauge how many kids felt freaked about it in the first place- never mind the fact that most adults I know would rather not watch someone being murdered and cannibalized. Hell, plenty of high school kids don't even like gory Hollywood movies. The Internet exists, and the kids who wanted to see this either already had, or would have no problem being able to, on their own, after the class discussion.

As a teacher of minors, you NEVER leave something that questionable up to the prevailing winds in a public school classroom. University, fine, knock yourself out, but even that should be optional. A thorough education is possible without having to watch one of your fellow human beings get butchered like a pig.

You totally know better, and I grant that you're pretty decent at playing devil's advocate around here, even about particularly weird shiat, but if you really believe what you're saying, for the first time I question your fitness to teach kids.
 
2012-06-14 03:13:03 AM

TsarTom: a video of a man being murdered, dismembered, his corpse farked, and then eaten?


Dumb and Dahmer?
 
2012-06-14 03:13:51 AM
On the one hand: they're high schoolers, they've probably seen some pretty bad stuff on the internet. Plus, they voted on it. I think I was a junior in high school when I saw that very NSFW video involving two women and a drinking vessel. Kids like to explore the internet at that age. I bet most of them have at least seen 4chan and Encyclopedia Dramatica, not to mention porn...

On the other hand: it's a farking snuff film. It shows the cold-blooded murder of an innocent man. Not just his murder, but his mutilation, dismemberment and the possible cannibalization of his corpse. If they want to watch it on their own time, fine. But I don't think it belongs in a classroom. And the vote? I bet a bunch of people raised their hands so that they didn't look uncool...

So, I'm kind of split (no pun intended) on this. If they want to see it, fine. But let them watch it on their own time.
 
2012-06-14 03:15:09 AM

7th Son of a 7th Son: TsarTom: Why the hell would you show high-schoolers a video of a man being murdered, dismembered, his corpse farked, and then eaten? And what the hell is a supply teacher?

[dennisjudd.com image 512x290]


GAH! Came to say exactly *this*
 
2012-06-14 03:16:05 AM
Ric Romero would like to mention that it's not always in a teacher's best interests to do whatever the kids in the class would like the adult to do.
 
2012-06-14 03:16:15 AM
What the fark. People are defending this. By this logic, high school kids should be watching porn in their health class. University level human sexuality class, fine. A university classroom and a public school classroom full of minors aren't just different points on a continuum.
 
2012-06-14 03:18:26 AM
And it's not on Rotten yet.

Honestly, that main site never updates. Just the news and the the deadpool.
 
2012-06-14 03:19:21 AM
Well, just so long as no one saw a female nipple.
 
2012-06-14 03:20:34 AM

Precision Boobery: When I was 15 in 10th grade, my U.S. History teacher showed us the video this still is from:

[www.blogcdn.com image 456x304]

He told us to pay close attention to the blood. It shot up from the guy's head in a big fountain.


I would understand that, as it's historical. But this? Just some sicko's snuff film?
 
2012-06-14 03:22:18 AM
Also, when I emphasize "minors," I'm talking about legal definitions for the sake of liability. No, of course I don't think that a magic spell is cast at age 18 that suddenly prepares you for exposure to mature or graphic content. I'm not talking about the fact that the kids may not be emotionally ready to process it. I'm saying that the number one rule for adults teaching minors on the public dime should be "cover your farking ass." This isn't showing respect for his students' maturity- it's fairly green young teacher who wants the approval of his class.
 
2012-06-14 03:24:36 AM
I was a current events teacher in Korea (1st-6th). My students unanimously voted to watch things I wouldn't show them on a daily basis. For some reason, number 1 on their list was "The Walking Dead". By far.

But more on the subject of current events, they wanted to see Ghaddaffi's bloody corpse, Osama's corpse (the day it happened, a couple pictures were circulated that, of course, later turned out to be fake), people being murdered in Syria, etc. They'd go home, read the Chosun Ilbo newspaper, and then come to class with a bunch of adult news items. War, rape, murder, genocide, the whole nine yards.

It was difficult to keep a cap on it at times because they ALL had access to the internet through their mobile devices during free period, but the fact of the matter is that this "supply teacher" (what is that?) showed classic bad judgment.

/getting a kick, etc.
 
2012-06-14 03:25:59 AM

Fair_Poopsmith: Dude. I usually think you wear the "manage to make weird shiat sound reasonable" hat pretty well most of the time. You're dead wrong on this. Social pressure is farking intense, particularly for teenagers. There's no way to gauge how many kids felt freaked about it in the first place- never mind the fact that most adults I know would rather not watch someone being murdered and cannibalized. Hell, plenty of high school kids don't even like gory Hollywood movies. The Internet exists, and the kids who wanted to see this either already had, or would have no problem being able to, on their own, after the class discussion.


I remember my high school days. Me, Scooter, Ollie (The Beaver), and that kid who sold doses were always voting. I didn't want to vote but they made me.
 
2012-06-14 03:34:18 AM
He showed very poor judgement in the legal sense, yes.

Unfortunately, that's the only kind of sense that's come to being known nowadays.

Should the student be shown this? No, it's not going to help them in any way, in the long run.

Could the student see something like this at any point in their life, first hand, regardless of the situation? Yes, so you might as well not sugarcoat it now, it's not going to help them later.

Life sucks and then you die, get over it.
 
2012-06-14 03:37:48 AM
Don't show this sort of thing in schools: That's what TV and theatre entertainment are for.
 
2012-06-14 03:41:36 AM
given a consequence free environment i'm sure a typical classroom of high school students could muster up a bit of the old ultra violence
 
2012-06-14 03:45:32 AM

Quark_Quasar: He showed very poor judgement in the legal sense, yes.

Unfortunately, that's the only kind of sense that's come to being known nowadays.

Should the student be shown this? No, it's not going to help them in any way, in the long run.

Could the student see something like this at any point in their life, first hand, regardless of the situation? Yes, so you might as well not sugarcoat it now
, it's not going to help them later.

Life sucks and then you die, get over it.


This is how I interpreted your message:

Should the students be shown a snuff film? No, but not because it's wrong - because it would be pointless to their development. But you NEED to show them anything they could possibly see at any point in their life now, including snuff films, because if you don't you're "sugarcoating" how bad life sucks and how inevitable death is.

Neat. Super neat. Simultaneous, self contradicting beliefs:

1. Don't show them the film - it's "not going to help them."
2. Don't NOT show them the film - that's sugarcoating (reality?) and it's "not going to help them later."

At this point I'm absolutely certain I've misunderstood your post.
 
2012-06-14 03:46:27 AM
I saw Faces of Death when I was ten, but the most disgusting thing I've ever watched was in a public school in 10th grade. It was a full color film of a human being born. A full-on shot of some stranger's hairy twat, lathered in blood. Then, the crowning...her pushing it out this pale, warped, creepy alien...the gush of amniotic fluid and blood...the afterbirth...

That was before widespread internet access.

They discussed it, there was a vote, there were warnings. I have to seriously doubt anyone who claims to have been traumatized by this, but if they were, it's their own fault.
 
2012-06-14 03:55:21 AM
FTFA:
"Benjamin Kutsyuruba, a professor in the Queen's University faculty of education, noted that the website that originally hosted the video is potentially facing obscenity charges. "

So you may view the kids as adults (they're not) and the kids may have been able to find it themselves online (if they had already found and viewed it they would not have been asking the guy to show it in class) but you cannot possibly think that showing (even potentially) obscene material to high school kids is OK. Unless you're an idiot.

/I am guessing Lin Jun's family wouldn't think it was cool.
 
2012-06-14 03:55:49 AM

Wayne 985: Precision Boobery: When I was 15 in 10th grade, my U.S. History teacher showed us the video this still is from:

[www.blogcdn.com image 456x304]

He told us to pay close attention to the blood. It shot up from the guy's head in a big fountain.

I would understand that, as it's historical. But this? Just some sicko's snuff film?


So if there had been video of a honeypot--some gut-shot GI whom they left screaming on the jungle floor in order to pick off the guys who come to help him--that'd be all right "as it's historical"?

Wouldn't the Daniel Pearl video be historical?
 
2012-06-14 03:56:19 AM

cptjeff: TsarTom: Why the hell would you show high-schoolers a video of a man being murdered, dismembered, his corpse farked, and then eaten? And what the hell is a supply teacher?

According to TFA, it came up in a discussion, and the students asked him to show it. He was reluctant, took a vote, gave a warning that it would be disturbing, and offered those who voted against showing it a chance to leave the room.

The students thought it was appropriate in the context of the class discussion, and are defending him.

What did this guy do wrong again?


Well I'm sure 2girls1cup may come up in a discussion too- but come on, this isn't a democracy. You don't get to vote on where the class goes when it's utterly off-topic, teacher needs to grow a pair. Reluctant? Offering a chance to leave the room? How about just not caving to your student's whims?

So he wasted some class time- it's not like he really corrupted anyone here though.
 
2012-06-14 03:58:22 AM
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2012-06-14 04:06:39 AM

proteus_b: doglover: But as a human, I can't muster outrage for a current events teacher showing a current event to a bunch of kids less than two years away from soldier age. It's history, hot off the presses.

why do they need to see that, or any other video?


Not at all. But like the kid they interviewed it said: they will.

This is why I'd like to see high school nixed. Middle school should be the end of grade schoolHigh school is just a giant doledrums in the education process. It's not quite serious enough for good students and not quite easy enough for kids who don't care. It's like a great big junior college

But like I said, if there's even a QUESTION something might be offensive, don't bring it in and if the kids get it say the principal says no. Always pass that buck, so you look like the cool guy even if you're the one not bringing in the offensive stuff.

A snuff film to nearly voters isn't ZOMG think of the children! kind of scary, though. People get hurt and die. I saw my neighbor's femur pokin' out when she got hit by a car at 6 years old. 16 is old enough to talk to deal with something bad. Plus, in 2012 they can and will find it online themselves in a minute if they so desire.

The part of this story I find infuriating is that the teacher greenlit it. They took a vote, kids were allowed to leave, yeah, but a classroom is NOT a democracy. You are not in control, the teacher is. One man, one vote. He's the man, he gets the vote. That's why you put the kaibosh on bad stuff as a teacher. I'd LOVE to teach certain topics to the teenagers I work with as an English teacher. I know EXACTLY which words would make the kids who can't even say "I like to play soccer." correctly after 3 years sit up and become the most fluent speakers around. But I can't do that because it's a PUBLIC school. It's not worth my job to save my students three minutes with a keyboard and google. If they want it, they can look for themselves.

Like I said before, in this guy's shoes I'd have said "Okay, we'll watch it if we can. I'll check tomorrow." then the next day just brought in a good movie relevant to class. "Sorry, couldn't do it kids.But hey, let's watch this." Simple power trick, they're happy and you're employed and now you're the cool teacher because you "were" going to bend the rules a little. Easy peasy. It's a layup of a life decision.

I still don't think this teacher should be fired for it, though. Mistakes are how we learn. If he's dangled on the chopping block so close his neck hairs brush the wood and then yanked back into the fold, I promise you he's not making a mistake like this ever again.
 
2012-06-14 04:07:29 AM
harryallen.info
 
2012-06-14 04:10:50 AM
I remember a computer teacher, in 8th grade, made the comment that it was, "OK to show the Daniel Pearl video" to high school seniors. Because apparently that happened.

But then I said (having heard my brother talk about it), "But it's a horrible video. They basically saw the guy's head off."

She got angry at me because, I guess I was discussing stuff that was too graphic, all that.. I was really confused and even then thought it was ironic.

/Also, I don't think this is appropriate for a high school classroom. Kids are still their parents babies and good luck getting the parents to shut the hell up. College, in certain classes, yes.
 
2012-06-14 04:12:24 AM
FTA: The video shows a suspect believed to be Luka Magnotta stabbing and dismembering another man. It also depicts the suspect engaged in sexual acts involving body parts and includes evidence of cannibalism

As with the Sandusky trial and its disturbing details, it should be noted that these behaviors arent exclusive to gay men alone.

Had their fathers not treated them so terribly, it's likely they could have lived lives, deviancy aside, as good as any normal man.
 
2012-06-14 04:15:29 AM

doglover: No Lorelle, it's college level work in a high school.

Back in the day, 14 year old boys were drumming orders and marches for soldiers getting torn to bits by miniball and cannon fire in Virginia. Humans can deal with seeing such things.

But this teacher is an idiot. If it's your teen, and they want to do this, you can let them or realize they'll be on google on their iphone soon as you turn their back. But as a teacher, you shouldn't show them anything parents could object to.


That's not entirely true, now is it.
 
2012-06-14 04:16:46 AM

Fair_Poopsmith: As a teacher of minors, you NEVER leave something that questionable up to the prevailing winds in a public school classroom.


Every student gets a vote. And all the votes of all the students in all the classrooms in the whole district don't add up to a vole's flatulence against and single vote from the teacher.

It was dumb of him to show it, but the "kids" in that class will be fine. Or if they are damaged, it will be because of teacher getting in trouble as much as seeing something anyone who type the letter b into Google would be able to sauce in an instant.

It would be a shame for his life to be ruined over what's essentially the equivalent of using tablespoons instead of teaspoons in a recipe on accident. Demoted, yelled at, forced to go to training, sure. Even changing schools. But fired? He's not gonna do it again.
 
2012-06-14 04:17:51 AM

cptjeff: proteus_b: doglover: But as a human, I can't muster outrage for a current events teacher showing a current event to a bunch of kids less than two years away from soldier age. It's history, hot off the presses.

why do they need to see that, or any other video?

Well, when having an academic discussion of current affairs, being able to see the thing you're discussion can be helpful. Same with pictures of wars. Last I checked, there are a lot of famous photos of the Vietnam War, WWII, Korea, the Civil War, and so on that show dead people or people being killed. Should we ban that too?


I see a big difference between still photos of wars and a motion picture displaying torture, murder and mutilation. Even if you upgrade the still photos of war scenes to video of that Vietnamese guy being shot it still has historical more significance than some unknown guy killing another unknown guy.

It's often said that what has been seen cannot be unseen. I'm not sure what one could learn from seeing this snuff film that discussing it wouldn't also teach. The votes to watch it were probably out of morbid rather than intellectual curiosity.


We're not talking kindergarteners here. These are high school students, perfectly capable of understanding the context and seriousness of the video. They made a conscious choice to view it. But that doesn't matter when we're going off on a "for the children" bit, regardless of the fact that it was the "children" who wanted to see the thing in the first place.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...Kids want to see lots of things and you could use the umbrella of "current events" to excuse anything including the latest scat fetish porn hitting the internet today. Personally, I would rather high school students focus more on current events with more economic or historic impact than this.

Oh, and as an aside I find it somewhat disturbing that so much of the class wanted to see it. I don't want to see it. I also haven't watched an entire Al Qaeda decapitation video and have managed to have never seen 2 girls, 1 cup. I don't think my education is lacking from missing out on any of those things
 
2012-06-14 04:26:11 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: doglover: No Lorelle, it's college level work in a high school.

Back in the day, 14 year old boys were drumming orders and marches for soldiers getting torn to bits by miniball and cannon fire in Virginia. Humans can deal with seeing such things.

But this teacher is an idiot. If it's your teen, and they want to do this, you can let them or realize they'll be on google on their iphone soon as you turn their back. But as a teacher, you shouldn't show them anything parents could object to.

That's not entirely true, now is it.


Yes it is.

Rather, as a good teacher you should cuss at your students and occasionally smack them with a stick if they're especially stubborn until they prove their aptitude and diligence by not running away. Eventually you'll only have one or two. Then you strip away their layers of delusion one by one, often dramatically, yelling all the way and making their lives a living hell in the process at least part of the time with practices and work. In the end, you teach them almost all your tricks, learn a lot about yourself in the process, and they should be coming into their own and surpassing you at something, if not everything. THAT is the educational method history shows seems to work the best. If it wasn't, people wouldn't always be fondly recalling that character in their childhood.

But when you're an employee of a public school? You have more bosses than students, and you have a LOT of students, most of whom don't care for you or your class. Your job is to reach as many as possible without stepping on any toes. If that means not teaching kids the meaning of the rap song they bring in, or not showing excerpts of a snuff film just because it's breaking news, so be it. Do what you're told and don't lose your job.
 
2012-06-14 04:33:07 AM
This A-hole "supply" teacher should be immediately volunteered for a sequel video.
 
2012-06-14 04:37:36 AM
TsarTom Why the hell would you show high-schoolers a video of a man being murdered, dismembered, his corpse farked, and then eaten?

To warn them about riding on Greyhound of Canada Link

Jadedgrl /oh, he also showed us just what Kurt Cobain looked like after he blew his head off

was this class on Internet hoaxes? It was probably that Ministry album cover
 
2012-06-14 04:53:05 AM
So the adults are all running about worried about their little snowflakes and the kids are all "Meh, we see stuff like this all the time"

ffs, grow up adults!
 
2012-06-14 04:53:44 AM

Oznog: cptjeff: TsarTom: Why the hell would you show high-schoolers a video of a man being murdered, dismembered, his corpse farked, and then eaten? And what the hell is a supply teacher?

According to TFA, it came up in a discussion, and the students asked him to show it. He was reluctant, took a vote, gave a warning that it would be disturbing, and offered those who voted against showing it a chance to leave the room.

The students thought it was appropriate in the context of the class discussion, and are defending him.

What did this guy do wrong again?

Well I'm sure 2girls1cup may come up in a discussion too- but come on, this isn't a democracy. You don't get to vote on where the class goes when it's utterly off-topic, teacher needs to grow a pair. Reluctant? Offering a chance to leave the room? How about just not caving to your student's whims?

So he wasted some class time- it's not like he really corrupted anyone here though.


In my mind, education is a collaborative thing. A teacher standing up talking to a disinterested class does absolutely no good for anybody. Those students are basically adults, and I can guarantee you that they resent being patronized, and they're right in that. The video was absolutely relevant to the topic already at hand, from all accounts (by people in the room, who are all defending him), and the class collectively decided that they could handle watching it. That's enough for me, and should be enough for anybody. A group of mature humans, in the context of an existing discussion deemed appropriate for a current affairs class, after several cautions and warnings, decided that watching the original material would be helpful to their education.


Happy Hours: Yeah, yeah, yeah...Kids want to see lots of things and you could use the umbrella of "current events" to excuse anything including the latest scat fetish porn hitting the internet today. Personally, I would rather high school students focus more on current events with more economic or historic impact than this.

Oh, and as an aside I find it somewhat disturbing that so much of the class wanted to see it. I don't want to see it. I also haven't watched an entire Al Qaeda decapitation video and have managed to have never seen 2 girls, 1 cup. I don't think my education is lacking from missing out on any of those things



The discussion of this has been widespread in popular circles as well as in just about every from of news media. This isn't some isolated fetish in the dark shadow world. It's perfectly legitimate for a current affairs class to be discussing something that's been plastered all over the news for the past couple of weeks.

And as an aside, I would argue that your education and understanding of world events is limited by not seeing videos like this. Seeing people killed in Vietnam really brought home the impact of the war to a huge number of people. If you isolate yourself from stuff like the Daniel Pearl video, you're probably not getting a full grasp on a lot of important stuff happening that happens to be incredibly distasteful.

You say that what has been seen can't be unseen. I would argue that's the point. I would also argue that the students in that room decided, after repeated warnings, that they were emotionally mature enough to handle it. And if they weren't, they probably just took a step or two up in that department. They made their choice, now they get to learn how to deal with it. The world ain't a pretty place, and it's good to be prepared for that.

Have I seen this video? No, and I don't plan to. But I'm a fan of Mills in this regard- you don't get to judge the value of something like this. Any censorship is an affront- there has to be a robust exchange of ideas, and no matter what value to a current events course you think the topic or material itself may have, you don't get to shut it down on your whims. The people in the room thought it would be of value in understanding the event and the news coverage surrounding it, so they get to watch the video. In my mind, that's the end of it. It was in an educational setting, so you get to make sure it's not wildly off topic. It wasn't.

You're really not far from banning books. Are you in favor of removing Huckleberry Finn from high school libraries because you're uncomfortable with some of the language it contains? 1984? Harry Potter? Lolita? It's a book about a guy raping a young girl, there's no way that can have any educational value whatsoever, right? I mean, anybody who lets a high schooler even know of that book's existence should be fired, right? Absolutely not appropriate.

You don't get to censor things you find icky. And I'm seriously offended that you think you do.
 
2012-06-14 04:59:18 AM
Fore those asking, let me google that for you:

A substitute teacher is a person who teaches a school class when the regular teacher is unavailable; e.g., because of illness, personal leave, or other reasons. "Substitute teacher" (usually abbreviated as "sub") is the most commonly used phrase in the United States, Canada and Ireland, while supply teacher is the most commonly used term in Great Britain. Common synonyms for substitute teacher include relief teacher or casual teacher (used in Australia and New Zealand) and "emergency teacher" (used in the United States). Other terms, such as "guest teacher", are also used by some schools or districts. Regional variants in terminology are common, such as the use of the term teacher on call (T.O.C.) in the Canadian province of British Columbia and occasional or supply teacher in the Canadian province of Ontario.
 
2012-06-14 05:25:44 AM

cptjeff: The discussion of this has been widespread in popular circles as well as in just about every from of news media. This isn't some isolated fetish in the dark shadow world. It's perfectly legitimate for a current affairs class to be discussing something that's been plastered all over the news for the past couple of weeks.


Plastered all over the news? I've seen it mentioned, but not plastered and I watch a fair amount of news coverage as well as read it on the internet. Kim Kardashian often gets plastered all over the news too - perhaps the class could be watching her show too.

From what I've seen the violence in Syria and economic problems in Greece and Spain are what have really been plastered all over the news lately and those things will have a much greater impact on the world. I'm not saying they shouldn't discuss this at all, but this sounds like a substitute teacher who got called to fill in one day and didn't have a clue as to what to teach so he went with whatever the kids wanted.

And as an aside, I would argue that your education and understanding of world events is limited by not seeing videos like this. Seeing people killed in Vietnam really brought home the impact of the war to a huge number of people. If you isolate yourself from stuff like the Daniel Pearl video, you're probably not getting a full grasp on a lot of important stuff happening that happens to be incredibly distasteful.

I didn't watch the entire Daniel Pearl murder - I saw enough of it. I'm really not sure what I would have gotten out of seeing every gory, torturous second out of it. Would it dehumanize terrorists more in my eyes? I doubt it. Would I sympathize with Al Qaeda or understand their position better? I don't think so.


You say that what has been seen can't be unseen. I would argue that's the point. I would also argue that the students in that room decided, after repeated warnings, that they were emotionally mature enough to handle it. And if they weren't, they probably just took a step or two up in that department. They made their choice, now they get to learn how to deal with it. The world ain't a pretty place, and it's good to be prepared for that.

Have I seen this video? No, and I don't plan to.


Then are't you limiting your understanding of it?

But I'm a fan of Mills in this regard- you don't get to judge the value of something like this. Any censorship is an affront- there has to be a robust exchange of ideas, and no matter what value to a current events course you think the topic or material itself may have, you don't get to shut it down on your whims. The people in the room thought it would be of value in understanding the event and the news coverage surrounding it, so they get to watch the video. In my mind, that's the end of it. It was in an educational setting, so you get to make sure it's not wildly off topic. It wasn't.

You're really not far from banning books. Are you in favor of removing Huckleberry Finn from high school libraries because you're uncomfortable with some of the language it contains? 1984? Harry Potter? Lolita? It's a book about a guy raping a young girl, there's no way that can have any educational value whatsoever, right? I mean, anybody who lets a high schooler even know of that book's existence should be fired, right? Absolutely not appropriate.

You don't get to censor things you find icky. And I'm seriously offended that you think you do.


Oh really? I'm not in favor of banning any books or even video. There's a difference between censorship and choosing what to show in a school. Why don't they spend a couple of weeks studying the Unabomber's manifesto? He was in the news a lot longer than this case. He killed more people, had a greater impact and had a twisted social/political motivation behind his attacks.

If Sandusky had videotaped his sexual exploits with kids, should that have been shown? After all, how can we really grasp what he did if we can't see it?
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report