James F. Campbell: Beowoolfie: professors who screw up this badlyI question not only your reading comprehension but your liberal credentials. I think, in fact, that you are full of shiat in addition to being an idiot. But please, explain to us how the professor "screwed up."
Hickory-smoked: That being said, the professor should have known someone was going to overreact.
doglover: he wasn't all great.
eraser8: Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.
FloydA: Igor Jakovsky: If the professor had stones he would have had the students draw Mohammed after the stomp on Jesus exercise.So you didn't understand the point of the exercise either?
Silly_Sot: FloydA: Igor Jakovsky: If the professor had stones he would have had the students draw Mohammed after the stomp on Jesus exercise.So you didn't understand the point of the exercise either?I did. The point of the exercise was for the teacher to show off how much more "progressive" and "edgy". he was than everybody else.
Hickory-smoked: Conservatives really do not seem to understand abstract thinking.
Silly_Sot: The point of the exercise was for the teacher to show off how much more "progressive" and "edgy". he was than everybody else.
Damnhippyfreak: ciberido: FloydA: There is a substantive difference between thinking "he's a good guy" and "bowing and scraping" or "treating him as a godhead." I think Sir Arthur Guinness, Alan Turing, and Sir Thomas Crapper were great men, because each of them invented something that makes my life better, but I don't worship any of them.Quite a lot of people do worship Crapper at his Porcelain Throne.Had to look that up. Apparently he didn't invent the toilet but, almost as good, he invented the ballcock.
8Fingers: FloydA: 8Fingers: FloydA: 8Fingers: FloydA: 8Fingers: So none were forced to do it. They were asked if they wanted to participate. And if you choose no, no big deal.But this one whiney snot-nosed baby, momma bussomed coddled, always needing someone to protect him from bad people and no doubt a liberal.Decides to get all AW about it and an entire university has to get down on its knees and say were sorry?What a bunch of BS!LOLWUT?Oh common, the course and instructor were probaby known to be edgy, sometimes out of the norm and could be a bit contraversial. And being the liberal, he most likely only took the course and sat there waiting for his rights to be offended so that he could make a big stink and get the 'Oh My Gooosssh', look at what they've done to me!!!!' Attention that he went looking for.You're using the word "liberal" in a very non-standard way here. The Mormon church are hardly known for "liberalism," and the type of person who goes to Fox News because he thinks a professor has insulted his religion is extremely unlikely to self-identify as "liberal."Did you mean some other word?Nope, a person that would go out of their way, to put themselves into, a position to be offended because they wanted attention about them being offended by something is what aliberal does. Just because he claims to be a devote mormon, its to get more attention. And as far as the Fox theory goes, its a wire story on just about every news group and voice out there.Am I being trolled here?I wouldn't put much effort into trolling someone. But I would definetly expect a liberal to think that of someone just because someone sees things diferently.
BarkingUnicorn: FloydA: ginandbacon: Keizer_Ghidorah: It was a discussion about symbolsThat oddly only focused on one symbol.That was a pedagogical necessity. The lesson (whatever its merits or lack thereof) would not have worked if each student had to respond to a different symbol."Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."Why wouldn't that work if each student used a different symbol?
Amos Quito: Hickory-smoked: Amos Quito: How was this not a HATE CRIME?/DiscussBecause "hate crime" does not mean that hatred or expressions that can interpreted at hateful are criminal, but rather refers to bias-motivated violence, which this is not.Understand now?No.Please show where VIOLENCE is a necessary factor in any "hate crime" under law.Thanks for your help.
thefatbasturd: FloydA: thefatbasturd:The point is no ONE religious figure should have been singled out. Should have been told to write the name of "whatever figure is important to your faith." Otherwise the "experiment" is worthless. Only teaches anything to people to whom Jesus has meaning.Are you assuming that all of the atheists in the class would step on the paper? Because that's not an assumption I'm willing to make. I would hesitate (and I'm about as athy as they get), not because I believe in Jesus, but because I "believe in" politeness, and I would not want to offend my classmates. Therefore, the symbol has meaning to me even though I am not a member of that, or any other, religion.I suspect that you may not have understood what the exercise was intended to teach.Are you assuming my post had ANYTHING to do with atheists? Point to where it even slightly refers to atheists. The whole point of it was about OTHER faiths most important figures. Mohammed, Buddah, Moses, Zarathustra. Etc. I suppose if you wanna finally recognize Atheism as a form of "faith" and write the name Dawkins, that's cool too, but not at all what I was talking about. I understand exactly what the lesson was intending to teach, do you?
Beowoolfie: James F. Campbell: Beowoolfie: professors who screw up this badlyI question not only your reading comprehension but your liberal credentials. I think, in fact, that you are full of shiat in addition to being an idiot. But please, explain to us how the professor "screwed up."What I meant by screwing up was he publicly embarrassed his university.Questioning things is good for you. I hope you keep it up. :)
Beowoolfie: What I meant by screwing up was he publicly embarrassed his university.
Keizer_Ghidorah: It was his fault that a retarded Christian kid completely misunderstood the point of an exercise and took it to the media in order to get attention?
James F. Campbell: Nope, still stupid.
Pumpernickel bread: Sounds like one of those rabid over-the-top atheists wound up teaching a class. As an atheist, if I were in that class, I would have felt compelled to report her as well. In the same way professors of faith can't preach, from the lectern, neither should rabid atheists be able to.
Beowoolfie: Keizer_Ghidorah: It was his fault that a retarded Christian kid completely misunderstood the point of an exercise and took it to the media in order to get attention?That's my opinion, yes. It was a stupidly-presented exercise that even an intelligent kid could easily misunderstand. And it doesn't matter at all to me that it was "Jesus". I'd feel the same if he'd instructed them to spit on pictures of their mothers.I see the point he was trying to make. Certainly cultural context matters. But there were plenty of ways to demonstrate that point without asking a student to commit something they saw as a heinous act. This was in the same category as the stories we've seen where a teacher wanted to reenact a slave auction, and segregated the children by race to do so.Decent idea, but terrible implementation. He should have started smaller, maybe stomping an American flag himself then inviting discussion about why that angered them. What he did forced religion into the workplace, which is just as wrong for an atheist as for an evangelical.
Beowoolfie: What he did also forced religion into the workplace ...
Beowoolfie: Dude, there are plenty of insults that'll score on me. Calling me "idiot" and "stupid" are so far off they just made me grin. :)
Keizer_Ghidorah: He didn't force them to step on it. In fact, NOT stepping on it was the farking point.
Beowoolfie: Keizer_Ghidorah: He didn't force them to step on it. In fact, NOT stepping on it was the farking point.What an odd response. I never said, nor implied, that he did.There was NOTHING bad, wrong, evil, attacking Christianity, or whatever about this. All you idiots are doing is throwing pissy fits because you THINK someone was making a personal attack on yours or others beliefs. And yes, you said you're an atheist, I know, you're still getting outraged for the sake of those who aren't because they know this isn't something to be outraged about.And again you put words in my mouth. Gee, I don't know what "all us idiots" are doing. All I know is what I said: In my opinion, he did a terrible job at making a point that could, handled differently, have been valuable.Beowoolfie: What he did also forced religion into the workplace ...News flash: universities discuss things like religion. And you might be VERY surprised to hear this, but that doesn't mean they're forcing it upon their students or holding up one religion over others. For someone who claims to know why the instructor did it and how justified the student was to threaten the man and run whining to the media, you really don't seem to know anything.WTF?? Are you even responding to the right person? Why would I be surprised universities discuss religion? Where did I say why the instructor did it? What I know is what he wrote in his lesson plan, same as everyone else knows. Where did I even mention anybody threatening anybody? I don't know a great many things...including what the hell you're talking about now! Is this one of those things where you're just randomly raging because I violated the atheist party line, or something?I don't think I'm saying half of what you think you're reading, so I'm calling this convo quits. Feel free to take the last word.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jan 18 2017 00:19:35
Runtime: 0.437 sec (436 ms)