On 08/14/09 07:18, Mike Raiford wrote:
> In regards to free speech, I strongly doubt anyone would find it
> acceptable to walk into a primary school spewing a stream of the most
> foul and profane language you could imagine, so .... why would passing
> out what others could view as offensive be acceptable? (Yes, I realize I
> just made a big logical fallacy, there .... )

	Well, for one thing, some locales have ordinances against cursing in 
public (or at least cursing *at* people).


-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 07:59, Warp wrote:
> Mike Raiford<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Hence the "winter break" party, rather than Christmas.
>
>    I really think that is completely ridiculous, completely regardless of
> what one's world view is. The event called "Christmas" is a traditional
> festivity. It's called that because of tradition. Anyone who gets offended
> by an event being called in a certain way is being a huge bigot.

	I often feel that both sides on this tend to exaggerate.

	Scenario: A company/organization wants to have a Christmas party. 
However, if they call it Christmas, many people will not show up because 
they're not Christians. Note that they won't be *offended*, they'll 
simply not want to come. The organizers *want* them to show up and have 
fun, so they rename it (or dare I say, rechristen it?). Suddenly, 
they're accused of being politically correct when all they wanted was to 
have a fun party.

	And the non-Christians are accused of being behind all of this.

	Etc. I think you get my drift.


-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   I really think that is completely ridiculous, completely regardless of
> what one's world view is. The event called "Christmas" is a traditional
> festivity. It's called that because of tradition. Anyone who gets offended
> by an event being called in a certain way is being a huge bigot.

Let me be clear on my feelings about this:

I actually miss the days when we could reference certain holidays in 
school. When I was a kid, our public school had a Christmas show every 
year, and we liked it!

But it was a mostly secular view of the holiday season, elves, Santa 
Claus, trees and bells and such. All of the typical symbols of the season.

It was all very harmless, or so it seemed.




-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hence the "winter break" party, rather than Christmas.
> 
>   I really think that is completely ridiculous, completely regardless of
> what one's world view is. The event called "Christmas" is a traditional
> festivity. It's called that because of tradition. Anyone who gets offended
> by an event being called in a certain way is being a huge bigot.

But, it's stuff like this that likely prompted schools to eliminate any 
such holidays:

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:KAepVWjg_rUJ:www.stormfront.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-255554.html+why+christmas+was+eliminated+from+schools&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> I actually miss the days when we could reference certain holidays in 
> school. When I was a kid, our public school had a Christmas show every 
> year, and we liked it!

Yeah, but you had to walk, barefoot, five miles through six feet of 
snow, uphill, to get to it.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 11:48, Tim Cook wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> I actually miss the days when we could reference certain holidays in
>> school. When I was a kid, our public school had a Christmas show every
>> year, and we liked it!
>
> Yeah, but you had to walk, barefoot, five miles through six feet of
> snow, uphill, to get to it.

	Both ways.

-- 
I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy every waking moment of it.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:

> 
> Yeah, but you had to walk, barefoot, five miles through six feet of 
> snow, uphill, to get to it.
> 

Nah, I only stood in the freezing cold at a bus stop for 15 minutes (on 
a good day...) ;)


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> I actually miss the days when we could reference certain holidays in 
> school. When I was a kid, our public school had a Christmas show every 
> year, and we liked it!

  I'm going to sound like an anti-multiculturalist bigot, but I really hate
the multiculturalist dogma that "all cultures are valuable, except our own".
This dogma has gotten so far that it feels like we should be ashamed of our
own culture and our own traidions, while at the same time respecting others'.

  Western multiculturalism is heavily based on self-shame. We should be
ashamed of our own heritage, of our own culture, of our own traidions. We
should hide them from others, while respecting and embracing theirs. It's
heavily based on the ideology that we must never offend others in any way.
The same demand is, naturally, not imposed on those others: They have all
the rights to keep and proclaim their own culture and their own traditions,
and if we raise any objections on them, we are punished with shame (eg. by
being called "racist" and other such denigrating words), and in some cases
even legally.

  It would be absolutely unthinkable for me to go to another country and
start demanding that they rename their festivities and traditions because
I don't agree with their religion and I find it offensive. That would be
complete idiocy. Yet the multiculturalist ideology is preaching that others
who come here have full rights to get offended by our traditions, which is
why we must hide them and change all the "offensive" names.

  Well, I refuse to be ashamed of my heritage and my culture. Not because
I would be especially proud of them, but because I find this self-shame
dogma to be absolutely idiotic.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 14-8-2009 2:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:16:41 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> Is it promoting sexuality if you don't lie about your private life?
> 
> There really is no reason to bring your private life into the classroom, 
> and if you're a public school teacher, paid for by taxpayer dollars, than 
> it's part of the job to ensure that that doesn't happen in the US.

Eeek. This feels like an roundabout way of saying yes.

> It's like deciding to take a job at a place that serves pork ribs and 
> then refusing to work because the kitchen doesn't meet Halal standards.  
> You can't take a job where you are likely to run into a conflict like 
> that and then claim that the job discriminates because you're "forced" to 
> cook pork.

I don't think this is a relevant comparison. Unless there is a don't ask 
don't tell rule in public schools. Which I would find shocking.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:04:37 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/13/09 19:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Other people's family relationships are generally not a good idea to
>> get into the middle of.  If parents are "oppressing" (do you really
>> know what oppression is?  Because while many teenagers *think* they're
>> oppressed, they're not) a kid, and I mean *really* oppressing them,
>> then it's time for the family court to get involved, not for nosy
>> neighbors to get involved.
> 
> 	Aren't "nosy neighbors" one of the primary reasons courts do get
> 	involved?

In many cases, yes, and that's not what I mean.  I mean nosy neighbors 
trying to actually be the referee.

Jim

Post a reply to this message