[quote]florelius wrote:
I agree on much of what you wrote, but in the class room its important that the teacher strives to be as objective as possible and if she or he absolutly must share theire wiew point on a subject, they should tell there students that this is not a fact, but there own
subjective opinion. [/quote]
But, I do think it is a fact that homosexual unions are not equal to heterosexual unions.
[quote]florelius wrote:
Its scary that people can get fired for having an opinion on a matter, even when the opinion is utterly stupid
as in this case.[/quote]
Given the fact that the man suffered physical symptoms, he was probably exaggerating about the nausea, but it’s well within the realm of possibility that this isn’t an opinion. A mental state that produces physical symptoms is a central criteria to a psychopathology like depression (homophobia is a mental disorder). This rule is universally true. Sorry almost universally true, one big exception being homosexuality (not hetero, bi, or asexuality), if you’re depressed about being homosexual (not hetero, bi, or asexual) it’s not depression or another psychopathology, the problem lies with your nearest homophobe, it’s their fault.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
I agree on much of what you wrote, but in the class room its important that the teacher strives to be as objective as possible and if she or he absolutly must share theire wiew point on a subject, they should tell there students that this is not a fact, but there own
subjective opinion. [/quote]
But, I do think it is a fact that homosexual unions are not equal to heterosexual unions. [/quote]
Haha, I would say that both positions( anti and pro gay marriage ) are opinion based. Its a issue of values. Its not a issue that can be settled trough collecting empiric data to prove the other camp wrong or to prove your own position right etc. Lets take my stance on the issue: I dont have a problem with homosexuals being allowed to marry and my reason for this is that I cant see how on earth this has anyhting to do with me, what does it to me that two guys or two girls gets married. This argument I am showing here is not scientific based, but rather based on my common sense and value system aka meening that it is extremely subjective.
[quote]florelius wrote:
Its scary that people can get fired for having an opinion on a matter…[/quote]
Once again you are showing wisdom beyong your years. You should give posting lessons to your fellow 20 somethings.
[quote]florelius wrote:
I agree on much of what you wrote, but in the class room its important that the teacher strives to be as objective as possible and if she or he absolutly must share theire wiew point on a subject, they should tell there students that this is not a fact, but there own
subjective opinion. [/quote]
The opinion in question wasn’t, in any way, associated with the classroom or school. And I disagree about the ‘objective as possible’, in my experience, objectivity isn’t a statement of fact as much of a way to lie, and encourage students (and others) to assume that you’re Phineas Gage and that you’ve somehow had the rational side of your brain separated from the rest of it; and that your condition renders your view of the truth as infallible and impartial. It’s a tool to deify the teacher and subjugate the student.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Its scary that people can get fired for having an opinion on a matter…[/quote]
Once again you are showing wisdom beyong your years. You should give posting lessons to your fellow 20 somethings.[/quote]
nah they are probably students all of them, so they have probably other things than my lessons to use theire little money on, like beer or ron paul campaigns 
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
I agree on much of what you wrote, but in the class room its important that the teacher strives to be as objective as possible and if she or he absolutly must share theire wiew point on a subject, they should tell there students that this is not a fact, but there own
subjective opinion. [/quote]
The opinion in question wasn’t, in any way, associated with the classroom or school. And I disagree about the ‘objective as possible’, in my experience, objectivity isn’t a statement of fact as much of a way to lie, and encourage students (and others) to assume that you’re Phineas Gage and that you’ve somehow had the rational side of your brain separated from the rest of it; and that your condition renders your view of the truth as infallible and impartial. It’s a tool to deify the teacher and subjugate the student.
[/quote]
I know that the guy where stating it elsewher than the classroom, I just wanted to point out that it is not an ideal situation if classroom are filled with lesson based on opinion instead of facts or/and conclusions based on facts. And I said not that its possible to be 100% objective, but that the teachers should strive to be as objective as possible.
Yes, scary he can get fired for his opinions…
… even more scary that he doesn’t grasp the concept that social networking is public domain. The educator needs education it seems.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
I agree on much of what you wrote, but in the class room its important that the teacher strives to be as objective as possible and if she or he absolutly must share theire wiew point on a subject, they should tell there students that this is not a fact, but there own
subjective opinion. [/quote]
But, I do think it is a fact that homosexual unions are not equal to heterosexual unions. [/quote]
Haha, I would say that both positions( anti and pro gay marriage ) are opinion based. Its a issue of values. Its not a issue that can be settled trough collecting empiric data to prove the other camp wrong or to prove your own position right etc. Lets take my stance on the issue: I dont have a problem with homosexuals being allowed to marry and my reason for this is that I cant see how on earth this has anyhting to do with me, what does it to me that two guys or two girls gets married. This argument I am showing here is not scientific based, but rather based on my common sense and value system aka meening that it is extremely subjective.
[/quote]
No society, culture, or religion has viewed homosexual unions as equal to or greater than heterosexual unions. This is because we understand it intuitively. Fact.
Further we can see that they not only seen as arbitrarily unequal, but realistically unequal, as well.
The quality or integrity of the strength of a culture is viewed from the smallest unit. This unit can be seen in the microcosms of society (as the Medieval philosophers had a tendency to call it) as society is the macrocosm. A society is considered strong if it forwards in surplus and not in a deficit.
So, if the macrocosm is maintaining or gaining a surplus, the microcosm needs to first do so. This microcosm, the smallest unit in society, is the family. Whether it is a nuclear family or extended family is not the point at this time (though I side with the extended family model over the former).
For the family to maintain or have surplus there is only one basic model or formula that can keep the integrity of the microcosm: one man and one woman in a monogamous and permanent union. Homosexual union does not allow for this integrity to even be had.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
I agree on much of what you wrote, but in the class room its important that the teacher strives to be as objective as possible and if she or he absolutly must share theire wiew point on a subject, they should tell there students that this is not a fact, but there own
subjective opinion. [/quote]
But, I do think it is a fact that homosexual unions are not equal to heterosexual unions. [/quote]
Haha, I would say that both positions( anti and pro gay marriage ) are opinion based. Its a issue of values. Its not a issue that can be settled trough collecting empiric data to prove the other camp wrong or to prove your own position right etc. Lets take my stance on the issue: I dont have a problem with homosexuals being allowed to marry and my reason for this is that I cant see how on earth this has anyhting to do with me, what does it to me that two guys or two girls gets married. This argument I am showing here is not scientific based, but rather based on my common sense and value system aka meening that it is extremely subjective.
[/quote]
No society, culture, or religion has viewed homosexual unions as equal to or greater than heterosexual unions. This is because we understand it intuitively. Fact.
Further we can see that they not only seen as arbitrarily unequal, but realistically unequal, as well.
The quality or integrity of the strength of a culture is viewed from the smallest unit. This unit can be seen in the microcosms of society (as the Medieval philosophers had a tendency to call it) as society is the macrocosm. A society is considered strong if it forwards in surplus and not in a deficit.
So, if the macrocosm is maintaining or gaining a surplus, the microcosm needs to first do so. This microcosm, the smallest unit in society, is the family. Whether it is a nuclear family or extended family is not the point at this time (though I side with the extended family model over the former).
For the family to maintain or have surplus there is only one basic model or formula that can keep the integrity of the microcosm: one man and one woman in a monogamous and permanent union. Homosexual union does not allow for this integrity to even be had.[/quote]
Your argument is not a fact, but a thesis based on some facts. We are discussing a matter thats within the field of social science, wich in turn makes it harder to make a black and with claim. First we cant be shure how the paleolitich man organised the family, it could have been one man and one woman, but it is also possible that family and tribe where the same thing, but we cant know for shure because the paleolitich man did not write and therefor we can only speculate. The reason that I bring up the paleolitich man is because the modern human being have lived as one for the longest. The paleolitich era lasted perhaps as long as 100 000 years, while others historical eras where much more short lived.
Also if its one culture or way of living that are the most natural to us it most be the paleolitich era for two reasons: It has the longest livespan( the era of the state is only a blip in comparison ), second because we probable invented or evolved into what we are to today in this era. The problem offcourse is that we can not know for shure have theire entire culture where and if it where many more different forms of paleolitich cultures.
Based on my rant above I would say that marriage beetwen man and woman is not the basis or the micro-cell of our society, its just one form of micro-institution within the society.
I for example grew up with a mother and a father who wherent married, It where no difference to speak of beetwen my upbringing and those of my friends with married parents.
This meening that marriage isnt necessary for upbringing of chrildren or to have a family.
Third we must take into account the different definitions or understandings of the term marriage. It can be understood as a institution beetwen man and woman with the purpose of raising children. Or it can be understood as an economical union. Third: It can also be understood as a union of love. The laws of nature and physichs doesnt prohibit homosexuals
from making any of this unions, even the first are possible for them if they adopt.
end rant.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Yes, scary he can get fired for his opinions…
… even more scary that he doesn’t grasp the concept that social networking is public domain. The educator needs education it seems.[/quote]
Even scarier is that taxpayers are paying people to respond to ‘tips’ about non-criminal activities that happen in the public domain. The issue isn’t that he doesn’t understand that Facebook is in the public domain, it’s that the administrators don’t realize it’s not the classroom AND HE DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG. If the educator needs educated, apparently so do his superiors.
If the guy had posted to his Facebook page that maybe now maybe he can finally settle down with a nice man. No one would’ve called their schoolboard. If they did, the person on the other end of the line would’ve gently explained to them how bigoted their views were, there’s nothing wrong with being gay or having an opinion and that they can’t do anything about this.
Mr Buell said: 'I’ve had kids that I’ve known that have been homosexual. They know that I don’t hate them. I love them.â?? Way to fuck over teachers, students (even homosexual ones), and Christians Lake County School District.
[quote]florelius wrote:
And I said not that its possible to be 100% objective, but that the teachers should strive to be as objective as possible. [/quote]
And I’m saying if we had to limit our priorities and/or distill teachers to some central values, pick two; passionate, honest, or objective.
Reportedly from his Facebook page;
Mr Buell wrote: ‘I try to teach and lead my students as if Lake Co. Schools had hired Jesus Christ himself.’
I mean, seriously?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Reportedly from his Facebook page;
Mr Buell wrote: ‘I try to teach and lead my students as if Lake Co. Schools had hired Jesus Christ himself.’
I mean, seriously?[/quote]
[quote]florelius wrote:
…Haha, I would say that both positions( anti and pro gay marriage ) are opinion based. Its a issue of values. Its not a issue that can be settled trough collecting empiric data to prove the other camp wrong or to prove your own position right etc.
[/quote]
This is some of the most dangerous thinking of our age. It’s lazy and a cop-out. Regardless of whether one is personally for, against, or even undecided about gay marriage, the discarding of logical, empirical thought in the matter is absolutely the thing one must avoid.
Of course gay marriage can be settled through collecting empirical data. It’s absolutely something that can be measured, tested, and logically evaluated. Instead, too much of the debate on the matter (from both sides) seeks to sidestep this, to keep the topic immune from critical evaluation. Those in favor of gay marriage seem to be taking what they FEEL or WANT to be correct and are trying to give it the imprimatur of a “rights” issue, i.e., give gay marriage the trump card of our age, a free pass from critical evaluation. At the same time, those opposed to gay marriage too often position it entirely as a moral issue–as if appealing to an (unshared, by the way) higher, religious authority could somehow convince the opposition. The argument, “because marriage has nearly always been this way”, left all by itself, isn’t an argument at all.
The present discussion for and against gay marriage is an example in the worst way of blurred thinking over focused thinking. It’s the elevation of the personal, subjective, and emotional over the logical. Gay marriage is indeed an empirical issue–and should be evaluated as such. Sloppy thinking, or the entire avoidance of thinking (by calling gay marriage merely an issue of opinion), is a cheap opiate.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Reportedly from his Facebook page;
Mr Buell wrote: ‘I try to teach and lead my students as if Lake Co. Schools had hired Jesus Christ himself.’
I mean, seriously?[/quote]
[/quote]
Well, as a Christian he is supposed to try?
What he needs to do is get off Facebook.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
What he needs to do is get off Facebook.
Mufasa[/quote]
What!?!
Jesus totally would have indulged in some gay bashing on Facebook.
Here’s a question:
He attends a party on Saturday night hosted by his wife’s friend, completely unrelated to his school work, on the weekend. While there, he makes the same viewpoints clear in a discussion among acquaintances. Someone related to his school happens to overhear the remarks and, “offended,” the next morning makes a phone call to the school board complaining of his “disturbing” remarks. Same situation ensues.
Would some of you advise him that what he needs to do is “get off” the party circuit and keep his damned medieval worldview to himself?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
What he needs to do is get off Facebook.
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s the internet; there is no undoing what has already been done:
What he needs to do is get his job back for not doing anything let alone not doing anything wrong.