by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends
Such a policy does not address what a student chooses to lawfully do.
Hope you didn't hurt your back hauling the goal-posts way over there !
Who said anything about it being criminal or unlawful? We are saying it was dishonest, rude and inconsiderate.
I take it that trying to now twist the issue into something it isn't is a lame attempt to change the debate away from the one you already lost.
I think Las Malvinas' comment is VERY telling. In my 10 years on this forum, I've rarely seen MS's (Marvin S) debate anything --- recently, he's been instigating on a regular basis. Is this now a mission of AAWA? To disrupt JWN? Why else would Las Malvinas' have said that? hmmm
Sorry, Simon, I know it's off-topic. But THIS thread has already been derailed by MS, and it seems to be his intent. I think it's obvious, and Las Malvinas just let the 'truth' slip out. OOPSY! I will say no more.
tal
Marvin,
This is not you at all. Perhaps I don't you personally but your blogs are some of the absolute best work by former Witnesses. From any viewpoint from different phases of my life, your work is extraordinary. Your writing is excellent. The way you introduce the content is elegant. I am no longer a newcomer here. B/c of your work, I give great weight to what you say.
You rarely become involved in discussions of this kind. Your thing appear to be your blog. Enough of us here engage in silly debates that I admire that you concentrate on your blog. So many people do their blogs and they worsen the apostate image. I don't think I am the only one to notice this about you.
I don't want to know much about the recent dispute with Cedars, Lady Lee, and Simon. Something had to happen to you emotionally. I can't recall such exchanges from you in years. It seems to me that is out of character. There is a I will dispute and argue just to argue aspect. I do it here but I thought you were mature than me.
It seems to me that this thread is so long b/c you appear to be above the vulgar fray. Your comments sound unsophsticated. There are far better arguments against my view. If you disagree, you are one of the first people I would expect sophisticated nuance to retort me. Sometimes I get so enraged about something that I become the very opposite of my core. It scares me.
If we did not respect you so much, it would be easier to absorb. You are not a wacko right wing nut job. It is puzzling. If I have done it myself, I would never mention it.
But THIS thread has already been derailed by MS, and it seems to be his intent .
I agree. For some reason Marvin seems to have been deliberately obtuse of late, particularly on a lot of the AAWA topics and now AAWA get's mentioned on this one. Hmmmn. Normally I'm not one to be overly suspicious but my "what the hell?" radar is starting to bleep.
It could just be an unfortunate coincidence but given Marvins close association with Cedars (down to having business dealings) one could easily read more into it.
I really hope it's not a case of "discussion trashed, mission accomplished, return to base" Marvin. I'm sure you can appreciate why it could appear that way.
-
“We are saying it was dishonest, rude and inconsiderate.”
Simon,
It’s mainly the assertion of dishonesty that bothers me.
If the valedictorian agreed to sayandonly say what the school system pre-approved then there is evidence of dishonesty. The problem with this is I can’t see this evidence without presupposing it as a fact. I don’t know 1) that the school system required pre-approval of the valedictorian’s speech and I don’t know 2) that the valedictorian agreed to limit himself to say and say only what had been preapproved.
Moreover, for all I know the teenager expressed a desire—and perhaps an intent—to repeat the “Lord’s Prayer” and was told by school officials that they could tell him what they can and cannot approve of and they could not given grant approval for him to repeat the “Lord’s Prayer” during a sponsored event. But this policy only addresses what the school system can/will and cannot/will not approve. This policy does not address what a student is free to do at a sponsored event without specific school authorization.
My guess is the Pickens County School System does not prohibit a student from wearing a burqa onstage at a sponsored event whether it’s worn as a religious statement or political statement, and it could be either or both (a hybrid legal argument). Should the audience at this valedictorian’s public address have been offended had he been a she and wore a burqa as a statement of religious belief? Should I consider such a student as being dishonest, or rude or inconsiderate for that matter? I don’t think so. The school system’s policy would have prohibited the school system from specifically approving this religious speech (in the form of a burqa) but it would not prohibit a student from deciding to do it on their own without school authorization.
I realize readers may see this as semantics, but it’s not. Under US law school systems are faced with a dilemma of having to hold a standard of conduct as a school system that simultaneously maintains personal liberties the exercise of does not 1) substantially interfere with schoolwork or 2) collide with or invade the rights of other students. (Tinker v. Des Moines County School District; the second of these two Tinker tests is almost never determinative because it’s so nebulous)
When I watch the YouTube video one thing that strikes me is the complete lack of reaction from immediate dignitaries on the podium. In this case, typically these would include top high-school officials, including the school principle and system superintendent. None of these people winced, or as much as winked an eyelid. This makes me suspicious that they were not surprised this boy went into waters they had not preapproved, and that it had something to do with a religious or political statement, if not both. If what this speaker did was a surprise to attending officials why didn't this surprise show in the body and facial language? If they were unsurprised, why were the unsurprised?
“Ironically, the only person whining about 'lack of evidence' (Marvin Shilmer) is also the only person offering no evidence.
“The burden of proof lies on the accuser (you), yet you've offered not one shred of evidence to support your arguments and you dismiss all evidence showing the fallacious nature of your claims.”
AndDontCallMeShirley,
I’m not in the habit of making assertions and failing to offer supporting evidence for those assertions when asked to do so. Related to the topic at hand, what assertion have I made that you feel needs evidence?
Marvin Shilmer
-
“This is not you at all….”
Band on the Run,
Perhaps you should ask whether you understand what I’ve presented. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. I have no problem whatsoever answering for things I assert.
Speech is important to me. This discussion happened to get my attention because it involved notions that, in my view, go contrary to society’s ability to learn by hearing what people have to say for themselves. In this case the speaker is a high school valedictorian, and he ended his speech reciting a biblical text followed by an “Amen”. I don’t find this any more disturbing than a valedictorian who opts to wear a burqa to deliver their speech, whether wearing the burqa was preapproved or not.
It grinds on me to think anyone would expect me to sit and listen to a speech that is not wholly owned by the person delivering it as though it were their own.
“For some reason Marvin seems to have been deliberately obtuse of late, particularly on a lot of the AAWA topics and now AAWA get's mentioned on this one. Hmmmn. Normally I'm not one to be overly suspicious but my "what the hell?" radar is starting to bleep.”
Simon,
The banter about me and AAWA is completely off-topic, so hopefully what I say here is not somehow held as me furthering a breach of forum guidelines. I respect JWN and do not want to trample on it but only to contribute to it.
It’s neither my style nor wish to do anyone’s work other than my own. That includes AAWA, a subject I tend to stay away from here purely out of respect for your stated preferences.
The sort of speculation I see about me and AAWA is the same sort of error I see at work in this discussion in general. Too many preferential assumptions.
If someone here wants to know of any association or work I have or offer AAWA all they have to do is ask. I have nothing to hide and I have no stratagem of trashing or otherwise derailing discussions here or anywhere else.
As with everywhere else, whatever I say here stands or falls on its own merit, which is as it should be.
Marvin Shilmer
So I have a bridge for sale ...
Ha!
Marvin is as Marvin does.
Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context (as all quotes are) per se, but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words. Comparing this practice to surgical excision, journalist Milton Mayer coined the term "contextomy" to describe its use by Julius Streicher, editor of the infamous Nazi broadsheet Der Stürmer in Weimar-era Germany. To arouse anti-semitic sentiments among the weekly’s working class Christian readership, Streicher regularly published truncated quotations from Talmudic texts that, in their shortened form, appear to advocate greed, slavery, and ritualistic murder. [3] Although rarely employed to this malicious extreme, contextomy is a common method of misrepresentation in contemporary mass media, and studies have demonstrated that the effects of this misrepresentation can linger even after the audience is exposed to the original, in context, quote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
zed
The problem with this is I can’t see this evidence without presupposing it as a fact.
You nailed it, Marvin. That is the problem. You fail to see because you're eyes are still closed.
I posted at least two different articles that described the dynamics of the situation. You don't see the evidence because acknowledging the evidence presented would mean you may have to man-up and admit you're wrong on this issue. Now I think you're arguing simply to save face, but the more you argue the worse you look.
Additionally, while claiming not to make baseless assertions, you've now introduced a totally unrelated subject into this discussion- burkhas.
I've taken the time to post information to support my previous statements. You've offered nothing but your own rambling opinions. The fact that you've not presented anything into evidence to support your claims tells me that,
1) you really don't care enough about this discussion to spend time on anything except silly arguments, or,
2) you already realize there is no evidence to support your claims, so you'll ignore that fact and doggedly hang on to your opinions.
At least Sam Whiskey, the OP, had the good sense to bail out of his own topic by page 5 when he realized he was digging a deep hole he couldn't get out of.
