|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 11, 2023 20:25:36 GMT -8
You keep stating this repeatedly about the Professor's intent and I don't understand why. Check in on my academic freedom omnibus thread as I'll be discussing it further there. Best guess is that she knew EXACTLY what she was doing and got EXACTLY what she wanted, but she might be the worst/dumbest teacher EVER. Or some combo as I say. That she was willing - eager - to do this to her Muslim students is disgusting; no good teacher would have done what she did & in the way she did it. More info. on my thread. I don't understand why you'd start a 2nd thread on the same topic. In regards to the prof, you're throwing a LOT of guess work into your assessment of the professor including assuming their intent. That's not fair at all. I don't see what she did as disgusting without a known, previous pattern of abusive behavior. Pushing the envelope and exposing people to new things like art is exactly what education is supposed to be about. Even if it is edgy. She may have done it to prove a point, that point possibly being that there is nothing wrong in a democratic, western society of showing pictures of Muhammad, but she did it respectfully: By warning the person with ample time of what she was going to do. In Russia she'd be in jail for saying "  Riot". This isn't Russia. Anyway.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2023 22:27:51 GMT -8
Check in on my academic freedom omnibus thread as I'll be discussing it further there. Best guess is that she knew EXACTLY what she was doing and got EXACTLY what she wanted, but she might be the worst/dumbest teacher EVER. Or some combo as I say. That she was willing - eager - to do this to her Muslim students is disgusting; no good teacher would have done what she did & in the way she did it. More info. on my thread. I don't understand why you'd start a 2nd thread on the same topic. In regards to the prof, you're throwing a LOT of guess work into your assessment of the professor including assuming their intent. That's not fair at all. I don't see what she did as disgusting without a known, previous pattern of abusive behavior. Pushing the envelope and exposing people to new things like art is exactly what education is supposed to be about. Even if it is edgy. She may have done it to prove a point, that point possibly being that there is nothing wrong in a democratic, western society of showing pictures of Muhammad, but she did it respectfully: By warning the person with ample time of what she was going to do. In Russia she'd be in jail for saying " Riot". This isn't Russia. Anyway.... It's an AF omnibus thread not confined to one issue, though inspired by it. I'm not; she behaved abysmally. There may or may not be further proof of bad intent. She behaved abysmally. She was likely trolling, yes, and using the Muslim students as fodder without regard for their well-being, yes. Disgraceful, yes. Irrelevant. Every which way... |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 12, 2023 6:48:38 GMT -8
I don't understand why you'd start a 2nd thread on the same topic. In regards to the prof, you're throwing a LOT of guess work into your assessment of the professor including assuming their intent. That's not fair at all. I don't see what she did as disgusting without a known, previous pattern of abusive behavior. Pushing the envelope and exposing people to new things like art is exactly what education is supposed to be about. Even if it is edgy. She may have done it to prove a point, that point possibly being that there is nothing wrong in a democratic, western society of showing pictures of Muhammad, but she did it respectfully: By warning the person with ample time of what she was going to do. In Russia she'd be in jail for saying " Riot". This isn't Russia. Anyway.... It's an AF omnibus thread not confined to one issue, though inspired by it. I'm not; she behaved abysmally. There may or may not be further proof of bad intent. She behaved abysmally. She was likely trolling, yes, and using the Muslim students as fodder without regard for their well-being, yes. Disgraceful, yes. Irrelevant. Every which way... If she was trolling / behaved abysmally / disgraceful then what would be the proper way to show the artwork she wanted to show? |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Jan 13, 2023 12:03:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Jan 14, 2023 9:19:34 GMT -8
It's an AF omnibus thread not confined to one issue, though inspired by it. I'm not; she behaved abysmally. There may or may not be further proof of bad intent. She behaved abysmally. She was likely trolling, yes, and using the Muslim students as fodder without regard for their well-being, yes. Disgraceful, yes. Irrelevant. Every which way... If she was trolling / behaved abysmally / disgraceful then what would be the proper way to show the artwork she wanted to show? There's no evidence that the instructor was trolling, behaving abysmally or disgraceful. Zero. It's in the syllabus, she stated it would be shown since it was directly relevant to the course, and it's not and never has been objectively offensive except to a small portion of Muslims from cultures that originate outside our own. If anything, the student was trolling, knowing ahead of time the "Islamophobia-Card" would be used to dispatch and behead (metaphorically) the instructor. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Jan 14, 2023 10:53:15 GMT -8
If anything, the student was trolling, knowing ahead of time the "Islamophobia-Card" would be used to dispatch and behead (metaphorically) the instructor. Whys is 'islamophobia' bad but christanitiphobia is ok and actually encouraged?  |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Jan 14, 2023 11:01:34 GMT -8
If anything, the student was trolling, knowing ahead of time the "Islamophobia-Card" would be used to dispatch and behead (metaphorically) the instructor. Whys is 'islamophobia' bad but christanitiphobia is ok and actually encouraged? We all know the answers to that.  |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Jan 14, 2023 11:04:02 GMT -8
Whys is 'islamophobia' bad but christanitiphobia is ok and actually encouraged? We all know the answers to that. yes, yes we do. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Jan 14, 2023 11:04:15 GMT -8
"Tolerance"
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 14, 2023 12:32:37 GMT -8
If she was trolling / behaved abysmally / disgraceful then what would be the proper way to show the artwork she wanted to show? There's no evidence that the instructor was trolling, behaving abysmally or disgraceful. Zero. It's in the syllabus, she stated it would be shown since it was directly relevant to the course, and it's not and never has been objectively offensive except to a small portion of Muslims from cultures that originate outside our own. If anything, the student was trolling, knowing ahead of time the "Islamophobia-Card" would be used to dispatch and behead (metaphorically) the instructor. Correct. In the other thread, zod is speaking ill of the professor and assuming their intent even though he himself even admits that there is no evidence of it. Guilty until proven innocent? Really? This professor did nothing wrong. Even if they "just did it to make a point", under the rules that Western Democracy understands Freedom of Speech operates under it's fully allowable. What this incident DOES illustrate clearly though, is that when carried to it's most obvious conclusion, Religion DOES NOT allow Freedom of Speech. And that's not just Islam, it's the same for most sects of Christianity, Judaism and any...or should I say EVERY other religion. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Jan 14, 2023 13:48:12 GMT -8
There's no evidence that the instructor was trolling, behaving abysmally or disgraceful. Zero. It's in the syllabus, she stated it would be shown since it was directly relevant to the course, and it's not and never has been objectively offensive except to a small portion of Muslims from cultures that originate outside our own. If anything, the student was trolling, knowing ahead of time the "Islamophobia-Card" would be used to dispatch and behead (metaphorically) the instructor. Correct. In the other thread, zod is speaking ill of the professor and assuming their intent even though he himself even admits that there is no evidence of it. Guilty until proven innocent? Really? This professor did nothing wrong. Even if they "just did it to make a point", under the rules that Western Democracy understands Freedom of Speech operates under it's fully allowable. What this incident DOES illustrate clearly though, is that when carried to it's most obvious conclusion, Religion DOES NOT allow Freedom of Speech. And that's not just Islam, it's the same for most sects of Christianity, Judaism and any...or should I say EVERY other religion. To some extent, ALL human associations restrict speech to some extent. Nonreligious associations (governments for example) also restrict freedom of speech such as slander, libel, threats, fraud, perjury, child-pornography, inciting riots/insurrection and other forms of speech. And violations of such can and will result in heavily-armed men in gov't-uniforms lawfully inflicting physical violence upon your person if the speech is not curtailed to the liking of the civil authorities. So if you're going to expand this particular example to include "every other religion", then why stop there and why not acknowledge that all human associations, even personal one-on-one associations, involve a restriction of free of speech to some extent? The problem is the unevenness and outright bias and hypocrisy shown against Christian beliefs while Islamic beliefs are enforced by supposedly secular institutions, like colleges in this example. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Jan 14, 2023 13:58:49 GMT -8
To some extent, ALL human associations restrict speech to some extent. Nonreligious associations (governments for example) also restrict freedom of speech such as slander, libel, threats, fraud, perjury, child-pornography, inciting riots/insurrection and other forms of speech. And violations of such can and will result in heavily-armed men in gov't-uniforms lawfully inflicting physical violence upon your person if the speech is not curtailed to the liking of the civil authorities. So if you're going to expand this particular example to include "every other religion", then why stop there and why not acknowledge that all human associations, even personal one-on-one associations, involve a restriction of free of speech to some extent? The problem is the unevenness and outright bias and hypocrisy shown against Christian beliefs while Islamic beliefs are enforced by supposedly secular institutions, like colleges in this example. christianity allows far more freedom of speech than islam. no contest. if one country has 1000 murders a year and another has one, its not fair to say 'all countries have murder' without acknowledging the discrepency. thats a logic fail. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 14, 2023 16:12:24 GMT -8
Correct. In the other thread, zod is speaking ill of the professor and assuming their intent even though he himself even admits that there is no evidence of it. Guilty until proven innocent? Really? This professor did nothing wrong. Even if they "just did it to make a point", under the rules that Western Democracy understands Freedom of Speech operates under it's fully allowable. What this incident DOES illustrate clearly though, is that when carried to it's most obvious conclusion, Religion DOES NOT allow Freedom of Speech. And that's not just Islam, it's the same for most sects of Christianity, Judaism and any...or should I say EVERY other religion. To some extent, ALL human associations restrict speech to some extent. Nonreligious associations (governments for example) also restrict freedom of speech such as slander, libel, threats, fraud, perjury, child-pornography, inciting riots/insurrection and other forms of speech. And violations of such can and will result in heavily-armed men in gov't-uniforms lawfully inflicting physical violence upon your person if the speech is not curtailed to the liking of the civil authorities. So if you're going to expand this particular example to include "every other religion", then why stop there and why not acknowledge that all human associations, even personal one-on-one associations, involve a restriction of free of speech to some extent? The problem is the unevenness and outright bias and hypocrisy shown against Christian beliefs while Islamic beliefs are enforced by supposedly secular institutions, like colleges in this example. My point was to show that NO religion is actually tolerant. They all have a set of rules that need to be followed to remain a part of the religion. And by extension each religion has an expectation of how society should act. And the reason I specified religion is that I make a differentiation between religion and faith. A faith is a belief that makes you a believer and has nothing to do what what you do or don't do - or what anyone else does. It's personal and internal whereas religion is outward and public. They are WORLDS apart in practice and how they affect others. And based on THAT interpretation, I have always differentiated Christianity from other religions in that I've always understood Christianity to be based on the personal faith of the person practising it, or better said believing it and nothing else. Not their actions or what they do or don't do. For that reason what OTHER people do has zero bearing on a Christian's beliefs. The same can't be said for religion, which is based on actions or performance and by extension what someone does against you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2023 16:49:05 GMT -8
If she was trolling / behaved abysmally / disgraceful then what would be the proper way to show the artwork she wanted to show? There's no evidence that the instructor was trolling, behaving abysmally or disgraceful. Zero. It's in the syllabus, she stated it would be shown since it was directly relevant to the course, and it's not and never has been objectively offensive except to a small portion of Muslims from cultures that originate outside our own. If anything, the student was trolling, knowing ahead of time the "Islamophobia-Card" would be used to dispatch and behead (metaphorically) the instructor. Hi JCJ. I've laid out an extensive critique of Prater's conduct in my AF omnibus thread, and I'm happy to further discuss this and related AF issues on that thread. This thread, whatever the intentions of its originator, has descended into a mindless game of Whack-a-Muslim, and is thus of little interest to me. In case we don't converse further on this topic, it may interest you to know that numerous prominent Muslims as well as large Muslim organizations - including CAIR - have come out in support of the narcissistic Professor Prater. I hope the New Year finds you well and wise.  |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Jan 14, 2023 17:02:32 GMT -8
To some extent, ALL human associations restrict speech to some extent. Nonreligious associations (governments for example) also restrict freedom of speech such as slander, libel, threats, fraud, perjury, child-pornography, inciting riots/insurrection and other forms of speech. And violations of such can and will result in heavily-armed men in gov't-uniforms lawfully inflicting physical violence upon your person if the speech is not curtailed to the liking of the civil authorities. So if you're going to expand this particular example to include "every other religion", then why stop there and why not acknowledge that all human associations, even personal one-on-one associations, involve a restriction of free of speech to some extent? The problem is the unevenness and outright bias and hypocrisy shown against Christian beliefs while Islamic beliefs are enforced by supposedly secular institutions, like colleges in this example. My point was to show that NO religion is actually tolerant. They all have a set of rules that need to be followed to remain a part of the religion. And by extension each religion has an expectation of how society should act. And the reason I specified religion is that I make a differentiation between religion and faith. A faith is a belief that makes you a believer and has nothing to do what what you do or don't do - or what anyone else does. It's personal and internal whereas religion is outward and public. They are WORLDS apart in practice and how they affect others. And based on THAT interpretation, I have always differentiated Christianity from other religions in that I've always understood Christianity to be based on the personal faith of the person practising it, or better said believing it and nothing else. Not their actions or what they do or don't do.For that reason what OTHER people do has zero bearing on a Christian's beliefs. The same can't be said for religion, which is based on actions or performance and by extension what someone does against you. Christianity is a religion, not just a belief or a faith, though faith and belief are vitally important. Christianity is more than just a belief, it must also be an action, an outward manifestation of the inner faith in Christ. Now, like as you also said, what OTHER people believe does not have any bearing on the Christian person's beliefs (though they may be informed and strengthened by other believers). With that I agree. I don't have to FORCE other's to admit Jesus is Lord or kill them if they don't in order to please God. That's very different than Islam of course. But Jesus did not institute just a "faith" or a set of beliefs here on earth when he anointed Peter as the "rock upon which I will build my Church", he instituted a "Church", with specific commands of authority and actions that he taught, and with a hierarchy of authority which he granted to the Apostles (not to all disciples) such as "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" and "...so I send you... Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." Obeying and doing are JUST as important as believing. But for many or most (myself included), that is the hardest part. "You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that, and tremble." Believing alone is not enough. |
|
Riot". This isn't Russia. 
