|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 04/12/2006 : 21:22:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Speaking out against intolerance isn't intolerant. Passing laws so that the intolerant aren't allowed to speak is.
Even then there are limits, but yeah I agree.
quote:
quote:
So should a teacher at a public school be allowed to teach creationism as part of their right of free speech or would you consider teaching to be an action rather than words? What if the teacher wore a t-shirt that said "Jonny is the stupidest kid I've ever taught in my classroom."? Should he get to keep his job in that case?
Talk about coming from left field. First of all, speaking ones opinion in public and teaching religious doctrine in government schools are two very different things. It's not even almost on topic.
When you insult a child instead of teach them, you are failing in your duties as a teacher, and thus, deserve to be fired. Just like a construction worker who can't use a hammer deserves to be fired.
Maybe I don't understand where you're coming from then. If you don't object to people being fired for expressing extreme opinions if it's detrimental to the job they were hired to do, then what exactly do you object to?
quote:
If they do so in public and not in school, then why should their jobs be in jepordy? As long as they perform they're full duties as required, what difference does it make what they do on their own time?
Because in some cases how you conduct yourself in public is relevant to your ability to do your job effectively. |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 21:40:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ricky, everyone has the right to an opinion. No one has a "right" to be intolerant. Intolerance means the stifling of an opposing point of view. It is the opposite of free expression.
Intolerance is an idea, an opinion, a point of view. If you wish to allow free expression, you must allow the free expression of ideas that go against that free expression. Otherwise, there isn't really free expression.
quote:
Maybe I don't understand where you're coming from then. If you don't object to people being fired for expressing extreme opinions if it's detrimental to the job they were hired to do, then what exactly do you object to?
Right. If you, for whatever reason, can not preform your job, you deserve to be fired. However, this isn't the case in the article. Denouncing Gay Pride Month in no way, shape, or form, prohibits a teacher from teaching.
If you were to give all the homosexual students in your class an F for no reason, then you have crossed the line from words to actions.
quote:
Because in some cases how you conduct yourself in public is relevant to your ability to do your job effectively.
Sure it does. But not in this case. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 04/12/2006 21:44:48 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 22:15:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Right. If you, for whatever reason, can not preform your job, you deserve to be fired. However, this isn't the case in the article. Denouncing Gay Pride Month in no way, shape, or form, prohibits a teacher from teaching.
Come on Ricky, you don't think the gay students would feel alienated or that it would forment an atmosphere of hostility towards gays in his classroom?
Of course much of it depends on the nature of the denouncation. On one end of the spectrum, if the teacher merely said "Personally I'm not in favor of gay pride day." then that's pretty innocuous but on the other hand if he said, "Gay pride day is an abomination. God hates fags. If you're a fag you're going to hell. Gay pride day is inspired by the anti-Christ himself." Well that's another story.quote:
quote:
Because in some cases how you conduct yourself in public is relevant to your ability to do your job effectively.
Sure it does. But not in this case.
How do you know that it wasn't a consideration in this case? Suppose the counsellor is well known for his belief that blacks and jews should be exterminated. Surely that will have an impact on a child's ability to open up to him. It will clearly affect his ability to do his job. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 22:38:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Intolerance is an idea, an opinion, a point of view.
Yes, it is the idea that you shouldn't have a right to express your ideas, an opinion that you shouldn't be able to express your opinions, and the point of view that your point of view should be stifled and suppressed. quote:
If you wish to allow free expression, you must allow the free expression of ideas that go against that free expression. Otherwise, there isn't really free expression.
Nonsense. How is it in the interest of free speech to promote the banning of free speech? Promoting intolerance means supporting placing a muzzle on some group or individual. It is the opposite of allowing free expression.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 23:11:27 [Permalink]
|
It strikes me that if one's "morality" (if you want to call it that) is based on exclusion, hatred and vitriol against others, it may be time to consider getting a new morality. If a religion "compels" one to preach hatred, that's probably a sign of something very, very unfortunate about the religion.
That said, it is truly remarkable how many subscribe to Freedom of Speech when they are the ones speaking, and how few subscribe to it when someone else is saying something they don't like. Sounds like the Freedom of Speech principle is becoming a matter of convenience. Consistency is sometimes a messy business.
If someone is speaking on behalf of someone else, or in a capacity that might reasonably be seen as representing someone else (including an organization), then restraints on free speech apply. But, if one is speaking soley and clearly on behalf of one's self only, then the principle of Freedom of Speech must prevail. Otherwise, the principle is meaningless. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
