Teacher behind anti-military classroom rant fired

a reply to: SlapMonkey

But that implies that there's something wrong or "less-than" with joining the military. And that is pure opinion

Would you be happy with a teacher informing students that all Wars are Bankers Wars?

Do you think its only opinion that joining the military is only about defense of your nation?

www.veteranstoday.com...

The purpose of war, according to this brief documentary by radio host Michael Rivero, is to force central banks on countries that try to issue their own money. He makes a compelling argument, illustrated by numerous historical examples. The film’s main value, in my view, is in dispelling common misconceptions about where money comes from. Contrary to popular belief, western democracies don’t issue the money they use to run government services. They borrow the money at interest from privately owned central banks. In the US, this private central bank is called the Federal Reserve.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

That's not what I said at all, and I think that you should understand that. You're reading what you want into my comment instead of reading what I wrote.

That said, it's not the teacher's job to deal with these topics, it's the parent's job. I'm a veteran, and I'm very anti-unnecessary wars, and explain why to my son, who has two veterans as parents (who think the same way about it, mind you), two direct uncles who are retired veterans, and a grandfather who is a retired veteran. We have an understanding of the military and war.

But you're missing my point--a teacher was spouting off a personal political opinion and doing so under the guise of having authority and intelligence on the topic. That's not his job, and obviously reflected by the school board's unanimous decision, that's not okay.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But only because he said something you do not like.

Bingo

a reply to: namehere

take that disrespectful condescending attitude elsewhere

if that teacher acted like that to the wrong kid then blood would be on his hands,

humans are dangerous.

With such thinly veiled aggression lets hope you are never in a position of authority - nah - you probably dont even deserve to drive a car with so much inherent rage.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I’m sorry to hear that he’s struggling though, regardless. It’s not for everybodybut unfortunately they will latch on to just about anybody they can.

So as long as no one shows any overt signs going of postal or PTSD its all good? Latch onto just about "anybody" but its not for everybody....sigh

a reply to: KTemplar

if it wasn’t for our military, he might not have the freedoms he currently does.

Yep - I mean look at how Iraq took away your freedom - oh wait that was the Patriot Act.

Last internment camps I heard about in the USA were the ones that US citizens of Japanese heritage were rounded up during WWII

But keep invading those countries for loot, I mean democracy

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You really should pause and think about the what you claim to hold dear


philosophy.stackexchange.com...

How is freedom of speech meaningful if you have to always bear consequences of it like it would be in a society without freedom of speech?

In a democratic and free country you'll be punished if you communicate hate speech or anything that someone may deem offensive , similarly in a dictatorship you'll be punished if your speech offends the dictatorship.

Of course the punishment would be harsher and criteria of punishable speech would be different in a dictatorship , but that goes for all the laws in a dictatorship and not something specific to prohibition of free speech.

So essentially even in a free country you can only communicate something that is not offensive to someone, even then anyone can go legal and may prove that what you deemed innocent was actually offensive.

This is the same idea as in a dictatorship with only change in laws that tell whats offensive so whats the point of calling it free speech?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So with all your virtue signaling you you would have no problem with removing ROTC from campuses, and no doubt you told your son and his peers about the murder of students by the National Guard at Kent State University?

originally posted by: jjsr420
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You keep talking about free(dom of) speech, but don't mean the 1st amendment. Do you mean as cut pertains to the Bill of Rights? Otherwise it's just some concept you have. You're being authoritarian yourself, expecting everyone to kneel to your standard of what free speech is, so stop.

It’s a principle that has been around since at least the ancient Greeks. You either believe in it or you don’t. If you need laws to tell you otherwise, then I suspect we’re in greater trouble than I anticipated.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Where do you think that the right to freedom of speech is enshrined for our citizens and visitors?

Yes free speech is enshrined in the first amendment, and it is an act of circularity to believe they are one and the same.

I will now adhere to my commitment of not wasting my time on this topic with you any longer. Have fun with your last words in response, but it will be met with silence, even if you keep getting it as wrong as you have been.

When they don’t have the power to censor, Running away always seems to suffice.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

"Virtue signaling"--that's cute.

Not that I have to answer to you, but yes, I don't think that recruiting should be a thing on campuses. I was never recruited on campus--I went to them.

My son has just reached the age of 14, so no, I haven't felt a need to dive into the KSU incident yet, but I certainly would tell him about it.

I'm done answering to you--you obviously, like others in this thread, have a preconceived notion about what I do and do not do, and there is nothing productive gained by feeling a need to answer to random people on the internet. Jettison your preconceptions, actually take to heart what I say, and maybe you will get a better understand of me, if that's really your goal before just arguing for argument's sake.

Best regards, and thank you for verifying what I said to LesMisanthrope, that the argument that he (and now you) holds is one of philosophical beliefs and not reality.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Oh good, another member who presumes to know what other members actually think better than they do and tries to argue from that position.

This is fun

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Best regards, and thank you for verifying what I said to LesMisanthrope, that the argument that he (and now you) holds is one of philosophical beliefs and not reality.

Slavery was the reality at one point until people who believed it was unjust worked to make it disappear from their societies. So please, keep telling us freedom of speech isn't a reality, isn't possible, because in the end you're simply advocating, defending and supporting censorship.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You really should pause and think about the what you claim to hold dear


philosophy.stackexchange.com...

How is freedom of speech meaningful if you have to always bear consequences of it like it would be in a society without freedom of speech?

In a democratic and free country you'll be punished if you communicate hate speech or anything that someone may deem offensive , similarly in a dictatorship you'll be punished if your speech offends the dictatorship.

Of course the punishment would be harsher and criteria of punishable speech would be different in a dictatorship , but that goes for all the laws in a dictatorship and not something specific to prohibition of free speech.

So essentially even in a free country you can only communicate something that is not offensive to someone, even then anyone can go legal and may prove that what you deemed innocent was actually offensive.

This is the same idea as in a dictatorship with only change in laws that tell whats offensive so whats the point of calling it free speech?

To say "freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences" is to say "freedom of speech, but censorship". It's self-refuting the moment it leaves someone's mouth. But it is obviously believed in by would-be censors.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

North Korea has freedom of speech, but with "consequences".

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

North Korea has freedom of speech, but with "consequences".

Freedom of speech is exactly freedom from consequences. It wasn't the consequence of The Satanic Versus that Salman Rushdie received his fatwa. The fatwa was the consequence of illiberal, censorial dogmatists.

I wrote about this a while back:

Freedom of speech and freedom of consequences

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

People want to punish based on hurt feelings or harsh language.

Like I said in another thread, "Show me on the doll where the language hurt you."

a reply to: DBCowboy

People want to punish based on hurt feelings or harsh language.

Like I said in another thread, "Show me on the doll where the language hurt you."

Yes. Instead of teaching children how to manage language and how to navigate its mine-fields, we're teaching them to run to the authorities and tattle. It's a dangerous road to head down.

The teacher singled out and berated a student in front of his class based on a t-shirt the kid was wearing.
Wonder how that student felt?
Can you imagine if this was a rainbow flag 🏳️‍🌈 shirt, or a Mexican flag shirt.

In our anti-bullying, safe space world, this is the epitome of bullying, by a teacher no less.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

North Korea has freedom of speech, but with "consequences".

So does America.