Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[Edie]

Yes. I have designed some of my own clothes. They don't look anything like anything in the shops. I don't care what other people wear, and rarely notice it, and I certainly don't care if people like what I wear, because I'm wearing it for me, not them.


You may well have a point. If I wasn't so good looking I might care what my clothes look like. I guess I just look good in pretty much anything

Confidence, attitude and style go way further than good looks in a tracksuit. And I mean wayyy further. Not that killer b hasnt got it all obvs.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But you are obsessed with religion; a fundamentalist fidophobe possibly at risk of being radicalised

wtf are you on about now.

Anything else about me you want to tell me about? I'm all ears, given being a patronising twat seems to be your specialist role on this thread.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

But purenarcotic if you wear items of clothing designed to show off your naked body, you cannot then act surprised if some people find your body arousing. We might agree that the person isn’t entitled to act on that feeling. But to deny that response may occur in the first place is naive, it’s denying reality. Me, I wear short skirts when I want, and I enjoy the game. But at least I’m aware there is a game

A few generations ago it was considered shocking to wear calf-length skirts rather than floor length skirts. Were those women in the 1920s showing off their naked bodies? Or is it only if you wear a skirt that shows your knees?

 

[Edie]

Any chance you can take this facile shit somewhere else?

Sorry. Yes.

 

[tim]

wtf are you on about now.

Anything else about me you want to tell me about? I'm all ears, given being a patronising twat seems to be your specialist role on this thread.

That's an occupational hazard for teachers, that's one of the many reasons people hate us.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

.

 

[Edie]

A few generations ago it was considered shocking to wear calf-length skirts rather than floor length skirts. Were those women in the 1920s showing off their naked bodies? Or is it only if you wear a skirt that shows your knees?

That’s a good point, but this entire tangent really is a thread derail which probably isn’t fair to others.

 

[Pickman's model]

And allowed to leave the religion of their parents. 'apostasy' is punishable by death in some countries. That could conceivably be enough for a beheading - encouraging students to think that they don't have to follow the religion they were born into.

There are some seriously big differences between the values that most of us in Europe live by and the values of certain religious groups, among them particular strands of Islam. I know it was mentioned earlier that saying that comes pretty close to the lines taken by various right-wingers, but it's surely something that is just as true for a left-winger. It's surely undeniable. Horrible phrase, but 'secular values' do mean something.

and just like a right winger you've argued for the right to show just how contemptuous you are of their views and haven't even posited the option that to stop them being religious in ways that offend you might require persuasion rather than provocation

 

[likesfish]

FFS nobody would accept killing Britian first for their racist memes.

But apparently there's a context for killing a teacher by a refugee the French gave the killer shelter and he repaid that by being a murderous shitbag

 

[Aladdin]

Confidence, attitude and style go way further than good looks and a tracksuit

Go way further to where?

 

[Saul Goodman]

FFS nobody would accept killing Britian first for their racist memes.

But apparently there's a context for killing a teacher by a refugee the French gave the killer shelter and he repaid that by being a murderous shitbag

I don't think anyone here has come close to condoning it.

 

[Humberto]

and just like a right winger you've argued for the right to show just how contemptuous you are of their views and haven't even posited the option that to stop them being religious in ways that offend you might require persuasion rather than provocation

It's not about persuasion or provocation. Gloomy misanthropes are part of life.

 

[Humberto]

If someone is prepared to saw someones head off over a faith and is cocky enough to assume 'godly authority' that is their fault.

 

[Raheem]

I don't think anyone here has come close to condoning it.

I think some of our students are choosing to step out of the room so as not to have to deal with this idea.

 

[Jay Park]

That's what Charlie Hebdo do, certainly. It is their intention to offend certain religious sensibilities. I don't agree that it is necessarily true of the teacher, though. Not at all. He is merely presenting something for discussion - eg is this offensive, and if so, why, and what should the rest of us do about it? It's precious to think children need protecting from what is in the end just a drawing of a bloke with some words. And if there has developed an idea that CH are racists, this is actually a chance to examine the truth of that matter. Or do you allow the unexamined prejudice to continue?

‘it’s what Charlie Hebdo do’. Deliberately antagonise Muslim people in an era of extreme radicalisation. That’s why their offices got shot up.

The first printing of these cartoons had gruesome consequences. Why oh why would he start flashing them about?

 

[chilango]

What about girls who go on holiday to places with pretty strict modest dress codes that all local women abide by and walk about in hot pants and strappy tops is that them standing up for liberal values or just being stupid ? It’s not a simple thing this.

Again, I'll refer to my time in Sudan.

There was a woman who was working with me for a bit. Tall, blonde British woman. She - for the reasons expressed by many on this thread - decided she wasn't going to cover up. So she wore what she wanted.

The attention she got made her time unbearable and she left soon after, her mental health in pieces.

 

[Spymaster]

Why bother even having Darwin in biology texts? It offends some people.

Because there is no recent context of people killing or dying for the right not to teach evolution. If Christian fundies we’re well known to take gross offence at certain imagery about Darwinism, and some mad bastard had just machine gunned everyone at The Darwin Institute for publishing those pictures, I’d question the wisdom of a teacher whipping out the very same pictures in a classroom and telling the Christian kids to fuck off if they don’t like it. They can still have the lesson and discuss Darwinism without the pictures.,

 

[Spymaster]

Leaving aside I think you're coming at the issue from a distinctly strange angle when ultimately we're talking about a fundamentalist beheading an educationalist...

...the question any educationalist usually asks is whether primary sources are better than secondary sources - and primary sources always win.

"Let's discuss (amongst other things) this picture"

"What picture Sir/Miss?"

"I can't show you the picture, I'm only going to tell you about it in my words"

"Then how can we evaluate the evidence fully?"

"Erm..."

The same lesson could be had in a different way:

“Ok kids, the CH offices were shot-up because they published cartoons of Mohammed. Who here believes that people should be able to say or print whatever they want, regardless of the offence it causes others?”

No need to get the pictures out or invite the Muslim kids to leave.

 

[emanymton]

Because there is no recent context of people killing or dying for the right not to teach evolution. If Christian fundies we’re well known to take gross offence at certain imagery about Darwinism, and some mad bastard had just machine gunned everyone at The Darwin Institute for publishing those pictures, I’d question the wisdom of a teacher whipping out the very same pictures in a classroom and telling the Christian kids to fuck off if they don’t like it. They can still have the lesson and discuss Darwinism without the pictures.,

Yeah, what is in question here is not the teaching of a particular subject but the use of a particular teaching aid. It's not remotely comparable to saying we should not teach evolution if it offends people.

It really comes down to if using the pictures rather than just referring to them adds enough to the lesson to make it worthwhile. And I really don't see how it does. Never mind the potential risks, I don't think its worth the possibility of upsetting any of the students in the class and/or excluding them from the lesson completely.

 

[Spymaster]

Yeah, what is in question here is not the teaching of a particular subject but the use of a particular teaching aid. It's not remotely comparable to saying we should not teach evolution if it offends people.

It really comes down to if using the pictures rather than just referring to them adds enough to the lesson to make it worthwhile. And I really don't see how it does. Never mind the potential risks, I don't think its worth the possibility of upsetting any of the students in the class and/or excluding them from the lesson completely.

Spot on.

 

[danny la rouge]

Because there is no recent context of people killing or dying for the right not to teach evolution. If Christian fundies we’re well known to take gross offence at certain imagery about Darwinism, and some mad bastard had just machine gunned everyone at The Darwin Institute for publishing those pictures, I’d question the wisdom of a teacher whipping out the very same pictures in a classroom and telling the Christian kids to fuck off if they don’t like it. They can still have the lesson and discuss Darwinism without the pictures.,

I’m sorry but that reads to me exactly like victim blaming. I know you’ve said a few times that nobody’s doing that, but you are. The teacher isn’t the problem here.

 

[Spymaster]

I’m sorry but that reads to me exactly like victim blaming. I know you’ve said a few times that nobody’s doing that, but you are. The teacher isn’t the problem here.

It’s not victim blaming. Victim blaming would be to say he brought it on himself or deserved it, neither of which is the case. If he hadn’t been killed and there was just uproar about this I’d be saying the same thing. Why did he do this when he could have held an almost identical discussion without?

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Christian fundamentalists have killed people at planned parenthood places. So I suppose we'd better ban abortion.

 

[danny la rouge]

It’s not victim blaming. Victim blaming would be to say he brought it on himself or deserved it, neither of which is the case. If he hadn’t been killed and there was just uproar about this I’d be saying the same thing. Why did he do this when he could have held an almost identical discussion without?

You are saying he brought it on himself.

Why can’t you see that?

 

[emanymton]

Christian fundamentalists have killed people at planned parenthood places. So I suppose we'd better ban abortion.

I wasn't sure of my position at the start of this thread. What has done most to consolidate my position is ridiculous arguments like this.

 

[danny la rouge]

It’s like the people who said Salman Rushdie should have known better than to write the Satanic Verses. Or that a woman who was raped “knew what she was doing” when she acted in a way someone seems “provocative”. Or that gay people in the many fundamentalist countries that kill gay people should have been more discrete. And so on.

The issue is the murderer.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

I wasn't sure of my position at the start of this thread. What has done most to consolidate my position is ridiculous arguments like this.

But the argument seems to be that if you do something that angers God-botherers, you must be prepared for violent consequences. So don't do it.

 

[emanymton]

You are saying he brought it on himself.

Why can’t you see that?

I think it was a bad teaching decision to use a teaching aid that might upset and excluded some of his students with no significant benefit to the lesson.

The potential risk is secondary for me and without the benefit of hindsight it would be fair to say the perceived risk was low. But I do think it was irresponsibly to use a teaching aid that could potentially put, himself, his students and his colleagues at risk. If that means I am victim blaming then so be it.

 

[emanymton]

It’s like the people who said Salman Rushdie should have known better than to write the Satanic Verses. Or that a woman who was raped “knew what she was doing” when she acted in a way someone seems “provocative”. Or that gay people in the many fundamentalist countries that kill gay people should have been more discrete. And so on.

The issue is the murderer.

It's not remotely like that at all.

 

[Spymaster]

It’s like the people who said Salman Rushdie should have known better than to write the Satanic Verses. Or that a woman who was raped “knew what she was doing” when she acted in a way someone seems “provocative”. Or that gay people in the many fundamentalist countries that kill gay people should have been more discrete. And so on.

No. The equivalence would be to say ‘we’re going to discuss tolerance of homosexuality’ and then getting a couple gay people to snog each other in front of the class to illustrate it.