Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

Actually, from reading the official report, it doesn't seem as if it was optional. He asked Muslim students to identify themselves and leave. Amazing that there's even a few posters here who refuse to acknowledge how deeply wrong that is (whether optional or not).
Astonishing that people here are dancing around this bollocks.
 
If this is the case (link then), then you should be applauding it you hypocrite. Or are you demanding that muslim pupils be forced to view portrayls of mo.? You smug cunt.
Oh fuck off. The point is that he could have avoided the situation and still had a perfectly adequate discussion of freedoms by not choosing to show the pictures.
 
It's really encouraging that a whole set of people on here have taken a sudden interest in teaching methods they've never previously shown before. A really big interest.

Wondering why that is though. Because it's kinda coming across as how far can we blame this prat for his own death to justify our own woolly liberalism.

Consequences.
 
Oh fuck off. The point is that he could have avoided the situation and still had a perfectly adequate discussion of freedoms by not choosing to show the pictures.

So is it your position that it's not ok to offend some pupils' religious sensibilities unless the point can't be made without doing so? For instance, because you can make the point about free speech without pictures of Mohammed, you should; but because you can't make the point about homosexuality being ok without offending some Muslims, it's ok to offend in those circumstances.
 
So is it your position that it's not ok to offend some pupils' religious sensibilities unless the point can't be made without doing so?
It's not ok to create a lesson that you feel the need to exclude a section of teenagers from (voluntarily or otherwise) when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative. I've no idea why that's controversial.
 
It's not ok to create a lesson that you feel the need to exclude a section of teenagers from (voluntarily or otherwise) when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative.

Ok, but it is ok to do so when there is no alternative (like the example I gave)?
 
It's not ok to create a lesson that you feel the need to exclude a section of teenagers from (voluntarily or otherwise) when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative. I've no idea why that's controversial.
Why are you, not a noted pedagophile - talking about this?

A teacher was killed. Why? Was it the teachers plan? You know.
 
Loving all the emotive talk about exclusion when I work with excluded kids from deprived backgrounds who nobody here normally gives a fuck about. Maybe their parents should go around chopping off a few heads, raise the profile like.

"But they were EXCLUDED from a lesson" - which we don't even know is true, to the extent of how far they were excluded, or given the choice to exclude themselves. Isn't it possible they were asked to leave for a minute, while the images were shown? Big fucking deal. My kids are excluded permanently for being poor or having ADHD.

They need to get head chopping.
 
I do find this topic more complicated than perhaps I should because I'm buried in research all day, every day, at the moment looking at how schools impose (and by implication, teachers) white, male, middle-class value and culture onto pupils (and their families).

So that has no doubt tainted my reading of this.
 
It's really encouraging that a whole set of people on here have taken a sudden interest in teaching methods they've never previously shown before. A really big interest.

Wondering why that is though. Because it's kinda coming across as how far can we blame this prat for his own death to justify our own woolly liberalism.

Consequences.
You don't really need to have undertaken much teacher training to learn that lessons should be aimed at the whole class. Also, most of us have had experience of trying to convince others of our point of view, and know that such crude methods are likely to be ineffective. That's all I'm saying. It's a complete side issue to the likely fact that the murderer was looking for an excuse to slaughter someone, to find an excuse to reap terror.
 
So schools shouldn't teach anything that's at odds with parents' beliefs?
Of course they should and I doubt most parents would have a problem with that if it's done in a balanced way. Would you have an issue with your kids being taught about capitalism?
 
So schools shouldn't teach anything that's at odds with parents' beliefs?

My experience is that parents beliefs being the arbiter of what should be taught to their children is even worse - as we've seen with gay/trans teaching in schools. Parents have a moral panic that it might 'influence' their children, whilst kids tend to be more inquisitive and less bound by rigid belief as adults.
 
It’s the mind reading aspect of the insinuation. You’re doing what Spy did, except you’re doing it having already seen the arguments against him doing it. It makes me wonder why you’d do that.
Because it was quite clear within the context of the ongoing discussion, danny.

And I came onto the thread solely because of someone's minor needling.
 
Of course they should and I doubt most parents would have a problem with that if it's done in a balanced way. Would you have an issue with your kids being taught about capitalism?

You just said to give the parents the option; so, presumably, you mean that kids shouldn't be taught anything that parents don't want them to be taught?
 
Back
Top Bottom