Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

Athos said:
There's nothing inequitable about people bearing the cost of their own religious choices; there is about imposing those choices on others.
Click to expand...
We’re talking about 13 year olds, whose worldview is still developing and who may well still be afraid of what their parents would have to say. To simply say it is their choice is tosh.

and while it is true that the cartoons are obviously relevant, there are thousands of other also relevant choices that could be made that would lead to a whole class discussion. because everyone should be involved in such a discussion.
 
danny la rouge said:
And as for singling out Muslims, he gave people the opportunity not to view the cartoon(s). (Some reports still say it was one, but others plural). Why are we saying that meant all the Muslims would leave? Some might not. Even some who would be offended still might stay. Why are we assuming that being offended is one reaction only? Don’t you ever look at things you find offensive? I do. Being offended is a range of reactions.
Click to expand...
For me, danny la rouge , that's the nub of the (reported) matter.
Any teaching situation that puts 14 year olds in a position in which they (reportedly) were placed in a position to have to decide whether or not to stay and view the satirical material, in front of their peers, is obviously problematic.
Not difficult to imagine how any one student deciding to stay in class might have run into issues with the lads from the Chechen boxing club?

e2a: this isn't meant to detract from anything you've said above about perspective in the case of this vicious murder of a teacher...I'm looking at what the state is asking of it's teachers and students.
 
Spymaster said:
Oh come on. It's clear that the opt-out was aimed at the Muslim kids. That's like saying 'everyone who wears a bra can opt out' and then arguing that males were also given the choice because they can wear bras too. It's true but disingenuous.
Click to expand...

It was aimed at kids who would be offended. That is not necessarily all Muslims, or only Muslims. The idea that all Muslims would avoid this, or, worse, that all Muslims would seek to see it excluded from the curriculum, is racist and implies all Muslims have values that aren't compatible with freedom of expression.
 
belboid said:
We’re talking about 13 year olds, whose worldview is still developing and who may well still be afraid of what their parents would have to say. To simply say it is their choice is tosh.

and while it is true that the cartoons are obviously relevant, there are thousands of other also relevant choices that could be made that would lead to a whole class discussion. because everyone should be involved in such a discussion.
Click to expand...

They can be involved in the discussion. Literally, all they need exclude themselves from is looking at the cartoon.
 
belboid said:
We’re talking about 13 year olds
Click to expand...
Do we know that? I’ve not seen the age confirmed. The type of school is 11-16. My daughter taught at one (as well as the older age range school). I haven’t seen it confirmed which class Samuel Paty was teaching to.
 
Athos said:
They can be involved in the discussion. Literally, all they need exclude themselves from is looking at the cartoon.
Click to expand...

Given the way malicious rumour mills work around schools (and this does appear to have happenned here) I'm not sure that's really an option.
 
danny la rouge said:
Do we know that? I’ve not seen the age confirmed. The type of school is 11-16. My daughter taught at one (as well as the older age range school). I haven’t seen it confirmed which class Samuel Paty was teaching to.
Click to expand...

"4th Year" apparently. I don't know what age that equates to.
 
danny la rouge said:
Do we know that? I’ve not seen the age confirmed. The type of school is 11-16. My daughter taught at one (as well as the older age range school). I haven’t seen it confirmed which class Samuel Paty was teaching to.
Click to expand...
Fourth year in France is 13 and 14 year olds and the girl who was said to have not been in class at the time of the lesson was reportedly 13.
 
Spymaster said:
If kids are sent to a faith based school it would be unreasonable to be pissed off about them experiencing faith based ideas. If they are sent for a purportedly secular education it's not unreasonable to question why kids are taught lessons that requires a teacher to invite them to opt out according to their religion.
Click to expand...



So, in faith based schools, religionists get to decide what is and how it's taught.
IN secular education, religionists get to what. Question by do you mean, vito what's taught?

Forget this murdering wackjob and the islamist shit stirrers.

What if a religious family decide they don't want their child to learn about XYZ.

You're arguing they should be able to question AKA vito or withdraw their child.

Is that your position?

Cos that's what already happens.
 
Athos said:
Yes, millions of people offer opinions about things they haven't seen all the time e.g. the vast majority of those calling for the ban on 'The Satanic Verses'!
Click to expand...
But you can't be suggesting that the teacher says to the class "right here comes the picture, look away now if you're offended", shows the picture then puts it down "right, you can open your eyes now. What do you all think?"
 
Spymaster said:
But you can't be suggesting that the teacher says to the class "right here comes the picture, look away now if you're offended", shows the picture then puts it down "right, you can open your eyes now. What do you all think?"
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. And why not? Plenty of people who haven't seen the cartoons (but know they contain images of Mohammed) have offered opinions on them. As people offer opinions about stuff they don't know the detail of on these boards, every day. And perhaps that's part of the lesson; if you choose to remain ignorant, that's on you, but it doesn't give you the right to insist others remain ignorant, too.
 
belboid said:
Well you’ve just stated that there is no need to see the pictures to have a discussion about them, so I rather thinks it’s your own point you’re undermining.
Click to expand...

You can have a discussion, but you'll be doing so from a position of relative (self-imposed) ignorance. You can choose that for yourself, but not for others.
 
There's also the problem that no matter what Paty had done or said, his actions could have been misrepresented - possibly deliberately.

My boss in Auckland had a documentary about prostitution and tourism in Thailand that he showed in class. It was grim stuff, the kind of thing that would put you off sex for life. A couple of students from conservative Christian pacific island backgrounds went to the administration and made complaints about him showing "pornography" in class.
 
Spymaster said:
Not be defined by their religion.
Click to expand...

So a parent requests their child forego some lesson or aspect their of based on their, (the parent's after all) religious belief.
But at the same time the child shouldn't be defined by their religion.

Plain contradictory nonsense. Come on. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

frogwoman
Gunmen attack synagogue, churches and police station in Dagestan (Russia)
Replies
18
Views
795
JimW
JimW
Dystopiary
Three people killed, several injured after knife attack in Germany 23/08/24
Replies
14
Views
803
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
Joe Chi Min
Air France AF447
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
SpookyFrank
SpookyFrank
Bingoman
Terroist attack in Brussels 16th October 2023
Replies
19
Views
1K
Boris Sprinkler
Boris Sprinkler
teqniq
Memes associated with the October 7th attack and the repercussions thereof
Replies
4
Views
445
TopCat
TopCat
Back
Top Bottom