Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[bimble]

Your posts these recent days make no sense dialectician. They are exhausting to read and at the end there's mostly just nonsense. I hope you feel better again soon but, for instance, saying you agree with a thing that a woman wrote, like lbj above, isn't, in fact, misogyny.
i'm going to pop you on ignore (not that you will give a shit obvs) just saying for politeness sake.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Your posts these recent days make no sense dialectician. They are exhausting to read and at the end there's mostly just nonsense. I hope you feel better again soon but, for instance, saying you agree with a thing that a woman wrote, like lbj above, isn't, in fact, misogyny.
i'm going to pop you on ignore (not that you will give a shit obvs) just saying for politeness sake.

Yes, british politeness. fuck off.

Also don't bring my mental health into this thread as mock concern. I see your contempt here.

 

[Athos]

So you won't be begging for a bullet after 12 hours. That makes you a liar then. And, of course, pretentious. Using insults as a pretence.

Great comeback.

 

[ignatious]

Aaaaaaaand round we go again!

Why risk offending anyone when you can have a perfectly fulfilling debate on FoE without doing so .... etc etc etc ....

Maybe just go back and read the thread again from about page 10?

Point is that the level of offensiveness is dependent on the usage of the cartoons within the lesson. To my knowledge (and I have read much of the thread) nobody has yet provided a description of how such a lesson in France might unfold. This is an unfortunate oversight on behalf of the OP and would have added greatly to the debate imo.

 

[Spymaster]

Point is that the level of offensiveness is dependent on the usage of the cartoons within the lesson. To my knowledge (and I have read much of the thread) nobody has yet provided a description of how such a lesson in France might unfold.

I don’t think we were allowed to on the basis that it would have been over-speculative.

 

[kabbes]

I don’t think we were allowed to on the basis that it would have been over-speculative.

I thought you’d already decided it was “unwisely inflammatory”? Those were your words about the lesson and you’ve not yet softened them one iota.

 

[Spymaster]

I thought you’d already decided it was “unwisely inflammatory”? Those were your words about the lesson and you’ve not yet softened them one iota.

Neither will I. If I'd waded into a thread that was discussing Paty's murder and said "Yeah, but he shouldn't have been showing the cartoons" you and others would have a point, but that's not what happened. This thread was about the cartoons in class from post 1.

 

[kabbes]

Neither will I. If I'd waded into a thread that was discussing Paty's murder and said "Yeah, but he shouldn't have been showing the cartoons" you and others would have a point, but that's not what happened. This thread was about the cartoons in class from post 1.

It was about the cartoons in class in the context of them being the pretext for murder from post 1. A pretext you both acknowledged and found explicable by calling his actions “unwisely inflammatory”.

Note that “unwisely inflammatory” is not remotely the same thing “something I find offensive” or “inappropriate because it excludes some children” or any of the other things you have subsequently claimed that your context for the subject is related to. ”Unwisely inflammatory” specifically means you believes he did something that would have best been avoided because it is likely to provoke a violent reaction. That’s why the context is victim-blaming.

 

[Spymaster]

It was about the cartoons in class in the context of them being the pretext for murder from post 1. A pretext you both acknowledged and found explicable by calling his actions “unwisely inflammatory”.

Nope. I've already explained this to you. Not really interested in going round again. Do you have anything new you want to discuss?

 

[kabbes]

Nope. I've already explained this to you.

Have you seen my expanded edit that spells out what the problem is further?

 

[Spymaster]

Have you seen my expanded edit that spells out what the problem is further?

I hadn't, but I have now. I asked a question. I happen to believe that it was unwisely inflammatory to use those cartoons but that's just my opinion. You're welcome to yours. Do you have anything new?

 

[kabbes]

I note too that having explained why the phrase “unwisely inflammatory” absolutely is about explaining a pretext for murder and exactly what makes it so, you have the opportunity to say “in retrospect, that is not a phrasing I would like to stand by”. The fact that you do not speaks volumes about your thought process, whether it be deliberate or subconsciously created.

 

[Spymaster]

I note too that having explained why the phrase “unwisely inflammatory” absolutely is about explaining a pretext for murder and exactly what makes it so, you have the opportunity to say “in retrospect, that is not a phrasing I would like to stand by”. The fact that you do not speaks volumes about your thought process, whether it be deliberate or subconsciously created.

Oh well.

That's mainly because I do stand by it and disagree with your characteristion of both my intentions and phrasing, although I have said in this thread that in retrospect I wouldn't have phrased things exactly that way because of the heat it's generated. Thought you said you'd read it.

Anything else?

 

[kabbes]

I hadn't, but I have now. I asked a question. I happen to believe that it was unwisely inflammatory to use those cartoons but that's just my opinion. You're welcome to yours. Do you have anything new?

My opinion is that this debate is not about lesson planning at all. It is about whether those who seek to take bloodthirsty revenge for actions that are currently deemed acceptable within society should be allowed to move that window of acceptability in order to accommodate their responses. And, if not, what can be done instead to safeguard those who take the acceptable action. My view is that regardless of the philosophical rights and wrongs of accommodation, accommodating such a violent response will not mitigate future responses but encourage them, making accommodation counterproductive. If you want to have a debate about safeguarding, you can accept that point and we can move on.

If you want to have a debate instead about whether the acceptable actions are actually acceptable (noting that not only does French society currently deem Paty’s actions acceptable, it actually mandates them to some degree), I would not do so within a thread framed around the accommodation of the response being an explicitly assumed given.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Oh well.

That's mainly because I do stand by it and disagree with your characteristion of both my intentions and phrasing, althouogh I have said in this thread that in retrospect I wouldn't have phrased things exactly that way. Thought you said you'd read it. Anything else?

Do we have to get you to retract your mistakes one by one? If so,

'Gratuitous'

 

[kabbes]

Oh well.

That's mainly because I do stand by it and disagree with your characteristion of both my intentions and phrasing, although I have said in this thread that in retrospect I wouldn't have phrased things exactly that way because of the heat it's generated. Thought you said you'd read it.

Anything else?

Saying you regret something because of the reaction it generated is not the same thing as saying you realise it was wrong.

 

[Spymaster]

My opinion is that this debate is not about lesson planning at all. It is about whether those who seek to take bloodthirsty revenge for actions that are currently deemed acceptable within society should be allowed to move that window of acceptability in order to accommodate their responses. And, if not, what can be done instead to safeguard those who take the acceptable action. My view is that regardless of the philosophical rights and wrongs of accommodation, accommodating such a violent response will not mitigate future responses but encourage them, making accommodation counterproductive. If you want to have a debate about safeguarding, you can accept that point and we can move on.

Great. If you want to have that debate, go for it.

I might even join in.

 

[Spymaster]

Saying you regret something because of the reaction it generated is not the same thing as saying you realise it was wrong.

Correct.

 

[kabbes]

Great. If you want to have that debate, go for it.

I might even join in.

if I wanted to have that debate so much, I’d have started the thread. I’m interested here in discussing your response instead, on the thread you started based on the words you chose to use.

 

[Spymaster]

if I wanted to have that debate so much, I’d have started the thread. I’m interested here in discussing your response instead, on the thread you started based on the words you chose to use.

Ah, well I'm not really interested in continuing that discussion. I've made my points and made them clearly. If you want to discuss the topic of the thread (whether such materials should be used in mixed faith classrooms) and have something to add that hasn't been raised, go for it. Otherwise, I'll decide what I engage with, thanks.

 

[kabbes]

Ah, well I'm not really interested in continuing that discussion. I've made my points and made them clearly. If you want to discuss the topic of the thread (whether such materials should be used in mixed faith classrooms) and have something to add that hasn't been raised, go for it. Otherwise, I'll decide what I engage with, thanks.

That’s not the topic though, and there are over 60 pages evidencing that fact. You framed the debate in a particular way and that made it what it is, regardless of whether you understood it to be your intention or not. That’s why the subject of social discourse is so fascinating!

 

[Pickman's model]

That’s not the topic though, and there are over 60 pages evidencing that fact. You framed the debate in a particular way and that made it what it is, regardless of whether you understood it to be your intention or not. That’s why the subject of social discourse is so fascinating!

Fascinating enough for another 60 pages, Spymaster

 

[Spymaster]

That’s not the topic though, and there are over 60 pages evidencing that fact.

Once again you're wrong. There's plenty of on-topic discourse on the thread despite the massive derails instigated by others that you jumped on board with after 50 pages. You've not read it all all have you.

 

[kabbes]

Once again you're wrong. There's plenty of on-topic discourse on the thread despite the massive derails instigated by others that you jumped on board with after 50 pages.v You've not read it all all have you.

I read it more carefully than you have, I’m 100% sure.

 

[Spymaster]

Fascinating enough for another 60 pages, Spymaster

I might kick it off again if I get bored later but I've got quite a serious cooking project going on here at the moment so it'll be one eye only on this today.

 

[Spymaster]

I read it more carefully than you have, I’m 100% sure.

Don't be daft.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This poor teacher was murdered. Spy started a thread about it (with a neutral title), and this thread has become the thread about it. If Spy hadn't started it, someone else no doubt would have. That's it.

You don't get to dictate what a thread is about just cos you started it. And you know that full well.

 

[kabbes]

Don't be daft.

I read it effectively in two blocks, noting how the patterns of discourse emerged and spread and seeing what the major themes that developed were. You, however, read it as it happened in real time whilst focusing on making your points. It’s not hard to see how my reading of it will give me an insight that yours lacks.

 

[Spymaster]

I read it effectively in two blocks, noting how the patterns of discourse emerged and spread and seeing what the major themes that developed were. You, however, read it as it happened in real time whilst focusing on making your points. It’s not hard to see how my reading of it will give me an insight that yours lacks.

Ah, right. That must be it then.

 

[Pickman's model]

I might kick it off again if I get bored later but I've got quite a serious cooking project going on here at the moment so it'll be one eye only on this today.

Don't be a dick